\n<\/p>\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n An advancement in technology has inevitably equipped the government with new surveillance mechanism, the most prominent one being the Facial Recognition Technology [FRT]. The unfettered advancement of the use of FRT by the State machineries in India has posed multiple privacy concerns. The FRT is in line with Jeremy Bentham\u2019s panopticon prison; its use justified due to the maximum surveillance it provides with limited resources. However, this leads to self-implication of restrictions by the citizens often to the extent of curbing speech and dissent. The author argues that the following surveillance mechanism, which finds a justification in Jeremy Bentham\u2019s panopticon prison design, inevitably clashes with the moral autonomy argument for privacy rights. In a democratic State, it is essential that a balance be found between the privacy and related rights of the citizens and the security interests of the state.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n PRIVACY: IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT<\/strong><\/p>\n The concept of privacy has developed over the years with the change in societal institutions, and further, with the advent of technology. Charles Fried in his paper titled \u2018Privacy<\/a>\u2019, stated that the right to privacy is not limited to information about us in the hands of others, but refers to the control we possess over the said information. The role of privacy is defensive in protecting our personal liberty. This is a context-based argument which states that privacy is essential to protect other related goals<\/a>. With the rapid advance in behaviour detection technology, this definition seems appropriate. Nissenbaum has explained that what individuals care about most is not the restriction on the flow of information but ensuring that the said information flows in an appropriate manner<\/a> and there exists some degree of accountability towards the person whose information is in question.<\/p>\n Information technology has affected the way in which we perceive our right to privacy<\/a>. Our conventional understanding of the right to privacy should now include the right to informational privacy<\/a>. Surveillance is viewed as antithetic to said informational privacy as the primary goal of surveillance is to obtain information<\/a> often without the consent or knowledge of the subject.<\/p>\n MORAL AUTONOMY AND RELATED RIGHTS TO PRIVACY<\/strong><\/p>\n The moral autonomy argument<\/a> in favour of the right to privacy is as follows \u2013 an individual must be in control and able to shape his moral identity and to gauge one\u2019s moral choices without being subject to criticism or scrutiny by a third party. The following is considered particularly important in order to follow a liberalist perspective of oneself<\/a>. One does not wish to be subjected to constant judgement and scrutiny by others in the socio-economic environment, and hence, value\u2019s one\u2019s right to privacy to safeguard his\/her moral autonomy.<\/p>\n With the advancement in technology, new and radical forms of surveillance and power have become possible<\/a>. The imposition of identities on persons has become convenient for the authoritarian powers, hence, leading to a \u2018Big Brother\u2019-like situation<\/a>. The following makes information protection a desideratum in the current scenario.<\/p>\n Privacy is not a secluded right<\/a>, it is related to multiple other essential rights such as liberty, autonomy and selfhood<\/a>. Privacy gains its essence and importance due to the functional role it plays in protecting or accessing other rights especially in a democracy such as preserving human relations and furthering a free society<\/a>. However, one must keep in mind that this right is not absolute and is required to be weighted in balance with other rights present in society, for instance \u2013 security. The dispute arises when the right balance is not achieved.<\/p>\n BIOMETRIC AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY: ENHANCMENT OF SURVEILLANCE<\/strong><\/p>\n Biometric technology<\/a> assists in the identification of persons using one\u2019s physical characteristics or behavioural characteristics. The classification<\/a> of biometric technology is as follows: first generation biometric technology focuses on the identification of a particular person \u2013 addressing the question of \u2018who are you\u2019 whereas second generation biometric technology without knowing a person\u2019s individual identity, recognises the nature of the person in order to classify him\/her into a \u2018which type of person are you\u2019 category.<\/p>\n In the present paper, I will be addressing merely the first-generation biometric technology and its impact on modern democratic governments. The technology enhancing the way governments function<\/a> for the purpose of screening out criminals\/ terrorists, combat identity fraud, assist in conclusive evidence to prove a case before court, and find missing persons. However, the following benefits come at a cost \u2013 privacy, autonomy and equal treatment<\/a>.<\/p>\n Facial Recognition is of key regard in this context. To have a rudimentary understanding, FRT captures the facial image of an individual, identifies the nodal points of the face and then compares it to the existing data base. Hence, FRT can be used to identify with the help of surveillance cameras and existing data bases, repeat offenders, terrorists or even underage drinkers<\/a>.<\/p>\n The fundamental issue with using this technology is obvious \u2013 constant surveillance by the government of its citizens using centralised data bases in order to curb individual freedom of expression and dissent. To balance the requirement of security with the privacy of an individual is an onerous task \u2013 one that hasn\u2019t yet been achieved with success. In this model the government curbs a key element of a democratic setup \u2013 individual autonomy and privacy<\/a> in order to provide security to the very same people whose rights it has now curbed.<\/p>\n FRT AND THE \u2018PANOPTICON PRISON\u2019 BY BENTHAM<\/strong><\/p>\n Advanced biometric technology such as FRT creates a system of \u2018panopticon prison design\u2019. An individual is under the continuous and synoptic view<\/a> of the government. In the panopticon prison design proposed by Jeremy Bentham<\/a>, the inmates are under maximum visibility to the prison guards, however, are unable to determine when the prison guards are watching, the result is an internalised omniscience<\/a>; the prisoners discipline themselves as they believe they might<\/em> be watched. Foucault further built upon the panopticon to justify how asymmetric surveillance<\/a> where the subject is unaware of precisely when he is being watched, he exercises restraint and self-discipline. There is no need of external authority as the subject itself regulates his behaviour, speech and conduct due to the unverifiable eyes of the government. The FRT plays the role of the panopticon prison; one is not aware when he is under surveillance but assumes that the state is watching his actions and he is identifiable. Hence, dissent and opposition to the government\u2019s mechanisms and policies becomes sparse. The following adversely affects a free-thinking society and individual autonomy which forms the basis of a strong democracy. The protesters in Hong Kong arguing for a pro-democratic set-up were identified by the use of facial recognition<\/a> technology, adopting an archaic stance of banning face masks. Further, in India protesters opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019<\/a> and the National Registry of Citizens on grounds of it being exclusionary and discriminatory violating the fabric of the democratic set-up were identified using FRT initially developed and deployed<\/a> in order to locate missing children.<\/p>\n CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n Privacy is fundamental in a democracy and interrelated with other essential rights making it worthy of high protection. Further, technology in a democratic set-up must be used wisely in order to not deter into an authoritarian regime.<\/p>\n Indian governmental bodies are increasingly using FRT and other behaviour detection technology in their day-to-day tasks such as maintaining law and order<\/a>, criminal identification<\/a>, etc. The centre has advocated and is rapidly working towards an Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) in order to facilitate \u2018criminal identification, verification and dissemination<\/a>.\u2019 The government justifies the legality of the following system on the basis of a cabinet approval<\/a>. Firstly, the following is not sufficient to meet the threshold of legality<\/a> as its basis lies in a cabinet note of 2009 and not in a statutory enactment. Further, even if it is assumed that the system is permitted by law, it cannot on this sole basis<\/a> be considered valid. Privacy extends to liberty, dignity and individuality. To give legitimacy to State surveillance such that it breaches an individual\u2019s privacy on the grounds that it is based in law, still endangers the right<\/a>.<\/p>\n