Prohibits the use of biometric identifying technology in schools for any reason other than certain specified purposes.
This bill amends the state technology law to prohibit public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, from purchasing or using biometric identifying technology for any purpose, including school security, except for a limited set of exceptions. The bill allows biometric use for fingerprint-based employee screening required by education law or commissioner regulations, for fingerprint login to digital devices by teachers, administrators, and students for academic or administrative purposes, and for identifying employees who have provided written consent, or whose union has consented in writing in the case of represented employees.
The measure narrows and clarifies the existing school biometric rules by replacing prior language that contemplated commissioner authorization and a report-based review process. It removes the earlier framework that would have required a state report and public hearings before authorizing broader use, and instead establishes a direct prohibition with specific carveouts. The bill takes effect immediately.
The bill would amend section 106-b of the state technology law, tightening restrictions on biometric identifying technology in schools and limiting permissible uses to enumerated exceptions. It affects public schools, nonpublic schools, and charter schools, and it would constrain the use of facial recognition and other biometric systems for school security, attendance, access control, and related purposes unless they fall within the stated exceptions. It also preserves limited fingerprint-based uses tied to employment screening and device login, while leaving schools subject to existing privacy, data security, and education-law requirements where applicable.
The bill’s overall tone is precautionary and privacy-focused, reflecting concern about student surveillance, civil liberties, data security, and the accuracy and fairness of biometric systems. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears intended to limit school adoption of facial recognition and similar technologies rather than expand them. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of formal support or opposition beyond the bill’s restrictive approach.
The main points of contention are likely to be school safety versus privacy, and whether biometric tools should be allowed for security or administrative uses in schools. Supporters of tighter limits would emphasize risks of false identification, disproportionate impacts on different demographic groups, data breaches, and the sharing of sensitive information with law enforcement or third parties. Opponents or critics may argue that biometric systems can improve security, streamline access, or help with device logins and employee screening, and may view the bill’s broad prohibition as too restrictive for schools seeking modern security tools.