Massachusetts Pushes Biometric Surveillance Ban

A state that pioneered privacy protections considers banning police facial recognition entirely.

TL;DR: Massachusetts State Representative Orlando Ramos is pushing House Bill H.1946, which would make it unlawful for law enforcement agencies to acquire, possess, or use biometric surveillance technology, including facial recognition. The bill implements recommendations from a 2020 state commission study. If passed, it would be one of the strongest biometric bans in the nation, prohibiting real-time facial recognition, emotion detection, and most police uses of the technology. Massachusetts already passed a 2020 moratorium requiring judicial oversight; this bill would go much further.

What the Bill Does

House Bill H.1946, co-sponsored by Representatives Orlando Ramos and David Rogers, would prohibit law enforcement from using biometric surveillance technology with limited exceptions.[1]

Key provisions:

  • Acquisition ban: Police agencies cannot purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire biometric surveillance systems
  • Possession ban: Agencies cannot possess biometric surveillance technology, even if previously acquired
  • Use ban: Using facial recognition and other biometric systems for identification is prohibited
  • Emotion detection prohibited: Systems that claim to infer emotions from biometric data are explicitly banned
  • Real-time analysis banned: No analyzing moving images or live video feeds with biometric systems

Limited exceptions would allow warranted use of still images in felony investigations, with judicial oversight and documentation requirements.[2]

How We Got Here

Massachusetts has been wrestling with facial recognition for years:

  • 2020 Special Commission: The state convened a commission to study facial recognition use by government agencies. Their recommendations form the basis of H.1946.
  • 2020 Police Reform Law: Massachusetts passed legislation requiring a court order before police can use facial recognition. The law centralized searches through the RMV and State Police.
  • 2022 Amendment Push: Representatives Ramos and Rogers advanced Amendment #14 to H.5046, proposing additional restrictions including warrant requirements and prohibition on general surveillance.
  • 2025-2026 Session: H.1946 represents the most comprehensive attempt yet to restrict biometric surveillance.

The current bill goes beyond regulation to prohibition. Instead of setting rules for how police can use facial recognition, it asks whether they should use it at all.[3]

Why an Outright Ban?

Proponents argue that regulation isn't enough:

Accuracy Problems

Independent testing shows facial recognition consistently performs worse on darker-skinned individuals and women. Higher error rates mean higher risk of wrongful arrests for already-marginalized communities.

Documented Wrongful Arrests

Multiple cases of Black men arrested based on faulty facial recognition matches. Robert Williams (Detroit), Nijeer Parks (New Jersey), and others spent time in jail for crimes they didn't commit.[4]

Regulation Fails

Even with policies in place, departments misuse the technology. "Human review" requirements are often rubber stamps. Warrant requirements get waived for "exigent circumstances."

Chilling Effects

The knowledge that facial recognition exists suppresses First Amendment activity. People avoid protests, meetings, and public gatherings when they know cameras are watching.

Rep. Ramos has stated that the 2020 commission's findings demonstrate the technology cannot be safely deployed by law enforcement. The solution isn't better rules. It's not using it.

Related Massachusetts Legislation

H.1946 isn't operating in isolation. Massachusetts is considering multiple biometric privacy bills:

  • Senate Bill S.43 (Biometric Information Privacy Act): Requires private entities to obtain written consent before collecting biometric data. Prohibits sale or trade of biometric information.
  • Senate Docket No. 1455: Regulates biometric recognition by non-government "covered entities." Requires consent for data processing and prohibits harmful practices.
  • H.99 (Grocery Store Biometrics): Bans use of biometric data for dynamic pricing or product suggestions in grocery stores. Passed initial approval August 2025.
  • Massachusetts Data Privacy Act (S.2608): Comprehensive privacy legislation including biometric protections and strong Attorney General enforcement powers.

Together, these bills represent a coordinated effort to establish Massachusetts as a leader in biometric privacy protection.[5]

Expected Opposition

Previous facial recognition reform efforts in Massachusetts have faced pushback from:

  • Law enforcement associations: Argue the technology helps solve crimes and find missing persons
  • State police unions: Claim restrictions hamper effective policing
  • Technology vendors: Clearview AI, NEC, and others lobby against bans
  • Some prosecutors: Assert facial recognition is a valuable investigative tool

Opponents typically argue that with proper safeguards, facial recognition can be used responsibly. Proponents counter that the safeguards consistently fail.

National Context

If Massachusetts passes H.1946, it would join a growing list of jurisdictions restricting facial recognition:

  • San Francisco (2019): First major city to ban police facial recognition
  • Portland, Oregon (2020): Banned both government and private use
  • Vermont (2020): First state to ban police facial recognition
  • Multiple California cities: Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose passed restrictions
  • New York City (2020-2021): Building-level bans in residential buildings

But the tide is mixed. Other jurisdictions are expanding facial recognition rapidly: Dallas, Aurora, New Orleans, and the UK Metropolitan Police are all increasing deployments.

What You Can Do

Massachusetts Residents

Contact your state representative and senator. Voice support for H.1946 and related privacy bills. Testimony from constituents influences votes.

Follow ACLU-MA

The ACLU of Massachusetts is tracking this legislation and organizing advocacy. Their alerts will notify you of hearing dates and action opportunities.

Share Wrongful Arrest Cases

Stories of people harmed by facial recognition are powerful. Robert Williams' case, Nijeer Parks' case: these demonstrate real consequences of flawed technology.

Outside Massachusetts

Model legislation travels. If your state lacks similar protections, use Massachusetts bills as templates for local advocacy. Organize before the technology arrives.

The Bottom Line

Massachusetts is asking the right question. Instead of "how should police use facial recognition?" they're asking "should police use it at all?"

Independent testing shows accuracy problems. Documented wrongful arrests show real harm. Regulation has failed to prevent misuse.

H.1946 says: Stop trying to fix a technology that can't be fixed. Just don't use it.

The bill faces significant opposition. Law enforcement groups and technology vendors will fight it. But Massachusetts pioneered many privacy protections that later spread nationwide. They could do it again.

Watch this space. The outcome in Massachusetts will shape facial recognition policy across the country.

References

  1. Massachusetts Legislature - House Bill H.1946 (2025-2026 Session)
  2. ACLU Massachusetts - Facial Surveillance Legislation Tracker
  3. The Reminder - State Rep. Ramos Focuses on Facial Recognition Ban (January 2026)
  4. New York Times - Detroit Man Wrongfully Arrested Due to Facial Recognition (2020)
  5. Massachusetts Legislature - Massachusetts Data Privacy Act (S.2608)