A resident of Tianjin refused to force his face to enter the community to win the case. What laws did the Property Law violate?

There used to be a classic joke on the Internet to tease some boys: What's the role of being handsome? Can I use my face to swipe my credit card? Nowadays, whether you are handsome or not, you can respond plausibly: yes.

Nowadays, face recognition provides convenience for everyone's life, but it also hides many security risks. This is because face recognition is unique and easy to be secondary. If it is used unreasonably, the adverse effects will be unimaginable.

Not long ago, a resident of Tianjin took the property management company to court because he was dissatisfied with the only way of "face recognition" in and out of the community, and asked the property management to delete his face information and ensure the authentication method to ensure his personal privacy.

The plaintiff felt that the defendant's behavior violated the plaintiff's personal freedom and the reasonable, legal, existing and necessary standards that must be followed to solve the face information.

The defendant's property management company argued that the plaintiff was a tenant, not a community owner. If he could not integrate into the center of Ji Cheng, he could move out independently. Collect face recognition information through the cooperation of industry committees, environmental restoration company offices, communities and street offices. At the same time, the online supervision in Tianjin Heping Sub-bureau is in line with the regulations of epidemic situation supervision in COVID-19 today. The plaintiff's face information is only used in the access control system.

The People's Court of Heping District, Tianjin, the court of first instance, held that the defendant's claim to apply the plaintiff's face information was in line with the corresponding requirements and regulations for epidemic prevention and control in Tianjin, and it was the corresponding measure and necessity for epidemic prevention and control. Due to the large number of people who settled in Ji Cheng Economic and Trade Center in Heping District, Tianjin, the application of face information is indeed necessary for epidemic prevention and control, so it is suggested that the court take a statute of limitations defense on this matter. However, the relevant direct evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot prove that the two defendants violated their personal privacy, so all the plaintiff's claims were rejected.

After the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff decided to sue again. After investigation, the court of second instance applied part of the plaintiff's application and asked the property management company to delete the plaintiff's face information and give him other driving certification methods.

The Institute of Rule of Law Network noted that in the ruling of second instance, according to the ruling of second instance signed on May 18, 2022, the plaintiff believed that the specific problem in this case was the maintenance of personal information, not personal privacy, and the court of first instance applied the law incorrectly and chose the wrong cause of action; The plaintiff does not believe that personal information has been leaked, forged or lost, so there is no need to give corresponding direct evidence, and the court of first instance has made an error in its evaluation of the burden of proof.

At the same time, the plaintiff said that the plaintiff's various applications have objective facts and legal provisions and should be applied according to the provisions; The court of first instance held that the solution of face information by Chengguan Town Property Management Company and Chengguan Town Property Management Tianjin Company was necessary for epidemic prevention and control, and there were no objective facts and legal provisions. The appeal request cancels the ruling of the original trial, and the judgment is changed to the first instance.

According to the final ruling data of the second instance, the first instance judgment was revoked, and Chengguan Town Property Management Tianjin Company deleted the plaintiff's face information within five days from the effective date of the judgment, and gave him other driving certification methods.

After the incident was exposed, it also attracted close attention from fans. Most of the noise is reprimanding the property management company for infringing citizens' private information. Some fans also stressed that it is enough to change the login password if the password is leaked, and the facial recognition information is leaked, so cosmetic surgery may not be able to change face.

Once the face information is leaked, it is not only the face that is "lost", but also personal information, assets and other information. If this information is stolen and used by fraudsters, the adverse effects will be unimaginable to me.

Regarding this case, Xie Criminal Defense Lawyer, a member of the Expert Group of Criminal Defense Lawyers of Rule of Law Daily and the head of the Internet Law Department of Shanghai Law Firm, said that according to the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the Protection of Personal Information, face information is sensitive personal information, and unconventional safeguard measures must be taken, such as obtaining my independent permission and taking strict safeguard measures. At the same time, regarding face recognition technology, the Supreme People's Court implemented the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Personal Information by Face Recognition Technology, which made professional requirements for cases and stipulated that property management service companies could not use face recognition as the only authentication method for residential owners to enter and leave the property management service area.

Bao Hua, a member of the expert group of criminal defense lawyers of Rule of Law Daily and a senior partner of Beijing Hairun Tian Rui Law Firm, also felt that the core content of this case was personal information maintenance. The personal information in this case was obtained according to "face recognition" and belongs to the own biometric information required by Article 1034 of the Civil Code of People's Republic of China (PRC). According to Article 1035 of the Civil Law, the processing of personal information should follow reasonable, legal, existing and necessary standards; And should seek the permission of the general partner or his legal guardian, open the standard of information processing, clearly define the purpose, method and scope of solving information, and do not violate the norms and mutual commitments of laws, regulations and administrative rules.

Bao Hua said that in this case, the defendant must prove that it is normal, existing and necessary to collect and store face recognition information. The defendant argued that "through the cooperation of industry committees, offices of environmental remediation companies, communities and sub-district offices" and "carrying out online supervision in Tianjin Heping Sub-bureau" were in line with the regulations of epidemic supervision in COVID-19 today, but only confirmed their proper behavior and safety factor. However, it does not meet the reasonable and legal requirements of "obtaining the consent of the general partner or his legal guardian" in laws and regulations. Nor can it prove its importance. Therefore, it is completely correct for the people's court to judge the defendant to delete the face information and give other driving certification methods.

In fact, in recent years, there have been many cases of face recognition disputes in many parts of the country. 20 19, Guo Bing, an associate professor at Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, sued Hangzhou Wildlife Park because he was dissatisfied with the face recognition method. This case is also called "the first case of national face recognition".

Guo Bing thinks his facial features and other personal biometric information belong to my sensitive information. Once leaked, illegally given or abused, it will be very easy to hurt the personal safety and capital safety of buyers including him. He explicitly filed a complaint, expecting Hangzhou Wildlife Park to cancel the requirement of face recognition when customers normally apply for annual membership cards, delete all personal information submitted when they applied for annual membership cards on April 27th, 20th19th, refund the fees for the old-age cards and bear the litigation costs in this case. Finally, Guo Bingsheng filed a lawsuit.

This case was elected as "Top Ten Cases of People's Court in 2002/KLOC-0", and was also written into the work report of the Supreme People's Court held by the two sessions in 2022, which is a model of judicial protection of personal information.

Xie pointed out that at this stage, similar infringements are widespread, and the fundamental reason is that the infringement cost of personal information solvers is low and the awareness of information control rights has not been cultivated. This requires us not only to strengthen supervision, but also to solve the responsibility problem of personal information infringement from administrative departments and judicial departments, so as to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits brought by technological development trends (such as face recognition) while maintaining the balance between technological progress and personal rights and interests. At the same time, in the new social environment, we should also strengthen the publicity and planning of all employees' awareness of personal information control, and ensure that the society realizes that maintaining personal information has become everyone's basic civil rights.