New Hampshire legislature overwhelmingly defeats biometrics restrictions bill
The New Hampshire legislation considered a bill which would have banned the use of biometrics in identification cards issued by the state and private entities, except in the case of employee identification cards; the bill also would have barred a state or private group from requiring individuals to submit biometric information as a condition for doing business; the bill was overwhelmingly defeated in a vote last Thursday
We wrote a few weeks ago about the New Hampshire legislature considering a bill which would ban or severely restricted the use of biometrics by private businesses and government agencies. The bill was overwhelmingly defeated on Thursday.
Matthew Harwood writes that the bill, which was introduced in January, would have banned the use of biometrics in identification cards issued by the state and private entities, except in the case of employee identification cards. The bill also barred a state or private group from requiring individuals to submit biometric information as a condition for doing business.
The bill sponsored by Republicans Rep. Neal Kurk and Rep. Daniel Itse was defeated 267-39 by division vote, which only records raw numbers. Prior to the vote, a representative from the Alexandria, Virginia-based Security Industry Association (SIA) traveled to Concord to lobby Kurk and other lawmakers for the bill’s defeat.
“We are very pleased that New Hampshire residents will not be denied the use of this important security technology,” SIA director of government relations Don Erickson said in a statement Thursday. “This bill grew out of misperceptions regarding supposed threats to privacy, but biometrics can make people safer while, at the same time, protecting their identities.”
Erickson told Harwood that SIA opposed the bill on multiple grounds. He said the bill’s language was too broad and would deprive businesses of providing their customers with a cutting edge technology that promotes security and privacy rather than eroding it. In January, Erickson issued a statement with similar arguments, stating the bill would irresponsibly restrict the use of biometric identity verification by businesses, schools, colleges, hospitals, and government agencies. He contended the legislation “would expand the reach of state government into the decision making authority of local governments and private, tax-paying businesses.”
Long term strategic concerns also factored into SIA’s lobbying in New Hampshire. Erickson said SIA also worried that the New Hampshire bill could cause a domino effect to occur, with more and more states enacting similar legislation that could culminate in federal limitations.
Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a digital civil liberties group in Washington, D.C., said the bill’s defeat creates an opportunity for New Hampshire to discuss protecting personal information. “Policy decisions around the collection, retention, use, and sharing of personal identifiable information need thorough debate,” she said.
“Ultimately, when personal information is involved it should be protected by fair information practices.” The Code of Fair Information Practices, according to Coney, outlines the rights individuals should have to their personal information. “One of the things SIA members do very well with customers is they explain how the technology is used, how [information] is stored, how it’s collected, and overall how it promotes privacy,” Erickson said.
