SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. India: In the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India (I) (2017) / 2017 (10) SCALE 1, a ninejudge bench of the Supreme Court of India held unanimously that the right to privacy was a constitutionally protected right in India, as well as being incidental to other freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The case, brought by retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy, challenged the Government’s proposed scheme for a uniform biometrics-based identity card which would be mandatory for access to government services and benefits. The Government argued that the Constitution did not grant specific protection for the right to privacy. The Court reasoned that privacy is an incident of fundamental freedom or liberty guaranteed under Article 21 which provides that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. This is a landmark case which is likely to lead to constitutional challenges to a wide range of Indian legislation, for example legislation criminalising same-sex relationships as well as bans on beef and alcohol consumption in many Indian States. Observers also expect the Indian Government to establish a data protection regime to protect the privacy of the individual. Further, the case is likely to be of wider significance as privacy campaigners use it to pursue the constitutional debate over privacy in other countries. More info here. xv. Facial recognition Brazil: In the Case of São Paulo Subway Facial Recognition Cameras (2021), a civil court in São Paulo held that the use of facial recognition technology on a subway line was an infringement of the right to privacy of one’s image. After the operator of a subway line in São Paulo introduced interactive subway car doors which displayed personalized advertisements to the passengers based on information gathered through facial detection technology, a consumer rights organization approached the Court seeking damages and an order prohibiting the use of the equipment. The Court held that the use of any facial recognition or detection software required the consent of users and ordered the subway operator to cease using the technology. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides a material protection of the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. United States: In the case of Patel v. Facebook (2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that facial-recognition technology used to create face templates without prior consent invades individuals’ interests and privacy. In 2010, Facebook started using facial-recognition technology to develop its Tag Suggestions feature without the users’ prior written consent and without a retention schedule of the biometric information. Three Facebook users in Illinois filed a complaint in 2015, alleging that Facebook’s facial-recognition technology violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Court affirmed the decision of the United States 23