Some state legislators take a similar approach to Washington in their general privacy laws. These laws do not specifically target facial recognition, but regulate the use of biometric information (which includes many forms of facial data) among the many types of personal data they cover. For example, the recently passed California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), discussed below, defines biometric information as a covered form of data. CPRA goes further and includes biometrics under the heading of «sensitive personal data,» a category that gives additional rights to consumers. Scott Surovell, a senator from Virginia who introduced the new rule, said it was primarily intended to be a «lead generator» that police would have to independently confirm before arresting a suspect. He also pointed out that while the 2021 legislation prevents local police from using facial recognition software, it does not prevent law enforcement in the state of Virginia from doing so or using it on behalf of local police. Some laws would also require operators to actively cooperate with their communities before deploying facial recognition systems. Washington State and the City of Seattle, for example, require operators to conduct community consultations prior to deployment. The New Jersey and Arizona bills would also require agencies to hold public hearings before use. In Utah and New York City, authorities are not required to conduct community consultation, but they are required to inform the public before operations begin and allow individuals to comment on the proposed use. In West Lafayette, authorities have twice failed to ban facial recognition in the past six months, citing its value in investigations.

Criticism of FRT is too often based on a misunderstanding of technology. A good starting point to change this is to clarify the distinction between FRT and facial characterization. FRT compares two images and asks how likely it is that one image is identical to the other. The best FRT is more accurate than humans when it comes to matching images. In contrast, «facial analysis» or «facial characterization» examines an image and then attempts to characterize it by gender, age, or race. Much of FRT`s criticism is actually related to facial characterization. Claims about FRT inaccuracies are either outdated or speak falsely of facial characterization. Of course, accuracy depends on how FRT is used. If the image quality is poor, the accuracy is lower, but often still better than that of the average person. A 2021 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that accuracy has improved significantly and more accurate systems are less likely to make errors based on race or gender.

This confusion hinders the development of effective rules. Activists in New York are also pushing for a ban on facial recognition, despite rising crime. Eric Adams, who became mayor in January, said a month later it could be used safely under existing rules, while his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, had called for more caution. The Facial Recognition Privacy Act of 2019 (p. 847) would require operators to initiate meaningful human verification for any decision informed by facial recognition that could result in psychological, physical or financial harm to an end-user or be considered unexpected or highly offensive. Section 847 would also require operators to provide third parties with an application programming interface (API) to perform independent testing of the accuracy and distortion of the facial recognition system. The 2022 law requires police departments that use facial recognition software to publish an annual report on how it is used. It also requires police to use only facial recognition software that has been rated to be at least 98 percent accurate for all demographic data, as measured by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a division of the U.S.

Department of Commerce whose duties include measuring the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms that companies and researchers submit to their labs. The New York City Council passed two ordinances that regulate, but do not prohibit, the use of biometric identifiers, including facial recognition technology. The consent requirement would raise the issue of passers-by for facial recognition technology, which supports individuals for whom companies cannot meet notification and consent requirements.