Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facial Recognition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate passes compromise bill limiting government use of facial recognition technology

Utah State Senate · February 1, 2021
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 34, a bipartisan measure to regulate government use of facial recognition, passed the Senate after committee work; sponsor described it as a compromise reached after interim study and urged passage; the final roll call was 24–3 with two members absent.

Senator Thatcher presented Senate Bill 34 on Feb. 1 as the product of two years of interim work and committee negotiations, describing it as a balanced compromise that "doesn't go as far as some would like" and "goes further than some would like." The bill would impose new restrictions on government use of facial recognition technology in Utah.

"Without this bill, there are currently no restrictions as to the government's use of facial recognition in the state of Utah," Thatcher said, urging colleagues to support the measure while acknowledging its limits. The sponsor told the chamber the bill had unanimous support in the interim government-operations committee and in subsequent consideration.

Senator Reby said she had concerns in committee about disparate impacts on people of color but concluded committee review addressed those concerns and recorded an aye vote: "My concern was that people of color are sometimes more, targeted and, tagged more in this. But I was made to understand that there is a personal aspect of it and people reviewed this, so I am now an aye," Reby said.

During final action the Senate recorded 24 yay votes, 3 nay votes and 2 absences; the bill passed and will be transmitted to the House for consideration. The chamber’s recorded debate emphasized both the novelty of legislative limits on surveillance technology and the continuing tension between civil-liberties advocates and law-enforcement stakeholders.