Committee on Technology meeting
March 2, 2026, 10:00 AM
The committee held an oversight hearing on facial recognition technology and the collection of biometric data in New York City. It also heard two bills: Int 0213-2026, which would prohibit certain providers from using facial recognition on individuals, and Int 0428-2026, which would limit city use of facial recognition technology.
What was discussed
- Chair De La Rosa opens the oversight hearing on facial recognition and biometric data Council Member Carmen De La Rosa, in her first hearing as Chair of the Committee on Technology, opened the oversight hearing on facial recognition and biometric data collection, warning that the technology misidentifies people—especially in real-world conditions—and can be used to exclude or profile
- OTI on the city's AI governance framework and Local Law 35 reporting Assistant Commissioner Alex Foard of the Office of Technology and Innovation testified about the city's AI Action Plan and Local Law 35, which requires agencies to disclose algorithmic tools with material public impact. He said the 2024 report listed three tools using biometric data—NYPD and the
- HPD supports the goals of Intro. 428 on biometric tech in housing Deputy Commissioner Lucy Joffe of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development testified that HPD supports the goals of Intro. 428, warning that biometric data in residential settings poses heightened risks for immigrant communities, domestic-violence survivors, and formerly
- Public Advocate Jumaane Williams warns against unchecked surveillance Public Advocate Jumaane Williams delivered a mid-hearing statement urging strong enforcement of the POST Act and regulation of the data-broker economy, invoking post-9/11 surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers and the NYPD's Domain Awareness System. He cited Meta's move to add facial recognition to
- Which agencies collect New Yorkers' biometric data, and why can't OTI say? Pressed repeatedly by Chair De La Rosa—who noted the committee had asked the same question at June and December 2025 hearings—Assistant Commissioner Alex Foard said OTI's visibility is limited to Local Law 35 reporting and named only NYPD, DOI, and the Chief Medical Examiner. He could not answer
- Does OTI view biased biometric systems as a civil rights concern, and what is its position on the bills? Assistant Commissioner Alex Foard told Council Member Hanif and Public Advocate Williams that OTI evaluates technology by use-case risk rather than taking a blanket position, and acknowledged known accuracy disparities but said pre-deployment assessments will only become mandatory when the new
- How would Intro. 428 be enforced, and what should HPD's role be? Deputy Commissioner Lucy Joffe told Chair De La Rosa and Council Member Sanchez that HPD sees education and a private right of action—mirroring Local Law 63—as the core enforcement structure, said the agency is not charged with monitoring under Local Law 63 and is unaware of complaints, and
- Legal Aid Society on wrongful arrests from facial recognition Laura Moraff, a staff attorney in the Legal Aid Society's Digital Forensics Unit, testified in support of both bills and for a full government ban, detailing wrongful arrests including client Trevis Williams—jailed over two days despite being eight inches taller and 70 pounds heavier than the
- NYU Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law urges passage plus a government ban Nina Lashkajian, a fellow at NYU Law's Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, testified that facial recognition misidentifies Black and Asian faces 10 to 100 times more often than white male faces and that grocery stores like Wegmans deploying it threaten immigrant New Yorkers in a sanctuary city.
- Brooklyn Defenders on government as the biggest biometric surveillance user Talia Kamran, a staff attorney with Brooklyn Defenders' Seizure and Surveillance Defense Project, supported both bills but stressed they only reach the private sector while the NYPD is the largest user of biometric and AI surveillance tools. She cited Securus voiceprints extracted from jail calls
- Biometrics industry groups oppose both bills as government overreach Jake Parker of the Security Industry Association and Robert Tappan of the International Biometrics and Identity Association testified against Intros 213 and 428, arguing the bills would ban most biometric technology rather than regulate it, strip a frontline defense against retail theft and
- DSA Tech Action supports Intro. 213 but flags consent gaps Shruthi Velidi of the NYC DSA's Tech Action Working Group supported Intro. 213, noting that 58 percent of 2025 ICE arrests in NYC involved people with no criminal convictions and that private biometric tools feed immigration enforcement. She recommended the bill define accessible, informed
- NYCLU on biometric surveillance, misidentification, and surveillance pricing Medha Raman of the New York Civil Liberties Union supported both bills, warning that landlord biometric tracking threatens Fourth Amendment protections and could be used to evict rent-regulated tenants or share data with immigration enforcement, and that retailers like Wegmans and Macy's could use
- Collaborative Research Center for Resilience warns of surveillance pricing and municipal liability Cynthia Conti-Cook, Director of Research and Policy at the Collaborative Research Center for Resilience, testified that biased government technology creates municipal liability taxpayers ultimately pay for, that Home Depot has shared facial recognition data with immigration enforcement, and that the
- NY County Defender Services calls the surveillance state a present reality Sergio De La Peña, Legal Director of New York County Defender Services, applauded both bills and 'nominated this as the scariest hearing of the year,' arguing New Yorkers already live in a surveillance state with little oversight of public agencies and none of private actors. He said the key
- Surveillance Technology Oversight Project disputes industry accuracy claims Corinne Worthington of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project supported both bills and rebutted the industry panel, saying the 99-percent accuracy figures come from lab conditions and that NIST stopped tracking 'in the wild' accuracy in 2023. She described a young intern locked out of her
- Member of the public urges protections for neural data Michele Anne Blondmonville, a health and fitness educator, testified in favor of both bills, speaking on behalf of people who identify as victims of nonconsensual experimentation and 'Havana syndrome,' and asked New York to adopt neural-data protections modeled on California's SB 1223 and Colorado's
- Member of the public raises facial recognition and app-based workers Christopher Leon Johnson, testifying by Zoom, supported both bills and urged the Council and Mayor's Office to also act against delivery and ride-hail apps such as Uber, DoorDash, and Grubhub using facial recognition and ID verification to deactivate app-based workers, recommending the Council work
Agenda
3 items
- T2026-1164 Oversight - Facial Recognition Technology and the Collection of Biometric Data. Hearing Held by Committee
- Int 0213-2026 A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to prohibiting places or providers of public accommodation from using biometric recognition technology and protecting any biometric identifier information collected Hearing Held by Committee
- Int 0428-2026 A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to limiting the use of facial recognition technology in residential buildings Hearing Held by Committee