Texas House Bill HB1983

Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

Caption

Relating to limitations on the capture or possession of a biometric identifier by a governmental body.

Impact

If enacted, HB1983 would significantly alter how state and local governments handle biometric data, imposing a higher standard for the collection of personal information. Prior to this bill, the regulations surrounding biometric identifiers were less clear, allowing for potential overreach by governmental bodies. With the introduction of this bill, citizens can expect greater control over their personal data, fostering a more privacy-conscious environment. The specific requirements dictated by the bill would necessitate changes in how governmental agencies draft their data-gathering policies and lead to increased transparency regarding the use of biometric identifiers.

Summary

House Bill 1983 introduces strict limitations on the ability of governmental bodies in Texas to capture or possess biometric identifiers from individuals. The bill redefines 'biometric identifier' to include various physical and biological traits, such as fingerprints, DNA samples, and iris scans. A core provision of the bill stipulates that governmental entities may only collect or maintain such data if they have explicit statutory authority or obtain written consent from the individual or their legal guardian. This legislation aims to enhance privacy protections for citizens, especially in a time when concerns about data security and surveillance are prevalent.

Contention

As with many privacy-related legislations, there could be contrasting opinions regarding the implications of HB1983. Privacy advocates are likely to support the bill for its focus on individual consent and limiting governmental authority. However, some governmental bodies might express concerns about potential challenges in operational efficiency and the ability to execute their public safety and security duties. Opponents of the bill could argue that the restrictions may impede effective law enforcement practices and hinder technological advancement in the public sector. As such, the debate surrounding this bill could reflect broader discussions about the balance between personal privacy rights and governmental authority.