{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:44:00.387Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"custody","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-southampton-choudhury-arrested-after-retrospective-facial-recognition-match-milton-keynes-burglary","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"was working at the home he shares with his parents in Southampton in January","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"handcuffed him and held him in custody for nearly 10 hours before releasing him at 2am.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On 8 January 2026 Mr Alvi Choudhury was arrested on suspicion of a burglary that had occurred 100 miles away from where he was at the time.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Choudhury is claiming damages against Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary, which executed his arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But the arresting officers from Hampshire Constabulary didn’t want to know.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Alvi Choudhury was arrested at the home he shares with his parents in Southampton on 8 January 2026 on suspicion of a burglary in Milton Keynes, handcuffed and held in custody for nearly 10 hours until released at 2am. Hampshire Constabulary officers carried out the arrest.","causal_attribution":"Event description only. The account comes from Choudhury and his solicitors through the Guardian, Liberty Investigates and a chambers news post. The Thames Valley Police statement quoted by the Guardian treats the arrest as having happened and apologises for the distress caused. The 8 January date appears only in the chambers post (the Guardian says January)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police had used automated facial recognition software which matched him with footage of a suspect of a £3,000 burglary 100 miles away in Milton Keynes","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"following a retrospective facial recognition match, and was not influenced by racial profiling.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A week later, after filing a complaint against Thames Valley Police, he found out the full story: he’d been flagged as a possible suspect by an automated facial recognition system.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"UK police forces use an algorithm procured by the Home Office from Cognitec, a German company.","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police used automated retrospective facial recognition software that matched Choudhury with CCTV footage of a suspect in the Milton Keynes burglary. Choudhury says he learned about a week after the arrest, after filing a complaint, that an automated facial recognition system had flagged him as a possible suspect.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian bases the match on documents shared by Liberty Investigates, which were not inspected. The police spokesperson statement quoted in the same report itself refers to a retrospective facial recognition match. The sources do not state which product, version, threshold or match score applied to this search."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police said the decision to arrest Choudhury was made after a human visual assessment as well.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A Thames Valley police spokesperson denied the arrest was unlawful and said: “While we apologise for the distress caused to the complainant in this case","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Facial matches should be treated as intelligence, not fact, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police told the Guardian that the decision to arrest was made after a human visual assessment as well as the match, denied that the arrest was unlawful and said it was not influenced by racial profiling, and apologised for the distress caused. The Guardian reports the National Police Chiefs’ Council position that facial matches should be treated as intelligence, not fact.","causal_attribution":"A party statement about its own conduct, relayed by the Guardian. It addresses the arrest decision and gives no detail of the match."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I was very angry, because the kid looked about 10 years younger than me,” said Choudhury, who wears a beard.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He offered evidence of work meetings in Southampton on the day of the crime but he was instead taken into custody.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But Choudhury said officers at the Hampshire police station laughed when he asked: “Does this look anything like me?”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"And he said the Thames Valley police officers who arrived to interview him said “they knew I wasn’t the suspect after looking at footage of the suspect and looking at my picture”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Choudhury says the man in the CCTV footage looked about 10 years younger than Choudhury and had different features, that he offered evidence of work meetings in Southampton on the day of the burglary, that officers at the Hampshire police station laughed when he asked whether the footage looked like him, and that the Thames Valley Police officers who came to interview him said they knew he was not the suspect after looking at the footage and his picture.","causal_attribution":"First-person account relayed by the Guardian. The CCTV footage and the police interview record were not inspected, and no source independent of Choudhury describes the suspect’s appearance or the interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police admitted to Choudhury the arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Thames Valley Police wrote to Choudhury, acknowledging that his arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"as the use of facial recognition is already subject to review at a strategic level, I do not feel the need to raise this issue as part of wider organisational learning","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police wrote to Choudhury that the arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”. An officer also told him that, because facial recognition use is already subject to review at a strategic level, the issue would not be raised as part of wider organisational learning.","causal_attribution":"Quotations from a police letter to Choudhury as relayed by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates. The letter itself was not inspected. The wording is conditional (“may have been”)."