Why EFF doesn’t support bans on private use of face recognition
14 minute read
An employee at a cafe, which uses a unified biometric facial recognition system for payments, in Moscow, Russia, 25 March 2020, Gavriil GrigorovTASS via Getty Images Instead of a prohibition on private use, EFF supports strict laws to ensure that each of us is empowered to choose if and by whom our faceprints may be collected.
This statement was originally published on eff.org on 20 January 2021.
Government and private use of face recognition technology each present a wealth of concerns. Privacy, safety, and amplification of carceral bias are just some of the reasons why we must ban government use.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On January 28, 2021, privacy professionals around the world will celebrate Data Privacy Day. This year, we decided to mark the occasion by gathering our team’s thoughts and expectations on what we expect to be the biggest privacy law stories in 2021 and beyond.
Last year we wrote a similar article, attempting to predict how the privacy landscape would unfold in 2020. We got some things right (e.g., the emergence of CCPA 2.0). But, let’s be honest, in March everything changed, including privacy law. As spring turned into summer our writing focused on the privacy law implications of COVID-19, including contact tracing, no contact temperature taking, and the unanticipated collection of heath information, among other unexpected topics. We also took note of developments overseas, including the Court of Justice of the European Union’s
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Data Breach s Lack of Sensitive Information Creates Barrier to Standing in Federal CCPA Lawsuit | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
For some time now, employers have been the main target of a relentless wave of class action lawsuits by employees alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) in connection with the use fingerprint scans for timekeeping purposes. Recently, however, employees and the plaintiff’s bar have added a new primary target for such suits: third-party biometric timekeeping technology vendors. To date, vendors’ ability to avoid or limit liability under BIPA has been mixed. But there are several defenses that – while still being developed and refined by the courts – may prove useful for vendors to extricate themselves from bet-the-company BIPA suits or, at a minimum, trim the scope of potential liability.