Overview
Title
To prohibit use of remote biometric surveillance technology on any data acquired by body-worn cameras of law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to stop the police from using special technology that can recognize faces or capture other personal details from videos recorded by cameras they wear, to help protect people's privacy. It also asks states to follow similar rules if they want to get federal money.
Summary AI
H.R. 9954 aims to ban the use of facial recognition and other remote biometric surveillance technologies on data collected by body-worn cameras used by law enforcement officers. It argues that such technologies pose threats to civil rights, often misidentifying individuals, and turning body cameras into surveillance tools rather than transparency tools. The bill ensures that no federal law enforcement agency can use these technologies on body camera data and sets conditions for states receiving federal funding, encouraging them to enact similar prohibitions. The legislation also defines different types of biometric surveillance and specifies certain exemptions where their use is permissible.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Facial Recognition Ban on Body Cameras Act," aims to prohibit the use of remote biometric surveillance technologies, such as facial recognition, on data collected by law enforcement officers' body-worn cameras. Introduced in the House of Representatives, this bill underscores the concerns around privacy, civil liberties, and potential for misuse of biometric surveillance technologies, especially those that operate remotely. The bill sets out clear definitions for terms like "body-worn camera" and "biometric surveillance system," and specifies that these technologies would not be allowed to be used in federal law enforcement without exceptions or conditions.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise within the context of this bill. One notable concern is the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes "other remote biometric surveillance systems." Without precise descriptions, this could lead to misinterpretation, inconsistent enforcement, and potential loopholes. Additionally, the bill does not outline specific penalties or enforcement mechanisms for violations, which may render the prohibition ineffective. Moreover, terms like "substantially similar" laws in Section 3 are vague, potentially leading to varied interpretations by different states. The broad definition of "body-worn camera," which includes mobile phones, might cause confusion about which devices are covered. Lastly, the bill lacks a detailed exploration of exemptions or conditions under which this prohibition might not apply, leaving law enforcement in challenging situations without clear guidance.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill addresses growing public concerns over privacy and the potential misuse of surveillance technologies. If implemented, it could significantly enhance privacy protections for individuals, particularly those who feel over-policed or disproportionately surveilled. The prohibition on these technologies could prevent the unjust identification of individuals based on incorrect or misleading biometric data, fostering greater trust in law enforcement practices.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For civil rights advocates, this bill represents a positive step toward safeguarding individual freedoms and reducing the potential for surveillance overreach. Communities wary of being under constant surveillance may view this as a protective measure against invasive biometrics. On the other hand, law enforcement agencies might see this prohibition as a constraint on utilizing technology that could help in effective policing and crime solving. Without being able to leverage these technologies, officers might face challenges in certain operational scenarios that traditionally would benefit from biometric systems.
In a nuanced consideration, technology developers and providers might experience changes in the market demand for biometric tools, shifting their focus toward technologies that align with the new legal landscape. Meanwhile, local governments could face financial implications, especially if they rely on federal grants conditioned on compliance with similar prohibitive measures.
Overall, while the bill strongly emphasizes protecting civil liberties, it simultaneously raises questions about effective law enforcement and precise legal language required to implement such societal safeguards.
Issues
The lack of clarity on what constitutes 'other remote biometric surveillance systems' in Section 4 could lead to misinterpretation. This could result in inconsistent enforcement or loopholes where certain technologies are not covered by the prohibition.
The bill does not specify penalties or enforcement mechanisms in Section 4 if the prohibition is violated, which may undermine its effectiveness. Without clear consequences, the prohibition may be difficult to enforce.
Section 3 lacks clarity on what constitutes 'substantially similar' laws or policies to the prohibition set forth in Section 4, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretation and application by different States or local governments.
The definition of 'body-worn camera' in Section 5 seems to include devices like mobile phones, which could lead to confusion about what devices are covered under this term. This broad definition might have unintended implications for regulation.
The broad definition of 'biometric surveillance system' in Section 5 could inadvertently include a wide range of technologies. Clarification may be needed on the intended scope and limitations, to avoid overregulation or unintended restrictions.
There is no indication of exemptions or conditions under which the prohibition in Section 4 might not apply, which could lead to operational constraints for law enforcement in certain situations where biometric technologies could be beneficial.
The term 'other remote biometric surveillance' in Section 5 includes technology that logs characteristics to infer emotion, associations, activities, or the location of an individual, which might be considered excessively invasive and may face significant ethical and legal challenges.
The rule of construction in Section 3 states that it does not preempt more stringent limitations, but it does not clearly define what constitutes a 'stringent limitation.' This vagueness might lead to confusion about states' rights and limitations.
There is an overlap between the terms 'facial recognition' and 'biometric surveillance system' in Section 5, which could lead to redundancy or misunderstandings regarding the regulation and use of these technologies.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act provides its short title, which is the “Facial Recognition Ban on Body Cameras Act.” This means that anywhere in the document, the act can be referred to by this name.
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has identified several concerns regarding the use of facial recognition and remote biometric surveillance technologies. These concerns include threats to civil rights, privacy violations, the potential for misuse by creating large databases, increased risk of misidentification of certain groups, erosion of the purpose of body-worn cameras, unforeseeable impacts on highly policed communities, and a possible negative effect on public safety by discouraging cooperation with law enforcement.
3. Prohibiting use of facial recognition technology and other remote biometric surveillance systems Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A state or local government cannot receive certain federal funding unless it follows a law similar to one in the bill that bans facial recognition technology and other similar surveillance systems. Additionally, this section does not override any existing laws that impose stricter rules on facial recognition.
4. Federal prohibition Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A federal law enforcement agency is not allowed to use facial recognition technology or other remote biometric surveillance tools on images, videos, or audio that come from body cameras worn by law enforcement officers.
5. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the Act, key terms are defined, including "biometric surveillance system," which refers to technology like facial recognition software; "body-worn camera," meaning devices that record or transmit sound or images and can include mobile phones and smart glasses; "facial recognition," indicating automated processes for identifying people using facial features; "other remote biometric surveillance," for identifying individuals based on physical characteristics like gaits or fingerprints from a distance; and "use," specifying how biometric systems are employed by law enforcement, with certain exclusions for privacy protection.