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"“I just assumed that the investigative officer saw that I was a brown person with curly hair and decided to arrest me.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"their arrest was based on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment that the individual matched the suspect in CCTV footage","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Confusingly, however, the force concluded that his arrest was not a case of racial profiling, because officers had made their own assessment of the images before arresting him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Whether the facial recognition match or the officers’ own visual assessment led to the arrest decision, and whether bias in the software contributed, is disputed. Choudhury says he assumed the investigating officer saw a brown person with curly hair and decided to arrest him. Thames Valley Police say the arrest rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment following the match and was not influenced by racial profiling, while also acknowledging in writing that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology.","causal_attribution":"Two accounts that conflict on the decisive input to the arrest. Neither the match record nor the officers’ assessment record was inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"His neighbours saw him being led away in handcuffs, his father was very anxious about him being held and he was unable to work the following day, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He sometimes needs security clearance to work for government clients and he is asked about arrests and said: “This makes me look dodgier and dodgier.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now he has had a second mugshot taken he is afraid the automated system could trigger more wrongful arrests.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"While we apologise for the distress caused to the complainant in this case","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Choudhury reports that neighbours saw him led away in handcuffs, that his father was very anxious about him being held, and that he was unable to work the following day. He says he sometimes needs security clearance to work for government clients, is asked about arrests, and that “This makes me look dodgier and dodgier”, and that he is afraid the automated system could trigger more arrests now that a second mugshot has been taken.","causal_attribution":"First-person account relayed by the Guardian. The police apology for distress caused is the only independent acknowledgement of an effect. No effect on an actual clearance decision is reported."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Choudhury’s mugshot was held on the police system only because he had been wrongly arrested in 2021 when he had been attacked on a night out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The police released him with no further action.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"comparing images taken from sources such as social media and CCTV to a database of more than 19m custody images, or mugshots.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Choudhury’s image was held on the police system only because of an arrest in 2021 that the Guardian describes as wrongful (he had been attacked on a night out) and that ended with police releasing him with no further action.","causal_attribution":"Background as told by Choudhury to the Guardian. The sources do not state in terms that this custody image was the one returned by the search."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Choudhury is claiming damages against Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary, which executed his arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"after filing a complaint against Thames Valley Police","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"to pursue a claim for damages against Thames Valley Police for false imprisonment, breach of data protection law, breach of Art 8 ECHR and breach of the Equality Act 2010.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Choudhury filed a complaint against Thames Valley Police and is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary. His solicitors have instructed counsel to pursue a claim for damages against Thames Valley Police for false imprisonment, breach of data protection law, breach of Article 8 ECHR and breach of the Equality Act 2010.","causal_attribution":"A complaint and a claim establish only their own existence and the allegations made. No court filing or outcome was found in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"This is the FR software currently used in the Police National Database (PND) for which the operational use case is Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The FPIR for White subjects (0.04 %) is lower than that for Asian subjects (4.0 %)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"At a face-match threshold of 0.8:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A National Physical Laboratory report for the Home Office and the Office of the Policing Chief Scientific Adviser (dated October 2025) evaluated Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5, which it describes as the facial recognition software used in the Police National Database for retrospective facial recognition. At a face-match threshold of 0.8 on its test data it found a false positive identification rate of 4.0 % for Asian subjects and 0.04 % for White subjects.","causal_attribution":"The report establishes the evaluation findings on its own test dataset. It does not state which product version, threshold or settings applied to the search in this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"Arrested at home and held in custody for nearly 10 hours after a police retrospective facial recognition match","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Distress acknowledged by the police, a lost working day and worry about future arrests and security clearance, as reported by Choudhury","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/25/facial-recognition-error-prompts-police-to-arrest-asian-man-for-burglary-100-miles-away","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-liberty-investigates-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/the-rise-of-facial-recognition-policing/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-liberty-investigates-reporting"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/automated-facial-recognition-software-innocent-man-arrested","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read through an Internet Archive capture of 22 April 2026 because the site returned HTTP 403 to direct requests.","independence_group":"claimant-legal-team-post"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693002a4cdec734f4dff4149/1a_Cognitec_NPL_Equitability_Report_October_25.