GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT interference, did not meet the “quality of law” requirement. They were too vague and did not provide either for a prior judicial authorisation or for any subsequent judicial control. 61. The applicant further submitted that the interference with his right to respect for his private life had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. His private life had been interfered with for the sole reason that he had held a peaceful solo demonstration. 62. The Government submitted that the applicant had committed an administrative offence and that all the measures taken against him by the police had been lawful and justified. His name was not included in any list of wanted persons. The measures taken against the applicant had had a legal basis (see summary of the legislation referred to in paragraphs 33-34 above). 63. The third-party intervener Article 19 submitted that facial recognition technology was to be used with the utmost caution and was to be attended by adequate legal safeguards. They argued that biometric mass surveillance, in particular with the use of facial recognition technology, represented one of the greatest threats to fundamental rights in the digital age. It threatened the right to privacy and anonymity and had a strong chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The awareness of being watched and tracked might discourage people from exercising their right to protest and from freely expressing their opinion in public spaces. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Existence of an interference (i) General principles 64. The Court reiterates that the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It can embrace multiple aspects of the person’s physical and social identity. It is not limited to an “inner circle” in which the individual may live his or her own personal life without outside interference, but also encompasses the right to lead a “private social life”, that is, the possibility of establishing and developing relationships with others and the outside world. It does not exclude activities taking place in a public context. There is thus a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life” (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 8788, 17 October 2019). 65. The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 8. The subsequent use of the stored information has no bearing on that finding. However, in determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any of the private-life aspects mentioned above, the Court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these 21