ACLU urges Nebraska to pause facial recognition

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska asked two Nebraska law-enforcement agencies in October 2016 to stop using facial-recognition technology until lawmakers and the public could weigh in on the practice. The request targeted the Nebraska State Patrol and the Lincoln Police Department after a Georgetown University analysis said both agencies had access to the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles photo database for face searches. Nearly a decade later, Syracuse lawmakers are weighing a local ban on some biometric-surveillance uses by businesses after hearing testimony from privacy advocates this week. The two episodes are separated by time and geography, but both center on the same question: how much public oversight should accompany face-scanning tools used by government agencies or private operators. ### Which Nebraska agencies did the ACLU ask to stop using facial recognition? The October 20, 2016 request named the Nebraska State Patrol and the Lincoln Police Department, according to ACLU of Nebraska and local television coverage from that time. The civil-liberties group said both agencies should suspend facial-recognition use in investigations until elected officials and the public had a chance to review the technology and its safeguards. (klkntv.com) ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director Danielle Conrad said on October 17, 2016 that driver’s-license photo databases and other civilian photo collections should not be broadly used for face searches “without a community conversation” and procedural safeguards. Lincoln Public Safety Director Tom Casady said the technology was an efficient tool in identity-theft investigations and that only a few investigators in each agency could use it, while the state patrol said it was reviewing the Georgetown report. (klkntv.com) ### What did the Georgetown report say about Nebraska’s system? The Georgetown University report cited in the Nebraska dispute said the two agencies accessed the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles system for facial-recognition searches. The ACLU’s Nebraska statement said the report raised questions about whether the agencies were meeting best practices in their use of the technology. (aclunebraska.org) The Nebraska fight in 2016 focused on police use of government-held photo databases rather than on commercial storefront scanning. That distinction matters because the current Syracuse debate is aimed at businesses and other places of public accommodation, not at police investigative access to a state motor-vehicle database. ### What are Syracuse lawmakers considering now? (klkntv.com) Syracuse lawmakers heard testimony on May 14, 2026 from Daniel Schwarz, a senior policy analyst at the New York Civil Liberties Union, about the risks of biometric surveillance. Central Current reported that the hearing came ahead of a possible vote on legislation that would ban some uses of biometric surveillance technology in public places. (klkntv.com) Three Syracuse councilors — Jimmy Monto, Corey Williams and Chol Major — introduced the local measure, according to Central Current’s earlier reporting and local television coverage. The proposal would bar businesses from collecting, storing or sharing customers’ biometric information in some public-facing settings, with exemptions that Central Current said include financial institutions. (centralcurrent.org) ### How does the Syracuse proposal differ from Onondaga County’s rule? Onondaga County legislators passed a separate bill on May 5, 2026 requiring commercial establishments that collect or use customers’ biometric identifiers to post clear signs near entrances disclosing that use. The county measure also bars businesses from profiting from biometric data, but local television station WSYR reported that banks and government entities are exempt. (centralcurrent.org) The Syracuse city proposal goes further than the county disclosure rule because it would ban some uses rather than require notice alone, according to CNY Central. Spectrum News reported on April 20 that the Syracuse Common Council tabled the city bill to allow more review. ### When is the next decision point? The Syracuse Common Council’s meetings page lists a regular meeting for May 18, 2026, and WSYR reported the biometric-surveillance bill was tabled for a vote at that next regular meeting. (localsyr.com) Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon is also the next named decision-maker on the county disclosure bill, which WSYR said has been sent to his desk for signature or veto. (syr.gov) (cnycentral.com)