The zoo has the right to collect my face? Doctor of law of Zhejiang University announces to animal world

category:Hot
 The zoo has the right to collect my face? Doctor of law of Zhejiang University announces to animal world


On October 28, an annual card user sued animal world for the new upgraded face recognition technology.

This user questions: an animal amusement park can also collect face information, and the security and privacy are all doubted. Who can be responsible in case of information disclosure?

From fingerprint to face

Hangzhou wildlife world updates ticket checking system for fast traffic

Hangzhou wildlife world is located in Fuyang district. It is a large-scale wildlife park. The admission fee for adults is 220 yuan. If you buy an annual card, the buyer can visit the park indefinitely for one year.

Its just because the price performance ratio is relatively cost-effective, the annual card purchase volume is very large, and there are about 10000 users. Hangzhou wildlife world staff said.

The annual card can only be used by the buyer himself, and the ticket checking method is to double confirm the annual card and his fingerprint.

In the process of practice, there are some problems in the dual inspection. Fingerprint clocking takes a long time. At the peak of every holiday, annual card users pile up their fingerprints and swipe their cards. Some people suddenly cant swipe their fingerprints in, or the response of the fingerprint machine is slow, which will cause the long queue at the door to be very crowded.

Therefore, some annual card users will complain to the staff: your fingerprint clock is too slow, can you change the way to enter the park?

After preliminary investigation, they chose face recognition. In July this year, the face recognition check-in system was officially introduced and the original fingerprint check-in gate was removed.

On October 17, Hangzhou wildlife world sent a message to the annual card users: the annual card system in the park has been upgraded to face recognition, and the original fingerprint recognition has been cancelled. From now on, users who are not registered for face recognition will not be able to enter the park normally. If you have not yet registered, please bring your fingerprint annual card to the annual card center as soon as possible.

After receiving this message, a year card user questioned the upgraded security check method: how can the animal world have the right to collect my face information?

Associate professor of law does not accept face recognition

Bring Hangzhou wildlife world to court

The user name of the suspect is Guo Bing, a distinguished associate professor of Zhejiang University of science and technology and a doctor of law of Zhejiang University.

Guo Bing bought a two person annual card on April 27 this year for two adults and a child to enter the park free of charge. The card fee is 1360 yuan. At that time, Guo Bing was told that he could enter the park within the validity period by verifying the annual card and fingerprint at the same time.

On October 17, as a user of Changyou annual card, he also received a text message. At the moment when I saw the message, my professional instinctive reaction was that the practice of Hangzhou wildlife world was obviously suspected of violating the law. At that time, I reported this situation to my friends in the public interest litigation Department of the procuratorate for the first time, hoping that the procuratorate could consider introducing it through public interest litigation. More than a week later, I decided to go to Hangzhou wildlife world to check the situation myself.

On October 26, Guo Bing went to the wildlife world to check and found that the billboards clearly required face recognition. I explicitly disagree with the collection of face information, but the reply is that face recognition is necessary for the annual card to continue to be used. Guo Bing wanted to return the card, but the zoo said that I can only deduct the corresponding fees of the times I have entered the park and return the remaining money to me.

Guo Bing cant accept it. After I buy my annual card, I may go to the park five times or so. If I get into the park five times and then return the rest, will I still have to pay for it?

On October 28, Guo Bing filed a lawsuit with the peoples Court of Fuyang District, Hangzhou city. In the indictment, he recounted the story. On November 1, the court officially decided to accept the case.

Guo Bing said that according to Article 29 of the law on the protection of consumers rights and interests, the collection and use of personal information of the plaintiff in the park should follow the principles of legality, legitimacy and necessity, clearly state the purpose, method and scope of the collection and use of information, and obtain the consent of the plaintiff. Moreover, when the defendant collects and uses the plaintiffs personal information, it shall disclose its collection and use rules, and shall not collect and use information in violation of the provisions of laws and regulations and the agreement of both parties.

Fingerprinting, I agree. But I refuse to collect face information. Cant I enjoy the right to enter the park as an annual card user because I refuse to collect face information? Guo Bing said.

Guo Bing said that he has some research on personal information protection including face recognition. Like the popular face changing software that was controversial before, I have been conservative in face information collection. For example, there is a very uncertain security risk in the collection and use of face information. It is acceptable for the public security and other government departments to collect face information for certain public interests, but an animal amusement park can also collect face information. I doubt the security and privacy. Who can be responsible in case of information leakage?

Users ask for a full refund of the annual card. Hangzhou wildlife world replied:

Dual authentication of ID card and annual card

On the afternoon of November 2, wildlife world called and said that I could enter the park through the way of annual card and ID card. But, such a short promise, what if I was not allowed to enter after several times? Everyone is brushing their faces to enter, turning me into an exception to enter the garden, and I feel uncomfortable.

