上海黄浦区检察院发现某公园AI拍照装置违规保存上万张高清人脸,专家指出其涉多重隐私安全风险
AI互动拍照装置在公共场所走红,却暗藏违规收集人脸信息等安全风险。上海市黄浦区人民检察院履职发现某公园设备违规存储上万张高清人脸,且伴随霸王条款,目前已督促涉事企业完成整改。
AI-generated summary
AI互动拍照装置在各大景区和购物中心走红,但其在收集人脸等敏感个人信息时普遍缺乏用户明确授权。
近两年,AI互动拍照装置在各大景区、购物中心等公共场所悄然走红,成为线下商业场景的新晋流量担当。前不久,上海市黄浦区人民检察院在履职中发现,某公园内一台AI互动拍照装置,违规保存上万张高清人脸,看似便捷、新颖的AI拍照装置暗藏哪些安全风险?如何判断类似设备是否违规收集信息?
AI拍照机是一种结合人工智能技术与即时成像功能的设备,通过智能算法实现场景识别、图像优化及趣味互动,适用于商场、景区等高人流量场景。其核心价值在于降低专业摄影门槛,让普通用户无需复杂操作即可获得照片,同时支持多种创意玩法,满足社交分享需求。
记者在电商平台搜索发现,多个生产商都在售卖类似的AI拍照装置,价格在每台1.8万元到3万元不等。游客拍照后可以生成报纸、冰箱贴、纪念币等产品。
记者以景区运营方身份咨询了几位生产商,对方表示,该设备一般没有用户授权环节,拍照后,照片就会自动存储。另一位设备运营公司销售人员告诉记者,他们的设备拍摄的照片会自动保存在后台,设备管理者也可以把照片打包下载。
AI拍照设备暗藏人脸信息泄露隐患
一位从事网络安全的业内人士告诉记者,判断此类拍照互动设备是否存在隐私安全风险,一方面要看收集人脸信息的时候,是否经过了用户本人明确同意,只要是未经过本人同意的,肯定都是违规收集。而且运营商在相关页面要告知用户,采集的人脸信息用来干什么,存储时间等。另一方面要看设备运营商将用户人脸信息是否长期存储在云端,如果云端没有很好的安全保障措施,也有可能泄露用户人脸信息。
近期,上海市黄浦区人民检察院收到志愿者的反映,称某公园内有一台AI互动拍照装置,为游客免费提供“未来宝宝”合影服务,可能存在违法处理敏感个人信息的情况。该院公益检察室检察官陈雯介绍,这台设备,它是采取线下拍照机采集人脸和线上App深度合成模式。在整个过程当中,它没有告知用户,也没有获取单独同意,这其实是违反相关法律规定的。
检察机关随即向主管行政机关制发检察建议,督促其规范行业内个人信息处理行为。随后,企业增加提示告知弹窗、AI标识,规范个人信息收集行为,而看不见的存储端,问题要更加严重。
检察机关技术部门出具的取证分析报告显示,涉案设备内嵌的AI程序具备拍摄照片并上传功能,在相关应用文件夹中提取到所拍摄照片一万余张。这些照片中,还有路人的清晰人脸。陈雯表示,这个服务在本地和云端都违规存储了大量的消费者人脸信息,同时也发现后面消费者使用的App,将服务协议和隐私政策进行了捆绑,而且强制要求用户同意数据的永久存储,明显就是损害了个人信息权益的。
据介绍,该设备运营公司提供的用户协议与隐私政策,不仅没有清楚地说明谁在处理信息、保存多久,还偷偷塞进了“永久存储”“二次利用”“无条件出镜”等霸王条款。
陈雯表示,因企业本身的整改意愿也比较强,所以通过磋商的方式达成了整改协议,要求企业承担删除数据、修改隐私政策、增加注销功能等消除危险的民事责任。目前,这些本地云端存储的信息、页面都已进行整改完善。
AI互动拍照存在多重隐私安全风险
中国政法大学刑事司法学院教授李怀胜表示,AI互动拍照装置在技术层面存在多重隐私安全风险。用户必须勾选同意一揽子协议才能使用,这种‘不同意就不让用’的做法并非法律所要求的自愿、明确单独同意。人脸信息属于敏感个人信息,处理前必须取得个人的单独同意,遵循最小必要原则,并原则上存储于设备内,不得随意上传互联网。公共场所安装人脸识别设备必须是为维护公共安全所必需,并且设置显著标识,而以娱乐合影为目的采集显然不满足这一条件。
此外,使用深度合成技术生成图像还应添加显著标识,违规企业需承担行政责任和民事责任,情节严重的还可能触犯侵犯公民个人信息罪等刑事罪名。
提醒广大用户,个人信息的侵害具有不可逆性,消费者要提升自己的个人信息安全保护意识。
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
行政机关将规范行业内个人信息处理行为
Likely · Within months
The Ministry of Justice of China announced on October 10 that the "Fatong" website was officially launched online. This national foreign-related legal service platform has collected more than 1,800 Chinese foreign-related laws, regulations, and rules, as well as more than 1,500 legal resources covering 187 countries around the world, aiming to provide one-stop legal services for overseas companies and citizens.
The reporter learned from China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the 10th that since the launch of the special public interest litigation supervision activity of “Benefiting the Long March and Continuously Guarding”, the procuratorial organs of 15 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) along the Long March have filed a total of 434 cases and urged the protection of hundreds of Long March cultural relics and revolutionary commemorative facilities.
On October 10, 2026, the Intermediate People's Court of Shangqiu City, Henan Province publicly sentenced Zhou Xianwang, a former member and vice chairman of the Hubei Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, for accepting bribes in the first instance. Zhou Xianwang was sentenced to 14 years in prison for accepting bribes and fined RMB 5 million, with his criminal proceeds turned over to the state treasury in accordance with the law.
On October 10, the Ministry of Justice held a press conference to announce the official launch of the national foreign-related legal service platform "Fatong". It focuses on the needs of "going global" enterprises and citizens, and provides integrated legal resources, customized problem-solving and linkage legal team building support.

U.S. President Trump asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his decision against 2016 election opponent Hillary Clinton. Clinton's lawsuit. Trump previously accused Hillary of conspiring with former FBI Director Comey and others to link his campaign to Russia. The case was previously dismissed and ruled against by the district court.

China's Supreme People's Court and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage jointly released six typical cases of cultural relic crimes. Among them, Yu Moucai was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined for his obsession with tomb robbing novels and organizing the excavation of ancient tombs in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. The court pointed out that the fictional content of tomb robbing novels is essentially different from legal archaeological work, and unauthorized excavations will be held criminally responsible.