They’re not ready for his or her close-up.
A Garment District clothing company is forcing employees to undergo facial recognition scans for constructing access, outraging staff who ripped the mandate as “invasive” and questioned how their biometric data will likely be stored and used.
Employees at Isaac Morris Ltd. — a Midtown apparel company that produces licensed merchandise for brands like Disney and artists like Lady Gaga — got a surprise email last week from their IT department saying the old swipe-card entry system was being replaced with facial recognition, Simrran Bhatia, a brand licensing technologist at the corporate told The Post.
Staff were told someone would soon be coming around to “capture a scan” of their faces, the message said.
There was no updated policy, no consent form and no exceptions — only a heads-up that the change was coming, Bhatia, 27, said.
The one alternative mentioned, she noted, was entering a numeric code on the door, which most individuals find “less convenient” than a fast scan.
One other worker, who requested anonymity, said the change felt like “a complete invasion of privacy.”
“We don’t even do anything super essential … there’s literally no reason to be doing this apart from to harass the workers,” they added, noting that employees largely work in administrative roles, customer support and basic operations and don’t understand why facial recognition is suddenly essential.
The cameras and software are already installed within the lobby and in testing mode, with the system expected to go live next week, Bhatia said.
Bhatia said she and her colleagues want answers on how long their biometric data will likely be stored, who can access it and what safeguards will prevent unauthorized use.
“Could someone use our facial data or entry codes to achieve access on our behalf?” she asked. “Without strict controls, our facial data could possibly be circulated, repurposed or manipulated.”
IML didn’t reply to request for comment.
The sudden rollout raises red flags for surveillance experts.
“This isn’t just creepy. It is likely to be illegal,” Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told The Post. “Recent York law already bans compelled fingerprinting of employees. Facial recognition is effectively making a fingerprint of your face.”
The risks transcend the office, and are a part of a broader, and largely unregulated, rollout of biometric tech within the workplace, cybersecurity experts warn.
“Facial scans are immutable. Once compromised, they will’t be modified,” said Dave Meister, head of Global Channel and MSP at Check Point Software Technologies. “If this data is breached … the results can extend far beyond the workplace.”
A recent ExpressVPN survey found 67% of U.S. employers now use biometric tracking corresponding to facial recognition and fingerprint scans.
At Google’s Washington campus, employees undergo facial scans at constructing entry, while Intel uses similar systems to scan 1000’s of employees at sites nationwide.
Amazon, one in all the most important users of workplace biometric surveillance, is facing a class-action suit over its Go stores for collecting palm and body-shape data without biometric warnings. The retail giant has also come under fire for using facial recognition to observe warehouse employees and delivery drivers, Cahn said.
Privacy advocates warn these tools are sold as convenient but often double as surveillance, especially when consent is unclear.
“We’ve seen employers use biometric tracking incredibly invasively to observe worker movements on the job,” Cahn said. “Breaking down their activity level by the second, tracking where they go, policing their time on a task. Sometimes they’re using it without even notifying their employees.”
Privacy protections for employees are minimal in Recent York, especially in comparison with states like Illinois, which require informed consent and limit how biometric data is stored.
“It’s only a wild west at this point,” said Daniel Schwartz, senior privacy and technology strategist on the Recent York Civil Liberties Union who noted that Recent York has no statewide laws protecting employees from biometric surveillance.
A City Council bill introduced in 2024 — Intro 217 — would ban most private employers in NYC from using facial recognition to trace staff. The measure has majority support but has yet to be dropped at a vote, Cahn told The Post.
“There’s a world of difference between using your face to unlock your phone and having your employer use it as a tracking tool,” Cahn said.
They’re not ready for his or her close-up.
A Garment District clothing company is forcing employees to undergo facial recognition scans for constructing access, outraging staff who ripped the mandate as “invasive” and questioned how their biometric data will likely be stored and used.
Employees at Isaac Morris Ltd. — a Midtown apparel company that produces licensed merchandise for brands like Disney and artists like Lady Gaga — got a surprise email last week from their IT department saying the old swipe-card entry system was being replaced with facial recognition, Simrran Bhatia, a brand licensing technologist at the corporate told The Post.
Staff were told someone would soon be coming around to “capture a scan” of their faces, the message said.
There was no updated policy, no consent form and no exceptions — only a heads-up that the change was coming, Bhatia, 27, said.
The one alternative mentioned, she noted, was entering a numeric code on the door, which most individuals find “less convenient” than a fast scan.
One other worker, who requested anonymity, said the change felt like “a complete invasion of privacy.”
“We don’t even do anything super essential … there’s literally no reason to be doing this apart from to harass the workers,” they added, noting that employees largely work in administrative roles, customer support and basic operations and don’t understand why facial recognition is suddenly essential.
The cameras and software are already installed within the lobby and in testing mode, with the system expected to go live next week, Bhatia said.
Bhatia said she and her colleagues want answers on how long their biometric data will likely be stored, who can access it and what safeguards will prevent unauthorized use.
“Could someone use our facial data or entry codes to achieve access on our behalf?” she asked. “Without strict controls, our facial data could possibly be circulated, repurposed or manipulated.”
IML didn’t reply to request for comment.
The sudden rollout raises red flags for surveillance experts.
“This isn’t just creepy. It is likely to be illegal,” Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told The Post. “Recent York law already bans compelled fingerprinting of employees. Facial recognition is effectively making a fingerprint of your face.”
The risks transcend the office, and are a part of a broader, and largely unregulated, rollout of biometric tech within the workplace, cybersecurity experts warn.
“Facial scans are immutable. Once compromised, they will’t be modified,” said Dave Meister, head of Global Channel and MSP at Check Point Software Technologies. “If this data is breached … the results can extend far beyond the workplace.”
A recent ExpressVPN survey found 67% of U.S. employers now use biometric tracking corresponding to facial recognition and fingerprint scans.
At Google’s Washington campus, employees undergo facial scans at constructing entry, while Intel uses similar systems to scan 1000’s of employees at sites nationwide.
Amazon, one in all the most important users of workplace biometric surveillance, is facing a class-action suit over its Go stores for collecting palm and body-shape data without biometric warnings. The retail giant has also come under fire for using facial recognition to observe warehouse employees and delivery drivers, Cahn said.
Privacy advocates warn these tools are sold as convenient but often double as surveillance, especially when consent is unclear.
“We’ve seen employers use biometric tracking incredibly invasively to observe worker movements on the job,” Cahn said. “Breaking down their activity level by the second, tracking where they go, policing their time on a task. Sometimes they’re using it without even notifying their employees.”
Privacy protections for employees are minimal in Recent York, especially in comparison with states like Illinois, which require informed consent and limit how biometric data is stored.
“It’s only a wild west at this point,” said Daniel Schwartz, senior privacy and technology strategist on the Recent York Civil Liberties Union who noted that Recent York has no statewide laws protecting employees from biometric surveillance.
A City Council bill introduced in 2024 — Intro 217 — would ban most private employers in NYC from using facial recognition to trace staff. The measure has majority support but has yet to be dropped at a vote, Cahn told The Post.
“There’s a world of difference between using your face to unlock your phone and having your employer use it as a tracking tool,” Cahn said.
