FB pixel

ECJ hits Russia with human rights violations due to facial recognition use

ECJ hits Russia with human rights violations due to facial recognition use
 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECJ) has decided unanimously that Russia is guilty of human rights violations due to use of facial recognition technology against a Russian citizen who held a solo demonstration in the Moscow underground.

Though Russia is not part of the European Union and has never had any serious negotiations about entrance, it was still subject to the decisions of ECJ until 16 September 2022.

The ECJ interprets the European Convention on Human Rights and has authority over almost every other country in Europe apart from Belarus and Vatican City.

Though Russia has ceased to be a ‘High Contracting Party to the Convention’ the ECJ can still examine alleged violations of the Convention committed by Russia up to that date.

Nikolay Sergeyevich Glukhin, a Russian national, allegedly traveled on the Moscow underground with a life-size cardboard figure of Konstanin Kotov, a protestor who had gained widespread notoriety within the Russian media, and was jailed for four years in 2019.

He was reportedly  holding a banner that said, “I’m facing up to five years … for peaceful protests”.

According to the write-up by the ECJ, Russian police found photographs and a video of Mr Glukhin’s demonstration in the underground on a public social media site.

Glukhin alleged these authorities then used “facial-recognition technology to identify him from screenshots of the social-media site, and collected footage from closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras installed in the stations of the Moscow underground.”

In addition, he alleged they used live facial recognition technology to locate and arrest him while he was traveling in the underground.

Mr Glukhin was subsequently convicted for failure to notify the authorities of his solo demonstration and was fined roughly 283 euros.

The screenshots of the social media site and of the video recordings from the CCTV surveillance cameras were found to be used as evidence against him.

The court ruled that the use of facial recognition technology in the processing of his personal data had breached his rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 10 (freedom of expression).

The Court noted that it was difficult for Mr Glukhin to prove his allegation that facial recognition technology had been used in his case.

However, the court found there was no other explanation for the police having identified him so quickly post-incident.

Between 2017 and 2022 more than 220,000 CCTV cameras were installed in Moscow, and all of these have live facial recognition technology capabilities.

Today’s ECJ ruling is unlikely to do a great deal to taper the use of facial recognition by governments to find wanted persons, nations such as the US, Kyrgyzstan, and India have been reported to be hunting criminals on watchlists with facial recognition.

Though controversial, and attracting widespread criticism, the use of ‘live’ facial recognition is not necessarily illegal in the EU or UK if a proper justification can be provided, such as in large events.

The EC J’s ruling was instead made on the basis of the violation of his human rights as laid down by the ECJ convention.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Groups reject expiry date for digital ID cards in Kenya as govt defends move

Some civil society organizations in Kenya say they want an explanation from the government with regard to the institution of…

 

Idemia forensic software extracts human faces, tattoos for investigative leads

Even when a facial recognition system is integrated within a state or federal investigative agency, human intervention is necessary. In…

 

Nearly three quarters of U.S. adults worry deepfakes could sway election: Jumio

The hour is ripe for political deepfakes. The U.S. presidential elections are still four months away, and the campaign has…

 

Controversial US privacy bill rewritten again, but path still unclear

The already controversial American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 (APRA), which was originally introduced in April by U.S. Senate Commerce…

 

Selective disclosure and zero-knowledge proofs: Examining the latest revision of ETSI TR 119 476

By Sebastian Elfors, Senior Architect at IDnow In July 2024, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) published an updated revision of…

 

Contractor needed for project to identify civil registration hurdles in Chad

A request for the Expression of Interest (EOI) has been launched for a consultancy firm to identify challenges that stand…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Read This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events