Technology Committee Chair Carmen De La Rosa, who led Monday\u2019s proceedings, said the lack of transparency from OTI is a pattern of behavior that can be traced back to former Mayor Eric Adams. She pointed out that the council\u2019s previous two requests for information about agency use of these technologies, last June and December, went unanswered.<\/p>\n
And while Foard said OTI does not maintain a comprehensive list of all agencies collecting biometric data (he said he\u2019d have to \u201ctake that back\u201d to the agency\u2019s chief privacy officer for a complete answer), he did name three tools used by city agencies that rely on biometric data, disclosed in the 2024 Local Law 35 report<\/a>. These were the New York City Police Department\u2019s use of facial recognition technology in investigations, the Department of Investigation<\/a>\u2018s use of facial recognition in internal investigations; and the Office of Chief Medical Examiner\u2019s use of biometric data in its DNA database.<\/p>\n Foard said that even the reporting required by Local Law 35 likely doesn\u2019t accurately capture all the ways New York City agencies use biometric data, but that some uses would require disclosure under another city transparency law.<\/p>\n \u201cI do want to indicate that agencies could be using biometric data in ways that aren\u2019t involved in algorithmic decision making or AI or other uses, in which case we would not have visibility into that collection,\u201d Foard said. \u201cThat said, the collection of identifying information and biometric data would be covered under the Identifying Information Law<\/a>. Biometric data are considered identifying information, so any use that agencies are using to collect or or maintain those data would be governed by that law.\u201d <\/p>\n Foard also said each agency decides for itself whether its use of a technology meets the reporting criteria under the local law, adding that \u201cthere could be instances where we talk to an agency and they make a determination [that] it doesn\u2019t seem to quite fit.\u201d He also said that OTI cannot force agencies to report or change the tools they use, but that the agency instead coordinates the reporting efforts and works with the agencies on an advisory basis, providing them with both written guidance and one\u2011on\u2011one guidance as needed around using emerging technologies like AI.<\/p>\n But councilmembers were sharply critical of OTI for the agency\u2019s lack of information, enforcement power and strategy regarding the oversight of city government using these tools, as well as the agency\u2019s overly \u201cneutral\u201d or advisory posture, given the civil rights implications of government using these technologies. (OTI declined to comment further for this story.)<\/p>\n Chair De La Rosa did concede some leniency due to the agency\u2019s recent leadership change \u2014 Mayor Zohran Mamdani last month named Lisa\u00a0Gelobter<\/a>, an Obama-era Education Department appointee, to serve as his administration\u2019s chief technology officer and leader of OTI \u2014 but she said it did not excuse what she considered a lack of clear answers about citywide technology policies on biometric data and AI.<\/p>\n \u201cListen, I think that I understand that you all have just been appointed a new chief technology officer,\u201d De La Rosa said. \u201cToday\u2019s her first day, and I appreciate y\u2019all coming and being here and testifying, but I want to set the expectation that this committee is going to ask you all about citywide positions on things, because OTI has a directive to sort of be the clearing house for how technology is used across the city, and what we have seen here today is the inability for OTI to answer very basic questions that are policy positions that an agency should have clear.\u201d <\/p>\n
![\"Keely](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/dY969nH0-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n