Thread by @internetfreedom

We have sent a legal notice to the NCRB asking them to recall the revised Request for Proposals for procurement of the National Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) dated June 22, 2020. #ProjectPanoptic
1/n

internetfreedom.in/iffs-legal-not…

On June 22, 2020, the NCRB recalled and cancelled the original RFP [Document Reference: 02/001] that it had issued on July 3, 2019. A revised RFP [Document Reference: 02/001 (Revised)] was issued in its place.
2/n

drive.google.com/file/d/1KgnURY…

We had sent a legal notice dated July 18, 2019 to NCRB asking them to recall the original RFP. However, the current recall and cancellation fails to resolve our initial concerns pertaining to the AFRS project as raised in that legal notice.
3/n

internetfreedom.in/maskon

Additionally, having gone through the revised RFP, we have come across changes which have raised new concerns for us. 4/n

These concerns include:
✅Removal of CCTV cameras as a data source which leaves a gap in the functional architecture of AFRS and the RFP fails to satisfactorily account for its replacement.
5/n

✅The revised RFP has introduced the requirement wherein the technology should be able to carry out N:N combination search. Since N:N combinations searches have various definitions in foundational literature, there is no clarity with regard to their use case.
6/n

Vagueness in terms of purpose of use is harmful since it allows for the possibility of function creep.
7/n

✅In the revised RFP, a new technical requirement has been mandated wherein the AFRS platform which is being built should be able to integrate with existing crime analytics solutions with the Police for providing unique attributes on images/visuals.
8/n

Crime analytics solution has not been defined in the RFP and could thus be interpreted in a wide sense to include CCTV footage which contradicts the previous statements in the RFP which talk about restricting integration with CCTV cameras.
9/n

✅In the revised RFP, the international standards, which were included in the original RFP which had to be complied with as a technical requirement, have been excluded.
10/n

✅Scene of Crime (SOC) images/videos have been included as a data source. This inclusion is at odds with the previous assertion made in the RFP - that integration of CCTVs will not take place.
11/n

The RFP fails to mention how the data and subsequent analysis/ information which is obtained through AFRS will be presented and utilized in a court of law, i.e., the nature of the evidence obtained from AFRS and its admissibility as pertaining to its reliability in courts.
12/n

✅The original RFP provided a list of databases from which data was to be gathered to create the AFRS database. This list of databases has now been removed from the revised RFP and has been replaced with the term “dynamic police databases”.
13/n

We have asked for the recall of the revised RFP as it is violative of the right to privacy and fails to fulfill the requirements as under the Puttaswamy judgment.
14/n

1/ Legality- As pointed out in our previous legal notice, there is no anchoring legislation which allows for and regulates the use of AFRS. In the absence of such a framework and safeguards, the first requirement for lawful restriction on the right to privacy is not met.
15/n

2/ Necessity- Since facial recognition technology is highly inaccurate it fails to fulfill the test of necessity as the purpose of adopting the technology is swift identification of suspects.
16/n

3/ Proportionality- imposition of such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response according to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1
17/n

4/ Lack of procedural safeguards to ensure that use of AFRS does not result in illegal state-sponsored mass surveillance which would have a chilling effect on fundamental rights.
18/n

This legal notice has been drafted with the help and insights of @SmritiParsheera and @VidushiMarda.
19/n