Massachusetts Poised To Become The Next State To (Temporarily) Ban Facial Recognition Tech

from the but-there-are-lots-of-exceptions dept

Another state is looking to join California in banning facial recognition tech by law enforcement. Massachusetts legislators have just passed a bill that would outlaw facial recognition use in the state, following up on similar bans passed by cities within the state.

Massachusetts lawmakers have voted to pass a new police reform bill that will ban police departments and public agencies from using facial recognition technology across the state.

The bill was passed by both the state’s House and Senate on Tuesday, a day after senior lawmakers announced an agreement that ended months of deadlock.

At this point, it's not a full-on ban. But it does prevent law enforcement agencies from acquiring the tech until the end of 2021, at which point legislators will discuss a complete ban or the institution of other restrictions on its use. This moratorium is part of a bigger police reform bill, one that bans chokeholds and rubber bullets while pushing for intervention by police officers if they observe another officer violating rights. Ending qualified immunity in the state is no longer on the table, though, shouted down by the state's police unions.

That being said, this temporary ban is bigger than California's. California's moratorium (effective until 2022) only prevents the use of facial recognition tech in police body cameras. Everything else is still allowed for the time being. The moratorium in Massachusetts would prevent law enforcement agencies from acquiring any version of this tech.

But it would allow law enforcement to run searches through the state's motor vehicle database. The state DMV will still be allowed to use biometrics to verify individuals seeking vehicle licenses and other permits. However, if a law enforcement agency utilizes this option (which is limited to warrant execution and other "immediate danger of death or serious injury" situations), an affidavit justifying the search must be filed with the court and the person targeted by the search notified within 72 hours. The DMV is also obligated to publish periodic reports on searches run by law enforcement agencies.

But there may be some opposition ahead. Even though this has passed both legislative branches, it still needs the governor's signature. Last year, Governor Charlie Baker stated he wasn't interested in regulating this tech at the state level, giving this bizarre response to journalists.

My understanding is most of that’s regulated at this point at the federal level,” Baker told reporters Monday, following a Herald report on the spread of the technology and lack of controls. “Whether or not it should be regulated at the state level is something we’ve had conversations about, but they’re not to the point where we’d be ready to file legislation.”

The tech is very definitely not regulated at the federal level. The only legislation targeting this tech has been passed by cities and states. Congress may have expressed an interest in taking on the tech, but nothing has made its way to the president's desk, much less made it out of committee. Federal agencies -- especially those operating under the DHS's unwatchful eye -- are big fans of biometric surveillance and very few federal legislators seem interested in tempering their acquisition and deployment of the tech.

The tech remains highly problematic and under-regulated. If this bill becomes law, it will at least force the state of Massachusetts to confront these issues before moving forward with tech acquisitions. A little more scrutiny might go a long way.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: facial recognition, massachusetts


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), 7 Dec 2020 @ 11:15pm

    off topic - broken links

    Ever since the addition of the yellow notice box asking for support, the <next article> link between articles have been missing from random articles (but the missing link is persistent even on refresh/ cache clear).
    The previous article (Florida State Police raid) doesn't link to this article. This article does have the the link to that article though (all articles missing the next article link still have previous article links)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 11:30am

      Re: off topic - broken links

      Hmm, definitely something weird going on with he prev/next links on some posts - thanks for catching this, we're looking into it!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dave (profile), 8 Dec 2020 @ 3:15am

    They've drafted this wrongly

    It appears to ban all kinds of things they didn't mean to include, like face recognition of suspects by humans which involves in any respect, however small, technological assistance.

    It does seem a bit odd to prevent police arresting a suspect they recognise unless they were only told he's wanted by a human, rather than via a computer system.

    At least they haven't gone the way US states usually go with this kind of thing, and banned the possession of confusing faces.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2020 @ 9:22am

    "banned the possession of confusing faces."

    Some states disallow subject from smiling during their drivers license photo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.