Quick answer
No. In Glukhin v. Russia (4 July 2023), the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Russia violated Article 8 (private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The police had used facial recognition technology to identify, find and arrest a man who held a peaceful one-person protest in the Moscow metro. The Court called the technology "highly intrusive" and held that using it against a peaceful protester was not "necessary in a democratic society".
The case
Glukhin v. Russia, Application no. 11519/20, European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), judgment of 4 July 2023, final on 4 October 2023. On 23 August 2019 Nikolay Glukhin travelled on the Moscow underground with a life-size cardboard figure of the activist Konstantin Kotov and a banner criticising Kotov's prosecution for peaceful protest. Police found photos and video of the protest on a public Telegram channel, identified him, and arrested him on 30 August 2019 at a metro station. He was fined 20,000 roubles for not giving notice of a solo demonstration involving a "quickly (de)assembled object". The Court held, unanimously, that Articles 8 and 10 were violated, and awarded 9,800 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 6,400 euros for costs.
What the Court decided
- Interference with private life: processing his personal data, including facial recognition used first to identify him from the Telegram images and then to locate and arrest him, interfered with his right under Article 8.
- Quality of law: the Court had strong doubts that Russian law met the "quality of law" requirement. Such technology needs detailed rules on the scope and application of the measures, with strong safeguards against abuse.
- Highest justification: live facial recognition is particularly intrusive and needs the highest level of justification.
- No pressing social need: the protest was peaceful and caused no danger, so identifying and arresting him did not meet a pressing social need.
- Chilling effect: using such tools against peaceful protesters may discourage people from exercising freedom of expression and assembly.
- Article 10: the protest concerned a matter of public interest, and the domestic courts gave no relevant and sufficient reasons for punishing it.
Russia ceased to be a Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022. The Court still had jurisdiction because the facts occurred before that date.
Example
Aadil stands quietly at a railway station holding a placard against a new policy. Cameras running automated face matching identify him and track him across stations, and he is later arrested for a minor procedural lapse. Under the Glukhin approach, the fact that he was in a public place does not end the privacy question. The authorities must show a clear legal basis with safeguards, a legitimate aim and a proportionate (no more than necessary) response.
The Indian position
Glukhin interprets the European Convention and is not binding on Indian courts. In India, the nine-judge bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (24 August 2017) held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and of the freedoms in Part III. The plurality opinion requires any State intrusion to satisfy three tests: legality (a law must exist), a legitimate State aim, and proportionality. Any use of facial recognition by Indian police would have to be measured against these tests.
Exam point
Glukhin v. Russia (ECtHR, 2023): using facial recognition to identify and arrest a peaceful solo protester violated Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention. Being in public does not remove privacy protection.
