NY State Senate Bill Would Ban Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology
The bill would also create a task force to examine how to regulate biometric technology in the future, with seats reserved for the state police and the New York City Police Department, among other agencies.
January 27, 2020 at 02:36 PM
4 minute read
A new bill in the New York State Senate would prevent police from using facial recognition technology and some other kinds of biometric surveillance while creating a task force to research future use of the technology.
The bill, introduced Monday by State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, would still allow police and other law enforcement officials to use DNA and fingerprints to identify people and link them to potential crimes.
But Hoylman, who chairs the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee, said newer biometric technology such as facial recognition "presents a chilling threat to our privacy and civil liberties."
"Facial recognition technology threatens to end every New Yorker's ability to walk down the street anonymously," he said in a statement.
Hoylman cited research showing that facial recognition algorithms struggle to recognize women, people of color, young people and transgender or gender nonconforming people.
Lawyers at The Legal Aid Society and the New York Civil Liberties Union praised the proposal, saying that the technology is inaccurate and easily abused.
"This legislation provides critical protections for New Yorkers against harmful and discriminatory technologies that do little more than subject communities of color to wrongful targeting, interrogation, detention and conviction," NYCLU lead policy counsel Michael Sisitzky said in a statement.
The bill would also create a task force to examine how to regulate biometric technology in the future, with seats reserved for state police and the New York City Police Department, among other agencies.
Hoylman said he was specifically concerned by the NYPD's use of facial recognition and an app created by Clearview AI, which searches internet images to help law enforcement identify people.
The bill was introduced about a week after the New York Times published a major report raising concerns about Clearview called "The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It."
The article questioned whether the app's capabilities have been appropriately audited. A Clearview spokeswoman said Monday that the company is not releasing the names of people on an "independent panel of experts" that has evaluated the app, according to the Clearview website.
Tor Ekeland, outside counsel for Clearview, said the company welcomes more conversation on the responsible use of facial recognition technology, although he had some concerns about the broad wording of Hoylman's bill.
The Clearview app is only available to law enforcement users, not the general public. Ekeland, whose firm, Tor Ekeland Law PLLC, is based in Brooklyn, said the company wants to keep its technology out of the hands of bad actors.
An NYPD spokeswoman said in a statement that it would be negligent if the department didn't use facial recognition technology.
"The NYPD identifies suspects by comparing a still image from a surveillance video to a pool of lawfully possessed arrest photos and this technology helps bring justice to victims," the statement said. "A facial recognition match is solely a lead — no one has ever been arrested solely on the basis of a computer match, no matter how compelling."
She added that the department has not yet reviewed the specific language of the bill.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLegal Leaders See AI's Multitude of Uses as Both Blessing and Curse
'We Are Becoming Scapegoats': One Year Post-SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure Updates and Impacting Rulings
Global Tech Outage Affects NY Court System Statewide Early Friday
As US Antitrust Enforcers Target AI Firms, Legal Experts Predict Lawsuits Will Follow
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250