Erie County just passed one of the first county-level bans on private retailers using biometric surveillance.<\/p>\n
When shoppers walk into a grocery store, they expect security cameras. Few expect the store to analyze their faces, eyes, and voices.<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, customers entering some Wegmans stores in New York City learned that the retailer was using facial recognition technology<\/a> in its locations and storing customers\u2019 biometric data. The disclosure, required under a 2021 city ordinance governing biometric collection, initially drew little attention beyond the city. <\/p>\n But when the Buffalo-based Investigative Post<\/a> asked whether Wegmans was also using the technology in Western New York stores, the company\u2019s lack of response drew concern from local lawmakers.<\/p>\n Now, Erie County has banned private-sector biometric collection<\/a> outright, becoming the first county in the state and one of the first major counties across the United States to do so.<\/p>\n For Erie County Legislator Lawrence Dupre, who represents Buffalo\u2019s predominantly Black East Side and introduced the legislation on May 26<\/a>, the unanswered questions raised a larger issue: how much personal information should private companies be allowed to collect from people who simply walk through their doors?.<\/p>\n \u201cThat silence [from Wegmans] is what drove my initial response,\u201d Dupre told Next City via email. \u201cMy constituents live in neighborhoods where surveillance has become the norm. We are already watched and profiled as we go about our lives. When I learned that the same corporations operating in our neighborhoods might be building biometric databases without telling us, I initially responded with a bill that was modeled on what New York City passed in 2021.\u201d<\/p>\n It took three years for the city to pass its biometric privacy law. What began as a proposal requiring businesses to disclose biometric collection ultimately evolved into one of the nation\u2019s most restrictive local laws regulating commercial facial recognition technology.<\/p>\n The more Dupre studied biometric surveillance, the more he concluded that transparency alone would not solve the problem. A disclosure requirement, he argued, amounted to little more than a permission slip.<\/p>\n \u201cYou are telling businesses: go ahead and collect this permanent, irreplaceable data, just put up a sign first. A ban was the right response because the data itself is the danger.\u201d<\/p>\n On April 30, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz signed the Biometric Transparency and Privacy Act<\/a> into law. The measure prohibits private businesses from collecting, using, retaining, or selling biometric identifiers, including facial recognition data, in most commercial settings. Violators face fines of up to $5,000 per day.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can reset a password. You cannot reset your face,\u201d said Dupre during the press conference<\/a> announcing the new law. <\/p>\n According to the New York Civil Liberties Union<\/a>, the new measure is necessary to address the rise of facial recognition technology in businesses in response to evidence that the technology was frequently inaccurate and racially biased, leading to wrongful harassment, removal from establishments, arrests, and even jail time for misidentified individuals.<\/p>\n Wegmans later confirmed<\/a> that it had deployed facial recognition technology in \u201ca small fraction\u201d of its stores, saying biometric information was not shared with third parties and was retained only as long as necessary for security purposes. The company did not disclose how long data was stored, stating only that its retention practices align with industry standards, nor did it identify how many locations used the technology or where they were located.<\/p>\n Facial recognition technology has rapidly become embedded in everyday life. It unlocks smartphones, verifies identities at airports, and increasingly serves as a security tool for retailers and entertainment venues<\/a>. Yet privacy advocates argue that regulation has failed to keep pace with adoption.<\/p>\n Fight for the Future<\/a>, a digital rights organization, has identified numerous retailers<\/a> that either use or may be using facial recognition technology in stores. <\/p>\n Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director for Fight for the Future, told Next City that the growth of biometric surveillance is occurring largely outside public awareness.<\/p>\n \u201cThe retail industry is sensitive to customer outcry, and that is the most effective lever we have found for self-regulation short of passing a law. However, outcry has also gotten less effective over time as the surveillance industry pours millions of PR and marketing dollars into overcoming how unwanted their technology is.\u201d<\/p>\n The United States currently has no comprehensive federal law regulating facial recognition technology. <\/p>\n