Is biometric identification legally binding?

Question

Law in IT

Good evening! It is required to install a door lock with a fingerprint scanner in the enterprise building. If the controller saves identification records (door opening/closing time and who did it) to the server database, then in case of theft of equipment in the room (or other illegal actions), it will be possible to provide such records from the database as evidence when accusing a person? The database will have a limited number of fingerprints of people who can open the door. Or how to make such records legally binding? I thought to dig in the direction of an electronic digital signature, but to oblige all employees of the enterprise to do it is a rather troublesome task.
For example, you can confirm your personal public services account through any branch of the Russian Post, for this you only need a passport. After that, any operations on this portal will be legally valid? If you send deliberately false data from a verified account to the site, can you blame a person on such grounds?

Answer 1

At a minimum, the scanner must be certified that it is a measuring device and reads the biometric information that by some law guarantees the unique identification of a particular person (for fingerprinting, this is, as it were). Naturally, the accounting system must be certified for guarantees of its safety from counterfeiting and wiping.
Well, yes, the most important thing is that it will be necessary to reform the enterprise before the court / prosecutor's office (in order to bring charges) -))
More effective in real life:
- organizational measures (starting from regulations, job descriptions, employment contracts and liability agreements
- technical measures simpler (banal video recording, access control)
All the same, in the end, if it comes to attracting investigators, video materials, ACS logs and organizational documents will be only grounds for them to "pump" the suspect.

Answer 2

Как одно из свидетельств суд может принять запись такого сканера. Но, возможно, нужна будет экспертиза, что никто не мог вмешаться в работу системы и внести произвольную запись в базу данных или изменить уже имеющуюся запись.

Answer 3

Имеет ли биометрическая идентификация юридическую силу?

Разумеется нет.
Это все равно что спросить -имеет ли запах юридическую силу...
А это не закон и не документ, это просто действие.

Или как сделать так, чтобы такие записи имели юридическую силу?

Никак. Поскольку опять же запись не является законом или документом.

можно подтвердить личный аккаунт гос.услуг через любое отделение Почты России, для этого нужен только паспорт. После этого любые операции на этом портале будут иметь юридическую силу?

Еще раз- юридическую силу может иметь только закон или документ.
Поэтому как минимум их надо сделать законом или документом, тогда они могут теоретически иметь юридическую силу.
А чтобы гарантированно имели - нужно привести их требуемый вид, согласно законодательству.
В законодательстве четко определено когда и какие законы и документы имеют юридическую силу.
Скажите о каком законе или документе идет речь, и тогда можно будет подсказать что-то конкретное.

Answer 4

In a similar formulation of the question - no.
In principle, you can collect such data only if you follow a bunch of procedures - they have already been listed a little higher. Regulations, instructions, descriptions, provisions, familiarizations, etc. And that's not all, since this system will include a certain number of elements - somewhere the information is stored, somehow processed, it "runs" along some wires.
Let's simplify the question to an analogy.
Will an ACS record made according to the “card” familiar to everyone be evidence in court?
No.
The thing is that with the knowledge and skills that the owner of the system, by definition, has, such records can be falsified.
Read the cases where evidence appears, which are objects with fingerprints (I'm simplifying the terminology). In no case does the Court base its decision on the existence of such evidence in the case. All of them are indirect.
Thus, the answer to your question will not be specific, but there can be no other way yet:
No, system records made on the basis of a triggered "fingerprint sensor" cannot be accepted as evidence. However, subject to a number of conditions, can be taken into account.
Council - video surveillance. The Courts are already accustomed to it and, although the situation there is the same, they perceive such records more readily.
Well, in order of replica - Courts are different. Small ones, such as the world ones, may well create any heresy on the ground and, as a result, they can either accept it as an evidence base or leave the proposed without consideration at all.