Donovan’s office said the program does not comply with Act 154. The 2004 law states in part that the DMV “shall not implement any procedures or processes for identifying applicants … that involve the use of biometric identifiers.”
Records show the program had been in use since at least late 2012.
The DMV said it used software that collected and scanned thousands of driver’s license images to detect fraudulent applications. However, records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont showed that the agency also shared information from the database with federal and out-of-state law enforcement agencies.
In an interview Tuesday, Donovan said his office made its decision after researching the statute prohibiting biometrics, including listening to the original legislative testimony from the DMV commissioner at the time, Bonnie Rutledge. “Consistent with Vermont, we always put a premium on privacy,” Donovan said. “I think this is a great example of balancing public safety with privacy rights.”
In a news release, ACLU staff attorney Jay Diaz said the organization is glad the attorney general “agrees that DMV’s facial recognition program is patently illegal.”
“This was another instance of mission creep,” Diaz said in an interview Tuesday, referring to the revelation that the DMV’s biometric technology was used for more than fraud investigations. “The DMV especially has a recent history of flouting state law and failing to protect people’s civil and constitutional rights.”
Ide said the DMV continues to search for fraudulent applications using other methods.
“We were complying from the moment the governor said, ‘Pull the plug’” in May, he said. Ide said there were no pending requests for biometric data at the time Scott ordered the program suspended. One request since then, from a Pennsylvania law enforcement agency, was declined.
Reinstating the program would require legislative approval.
Donovan said he expects legislators to address the state’s use of facial recognition technology next year. “There is a role for biometrics to play,” he said, citing concerns over fraud and identity theft. “I just think it has to be balanced with people’s personal privacy protections.”
“It’s about knowledge and consent,” he added. “If you’re going to disseminate this data to different governments — not just federal, but also other state and local governments — frankly, Vermonters should know.”
In his news release, he said his office stands “ready to work collaboratively with the Legislature, the governor and all stakeholders to address these critical, complex issues.”
Diaz said the ACLU does not think the issue needs to be revisited. “The Legislature was right to be concerned back in 2004,” he said. “They should stick by their first instinct to not allow the DMV or any law enforcement agency to have this type of surveillance.”
According to Diaz, the ACLU has no plans to sue on behalf of people whose data was captured or shared by the DMV. “Litigation is one tool in our toolbox. Since the program has been indefinitely suspended, it’s not necessary,” he said. “We hope it doesn’t become necessary in the future.”
