How ACLU and activist Kade Crockford convinced Massachusetts lawmakers to pass a police reform bill banning the use of facial recognition tech in criminal cases
Massachusetts is one of the first states to put legislative guardrails around the use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations.
Police departments and public agencies in Massachusetts lose facial recognition as an investigative tool in criminal cases, with compliance now defined by statute rather than department policy.
The ACLU and Crockford gain a validated state-level advocacy template: a full ban written into a broader police reform bill, stronger than the city ordinances that preceded it.
Second-order effects
Facial recognition vendors lose a state market and face pressure to accept carve-outs — the 2023 Massachusetts proposal allowing image matching but not surveillance shows vendors and police negotiating permitted uses rather than fighting the ban outright.
Other states weighing face recognition rules now have a worked example of a legislative ban, shifting the debate from whether to regulate to which uses to allow.
Third-order effects
If the Massachusetts arc holds — ban first, then a negotiated framework distinguishing matching from surveillance — state face recognition law converges on use-specific regimes rather than outright prohibition, with the ACLU positioned as the counterweight defining the prohibited category.
A patchwork of state statutes (California's body-cam rule, Oregon and New Hampshire's versions, Massachusetts' ban) pushes vendors toward compliance-by-design and raises the odds of eventual federal standardization.
The trend: Facial recognition governance is migrating from city ordinances to state statutes that begin as bans and get renegotiated into use-specific frameworks, with Massachusetts as the test case.
A trope when I cover facial recognition stories is to say that “there are no laws for its use.” But now laws are *starting* to come. One of the first states to usher in new rules is Massachusetts. Here's how it happened: https://www.nytimes.com/...
Well-deserved recognition for @ACLU_Mass's @onekade, who has been an incredibly effective advocate on this issue and many others https://www.nytimes.com/...
“We don't want to play Whac-a-Mole and ban every new dystopic piece of surveillance technology. We want an opt-in dynamic where if society decides they want it, they can have it” https://www.nytimes.com/...
.@onekade is one of the most driven and inspiring people working against authoritarian creep in law enforcement technology. Great article about their work—and the work of others—to institute facial recognition restrictions in Massachusetts. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Great piece in the NYTimes on our new law in MA limiting and regulating the use of facial recognition technology in Massachusetts which I introduced - great team effort with @ACLU_Mass - there's more work ahead in this area but a good start https://www.nytimes.com/...
“Police first must get a judge's permission before running a face recognition search, and then have someone from the state police, the FBI or the RMV perform the search. A local officer can't just download a facial recognition app and do a search.” https://www.nytimes.com/... htt…
“That month, the city of Somerville...passed the state's first ban on government use. It was the second city in the country to do so.” Proud of the role we played the fight against face recognition in Massachusetts. @ACLU_Mass @onekade @kashhill https://www.nytimes.com/...
When Massachusetts cops have a photo of a criminal suspect, they will now need a judge to sign off before they can run the person's face through a facial recognition system. https://www.nytimes.com/...
“One of my concerns was that we'd wake up one day in Minority Report, where everywhere you go, your body is tracked; your movements, habits, activities and locations are secretly compiled in a searchable database available to god knows who.” #IoTprivacy https://www.nytimes.com/..…
Lots of people think it's impossible to change politics in a positive direction. It's not, though. It just requires years of work by many serious committed human beings like @onekade https://www.nytimes.com/...
This is a very nice comment about me. But the larger point is 100 percent true. This work is succeeding because hundreds of people nationwide have prioritized it, and our work has been strategic, coordinated, and deliberate. That's why we are winning. When we fight, we win. https…
Great article in @nytimes on the new #facialrecognition law in MA! As the lead sponsor of this bill I was proud to work w/@ACLU_Mass & @onekade on this bill to protect #privacy and #civilliberties and protect people from racial bias. https://www.nytimes.com/...
“If you ask lawmakers in the state how they pulled it off, they will frequently refer you to one person: Kade Crockford, an activist at the ACLU of Massachusetts.” A big round of applause for @onekade! https://twitter.com/...
I love that the answer to this headline is: “largely because we have @onekade”. Every state needs their own squad of Kades who know how to get the goods! One Kade is not enough. https://www.nytimes.com/...
“NBA player Jaylen Brown and his Celtics teammates submitted an opinion article to the Boston Globe decrying the technology's racial bias problems and supporting the regulation.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
The fight against face surveillance in Massachusetts isn't over. Check out @kashhill's reporting on our movement to regulate this dangerous technology throughout the state. And remember, as @onekade says, “this is very much not done.” #PressPause https://www.nytimes.com/...