Yesterday, Baltimore’s local ordinance prohibiting persons from “obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using certain face surveillance technology or any information obtained from certain face surveillance technology,” became effective.  The new ordinance prohibits the use of facial recognition technology by city residents, businesses, and most of the city government (excluding the city police department) until December 2022. Baltimore joins a growing list of localities regulating private use of facial recognition technology including Portland (Oregon), and New York City.

Specifically, the Baltimore ordinance prohibits an individual or entity from obtaining, retaining, or using facial surveillance system or any information obtained from a facial surveillance system within the boundaries of Baltimore city. “Facial surveillance system” is defined as any computer software or application that performs face surveillance. Notably, the Baltimore ordinance explicitly excluded from the definition of “facial surveillance system” a biometric security system designed specifically to protect against unauthorized access to a particular location or an electronic device, meaning organizations using a biometric security system for employee/visitor access to their facilities would appear to be still be permissible under the bill. The ordinance also excludes from its definition of “facial surveillance system” the Maryland Image Repository System (MIRS) used by the Baltimore City Police in criminal investigations.

Significantly, a person in violation of the law is subject to fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of not more than 12 months, or both fine and imprisonment.  Each day that a violation continues is considered a separate offense. The criminalization of use of facial recognition, is first of its kind across the United States.

Businesses in the City of Baltimore should be evaluating whether they are using facial recognition technologies, whether they fall into one of the exceptions in the ordinance, and if not what alternatives they have for verification, security, and other purposes for which the technology was implemented. An earlier post providing details and analysis of the Baltimore prohibition on face surveillance technology is available here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joe has had the honor of being a part of the AmLaw 100, nationwide law firm, Jackson Lewis, which has 60+ offices around the country, for nearly 25 years. After practicing in the northeast for most of his career, Joe is resident in…

Joe has had the honor of being a part of the AmLaw 100, nationwide law firm, Jackson Lewis, which has 60+ offices around the country, for nearly 25 years. After practicing in the northeast for most of his career, Joe is resident in the firm’s growing Tampa office.

In 2005, as an associate, Joe founded and currently co-leads the firm’s national privacy, cybersecurity, and AI practice groups, which touts 25+ attorneys navigating complex and emerging challenges, particularly around the collection, use, disclosure, and retention of personal information, the deployment of artificial intelligence, and overall governance, risk and compliance in these areas, including FTCA, HIPAA, NIST, CCPA, CPRA, BIPA, GIPA, NY SHIELD, CIPA, etc. Joe has handled hundreds of data breaches, stood up cybersecurity compliance programs, and established AI governance programs.

Photo of Jason C. Gavejian Jason C. Gavejian

Jason C. Gavejian is the office managing principal of the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s Board of Directors. He is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy…

Jason C. Gavejian is the office managing principal of the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s Board of Directors. He is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

As a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), Jason focuses on the matrix of laws governing privacy, security, and management of data. Jason is co-editor of, and a regular contributor to, the firm’s Privacy blog.

Jason’s work in the area of privacy and data security includes counseling international, national, and regional companies on the vast array of privacy and security mandates, preventive measures, policies, procedures, and best practices. This includes, but is not limited to, the privacy and security requirements under state, federal, and international law (e.g., HIPAA/HITECH, GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), FTC Act, ECPA, SCA, GLBA etc.). Jason helps companies in all industries to assess information risk and security as part of the development and implementation of comprehensive data security safeguards including written information security programs (WISP). Additionally, Jason assists companies in analyzing issues related to: electronic communications, social media, electronic signatures (ESIGN/UETA), monitoring and recording (GPS, video, audio, etc.), biometrics, and bring your own device (BYOD) and company owned personally enabled device (COPE) programs, including policies and procedures to address same. He regularly advises clients on compliance issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and has represented clients in suits, including class actions, brought in various jurisdictions throughout the country under the TCPA.