Bill Overview
Title: Facial Recognition Ban on Body Cameras Act
Description: This bill establishes a framework to prohibit federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition technology on images captured by body-worn cameras. Specifically, the bill prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition technology or other remote biometric surveillance systems on any image acquired by body-worn cameras of law enforcement officers. Additionally, the bill requires state and local governments to comply with a similar law or policy as a condition of receiving funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program.
Sponsors: Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially subject to facial recognition technology via law enforcement body cameras
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Law enforcement agencies across the United States will be restricted from using facial recognition technology on body-cam footage, impacting policy and operational practices.
- Citizens whose interactions with law enforcement could have been subject to facial recognition analysis will now be outside that scope.
- The law impacts both federal and state law enforcement agencies as it restricts the use of federal funds for non-complying local agencies.
- State and local government compliance will be necessary to receive grants, influencing local policies.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people who might come into contact with law enforcement and those concerned with privacy rights. It affects law enforcement agencies by restricting their surveillance methods, thus influencing operational procedures.
- Considering the extensive scope, not everyone will experience direct personal impact. Still, there might be indirect effects through awareness and perception of public safety and privacy.
- Budget constraints will limit extensive changes immediately, but the gradual phasing aims to allow comprehensive adoption over a decade, requiring adaptations from law enforcement unions and technology partners.
Simulated Interviews
police officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could limit our ability to efficiently utilize all available technology for catching repeat offenders.
- There could be increased public trust due to enhanced privacy controls, but operational challenges are expected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
civil rights attorney (New York, NY)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant win for privacy advocates as it restricts unwarranted surveillance.
- The policy will contribute positively to the general public’s sense of personal privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
local government official (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The condition to comply with this policy for grant eligibility forces us to adapt, though funding concerns could help motivate compliance.
- We need to educate stakeholders on compliance to avoid financial losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
shop owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While privacy is crucial, I worry this policy might slow down crime solving in my area.
- It’s a trade-off between personal privacy and immediate safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
college student (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for protecting individual freedoms and reducing unwarranted state surveillance.
- It will set a positive precedent for how technology and privacy should coexist.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve watched technologies encroach on privacy over time, and this policy feels like a necessary correction.
- It will enhance my peace of mind knowing I have more privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
data scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The widespread concerns about privacy require responsible AI deployment, and this policy aligns ethical use.
- Adjusting current projects will require more oversight but promotes balance between technology and privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
school teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I teach my students about the importance of civil liberties, so this policy is greatly aligned with democratic principles.
- I believe it will encourage more trust in institutions, though it could be perceived as hindering law enforcement efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
software developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technological advancements must consider ethical implications, hence this policy makes fundamental sense.
- It resonates with my position on responsible tech development and government accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
criminal justice professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ethical landscape of surveillance is evolving, and this policy reflects necessary governmental shifts.
- Educating future law enforcement on its importance will foster trust and transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The effect on privacy concerns might increase public trust in law enforcement.
- Re-allocation of resources required to monitor ban compliance might strain some smaller law enforcement agencies.
- Legal implications of current or future lawsuits regarding facial recognition technology could continue even after the ban.