Saving faces: On protests, biometric surveillance

The deployment of biometric surveillance at protests directly implicates fundamental rights under the Constitution. The use of FRT raises immediate concerns regarding the Right to Privacy, which was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the landmark Puttaswamy Judgement (2017). The Supreme Court established that any state interference with privacy must pass a strict proportionality test: it must be sanctioned by law, serve a legitimate state aim, be necessary, and have proportionate safeguards. Currently, there is a legal vacuum; no specific statute governs the use of FRT. The editorial points out that the recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 still provides broad exemptions for state agencies, failing to offer robust protection against state surveillance. Furthermore, the indiscriminate scanning of protesters threatens the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to assemble peacefully (Article 19(1)(b)), as the fear of being identified and targeted creates a chilling effect that deters citizens from participating in democratic dissent. For UPSC, analyze the tension between state security imperatives and individual fundamental rights, and the necessity of statutory frameworks to regulate state surveillance powers.

From a governance perspective, the use of sophisticated surveillance tools highlights significant gaps in accountability and transparency within law enforcement. The editorial underscores the problematic involvement of private contractors who operate mobile surveillance vans and smart spectacles, raising critical questions about data sharing agreements, access controls, and data retention policies. When private entities handle sensitive citizen data without clear legal mandates, it compromises administrative accountability. Although the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 expanded the scope of biometric data collection by police, it is intended for specific groups (e.g., arrested individuals), not the indiscriminate mass surveillance of peaceful protesters. This mass data collection runs contrary to the principle of data minimization (collecting only what is strictly necessary). The absence of standard operating procedures (SOPs) detailing how data is processed, how long it is stored, and the rate of false positives (which can lead to wrongful targeting) indicates a severe lack of regulatory oversight. UPSC aspirants should focus on the need for comprehensive data protection laws that bind both state and non-state actors, and the mechanisms required to ensure democratic oversight of law enforcement technologies.

While maintaining public order and security is a primary responsibility of the state, the methods employed must be scrutinised. Law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on technologies like the Automated Facial Recognition System developed by the National Crime Records Bureau to identify criminals and maintain security during large gatherings. The argument often presented is that FRT aids in rapid threat identification and crime prevention. However, the editorial argues that conventional policing presents a less restrictive but equally effective alternative for managing protests. The indiscriminate deployment of AI-enabled cameras and drones shifts the paradigm from targeted surveillance of suspects to mass surveillance of citizens. This shift poses long-term security risks, including the potential for function creep (where technology introduced for one purpose is gradually used for broader, unintended purposes) and the creation of vulnerable central databases that could be subject to cyberattacks or misuse. For the Mains examination, evaluate the balance between adopting advanced policing technologies to counter modern security threats and the imperative to prevent the emergence of a surveillance state.