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"npl-evaluation-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["Which product, version, face-match threshold and match score the Thames Valley Police search used is not stated. The National Physical Laboratory report evaluates Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 (the Police National Database software) at stated thresholds, and the sources do not say those settings applied here.","The documents shared with the Guardian, the police letter to Choudhury, the CCTV footage and the police interview record were not inspected. All account details come from news reports and a chambers post.","Whether the human visual assessment preceded the arrest request, which force made the request and which force made the decision are stated differently by Choudhury, his solicitors and the police, and no record was inspected.","Whether a court claim was filed and the outcome of the complaint and the damages claim are not reported in any inspected source (the latest inspected reports are dated 1 April 2026).","The date 8 January 2026 comes from the news post of the claimant’s counsel (Internet Archive capture). The Guardian says only January. Distances given by outlets differ (100 miles in the Guardian) and are not material.","The burglary, the burglary suspect and any prosecution are not described in the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The arrest took place at Choudhury’s home in Southampton and the burglary was in Milton Keynes, both placed in England by the Guardian (Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary are the forces named). No court proceedings are reported, so court countries are unknown.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Guardian article and the Liberty Investigates April feature were read in full from saved bodies. They come from one Liberty Investigates investigation built on an interview with Choudhury, documents shared with the Guardian and police statements, so they count as one reporting chain. The arrest date comes from the claimant’s counsel and the technical context from the National Physical Laboratory report, cited for its own contents. Claims about the arrest stay at reported status, the decisive causal question is recorded as disputed because Thames Valley Police dispute the causal account, and only the contents of the National Physical Laboratory report are recorded as documented. Choudhury is named because he spoke about the arrest under his own name to the Guardian and Liberty Investigates. The burglary suspect is not named or described beyond the reported age difference.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Thames Valley Police’s own statement, quoted by the Guardian, refers to a retrospective facial recognition match preceding the arrest, and the Guardian cites documents shared by Liberty Investigates. The police say the arrest decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment. Choudhury says the footage showed a man who looked about 10 years younger with different features, and that he assumed the investigating officer decided to arrest him because he is a brown person with curly hair. The police also wrote that the arrest may have been the result of bias within the technology. The weight of the match in the arrest decision is disputed. The sources do not identify the product version, threshold or match score.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Southampton: Alvi Choudhury arrested at home on suspicion of a Milton Keynes burglary after a police retrospective facial recognition match, held nearly 10 hours, claiming damages","summary":"The Guardian, in a joint report with Liberty Investigates, reported on 25 February 2026 that Alvi Choudhury, a 26-year-old software engineer, was arrested at his home in Southampton in January 2026 on suspicion of a £3,000 burglary in Milton Keynes, about 100 miles away, and held in custody for nearly 10 hours. Thames Valley Police had used automated retrospective facial recognition software, which matched him with CCTV footage of the burglary suspect. Choudhury says the man in the footage looked about 10 years younger and had different features. Thames Valley Police wrote to him that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology, and told the Guardian that the decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment and was not influenced by racial profiling. Choudhury is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary.","incidentDate":"2026-01-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-02-25","aiSystem":"Retrospective facial recognition search run by Thames Valley Police (product, version and reference database not stated in the sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","aiCompany":"Not stated in the sources for this search (the Guardian says UK police forces use an algorithm procured by the Home Office from Cognitec)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Guardian reports Choudhury was handcuffed at home, held for nearly 10 hours and released at 2am, and was unable to work the following day. Choudhury says neighbours saw him led away. Thames Valley Police apologised for the distress caused and deny the arrest was unlawful.