Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) introduced a bill pertaining to law enforcement and the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance.
According to the AB 1034, it would prohibit a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. The bill would authorize a person to bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief against a law enforcement agency or officer who violates that prohibition. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2034.
The bill was introduced on February 15 and already amended as of March 2.
Another bill which was introduced by Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) dealing with facial recognition technology, AB 642, states by July 1 of 2024, any law enforcement agency, as defined, that uses facial recognition technology (FRT), as defined, to have a written policy governing the use of that technology. The bill would require any FRT system used to meet certain national standards and would limit the use of FRT to use as an investigative aid, as described. The bill would specifically prohibit the use of any FRT-generated match from being the sole basis for probable cause in an arrest, search, or warrant. The bill would also require an agency using FRT to post their written policy and an annual summary of FRT usage, as specified, on their internet website.
Here is a look at AB 1034:
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
SEC. 2.
Section 832.19 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 832.18, to read:
832.19.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
SECTION 1.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation protecting the rights of Californians against the use of biometric surveillance by law enforcement.
4 comments
AB642 at least has some logic to it. This bill (AB1034) is simply a total 10-year prohibition against biometric technology and can be likened to killing a fly with a sledge hammer – it would do more harm than good.
There is some logic to AB642 which would regulate biometric technology use. There is no logic to Wilson’s AB1034 – a ten year flat prohibition on its use. That’s analogous to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly and is just political pandering. The ill effects would outweigh any positive ones.
She protekting her peoples! If you aint a criminal you got nuffin to worry bout.
We need to be much tougher on crime. But not using methods like big brother is watching you. The government should let us the people alone.
Comments are closed.