Tianjin violent real estate

Gu Cheng, a 26-year-old boy from Tianjin, took the property management company to court because he refused to "brush his face" in and out of the community. After more than a year, he finally won the case. Compulsory entry into the property is not in compliance with the regulations.

In the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Personal Information, which came into effect on August 1 20265438, it is mentioned that if the owner or property user disagrees with the face recognition verification method and asks the property company to provide other reasonable verification methods, the property company shall not refuse it on the grounds of intelligent management. ?

However, when Gu Cheng negotiated with the property for the first time, the property refused Gu Cheng's request for other ways to enter and leave the community on the grounds that the epidemic prevention and control requirements and business meetings had passed this verification method. After Gu Cheng took the property company to court, the court refused to support Gu Cheng's appeal because the above provisions were not implemented. This means that Gu can't provide evidence to prove that the property company leaked his facial information.

However, Gu Cheng did not give up. After the first trial, Gu Cheng expressed great concern about the results. Disappointed? I think it is clear in the personal information protection law, but I still don't support it. In the second trial, Gu Cheng claimed that the court of first instance had erred in applying the law, and took out the regulations implemented in August of 1 year as evidence. The court said that the property refused to provide the plaintiff with the defense reasons of other verification methods, which was illegal and therefore did not support the defense of the property.

Finally, on May 22, 18, the judgment of the second instance showed that the judgment of the first instance was revoked and Chengguan Property Tianjin Company was ordered to delete the plaintiff's face information within 5 days, and other verification methods were needed. For this matter, property coercion can only be passed? Face recognition? Getting in and out of the community is obviously problematic. But the first trial was not supported. I don't know if personal information security is not taken seriously, or if the property company is overbearing. This case is of warning significance.