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One man reported arrested and held. His father, neighbours and the burglary suspect are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/25/facial-recognition-error-prompts-police-to-arrest-asian-man-for-burglary-100-miles-away","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian with Liberty Investigates (25 Feb 2026): Facial recognition error prompts police to arrest Asian man for burglary 100 miles away","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:15:56.164264+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:54.246626+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2026-delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-list-25-in-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to the police affidavit submitted on August 17, its FRS identified individuals with criminal records at the protest site'; 'It said that 2,402 people were identified by the Delhi Police'; 'and 471 through criminal records.'; 'No actions are taken solely based upon the result of the facial recognition system which is only the first step to identify a person in the crowd who has a criminal record.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to the Delhi Police affidavit, 2,402 people were identified through its biometric database, Crime Kundli, while another 471 were identified through criminal records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Delhi Police's affidavit of August 17, 2026 told the Supreme Court that 2,873 persons with criminal records had been spotted by the FRS at the protest site.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protest site between 20 and 26 July 2026, 2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through criminal records, and that no action is taken solely on an FRS result before field verification.","causal_attribution":"The affidavit as quoted by The Indian Express and relayed by Outlook and IFF; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An investigation of those with serious charges, murder, attempted murder and rape, and child abuse, shows that at least 25 people on the list, identified by the Facial Recognition System (FRS) at Jantar Mantar, were in jail as per police, jail and court records.'; 'In this group, 17 faced charges of murder; four of rape, including two in POCSO cases; and four more of attempt to murder were lodged in Delhi'; 'Court and jail records for all 25 show custody dates precede the protest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'At least 25 of the 2,873 people identified by Delhi Police'; 'were already in jail when they were flagged, an investigation of police, prison and court records by The Indian Express has found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Three were \"identified\" on July 24, twenty-one on July 25 and one on July 26, each with a timestamp.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At least 25 of the 205 listed people facing murder, rape, POCSO or attempted-murder charges were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails when the FRS logged them at Jantar Mantar (17 murder, four rape of which the Express's narrative counts two and its itemised list three as POCSO cases, four attempted murder), with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July 2026 and custody dates that in some cases precede the protest by years.","causal_attribution":"The Indian Express's own check of police, prison and court records (one chain, relayed by Outlook and IFF); the Delhi Police response did not address the 25 cases."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On Tuesday, when the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs related to the exam leak protests by students, it let the government proceed against the 2,873 people who the Delhi Police claimed had criminal records'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Delhi Police was given permission to register one fresh FIR concerning 2,873 people alleged to have serious criminal antecedents and initially reported to have been present at Jantar Mantar.'; 'The Court did not find that the 2,873 were present, had qualifying criminal records or committed violence.'; 'the order prescribed no method or express requirement that checks precede arrest or other action'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'On September 1, 2026, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, invoking Article 142, quashed all FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests'; 'while directing that this should not prejudice their rights and that they must be given every opportunity to defend themselves'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but permitted Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR concerning the 2,873 persons with alleged serious antecedents, directing that this should not prejudice their rights, and without a finding that they were present; the undertaking that action would follow field verification is the police's own, and The Federal notes the order prescribed no such requirement.","causal_attribution":"The order as described by the three outlets; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Responding on Monday to a questionnaire from the Express, the Delhi Police said:'; 'During the protests, 2873 individuals identified as prima facie having criminal antecedents were spotted. However, further verification in this regard is pending.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In its response to the Express, the Delhi Police did not address the 25 cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Responding to The Indian Express, Delhi Police said the 2,873 individuals had been spotted as prima facie having criminal antecedents and that further verification was pending; the response did not address the 25 cases.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as quoted by the Express."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request in 2022, the police had revealed that it considered a match to be'; 'if its system showed an accuracy rate of 80 per cent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the Delhi Police disclosed that it treats any match with a similarity score above 80% as \"positive\"'; 'extracted in 2022 only after a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Delhi Police disclosed in 2022, in reply to Right to Information requests, that it treats a facial-recognition match with an 80 per cent similarity or accuracy score as positive.","causal_attribution":"Delhi Police's 2022 RTI replies as described by IFF, which obtained them, and by The Indian Express, which IFF says relies on the same disclosures; one chain. The reply itself was not inspected. IE describes the threshold as an accuracy rate of 80 per cent and IFF as a similarity score above 80 per cent."