Ban on Automated Surveillance Technologies

Summary#

This bill would ban federal agencies from buying, using, or contracting for automated systems that identify, track, or record people. It covers license-plate readers, facial recognition, many biometric systems (fingerprint, iris, voice, gait, etc.), and any tech that captures images or other personal data for “persistent or mass surveillance.” It also stops state, local, and Tribal governments from using federal funds to do the same. The bill requires deletion of data the federal government obtains in violation and bars that data from being used as evidence.

• Main change: Federal agencies must not purchase, deploy, operate, access, or contract for the listed automated surveillance technologies.
• Federal funding rule: State, local, and Tribal governments may not use federal funds to acquire or operate those systems.
• Data deletion: Agency heads must delete data the agency obtained in violation within 30 days.
• Evidence rule: Data obtained by the federal government in violation may not be used in court or administrative hearings.
• Scope phrase: The ban includes systems used for “persistent or mass surveillance,” a phrase the bill uses to set scope.

What it means for you#

• Federal employees and agencies

  • Agencies must stop buying, running, or contracting for the banned systems.
  • If an agency obtains prohibited data, the agency head must delete it within 30 days.
  • Data gathered in violation cannot be used as evidence in court or administrative matters.

• State, local, and Tribal governments

  • They may not use federal money (grants, contracts, etc.) to buy or run the listed systems.
  • The bill does not clearly ban these governments from using their own (non-federal) funds to acquire or operate the systems.

• Companies that sell surveillance technology

  • Federal government customers would be off-limits for these products.
  • Sales to state or local customers could continue unless those buyers are using federal funds.

• Anyone whose image or biometric data might be collected

  • Federal use of these technologies would be restricted, which could reduce some kinds of federal surveillance of people.
  • Data a federal agency collected in violation would be deleted and could not be used as evidence.

• Courts and prosecutors

  • Evidence rules would bar use of data the federal government obtained in violation of the ban.

Expenses#

No public fiscal estimate or cost breakdown is included in the bill materials provided.

• No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated federal cost or savings.
• Possible costs (inferred from the bill text):
  • Agencies may face administrative costs to stop use, modify procurement, and delete prohibited data.
  • Contract termination or replacement costs if existing contracts must be ended or changed.
  • Vendors could lose federal business, affecting their revenues.
  • State and local governments relying on federal grants for surveillance systems could need to find other funds or drop purchases.
• The bill does not say who pays for transition costs or how the deletion requirement will be implemented.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to limit mass or persistent surveillance by the federal government and protect individual privacy.
• Supporters may argue this reduces risks from automated tracking and biometric identification.
• It could be seen as increasing accountability by forcing deletion of illegally obtained data and by preventing such data from being used in court.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that banning these technologies could hinder legitimate law enforcement, security, or public-safety uses (for example, investigations that currently rely on license-plate readers or facial recognition).
• The bill does not clearly define “persistent or mass surveillance,” which may create legal uncertainty about what is covered.
• It is unclear how the deletion requirement will be enforced and who will verify compliance.
• There could be practical and budgetary trade-offs from ending federal use of these tools and from limiting federal funding for local purchases; the bill does not provide transition funding or implementation details.
• The bill does not state whether it applies to data obtained before the ban or to private-sector collection that federal agencies access indirectly; those points are unanswered in the text.