Stalled surveillance bill highlights tension between privacy and public safety

CHICAGO — Backers of a bill aimed at limiting law enforcement’s use of biometric surveillance say they’re not looking to move the measure this legislative session.

House Bill 5521, the proposed Biometric Surveillance Act, would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using or accessing facial recognition tools. But it failed to meet a March 27 committee deadline and was sent back to the House Rules committee the same day a man suspected of killing a Loyola University freshman was arrested with the help of facial recognition, according to authorities.

Advocates for the bill say they are wary of debates happening in the wake of major news events, which can emphasize the technology’s role in investigations over its risks, including misidentification of individuals and expanded surveillance.

Stakeholders say surveillance programs always represent a tradeoff between perceived public safety benefits and privacy concerns.

“Used well, it’s a lead that can be used in conjunction with other evidence to break open a case,” said Matthew Kugler, a professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law who studies how public perceptions of biometric tools shape regulation. “Used badly, it is overly trusting of an artificial intelligence system and just outsourcing one’s thinking to it entirely.”

Biometric data in Illinois

Biometric data broadly refers to information based on unique physical characteristics that can be used to identify individuals, such as facial features, fingerprints, iris scans or voiceprints. HB 5521 primarily targets facial recognition tools, allowing fingerprinting and forensic evidence collection at crime scenes to continue.

Illinois has long had one of the nation’s strongest biometric privacy laws, according to the ACLU of Illinois. Passed unanimously in 2008, the Biometric Information Privacy Act restricts how private companies can collect and use biometric data. But the law does not apply to government entities, leaving law enforcement use of tools like facial recognition largely unregulated.

Jeramie Scott, director of the national nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center’s surveillance oversight program, said growing concerns about government use of biometric identification systems stem in part from the technology’s rapid advancement. As a result, Scott said, the legal system is working to catch up.

Part of the issue is that the extent to which biometric surveillance is used by the government is not fully known, according to the ACLU. That lack of transparency, the ACLU and other advocates say, raises concerns about how broadly the technology is being deployed and whether it could expand beyond its intended use.

In a statement, Illinois State Police Chief Public Information Officer Melaney Arnold told Capitol News Illinois that facial recognition tools currently are used for limited purposes that include criminal investigations and active threats to public safety.

“ISP may use image matching for an active or ongoing criminal investigation, to mitigate an imminent threat to health or safety, or when there is reasonable suspicion an identifiable individual has committed a criminal offense or is involved in or planning criminal activity, including terrorism, that presents a threat to any individual, the community, or the nation,” the statement said.

ISP did not comment on the pending legislation.

Representatives of the ACLU also said surveillance is a concern in Chicago, where police have access to a network of roughly 30,000 public and private surveillance cameras across the city, making it one of the most “extensive and integrated” systems in the country.

Discourse about the bill

Many witness slips filed in opposition to the bill have come from law enforcement groups like Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association and a few individual police departments.

Rep. Patrick Sheehan, R-Homer Glen, who has spent nearly two decades in law enforcement, voiced his opposition to the bill on social media.

“Imagine having to tell a victim’s family the technology that could have identified the suspect was taken off the table by lawmakers,” he wrote. “That’s exactly what this bill does! It literally takes us back to the stone age in fighting crime, making our communities less safe.”

Sheehan’s office did not respond to Capitol News Illinois’ request for an interview.

Kugler said public attitudes toward biometric technology depend on how it is used. In his research, he found that people are generally supportive of its use in serious criminal investigations but become more concerned when it is used for lower-level offenses.

“I’m in favor of the government pulling out all the stops to solve a murder. I don’t want to create an entire surveillance state to prevent retail theft,” Kugler said. “I would personally favor a warrant requirement or some other kind of due process protection rather than an out and out ban, but I can understand the rationale behind the simplicity of a ban, particularly if you are skeptical that law enforcement will use it intelligently.”

Scott said public safety concerns should be addressed without relying on biometric surveillance tools.

“Technology like facial recognition is something that more or less is a crutch to try to identify crime after it happens, instead of trying to prevent crime in the first place,” Scott said. “If you don’t have an investment in the underlying root causes, all you’re doing is increasing the use of surveillance technology, which is not compatible long-term with a functioning democracy.”

Many states have restricted the use of facial recognition tools in specific contexts — for example, by banning their use in schools. Only Vermont and Maine have enacted near-total bans, and HB 5521 would have made Illinois the most restrictive state in the country.

Debate among controversy

The ACLU of Illinois has worked closely with bill sponsor Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, on the legislation. Cassidy didn’t respond to a request for comment, but the ACLU argued biometric surveillance poses risks to privacy and could deter people from activities such as protesting, practicing religion or expressing political views. Privacy advocates warn the technology could eventually be used to track individuals and suppress dissent.

ACLU of Illinois Director of Communications Ed Yohnka said efforts to advance the bill will likely be delayed for several months, in part because the debate has become tied to the March 19 shooting of Loyola University freshman Sheridan Gorman in Rogers Park, in Cassidy’s district. Authorities said the suspect, who has drawn national attention because of his undocumented immigration status, was identified using facial recognition tools.

Yohnka said the ACLU of Illinois hopes to see the bill discussed through broader concerns about privacy, technological accuracy and potential misuse rather than through the lens of high-profile violent incidents.

Conversation about the legislation will likely continue outside the spotlight, where discussions can be more productive and less driven by highly charged reactions, Yohnka said.

“What we hope most of all is that there is actually a balanced discussion about both the law enforcement necessity — or argued necessity — of using this tool, as well as its implications,” Yohnka said. “Those are really the important conversations we need to have as a community as this technology is expanding.”

Naomi Taxay is an undergraduate student in journalism with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, and a fellow in its Medill Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News Illinois.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.