Memorandum of Opposition

S.9267 (MAY) / A.10687 (TORRES)

AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to enacting the “consumer camera privacy act”

On behalf of the New York Electronic Life Safety Association, representing more than 300 electronic life-safety and security system providers across New York State, we write in opposition to this legislation as presently drafted.

The New York Electronic & Life Safety Association (NYELSA) represents the interests of the New York Electronic Life & Security Industry. The NYELSA is the premier and only state wide trade association for the New York Alarm Industry. The NYELSA represents Security Alarm Companies, Manufacturers, and Distributors that do business in the State of New York.

As an industry we fully support stronger privacy protections and control over personal data for consumers and on this point we are aligned with the stated intent of this legislation. However, we have serious concerns about the impact of this legislation, if enacted, would have on law enforcement and the safety of our clients and the public.

Our concerns are as follows:

● We support transparency in how data is used by law enforcement.

● As it pertains to the term “Operator” we would like the bill to clarify that the definition does not apply to licensed alarm companies providing contracted security services or video verification or video monitoring services to their customers.

● With regards to owner consent requirements, we want the bill to clarify that the restriction applies only to crowdsourced surveillance networks, not to footage voluntarily provided by customers through contracted security services.

● The bill currently limits storage of video footage to 72 hours unless the owner affirmatively elects longer retention. This is far too short for practical purposes and longer default retention periods should be allowed when they are clearly disclosed at purchase and set up.

● We support the bill’s privacy goals because professional security providers already operate with customer consent and transparency. Our concern is only ensuring that the law distinguishes between large surveillance networks and contracted security services

● We would support a clarification of the term “public or networked sharing system”. A proposed definition would be “systems that share footage across multiple device owners,” as it is more narrowly defined to “crowdsourced” networks such as Ring.

For the foregoing reasons, we OPPOSE this legislation as currently proposed.