5 ms·

No mention of Illinois, which is the state with the only biometric privacy law with teeth. >The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was passed by the Illi

No mention of Illinois, which is the state with the only biometric privacy law with teeth. >The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was passed by the Illinois General Assembly on October 3, 2008. Codified as 740 ILCS/14 and Public Act 095-994, the BIPA guards against the unlawful collection and storing of biometric information.[1] When Illinois passed the law in 2008, it became the first state to regulate the collection of biometric information.[2] Washington and Texas have since passed similar laws.[3] However, the BIPA remains the only law that allows private individuals to file a lawsuit for damages stemming from a violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_Information_Privacy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_Information_Privacy_... Edit: my conspiracy theory is that the tech industry's lobbyists are pushing for legislation on privacy at the federal level because they know such a law would be more watered down than what states would pass. And almost certainly much weaker than IL's current laws in protecting privacy in this regard.

throwaway184720 7y ago
Google won against Illinois in a recent case: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recognition-software/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recog...
- JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
  Heads they win tails you lose. So the IL law supposedly prevents the collection and retention of data but the judge dismissed the case because collecting and storing the data isn't enough to sue them on its own without farther proof of damages...
  - gowld 7y ago
    Apparently the IL Supreme Court issued a ruling contradictory to the District Court's Google Photos ruling, a month later: https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illinois-supreme-court https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illino... There are legal technicalities about if the Google case is appealable on that basis, and what the result of the next similar lawsuit will be.
- autoexec 7y ago
  > "But a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang on Saturday found that the law cannot be used to protect users from the non-consensual collection of information about what many consider to be private" If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? Storming Google's data centers by force? The legal system is supposed to be the acceptable option so mobs and violence aren't all we have. Eliminate legal recourse and what's left?
  - Cederfjard 7y ago
    Well, you pass better laws.
    - autoexec 7y ago
      How should the law have been written to resolve the problems with Article III standing?
      - gowld 7y ago
        The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private. The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.
        autoexec 7y ago
        read the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place. It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway184720 7y ago

Google won against Illinois in a recent case: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recognition-software/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recog...

JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
Heads they win tails you lose. So the IL law supposedly prevents the collection and retention of data but the judge dismissed the case because collecting and storing the data isn't enough to sue them on its own without farther proof of damages...
- gowld 7y ago
  Apparently the IL Supreme Court issued a ruling contradictory to the District Court's Google Photos ruling, a month later: https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illinois-supreme-court https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illino... There are legal technicalities about if the Google case is appealable on that basis, and what the result of the next similar lawsuit will be.
autoexec 7y ago
> "But a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang on Saturday found that the law cannot be used to protect users from the non-consensual collection of information about what many consider to be private" If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? Storming Google's data centers by force? The legal system is supposed to be the acceptable option so mobs and violence aren't all we have. Eliminate legal recourse and what's left?
- Cederfjard 7y ago
  Well, you pass better laws.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    How should the law have been written to resolve the problems with Article III standing?
    - gowld 7y ago
      The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private. The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.
      - autoexec 7y ago
        read the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place. It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]