At the end of the interview, Guo Bing still insisted on solving the current problems by law. As for the result of the courts judgment, he expressed confidence that the main claim raised in my indictment is that wildlife world will refund the annual card fee in full. Of course, Im not suing primarily for financial damages. I personally believe that there are uncertain security risks in the current application of face recognition technology, which needs to be further standardized.

According to Guo Bings request, Hangzhou wildlife world has its own view.

Since October 17, the card users have been recording face recognition for many years. There are also individual users who dont understand. We all tell them the benefits of fast access to face recognition, and they all agree. Hangzhou wildlife world staff said.

On October 26, when Mr. Guo came to communicate, we also suggested that you can enter the park through double authentication of ID card and annual card, and you can directly find the staff of the annual card center at the gate to confirm your identity. Although we dont advocate such a time-consuming way of entering the park, if Mr. Guo insists, we will adopt this artificial way. The staff also mentioned that in the future, Hangzhou wildlife world will connect with Hangzhou urban brain project, and urban brain also has certain requirements for fast access to the park.

Regarding Guo Bings request for a full refund to the court, the staff said they were surprised to receive a phone call from the court on November 1. But after all, we are an enterprise, responsible for our own profits and losses. If we give a full refund, it is not fair for us.

Follow-up

Guo Bing, a distinguished associate professor at Zhejiang University of science and technology, sued Hangzhou wildlife world in court because he didnt want to go to the zoo and brush his face.

This may be the first case of face recognition that domestic consumers Sue businesses.

This is not a fuss. Guo Bing, a law major, is more aware of the protection of personal rights and interests than other citizens. The significance of this prosecution lies in that in the era of rapid technological development, he raised a boundary issue of personal information collection and privacy protection.

Prosecution is based on the collection and use of personal information in the consumer law

On October 28, Guo Bing filed a lawsuit with the peoples Court of Fuyang District, Hangzhou city.

On November 1, the court officially decided to accept the case.

The main basis of Guo Bings prosecution is the collection of personal information in the consumer protection law. There are three principles: legality, legitimacy and necessity.

(indictment provided by Guo Bing)

Whether the collection of sensitive information such as face is abused? Who will protect the collected information

Zhejiang Kenting law firm focuses on network law, and Zhang Yanlai, the director, is very concerned about the first case of face recognition.

His interpretation of Guo Bings prosecution is that Guo Bing, a legal professional, has put forward a very good and necessary thinking on the cutting-edge technology of face recognition and personal information protection.

First of all, it is questionable whether it is necessary for a zoo to collect information when entering the park. How to select it is worth discussing in terms of providing the efficiency of entering the park and the extensive collection of personal information.

Second, personal information collection, with the consent of the information subject, Guo Bing received a notice message from the garden party in October, and then found that the park gate was completely replaced. Whether this kind of forced brush face into the garden is suspected of depriving the information subject of the right of free choice in the elimination law.

Of course, the park also has a manual verification channel later, but for most annual card users, this face brushing method is not given a choice.

Guo Bings goal is not the world of wild animals. He raised the most worrying problem at this stage. With the rapid development of technology, 5g, face recognition and other representative technologies are being widely used as innovative technologies. At the same time, personal information protection cannot keep up.

After all kinds of institutions collect personal sensitive core information, do they have the ability of effective protection.

Personal information is divided into general information and sensitive information, and face, iris, fingerprint and other sensitive information, such as payment can only rely on, so once this kind of personal information with unique attributes is leaked, it is bound to cause irreparable disaster to personal and property security.

In the collection of such personal information, no matter what the banner of wisdom * *, it is necessary to follow several key points, such as necessary, approved, disclosure and use rules, effective security protection, etc.

The lag contradiction between the overflowing collection of personal information and the protection of privacy

To enter the zoo, we need to brush our faces. To install an app, we need to authorize all kinds of mobile phone information such as address book and photo album. Under the simple and crude agree and disagree buttons, our personal information is forced to be collected by various products and services in a bundled way.

Recently, a large number of crawler companies suspected of leaking and reselling personal information as big data have raised the alarm.

In April this year, the public security organ, together with Beijing Network Industry Association, the Third Research Institute of the Ministry of public security and other units, issued the guidelines for the security protection of personal information on the Internet (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines), regulating the protection of personal information.

But read carefully, the guide is still relatively loose. According to the official interpretation of the third Institute of public security, the requirements of the guide are the minimum requirements for personal information protection.

So, no matter how the first case goes, we should applaud Guo Bing.

Hour news reporter also learned that the case has been officially filed, for this new type of case, Fuyang court and Fuyang procuratorate attach great importance to it.

Source: editor in charge of Qianjiang Evening News: Yu changzong ufe63 nbj11145