Hyderabad police Commissioner CV Anand has denied allegations of the illegal use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) by the city police. The Commissioner submitted to the Telangana High Court that the allegation of FRT being linked with Hyderabad’s CCTV camera network was false. The court was hearing a 2021 petition filed by Hyderabad-based activist SQ Masood, in which he alleged that the Hyderabad police was illegally using FRT without any law to back it.
Anand, in the reply, claimed that FRT is a “tool to aid Investigation Officers in prevention of crime and identification of criminals/suspects”. The technology is used on those who “move under suspicious circumstances, or suspected of committing an offence”, and their face is compared with a database of offenders, missing persons, etc stored in the Union government’s CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems) database. He added, “This standalone tool (FRT) only matches photographs of a person moving under suspicious circumstances or is suspected of having been involved in a crime or likely to be involved in a crime, with images of known convicted criminals, arrested offenders, wanted persons, missing persons & children etc.”
The High Court plea was filed by Masood with the support of the Internet Freedom Foundation, alleging that police were misusing the technology to fine people for not wearing masks. In his petition, he questioned the Mirchowk police under the Hyderabad Commissionerate, who used the tool during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this drive, the police had booked 44 persons for violating the mask rule. He also alleged that while returning home from office in May 2021, he was stopped by the police. He alleged that he was made to pull his mask down and that the officer allegedly took his picture, despite Masood’s refusal.
Justifying the Mirchowk police’s action, the Commissioner said, “The police department is empowered to conduct regular checking for preventing suspicious activities in society to maintain law and order. As part of this, Mirchowk police station conducted checks to prevent violation of COVID-19 norms issued by the Government of Telangana.” He also claimed that Masood’s name did not appear among the 44 who were booked.
He also pointed out that the city’s CCTV network is entirely different from FRT, and that both technologies function separately. The FRT is available to the police via a mobile app called TSCOP, he submitted, and that the data is logged into the CCNTS database.
Justifying its use, the Commissioner said that Section 149 in the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Police to prevent cognizable offences), empowers them to use the technology. He further cited that Section 3 of Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 allows police to collect the data of persons who are convicted and imprisoned for over a year. Along with this, the Criminal Procedure (identification) Act 2022 also allows police to collect data of convicts, CV Anand said.
Rejecting all the allegations made by the petitioner, the Commissioner claimed that FRT does not infringe on the right to privacy, as its use is restricted.
Meanwhile, an RTI filed by Masood revealed that Hyderabad city has a total of 10,597 close-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, out of which 4,402 are defunct.