Offenses Arising From Misuse Of Biometric Data And Facial Recognition Systems
Offenses Arising From Misuse of Biometric Data and Facial Recognition Systems
Biometric data—such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition patterns, and voiceprints—is categorized as sensitive personal data in most legal systems worldwide. Misuse of this data can give rise to both civil and criminal offenses, depending on the jurisdiction and the intent behind the misuse.
The misuse of biometric and facial recognition data generally involves:
Unauthorized collection, storage, or sharing of biometric identifiers.
Processing without consent or lawful basis.
Data breaches or negligent handling leading to exposure.
Use for surveillance or discrimination without legal authorization.
Legal Frameworks
1. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, EU)
Article 9(1): Processing of biometric data for identifying a person is prohibited unless a lawful exemption applies.
Article 83: Violations can attract administrative fines up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover.
2. Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA – Illinois, USA)
Requires informed consent before collecting or disclosing biometric data.
Allows private individuals to sue companies for violations.
Each unlawful act can attract statutory damages ($1,000–$5,000 per violation).
3. Indian Legal Context
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, misuse of biometric data without consent is a punishable offense.
The Aadhaar Act, 2016 strictly limits the use of biometric identifiers collected under the Aadhaar system.
Detailed Case Law Analysis (Five Major Cases)
Case 1: Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (2019, Illinois Supreme Court, USA)
Facts:
A mother sued Six Flags on behalf of her son, whose fingerprints were taken for a season pass without informed consent as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Six Flags argued that there was no "actual harm" since the data was not misused.
Issue:
Does the mere collection of biometric data without consent constitute a violation under BIPA?
Judgment:
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the failure to obtain informed consent is itself a violation.
No need to prove actual damage—the breach of statutory rights was enough.
Significance:
This landmark ruling confirmed that consent and procedural safeguards are fundamental, even if the data has not been leaked or misused. It set the stage for thousands of BIPA lawsuits against major tech firms.
Case 2: López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (2019, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts:
Supermarket employees were secretly filmed using hidden cameras for suspected theft. They argued that this violated their privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Issue:
Was covert video surveillance a breach of employees’ right to privacy?
Judgment:
The Grand Chamber of the ECHR held that the surveillance violated privacy rights because it was excessive and lacked prior notice.
Although the employer had a legitimate aim (preventing theft), the methods were disproportionate.
Significance:
It clarified that covert facial recognition or video surveillance must balance legitimate interests against employees’ fundamental right to privacy. The ruling influenced workplace surveillance laws across Europe.
Case 3: Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation (2020, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
Facts:
Facebook’s “Tag Suggestions” feature used facial recognition to identify people in photos without explicit consent, allegedly violating Illinois’ BIPA.
Judgment:
Facebook settled for $650 million, one of the largest privacy settlements in history.
Court Findings:
Facebook collected and stored users’ facial geometry without adequate consent.
The act constituted a clear violation of BIPA’s consent and disclosure requirements.
Significance:
This case reinforced the principle that large-scale automated facial recognition without opt-in consent is unlawful. It also encouraged global scrutiny of tech giants’ use of AI for identification purposes.
Case 4: Clearview AI Litigation (Multiple U.S. Jurisdictions, 2020–Present)
Facts:
Clearview AI scraped billions of images from social media platforms to build a facial recognition database used by law enforcement agencies. Plaintiffs alleged that this violated privacy and data protection laws (including BIPA).
Judgment:
In 2022, Clearview AI agreed to restrict access to its database for private companies and pay fines in several U.S. states. The court found that its activities violated BIPA and similar state privacy laws.
Significance:
Marked a major precedent against mass scraping and biometric profiling.
Showed that even data collected from “public” sources cannot be reused for facial recognition without consent.
Case 5: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the Indian government’s Aadhaar biometric ID system, arguing it infringed on citizens’ right to privacy.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It upheld the Aadhaar program but restricted data sharing and mandated strong safeguards against misuse.
Unauthorized use or storage of Aadhaar biometric data was made a punishable offense under the Aadhaar Act.
Significance:
This judgment laid the constitutional foundation for India’s data protection regime, explicitly warning against state or private misuse of biometric identifiers.
Emerging Legal and Ethical Issues
Mass Surveillance:
Use of facial recognition by police or governments raises concerns of unlawful profiling and chilling effects on free movement.
Algorithmic Bias:
Facial recognition systems have shown racial and gender bias, leading to wrongful arrests and discrimination.
Data Retention and Consent:
Many systems fail to delete biometric data after use or fail to inform users adequately about its purpose.
Cross-Border Data Transfer:
Transferring biometric data to countries without equivalent protection standards can lead to major legal exposure.
Conclusion
The misuse of biometric and facial recognition data represents one of the most pressing digital rights issues of the 21st century. Courts worldwide have consistently held that:
Consent and transparency are indispensable.
Unauthorized collection or use of biometric identifiers is itself an offense, even without evidence of harm.
Both public and private entities are accountable under data protection laws.
These cases—Rosenbach, López Ribalda, Facebook BIPA Settlement, Clearview AI, and Puttaswamy—together define a strong global legal trend: the sanctity of biometric privacy as a fundamental human right.
RELATED Blog
comments