“The normal accuracy of facial recognition or machine learning systems is determined by comparing a model developed on training and validation data with a set of comparative data,” says Joshi, a PhD student at University College London. “Once the training data is optimized, it needs to be compared to a third-party data set or a slightly different data set.” This benchmarking, he says, is typically used to calculate the percentage accuracy of forecasts. California has already passed a law banning the use of facial recognition technologies. India needs to review California`s legal approach and adequately address the legal challenges and issues raised by such a law before moving forward. The Indian government, which is rolling out an automated facial recognition system across the country — one of the largest in the world — said there was a need to increase security in a severely under-monitored country, prevent crime and track down missing children. “If there is no proper oversight, it can lead to harm, especially in the case of facial recognition technology, where so much personal data is collected and shared across departments that it can lead to 360-degree surveillance,” Anushka Jain, associate attorney for transparency and the right to information at the Internet Freedom Foundation. motherboard said. The arrival of facial recognition in India`s capital region marks the expansion of Indian law enforcement officials using facial recognition data as evidence of potential prosecutions, ringing alarm bells among privacy and civil liberties experts. There are also concerns about the 80% accuracy threshold, which critics describe as arbitrary and far too low, given the potential consequences for those marked as correspondents.
The lack of a comprehensive data protection law in India makes the issue even more worrying. Facial recognition technology, a common trope in dystopian novels, is creeping into everyday life in India and is used at airports to screen travelers and by law enforcement agencies to identify suspects, unhindered by privacy laws that should regulate the use of sensitive data. It provides a fast and reliable process to verify the identity of the person in airports, banks, restaurants, hotels, schools or colleges, etc. This recognition is very useful in protecting the public from threats in general. In response to the IFF`s request, police said they use photos of convicts and file photos to perform facial recognition. They added that these could be used as evidence, but declined to provide further details. However, they said that in the event of a positive match, police would conduct further “empirical research” before taking legal action. Delhi Police did not respond to WIRED`s email requests for comment. With respect to the legitimacy of AFRS, the Information Technology Act 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data and includes rules for the collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. However, these only apply to “corporations” and not to the government`s use of biometric facial data.
Such surveillance is also unethical, as it requires the use of FRT on citizens without their consent. Mistrust of civil society also stems from the government`s attempt to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation on its implications. Telangana police have installed the largest number of CCTV cameras in India, according to the Bureau of Police Research and Development`s Data On Police Organizations (DOPO) 2021 report. Telangana leads the country with 2,82,558 CCTV cameras, followed by Tamil Nadu with 1,50,254 CCTV cameras. Telangana accounts for half of all CCTV cameras installed in the country and also has the highest number of facial recognition technology projects in India, according to a report by human rights organisation Article 19. There is no specific regulation that talks about the regulation of facial recognition technology, and there are countries that have banned this technology on their territory, such as San Francisco and Oakland in California. The trend is towards widespread use of facial recognition, and authorities are not keeping pace. Masood`s trial, due to be heard later this year, argues that the use of facial recognition in Telangana is “unconstitutional and illegal”. He says it is unnecessary, disproportionate and lacks safeguards to prevent abuse. A hearing is scheduled for August. This could set a precedent for how Indian police use facial recognition technology, privacy advocates hope.
8/9 pic.twitter.com/UHMpZlOvA0 Masood`s petition in the southern state is seen as a test as facial recognition systems are rolled out nationwide, with digital rights activists claiming they violate privacy and other fundamental rights. “This means that although facial recognition does not give them the result that they themselves have set as a threshold, they will continue to investigate,” says Anushka Jain, associate policy advisor for surveillance and technology at the IFF who requested this information. “This could lead to harassment of the person simply because the technology says they look like the person the police are looking for.” She added that the Delhi Police decision could also lead to harassment of people from communities that have been targeted by law enforcement in the past.