New York City's New Biometrics Privacy Law Takes Effect (techcrunch.com) 13
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A new biometrics privacy ordinance has taken effect across New York City, putting new limits on what businesses can do with the biometric data they collect on their customers. From Friday, businesses that collect biometric information -- most commonly in the form of facial recognition and fingerprints -- are required to conspicuously post notices and signs to customers at their doors explaining how their data will be collected. The ordinance applies to a wide range of businesses -- retailers, stores, restaurants and theaters, to name a few -- which are also barred from selling, sharing or otherwise profiting from the biometric information that they collect.
The move will give New Yorkers -- and its millions of visitors each year -- greater protections over how their biometric data is collected and used, while also serving to dissuade businesses from using technology that critics say is discriminatory and often doesn't work. Businesses can face stiff penalties for violating the law, but can escape fines if they fix the violation quickly. The law is by no means perfect, as none of these laws ever are. For one, it doesn't apply to government agencies, including the police. Of the businesses that the ordinance does cover, it exempts employees of those businesses, such as those required to clock in and out of work with a fingerprint. And the definition of what counts as a biometric will likely face challenges that could expand or narrow what is covered.
The move will give New Yorkers -- and its millions of visitors each year -- greater protections over how their biometric data is collected and used, while also serving to dissuade businesses from using technology that critics say is discriminatory and often doesn't work. Businesses can face stiff penalties for violating the law, but can escape fines if they fix the violation quickly. The law is by no means perfect, as none of these laws ever are. For one, it doesn't apply to government agencies, including the police. Of the businesses that the ordinance does cover, it exempts employees of those businesses, such as those required to clock in and out of work with a fingerprint. And the definition of what counts as a biometric will likely face challenges that could expand or narrow what is covered.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
It's all well and good to explain how people's data will be (mis)used, but if they don't have the option to say "well, that don't sit right with me, I decline / opt-out / I'll go someplace else / do something else", then it's just plain useless and kind of rubs it in doesn't it?
AICU (Score:2)
For one, it doesn't apply to government agencies, including the police.
Oh this should be fun. [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: AICU (Score:1)
Weird. In the Germany it absolutely does apply *everywhere*. In fact our government overdid it to a point where different municipal authorities cannot even share data they both need to do what you asked them to. E.g. you need to fill a paper form with your address multiple times, and cannot even give them a signed thing saying they are allowed to share the data with the other authority. Granted, this is partially because they still print out the Internet. (You literally get your e-mail replies via snail mai
How about, (Score:3)
they just ban the practice altogether, as in make it illegal. And not any of this namby pamby "fines" shit - executive asses in jail for multi-year sentences if companies are caught collecting biometric data. But no, the corporate masters that actually run the country would never allow it. One small step for the corporations, one giant leap for the nation - a leap towards total and irreversible violation of privacy and autonomy. Ain't it grand to be a pawn?
pissing in the wind on the Panopiticon (Score:1)
They will "tell" the Tech companies what they want and give them all the outs they need.
Re: pissing in the wind on the Panopiticon (Score:1)
No, it depends on your chances if you sue.
Over here, the chances are actually not that bad.
But it's a lot more effort to sue.
Dunno about the US.
This is great (Score:1)
Finally, a reasonable biometrics law (Score:2)
This is reasonable... instead of prohibiting the use of the technology entirely, laws are crafted surrounding the use the of the technology so that it is illegal to use the technology in ways that compromise someone's safety or security.
Like what we do for automobiles, or guns.
Talking from experience: (Score:1)
In the EU, where this already is implemented... they always find "reasons" to put on those signs. The other half of the job is actually making sure it's easy to complain about overreach and get your admi istation to force them to stop it.
Otherwise, unless people actually boycot such shops so much it actually hurts, or if it becomes a selling point, it's just lip service.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, without prior written and informed consent, all they can do in Europe is record video. If they use it for biometrics that would be a criminal act.
Pathetic (Score:2)
If you collect fingerprints and faces without written prior and informed consent in Europe, you go to jail.