Kentucky considers 2 biometric privacy laws

Lawmakers in the U.S. state of Kentucky are considering a pair of bills intended to protect residents’ biometric identifiers from perceived misuse by state and local agencies and businesses.

Both, now in committee, are forming in the state’s lower house, which at the moment is largely controlled by politicians currying favor with anti-establishment voters.

The first, House Bill 45, would restrict how agencies automatically collect and use face and other biometric identifiers as well as objects like license plate data.

Were it signed into law, state and local governments would face new restrictions in using a drone without a warrant to surveil a subject where the person should have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The bill also addresses deepfakes and the hypothetical forced implantation of ID chips.

It would make disseminating a noncomplying deepfake a class D felony. And anyone who has been forced to have an ID chip under their skin would be able to sue those responsible in a civil trial.

The primary focus of HB 45, however, is automatic license plate readers. This particular aspect of object recognition is under increasing attack from vocal segments of voters who distrust government at any level.

House Bill 201 is aimed at private misuse of biometric identifiers, however.

Like the other handful of similar state biometric information privacy laws, this one would require written consent from a subject before collection. Companies would have to tell subjects how their data will be managed. And they would have to delete the data within 30 days of a subject’s request to do so.

Significantly, state residents would have the ability to directly sue for perceived violations. This is turning into the most obvious differentiation between state privacy laws. Businesses lobby aggressively because it opens the gates to a flow of lawsuits and immense damages awards.

The Kentucky attorney general will also have the power to right violations. Businesses (and their insurers) prefer this model because they can exert more influence on attorneys general, who are elected.

Article Topics

biometric data  |  biometric identifiers  |  data protection  |  Kentucky  |  legislation