Stalled surveillance bill highlights
tension between privacy and public safety
[May 19, 2026]
By Naomi Taxay and Medill Illinois News Bureau
CHICAGO — Backers of a bill aimed at limiting law enforcement’s use of
biometric surveillance say they’re not looking to move the measure this
legislative session.
House Bill 5521, the proposed Biometric Surveillance Act, would prohibit
law enforcement agencies from using or accessing facial recognition
tools. But it failed to meet a March 27 committee deadline and was sent
back to the House Rules committee the same day a man suspected of
killing a Loyola University freshman was arrested with the help of
facial recognition, according to authorities.
Advocates for the bill say they are wary of debates happening in the
wake of major news events, which can emphasize the technology’s role in
investigations over its risks, including misidentification of
individuals and expanded surveillance.
Stakeholders say surveillance programs always represent a tradeoff
between perceived public safety benefits and privacy concerns.
“Used well, it’s a lead that can be used in conjunction with other
evidence to break open a case,” said Matthew Kugler, a professor at
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law who studies how public
perceptions of biometric tools shape regulation. “Used badly, it is
overly trusting of an artificial intelligence system and just
outsourcing one’s thinking to it entirely.”
Biometric data in Illinois
Biometric data broadly refers to information based on unique physical
characteristics that can be used to identify individuals, such as facial
features, fingerprints, iris scans or voiceprints. HB 5521 primarily
targets facial recognition tools, allowing fingerprinting and forensic
evidence collection at crime scenes to continue.
Illinois has long had one of the nation’s strongest biometric privacy
laws, according to the ACLU of Illinois. Passed unanimously in 2008, the
Biometric Information Privacy Act restricts how private companies can
collect and use biometric data. But the law does not apply to government
entities, leaving law enforcement use of tools like facial recognition
largely unregulated.
Jeramie Scott, director of the national nonprofit Electronic Privacy
Information Center’s surveillance oversight program, said growing
concerns about government use of biometric identification systems stem
in part from the technology’s rapid advancement. As a result, Scott
said, the legal system is working to catch up.
Part of the issue is that the extent to which biometric surveillance is
used by the government is not fully known, according to the ACLU. That
lack of transparency, the ACLU and other advocates say, raises concerns
about how broadly the technology is being deployed and whether it could
expand beyond its intended use.
In a statement, Illinois State Police Chief Public Information Officer
Melaney Arnold told Capitol News Illinois that facial recognition tools
currently are used for limited purposes that include criminal
investigations and active threats to public safety.
“ISP may use image matching for an active or ongoing criminal
investigation, to mitigate an imminent threat to health or safety, or
when there is reasonable suspicion an identifiable individual has
committed a criminal offense or is involved in or planning criminal
activity, including terrorism, that presents a threat to any individual,
the community, or the nation,” the statement said.
ISP did not comment on the pending legislation.
Representatives of the ACLU also said surveillance is a concern in
Chicago, where police have access to a network of roughly 30,000 public
and private surveillance cameras across the city, making it one of the
most “extensive and integrated” systems in the country.
Discourse about the bill
Many witness slips filed in opposition to the bill have come from law
enforcement groups like Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Illinois Sheriffs’ Association and a few individual police departments.
Rep. Patrick Sheehan, R-Homer Glen, who has spent nearly two decades in
law enforcement, voiced his opposition to the bill on social media.
“Imagine having to tell a victim’s family the technology that could have
identified the suspect was taken off the table by lawmakers,” he wrote.
“That’s exactly what this bill does! It literally takes us back to the
stone age in fighting crime, making our communities less safe.”
[to top of second column]
|
Chicago police have access to a network of roughly 30,000 public and
private surveillance cameras across the city, making it one of the
most “extensive and integrated” systems in the country, according to
the ACLU of Illinois. (Medill Illinois News Bureau photo by Naomi
Taxay)
Sheehan’s office did not respond to Capitol News Illinois’ request for
an interview.
Kugler said public attitudes toward biometric technology depend on how
it is used. In his research, he found that people are generally
supportive of its use in serious criminal investigations but become more
concerned when it is used for lower-level offenses.
“I’m in favor of the government pulling out all the stops to solve a
murder. I don’t want to create an entire surveillance state to prevent
retail theft,” Kugler said. “I would personally favor a warrant
requirement or some other kind of due process protection rather than an
out and out ban, but I can understand the rationale behind the
simplicity of a ban, particularly if you are skeptical that law
enforcement will use it intelligently.”
Scott said public safety concerns should be addressed without relying on
biometric surveillance tools.
“Technology like facial recognition is something that more or less is a
crutch to try to identify crime after it happens, instead of trying to
prevent crime in the first place,” Scott said. “If you don’t have an
investment in the underlying root causes, all you’re doing is increasing
the use of surveillance technology, which is not compatible long-term
with a functioning democracy.”
Many states have restricted the use of facial recognition tools in
specific contexts — for example, by banning their use in schools. Only
Vermont and Maine have enacted near-total bans, and HB 5521 would have
made Illinois the most restrictive state in the country.
Debate among controversy
The ACLU of Illinois has worked closely with bill sponsor Rep. Kelly
Cassidy, D-Chicago, on the legislation. Cassidy didn’t respond to a
request for comment, but the ACLU argued biometric surveillance poses
risks to privacy and could deter people from activities such as
protesting, practicing religion or expressing political views. Privacy
advocates warn the technology could eventually be used to track
individuals and suppress dissent.
ACLU of Illinois Director of Communications Ed Yohnka said efforts to
advance the bill will likely be delayed for several months, in part
because the debate has become tied to the March 19 shooting of Loyola
University freshman Sheridan Gorman in Rogers Park, in Cassidy’s
district. Authorities said the suspect, who has drawn national attention
because of his undocumented immigration status, was identified using
facial recognition tools.
Yohnka said the ACLU of Illinois hopes to see the bill discussed through
broader concerns about privacy, technological accuracy and potential
misuse rather than through the lens of high-profile violent incidents.
Conversation about the legislation will likely continue outside the
spotlight, where discussions can be more productive and less driven by
highly charged reactions, Yohnka said.
“What we hope most of all is that there is actually a balanced
discussion about both the law enforcement necessity — or argued
necessity — of using this tool, as well as its implications,” Yohnka
said. “Those are really the important conversations we need to have as a
community as this technology is expanding.”
Naomi Taxay is an undergraduate student in journalism
with Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media,
Integrated Marketing Communications, and a fellow in its Medill
Illinois News Bureau working in partnership with Capitol News
Illinois.
Capitol News Illinois is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state
government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is
funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R.
McCormick Foundation.
 |