}],"effects":[{"label":"at least 25 people in judicial custody were logged by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest and listed in a sworn affidavit of persons with criminal antecedents against whom a fresh FIR and field verification were permitted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-24 from an Internet Archive capture of 15 September 2026 (web.archive.org/web/20260915075622id_/...); the live page returns 403 to this host. Express Investigation of 4 September 2026 with the list of the 25 and the police response.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.outlookindia.com/national/jantar-mantar-protest-25-people-flagged-by-facial-recognition-were-in-jail-records-show","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Outlook India, 4 September 2026): relays the Express findings and the affidavit figures; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://internetfreedom.in/delhi-polices-facial-recognition-flagged-25-jailed-people-at-jantar-mantar-this-dragnet-must-end/","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Internet Freedom Foundation, Apar Gupta, 4 September 2026): advocacy analysis that relays the Express findings (same chain for the 25) and adds IFF's own 2022 RTI replies on the 80 per cent threshold, its 24 July 2026 representation and RTI applications.","independence_group":"iff-own-rti"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thefederal.com/the-federal-special/one-protest-two-probes-why-the-2873-person-fir-raises-questions-255688","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (The Federal, 4 September 2026): analysis of the Supreme Court order and the affidavit relying on the Express report; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether any of the 25 has been named in the fresh FIR, visited for field verification or otherwise acted against.","Whether the 25 (or the other 2,848 listed people) have been told they are on the list.","How many of the remaining 2,668 entries would fail the same check; the Express examined only the 205 most serious.","The vendor, algorithm and threshold actually applied at Jantar Mantar in July 2026.","The full text of the 17 August affidavit and the 1 September order (described as quoted).","Whether two or three of the four rape accused are POCSO cases: The Indian Express's narrative says two, its itemised list says three.","The protest window: The Indian Express and Outlook give 20 to 26 July; The Federal gives 20 to 25 July."],"geography":{"basis":"The protests and the facial-recognition deployment were at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi; the 25 were in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli and Rohini prisons; the affidavit and order are in the Supreme Court of India (The Indian Express, IFF, The Federal).","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which an AI system made a consequential claim about identifiable people: a police facial-recognition system placed at least 25 people who were in prison at a protest, on a sworn list that the Supreme Court permitted police to act on. The finding rests on The Indian Express's records investigation (one chain, relayed by Outlook, IFF and The Federal) with the affidavit and order described as quoted; the 80 per cent threshold rests on IFF's 2022 RTI replies, which IFF says the Express also relies on. The listed people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delhi Police's own affidavit, as quoted by The Indian Express, attributes the 2,873 identifications to its Facial Recognition System matching faces against the 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and criminal records; the Express's records check shows the system logged at least 25 people who were in custody. The affidavit was not inspected directly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Delhi: the police facial-recognition system logged at least 25 people who were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails as present at the Jantar Mantar student protests (20 to 26 July 2026), with timestamps on 24 to 26 July, on a sworn list of 2,873 persons with 'criminal antecedents' that the Supreme Court allowed police to register a fresh FIR against (Indian Express investigation, 4 September 2026)","summary":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-07-24","incidentEndDate":"2026-07-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Delhi Police Facial Recognition System (FRS): face-matching software run on protest footage against the police 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and other criminal records; the vendor and algorithm are not identified in the inspected reporting","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"At least 25 people in judicial custody were recorded by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest they could not have attended and were placed, in a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court, on a list of 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents against whom the Court permitted a fresh FIR and police field verification; The Indian Express reports the misidentifications and the Internet Freedom Foundation describes the exposure to verification visits and prosecution as the harm. No arrest, FIR entry or verification visit of any of the 25 is reported in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The Indian Express states 'at least 25 people on the list' were in jail when logged, and lists them (17 murder, four rape, four attempted murder). The other 2,668 entries were not checked, so the count is a documented minimum of 25.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","primarySourceLabel":"The Indian Express, 4 September 2026: Police say cameras 'caught' murder, rape accused at CJP protest - some were actually in jail (Express Investigation)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-24T03:46:45.247544+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.08761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","india","delhi","protest-surveillance","supreme-court","police","false-match","made-claim-about","jantar-mantar"]}]}