ACLU Comment on Newly Released FTC Policy Statement on Biometrics
WASHINGTON — The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released a policy statement on , focused on protecting individuals from risks posed by the use of biometrics — data that describes a person’s physical, biological, or behavioral traits — and technology.
The policy statement clarifies how the FTC’s existing authority to address unfair and deceptive practices applies to biometrics. It makes clear that false or unsubstantiated claims relating to the reliability or fairness of biometrics or the failure to assess and mitigate the harms from their use may fall within the FTC’s enforcement authority.
The policy statement builds on increasing recognition that privacy protections must go beyond “notice-and-consent” and instead must provide substantive protections that restrict data collection at the source, as highlighted by and . The ACLU has championed limitations on the collection and use of biometrics at the federal and state levels and defended individuals’ right to control their biometrics in court.
The following comment is from Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel in the National Political Advocacy Department at the American Civil Liberties Union:
“This is a good step forward by the FTC to exercise its existing authority to protect individuals from harms arising from the collection, use, and disclosure of their biometric identifiers. Biometrics are particularly sensitive and prone to abuse, and their use and collection often occur without individuals’ knowledge or any meaningful opportunity to avoid the risks they pose. Those risks include the loss of anonymity, persistent tracking of movements and activities, and harms from being misidentified, which disproportionately affect people of color and members of other marginalized communities. The FTC appropriately recognizes that failure to identify and mitigate those risks may constitute an unfair practice, subject to the FTC’s enforcement. The ACLU welcomes the FTC’s guidance and looks forward to future steps to protect individuals’ control over their privacy.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.