The stalker state: how authorities use facial recognition system against dissenters and what is the opinion of European Court of Human Rights

Русская версия

Publication date: 02.08.2023

On 4 July 2023, the European Court of Human Rights issued an order directly condemning Russia’s police use of a facial recognition system against dissidents. At the same time, the authorities are increasing the use of technology for repressive purposes. Today we talk about the excuses given by the Kremlin regarding spying on activists and why the ECHR deems this practice unacceptable.

We know of at least 595 cases where the facial recognition system (FRS) was used against dissenters. In 141 of them, detention was «preventive». FRS was also utilized in the war draft effort. The Kremlin plans to add FRS functions to border cameras. In the spring of 2023 it became known that Kyrgyzstan had joined in the Russian FRS system. Now if Russia places somebody on the wanted list, they will be traced in Kyrgyzstan too — the Central Asian nation has become a common refuge for Russians fleeing the draft.

The city surveillance cameras, metro cameras, and even some portable video recorders can be integrated with the FRS.

On 4 June, ECHR issued a ruling on the case «Glukhin v. Russia». The court found that using the FRS to detain picketers is a violation of the constitutional right to privacy and freedom of speech. The Russian police detained activist Nikolai Glukhin, in a Moscow metro car in 2019. According to the authorities, Glukhin was on the wanted list, and the FRS was used to flag him to the police.

Once detained, Glukhin learned that the detention was sparked by his earlier metro trip with a man-sized cutout depicting political prisoner Konstantin Kotov and a banner about Kotov’s case. Police interpreted Glukhin’s actions as an unauthorised and premeditated solitary picket with and drew up an administrative offence protocol under Part 5 of Article 20.2 of the Administrative Offences Code.

From the case file, it became known that employees of the Centre for Countering Extremism (CCE) «during monitoring of „the Internet“ network» found a video on the Telegram app. In the video, Glukhin was holding the cutout of Kotov. The cops then proceeded to conduct «operational-search measures» (said measures were not specified) to establish the identity and location, shown on the video. Afterward, the CCE used footage from surveillance cameras in order to track Glukhin’s movements.

In Russian courts, Glukhin argued that the use of operative-search measures in his case violated Russian law. According to Federal Law No. 144-FL of 18.08.1995 «On Operative Investigative Activity», such actions can only be carried out to detect, suppress and solve criminal offences, not administrative ones. The CCE officers thus allowed an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Russian courts disagreed with Glukhin’s reasoning, so he appealed to the ECHR. Russian Prosecutor General’s office submitted its objections to the European Court, where it confirmed that there was in fact no warrant out on Glukhin. However, it still insisted on the legality of the operational search activities.

The ECHR sided with Glukhin and noted that Russia lacked a legal framework restricting the use of facial recognition technology. The court ruled that the government violated Glukhin’s right freedom of expression by applying excessive means — surveillance using a facial recognition system — to the peaceful activist.

Even though neither the case file nor the objections of the Prosecutor General’s Office explicitly stated that the FRS had been used against Glukhin, the ECHR considered this to be a proven fact.

The Court, relying particularly on our report, found that Glukhin’s explanation as well as the form of the «operational-search measures» were sufficient evidence of the use of the FRS. This decision would certainly impact handling of similar cases in the ECHR.