![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 21,639
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled in favor of consumer protections and privacy in a case that has broad implications related to the collection of biometric data. Stacy Rosenbach sued Six Flags Great America over the electronic collection of her son's fingerprints to use a season pass. She cited the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, which is considered one of the "nation's most strongest for safeguarding identifiers such as facial features, fingerprints and iris scans." Initially lower courts wouldn't allow her to cite the law in her case against the amusement park as "Rosenbach never demonstrated a direct injury or adverse effect" from the collection of biometric data. But the Illinois Supreme Court "ruled that violation of the law is damage enough." "'This is no mere 'technicality,' as the appellate court suggested, Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in the opinion. 'The injury is real and significant.'" Companies such as Facebook have vested interest in the case as the social media giant collects biometric data to scan and tag photos for example.
Through the Act, our General Assembly has codified that individuals possess a right to privacy in and control over their biometric identifiers and biometric information. The duties imposed on private entities by section 15 of the Act (740 ILCS 14/15 (West 2016)) regarding the collection, retention, disclosure, and destruction of a person's or customer's biometric identifiers or biometric information define the contours of that statutory right. "iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions."
Through the Act, our General Assembly has codified that individuals possess a right to privacy in and control over their biometric identifiers and biometric information. The duties imposed on private entities by section 15 of the Act (740 ILCS 14/15 (West 2016)) regarding the collection, retention, disclosure, and destruction of a person's or customer's biometric identifiers or biometric information define the contours of that statutory right. "iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions."
