Without a privacy law or a surveillance reform in India

Without a privacy law or a surveillance reform in India

There is no personal data protection law in India. The Center has promised to the Supreme Court that it will adopt such laws in the same way year ago, during which the court confirmed that Nizujata is a fundamental right.

But the law does not seem to have a chance soon.

There is also lack of electronic monitoring infrastructure in India. Last year, the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, drawn by the Justice Commission in Screener, left the ban on government surveillance.

The assumption was that another legislative effort would take care of him. Of course, this did not happen.

However, with small security measures, India is making every effort to break the lives of citizens – even private companies allow it to do so.

The latest threat to privacy comes in the form of face recognition. The government has already allowed airports to start deploying technology which allows passengers to use their face as a “boarding pass”.

Initiative allows private companies to use data for passenger approval.

In addition, the National Crime Records Office has invited bids to allow the automatic face detection system to be implemented. As a large database, imagine the bidding system as “a searchable platform for face images”.

It wants to integrate into many existing systems, such as criminal and criminal tracking networks and systems used by police stations everywhere, systems to find lost children and more.

The government envisages using the system to match the faces of suspected criminals, prisoners, missing persons and others in the database, with the captive CCTV captains all over the country.

Defective technique

There are many problems in this matter, and a large number of discussions have been discussed by many analysts including the Freedom Internet, which has sent legal notice to the Crime Records Office and the Internal Ministry and demanded to immediately stop the tender process.

For one, it is purely an executive effort, which does not have any supporting legislation.

Without the data protection law or the control framework, and the lack of law governing the identity of the face, it should not be allowed – especially considering that the Supreme Court has recently ratified the right to privacy.

In addition, the face recognition technique proved to be extremely flawed.

A study of the University of Essex found that the Face Recognition System of the Metropolitan Police considered innocents four times out of five suspects.

Other research has shown that the current system, which relies on automated learning and algorithms, comes with built-in gases.

They often target unpleasant people who suffer from dark skin colors and women.

The danger should be clear here: individuals and courts believe that technology is somewhat more accurate than human rule, although it often reflects the prejudices of society.

Trusting this technique at this level is very worrying.

Many locations around the world, including San Francisco and Oakland, California, have completely banned facial identification, saying that the technology is not in conformity with privacy.

Elsewhere, equipment is carefully checked before being implemented by the governments.

Indians are worth a lot of attention and consideration before they are subject to very flawed techniques which are currently nothing in the way of conservation.

To public consultations, laws establishing safety inspections and proper proof that face recognition is in fact, the government should withdraw its proposals and first focus on issuing the Privacy Act which Indians have promised for the first time .

The Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of privacy. It was supported in August 2017 by a constitutional court verdict of nine judges of the Supreme Court.

This case was brought to Mukta Rohatgi in the Supreme Court after the claim in 2015, and the then Attorney General had said that there was no constitutional guarantee of right to privacy.

This claim was rejected by the nine-judge panel, which found that the constitution guaranteed the right to privacy.

More importantly, the matter was abandoned. B Sharma and Kharak Singh, to the extent that the rule of 2017 states that the Indian Constitution supports the right to privacy.

In the Supreme Court decision, the right to privacy has been read in two articles of the Constitution: Article 21 (Right to life and freedom) and Part III of the Constitution (Chapter on Fundamental Rights).

This means that any restriction on authority should not be completed only in accordance with Article 21 in the form of proper restriction, but when the loss of privacy violates other rights, such as the chilling effect on the freedom of expression control , A constitutional framework is now present in which these hearings are heard inside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *