The weirding of the future of money

everyone’s favorite ‘stonks’ meme

You know things are weird in the financial world when there’s a stock for Pepe, when a joke Internet meme becomes a massive investment opportunity, and when billionaires use Twitter polls to determine if they’re going to sell millions of shares of stock in their companies (ok, only one billionaire is doing that so far). Oh, and of course, when teenagers are getting rich selling NFTs of pixel art for millions of dollars. As in, like, real money. Between NFTs, meme stocks, market chaos, and all sorts of other weird trends, this has been an odd and, depending on your view, either exciting or uneasy time in the world of finance.

So it’s been a lucky break for me that in the past few months I’ve had the opportunity to deliver keynotes for conferences with audiences of credit union leaders, financial regulators, asset managers, and a variety of other financial and banking professionals.

This serendipitous convergence has been an interesting opportunity to re-examine my research and writing on the future of value and money from A Future So Bright, as well as the research and writing on the future of trust and truth.

So what does this weirdness mean for you?

Well, you’re going to have to accept it because money isn’t just weird now, it will continue to get weirder. Cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are two developments you should look at to understand this “weirding.”

Together these technologies will change not only how people view assets, but how they manage those assets and their resulting wealth. What’s important about crypto and NFTs isn’t that they’re part of the future, but the effect they have on shaping that future.

older white man seated in front of a laptop with a bunch of paper currency
This guy probably just sold a bunch of NFTs

People will have to understand the importance of decentralization, as well as just what a blockchain is. They’ll need to be tech savvy enough to invest in the future without getting scammed out of what they’re worth now.

In short, people are going to have to deal with a lot of weird stuff — which is why it’s so important for business leaders to look at the emerging trends now, for people to familiarize ourselves with the shifting landscape, and for social justice issues to be factored into that future.

In case you haven’t been tracking closely enough, here are a few key trends that may be showing up on your radar screen:

meme stocks – these are digital assets issued for companies that are based on memes and viral content.

cryptocurrencies and blockchain protocols – while some people view cryptos as the key to decentralization, others see them more like a payment method or commodity. Cryptocurrencies are likely to continue to play a key role in how people do digital transactions, but they won’t be the end-all, be-all for money or assets.

People also need to understand what a blockchain protocol is if they want to invest in the future of money and value. Blockchains are the decentralized ledgers that record transactions and timestamps on a network, and they were first introduced as part of Bitcoin (BTC). Those protocols will increasingly impact other industries outside of finance, but there’s work to do first in terms of educating people about their potential impact. (And that includes their ecological impact, as I wrote about in A Future So Bright.)

NFTs – these are the digital tokens that have created a new kind of asset class. They represent ownership, whether it’s decentralized or centrally managed, and they can be fungible (like cryptos) or non-fungible (unique like art).

Enthusiasts see NFTs as the key to decentralization, because they take people out of the center where their worth is defined by institutions.

digital scarcity – We tend to think of tangible goods as scarce and digital assets as freely reproducible, but NFTs limit the supply of a digital asset and create inherent value without institutions or centralization.

If none of that helped clear anything up, just understand this: every day, the future of money is getting weirder than ever before, but with that weirdness comes opportunity. If you’re not thinking about what that means for your business and industry today, you may be missing out on the chance to create new value and experiences. And you may be surprised when someone comes out with, say, a blockchain protocol that makes your business obsolete. You need to understand how this “weirding” will impact your space.

Remember: The Economy is People

I’ve made this point repeatedly, but it’s more important than ever to remember that the economy isn’t just an abstract concept of money and digital assets — it’s people. It’s about people and their well-being, how well they can provide for themselves, and what they want for themselves and their families. It’s also about who will be dis-empowered if we don’t work now to secure our digital rights.

The importance of financing climate resilience

We’re already seeing the impacts of climate change; it’s going to be a key factor in our ongoing future. Left unresolved, the effects of climate change will have devastating impacts on human populations around the world. Because of its severity, we need to address this global crisis now, and there’s an opportunity here: finance innovation can help us better prepare for the worst of possible futures.

It’s about making sure that communities can survive when things get worse. It’s about allocating capital to projects that will help them thrive in the face of climate change. And it’s about investing in new technologies that will help people adapt to a changing world.

The future will always bring surprises, so we’d better prepare for those as well. It’s about laying plans for the best possible outcomes, while also being prepared to adapt to the worst, or just anything that comes next.

The future may be weird, but it can also be bright if we make empowered decisions today to invest in a better tomorrow.

What even is “portrait mode”?

The other day, someone asked my photographer husband to take his photo in “horizontal portrait.” Naturally, my husband asked for clarification.

The guy explained, with some prompting, that he meant horizontal orientation but with the background blown out — in other words, with a shallow depth of field like you get when you use “Portrait Mode” on the iPhone.

That, of course, is not what “portrait” means to a photographer. Leaving aside the broader topic of portrait photography, when you’re giving specifications to a photographer, “portrait” means an upright or vertical orientation assuming a rectangular composition. (The other orientation, as you probably know, is “landscape.”)

But you are probably way ahead of me because you know that in 2016, Apple launched a now-wildly-popular photo mode for the iPhone called “Portrait Mode.” At least that’s what their product teams call it; all it says on the label for “Portrait Mode” is “Portrait.”

Which means that users who aren’t as familiar with camera lingo are left to guess at understanding what aspect of the photograph the word “portrait” is describing. And I would imagine for most casual users who aren’t familiar with photography terminology, it’s not unreasonable to associate the bokeh-like blur effect with the portrait mode.

Which means that to this person that’s what “portrait” means. Whether a photographer considers that a correct usage or not.

Which means that, for all intents and purposes, Apple has changed the meaning of the word “portrait.”

Strategy Requires Choices

Try to read this passage in a detached, objective way, divorced from the politicizing of the pandemic and instead think only as a strategist must:

So if not cases, then what? “We need to come to some sort of agreement as to what it is we’re trying to prevent,” says Céline Gounder, an infectious-disease expert at New York University. “Are we trying to prevent hospitalization? Are we trying to prevent death? Are we trying to prevent transmission?” Different goals would require prioritizing different strategies. The booster-shot rollout has been roiled with confusion for this precise reason: The goal kept shifting. First, the Biden administration floated boosters for everyone to combat breakthroughs, then a CDC advisory panel restricted them to the elderly and immunocompromised most at risk for hospitalizations, then the CDC director overruled the panel to include people with jobs that put them at risk of infection.

On the ground, the U.S. is now running an uncontrolled experiment with every strategy all at once. COVID-19 policies differ wildly by state, county, university, workplace, and school district. And because of polarization, they have also settled into the most illogical pattern possible: The least vaccinated communities have some of the laxest restrictions, while highly vaccinated communities—which is to say those most protected from COVID-19—tend to have some of the most aggressive measures aimed at driving down cases. “We’re sleepwalking into policy because we’re not setting goals,” says Joseph Allen, a Harvard professor of public health. We will never get the risk of COVID-19 down to absolute zero, and we need to define a level of risk we can live with.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/what-americas-covid-goal-now/620572/

If you didn’t catch the salient bits, let me show it to you again as a screen shot with the key text highlighted:

“Every strategy all at once.” Does that sound familiar in your environment? Many of us run the businesses and operations in our lives, whether they’re a matter of public health or not, without clear direction and strategy, and end up in these kinds of confused scenarios, too.

That last quote is also a gem: “sleepwalking into policy because we’re not setting goals.”

What are you sleepwalking into?

When I wrote about Strategic Optimism in A Future So Bright, it wasn’t just about feel-good reinforcement of positive thinking — it’s about tough decisions. If we want the best futures, we have to be willing to make bold choices.

What choices are you making, and what choices are you not making?

What the Netflix/Chappelle Scandal Can Teach Us About Humanity in Tech and Business

“I want to talk about solutions. I want to talk about how major companies like Netflix can put their money where their mouth is, and lean into humanity in a big, bold way.” — Chloe Jade Skye

A note from KO Insights CEO Kate O’Neill:
As many of you know, I was an early employee of Netflix, and I have proudly shared stories witnessed firsthand from my time there as examples of strong leadership. But with greater scale comes greater influence, and the discourse of the past few weeks demonstrates how important it is to get that influence right when leading.

A recurring theme in my work is the importance of building inclusive experiences, and creating the best futures for the most people. I’ve also talked about how important it is, during times when a population is harmed by leadership decisions, to listen to people who are directly affected. Moreover, as a bi woman whose own activism has long been intertwined with the trans community, it’s important to me to center the voices of trans people when issues arise that relate to harm.

So with the heat of the immediate news coverage a bit cooled, to help us navigate this discussion with insight and respect, I sought the help of our new team member, Experience Manager Jupiter F. Stone (look for their introduction coming soon!) who brought in today’s guest writer: Chloe Jade Skye. Chloe is a trans woman who follows stand-up comedy pretty closely (having done some herself) — in fact, she had already written an article about this on her blog a few weeks ago. I’m grateful that she shared with us her view on this topic in a way that ties into the KO Insights approach to humanity in tech and business.

What the Netflix/Chappelle Scandal Can Teach Us About Humanity in Tech and Business

by Chloe Jade Skye

There’s been a lot of media coverage recently about the Netflix employee walkout over CEO Ted Sarandos’s handling of the latest Dave Chappelle special, ‘The Closer’. Unless you’ve avoided the Internet or been living under a rock, you probably saw the words, “I screwed up” quoted somewhere, in a headline or tweet, attributed to Sarandos. But that part of the quote, to me, isn’t as interesting as what followed, a.k.a. the reason he screwed up.

“I should have led with more humanity…I had a group of employees who were definitely feeling pain and hurt from a decision we made…[and] I didn’t do that.” The humanity lacking in those internal emails, according to Sarandos, was his statement that on-screen content does not equate to real-world harm. He walked this back in a later interview with Variety, acknowledging that creating real-world change is the reason Netflix exists, and the reason creators and storytellers do what they do.

My question is this: If humanity was missing in internal memos distributed within the company before the launch of a new product, is it not also possible that humanity was missing in the decision-making that went into creating the content in the first place? I find it hard to believe that humanity just happened to slip the minds of the chief decision makers in the final stage of content distribution.

I’ve watched the special, so I can say with certainty that humanity was at the very least not Dave Chappelle’s chief concern. I strongly disagree with Sarandos, and apparently the rest of the Netflix executives, that ‘The Closer’ does not incite hate or violence. I’m speaking as a trans person when I say that even just in the room with Dave during the special, I saw the exact type of hatred that I encounter in my day-to-day life receive standing ovations.

At one point, Chappelle jokes about beating up a woman (because he thought she was a man), and the line “I smacked the toxic masculinity out of that b*tch” receives uproarious applause. He also echoes some of the most harmful rhetoric of the anti-trans movements, going so far as to proclaim himself “team TERF” (TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a term created by the trans community to refer to the cis women fighting to take away rights from trans children). This line also received a plethora of clap-ter.

But I’m not here to debate whether or not the special does harm. That has been been written about at length by far better-known writers than me. Besides, even if I managed to convince you, it wouldn’t change a single thing about the inner workings at Netflix. So, what am I here to do?

I want to talk about solutions. I want to talk about how major companies like Netflix can put their money where their mouth is, and lean into humanity in a big, bold way. For what it’s worth, Sarandos has already stated that he is “committed to continuing to increase representation on screen and behind the camera,” and has explained that Netflix has a fund set aside for “specifically trans and non-binary content” (this Creative Equity Fund does invest in generating trans content, but that is currently a small slice of the fund overall).

“I want to talk about solutions. I want to talk about how major companies like Netflix can put their money where their mouth is, and lean into humanity in a big, bold way.”

Committing to more diversity and inclusivity on screen is laudable, but doesn’t do anything to prevent further mishaps regarding content that trans and non-binary creators aren’t directly involved with. If a platform invests money into a show celebrating trans people, and simultaneously invests money into a show denigrating those same people, I don’t believe that constitutes “leaning into humanity.” I’d call that “playing both sides,” and what the LGBTQ+ community actually needs is for the company to understand that just because something doesn’t explicitly call for harm doesn’t mean it isn’t causing any.

Someone who is not a member of a marginalized group has no right to make decisions about what does or does not constitute hate-speech against that group. Sarandos, a White, Cis-gender, heterosexual male, does not get to decide whether or not Chappelle’s words cause harm to the LGBTQ+ community at large. Now, I know the decision that ‘The Closer’ is not harmful was not his alone. I don’t have access to a list of all the Netflix executives involved in that decision, but I’m willing to bet there weren’t a lot of members of the queer community seated at the table.

So how do we fix this? How can a giant corporation like Netflix actually emphasize humanity in their decisions and content generation? Rather than come up with my own list, I’m going to use the one put forth by a think tank of trans employees at the company, publicized as a “list of demands,” but that I think is better described as an instruction manual for inclusivity.

Adopt measures to avoid future platforming of transphobia and hate speech. Create a new fund specifically for trans and non-binary talent, both above and below the line. Revise internal processes on commissioning and releasing potentially harmful content, including parties who are part of the subject community. Hire trans content executives, especially BIPOC. Recruit trans people for leadership roles in the company. Allow employees to remove themselves from promotional content. Eliminate posters and murals of transphobic content within the workplace. Add a disclaimer before titles that flag transphobic language, misogyny, homophobia, etc. Boost promotion for trans affirming titles already on the platform. Suggest trans affirming content alongside content flagged as anti-trans.

That isn’t everything, but I paraphrased the key points. Although some of the suggestions apply specifically to Netflix, there’s something on the list that could benefit a CEO at any corporation. Diversity and inclusion does not just mean featuring POC or members of the LGBTQ community in advertisements or content—it means bringing them to the table in positions of power so that we can help ensure, from the top down, that your company’s actions align with your stated values.

I’ll end with an example of this being done right. When it was brought to the attention of John Landgraf, Chairman of the FX network, that 85% of the directors of FX content were Cis White males, he decided to make a change. He made a list of female directors and directors of color and actively sent that list to every producer of every one of their shows, recommending they hire someone from the list. In 2021, only 37% of FX shows were directed by Cis White men, with the remaining 63% made up of diverse and/or female directors. And according to Landgraf, “the quality of work we got from this new crop of directors was actually superior.”

Thank you, Netflix, for making ‘humanity’ a buzzworthy word these past few weeks. We have a long way to go before we achieve it, but it is certainly something worth striving for. I, and many others, will be watching.


Chloe Skye is a trans woman currently living in Los Angeles. She writes, podcasts, and, in her words, thinks too much. You can check out her podcast about women in history, Broads You Should Know, her film review podcast, Modern Eyes with Skye and Stone, or her TV review podcast, Skye & Stone do Television!

COP26 and why it matters to you

Have you been hearing references to #COP26 but not sure what it is or why it matters to you or anyone else?

When I was asked to come to Madrid in December 2019 to lead a panel discussion at COP25 with bright thinkers from around the world on how we can use emerging technology to fight climate change? Well, it was genuinely one of the highlights of my life.

Why did it matter so much to me? And why does the COP26 climate change conference happening in Glasgow this year matter to you? Here’s a brief guide.

Leading a panel at COP25 was a highlight of my life

What is it?

First of all, let’s define our terms: COP stands for Conference of the Parties. That doesn’t help much, does it? OK, I’ll do better. It’s a summit of leaders from around the world focused on climate change. The first COP took place in Berlin in 1995 and this year Glasgow will be hosting the 26th COP.

When is it?

From the 31st of October to the 12th of November. Some of that time is programming that’s just for top officials and delegates; some of the days feature broader programming. (Like that panel I led. If you’ve ever been to a really large expo with overwhelming exhibitor floor space, this is not unlike that. Only the exhibitors are countries, and the events taking place in the auditoriums and meeting spaces are filled with people shaping relevant discussions and decisions for governments, big organizations, big companies, and so on.)

This was India’s booth at COP25 in the “Country Hall” which was basically an exhibitor floor filled with governments from nations around the world

Why does it matter?

The primary objective of the COP is to reach agreements between countries about commitments to reducing carbon emissions and other climate-related factors. There’s a big, big difference between what happens to life on this planet if average temperatures increase by 1.5° C or, say, 3°, 4°, or even more. Small though those increases sound, they mean considerable more devastation through extreme weather events, more loss of life, and more forced migration from areas that will no longer be able to support human — or much other — life.

As a result of the need for decisions around these issues, there will almost certainly be pushes for new legislation in many countries, so no matter where you are on the planet, you’ll be affected. If you’re concerned, as I am, that most countries aren’t doing enough to contend with this massive climate emergency, then you’ll want to see aggressive and urgent action by participating countries.

What can we do to make a difference?

While we may feel like the events happening in Glasgow have no bearing on our lives in the immediate sense, the circumstances of the climate emergency are growing so urgent that we should challenge ourselves to follow along as best we can. The brighter future requires us to commit our attention and energy to understanding the challenge, making personal changes where possible, and applying pressure on companies and governments to make broader, more impactful changes in policy and practice. Perhaps you can use COP26 as a reminder to send emails or make calls to elected officials, company leaders, and other influential people who can affect wide-reaching change for the better.

As I wrote in A Future So Bright, “It won’t be sufficient to put all our energy into eliminating or cutting emissions based on what we’ve normalized today; we need true progress, and that’s going to take our best, most innovative, most forward-looking efforts.”

(You can read more, by the way, about what’s needed in A Future So Bright.)

Where can I read more about COP26?

Here are some additional overviews and guides to understanding COP26 and climate change overall:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1104142

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56901261

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/what-is-cop26-and-why-does-it-matter-the-complete-guide

https://racetozero.unfccc.int/heres-why-cop26-concerns-all-of-us/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/28/cop26-what-at-stake-climate-summit

Online presence data as human rights risk

Have you ever had to delete parts or all of your online presence because you feared for your life? This story has been on my mind since I read this:

“USAID, the United States’s humanitarian arm, purportedly sent an email over the weekend to partners asking them to go through their social media accounts and websites with a fine-toothed comb to ‘remove photos and information that could make individuals or groups vulnerable’. USAID also advised partners still operating in Afghanistan to delete and wipe any personal identifying information of those they’d worked with on the ground, in case it fell into the wrong hands.”

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/afghanistan-social-media-delete

Are there lessons we can take from this story about data privacy architecture and such? Probably, and out of fairness to these and potentially the next humans who will go through this we should absolutely work through that discussion and create better solutions. For reasons far less grave but still important, we have long needed to re-think the opportunities we have to control where our data goes, who has access to it, and how we can pull it back or lock it down when we need to.

But I don’t want the vastness of that conversation to overshadow the very real experiences people are living through right now. So in the meantime this is just a placeholder of compassion for human beings dealing with an imminent existential threat that is complicated even further by the latticework of digital experiences and data most of us take for granted.

Here’s wishing safety and peace to those who desperately need it.

Introducing “Strategic Optimism”

All around us we seem to be surrounded by bad news and hard choices. And yet you, as a leader, still have to make choices. You still have to manage teams of people who are looking to you for direction. You still have to decide what risks to take, what tradeoffs to make, — and it feels like I should add a third thing that ends in -ake but that’s probably just the former songwriter in me. I will resist.

Anyway, given all this, how can we put forward a positive outlook for our teams and our companies? How can we convince ourselves that there’s a brighter future to lead toward?

And how do we do all this with an awareness of the very real challenges in the world? And while acknowledging the very real harms that people are facing, and the negative potential outcomes of our actions — and our inactions?

The pessimists will say that we’re doomed, and nothing can be done to change it. The optimists will say that if we focus on the positive, nothing can go wrong. Neither of those views are true. Not on their own.

Today’s Approach to Leading for Tomorrow

The best way — indeed perhaps the only way — to confront the challenges we face and build a bright future is to allow ourselves to see the brightest future possible while at the same time acknowledging the ways the future could go dark and working to prevent that from happening. That’s Strategic Optimism.

Technology is developing rapidly and it has changed and will change society significantly. One consequence is that it stands to widen gaps in income and wealth. As a result, the top 1% of the population will own most of the world’s wealth, while some 80% of people may only have access to basic needs — if that. That’s due to the capacity and scale of using technology to power economic solutions. When it’s applied only to scaling corporate revenues, it benefits only the top corporate leaders. The untapped opportunity, though, is to harness the capacity and scale of technology to solve human problems at scale. But to do that requires a combination of thinking strategically and optimistically — both/and — about the decisions we make today for the future we want to create.

Making the Future a Little Bit Brighter

book cover image of A Future So Bright by Kate O'Neill
cover image from A Future So Bright: How Strategic Optimism Can Restore Our Humanity and Save the World, by Kate O’Neill

That’s what I explore in my new book A Future So Bright. My aim is to help you develop the habit of seeing both the good and the bad outcomes for any possible future situation, not just the rosy ones. That gives you the opportunity to prevent or mitigate the worst outcomes, while you lean with all your might into the best possible outcomes.

With Strategic Optimism, you can lead from a place of integrity, acknowledging the pain and anxiety people are feeling, but also the hope they very much want to feel. And you get to lead in a way that aligns with the best futures for the most people.


Helpful Links:

Book announcement earlier on this blog: “The New Book Unveiled: A Future So Bright

Book listing at Amazon: A Future So Bright: How Strategic Optimism Can Restore Our Humanity and Save the World (Kindle edition available for pre-order now; coming September 7th to print, Kindle, and audiobook formats)

The New Book Unveiled: A Future So Bright

I’m so pleased to introduce you to this new book.

book cover image of A Future So Bright by Kate O'Neill
book cover image of A Future So Bright by Kate O’Neill

The book detail page has all the details you need, but here’s the summary version:

This book, quite simply, explores some of the ways we have already begun to solve human problems at scale, and makes the case for us all to take an approach that’s both hopeful and strategic as our best chance at a truly bright future.

Even yesterday’s announcement of the new report from the UN IPCC that climate change is already on track to be hotter and more damaging than experts were trying to avoid years ago, and that some effects are inevitable and irreversible — even that includes recommendations for reducing greater impact on the farther-ahead future. Because otherwise we’re going to make things even worse. In other words, amid all that hard-to-hear news, there is still hope that we can do better than we’re on track to do, and a strategy for how we do it.

To get us started, I have published an excerpt from The Strategic Optimist’s Manifesto, the summary at the end of A Future So Bright, over at Medium. My hope is that even as only a small piece of the book, this excerpt might still offer encouragement and guidance over the next steps we must collectively make. Please enjoy, and feel free to share widely.

What happens between now and September 7th?

Over the next few weeks as the book gets its finishing touches and prepares to be launched into the world, this blog will preview some of the key ideas and themes from the book and offer some suggestions even before the book launches on how you can begin building the brightest future for the most people.

I look forward to introducing you to this book. In the past year or two I’ve heard from so many of you that you need this. You need a hopeful way to think about the future. I’ve listened and read and researched and talked to a lot of people and listened some more, and out of that I’ve put together the approach that evidence suggests and I believe gives us the best chance at a bright future. I hope you’ll be encouraged to buy it, read it, share it.

Thank you for your hope and your work.

Kate O signature

Engati Recognizes Kate O’Neill as one of the ‘Top 30 Marketing Influencers you need to follow for 2021’

Kate O’Neill has been recognized as one of the top 30 marketing influencers by Engati. The list includes marketing leaders, entrepreneurs, and thinkers the likes of Mark Schaefer, Chief Operating Officer at B Squared Media, LLC, Jeff Barrett, Global Influence and Communications Consultant at Adobe, Roger Dooley, a global keynote speaker and a Neuromarketing genius, and marketing technologist Michael King.

While KO Insights is not a marketing company, per se, we follow the Peter Drucker reasoning on marketing: that its purpose is to know and understand a customer. And since we value knowledge and understanding, particularly that of humans, we’re excited to share this honor with you.

New Biometric Privacy Law Goes Into Place in NYC on Friday July 9, 2021

Image by teguhjatipras, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Beginning July 9, all New York City commercial businesses that obtain customers’ biometric information must comply with a newly enacted protocol that protects consumers.

Commercial businesses that obtain biometric data from customers will be required to post signs on storefronts signifying they utilize this technology and will not be able to profit from any collected data. Additionally, employees of companies that utilize the technology are excluded from this ordinance.

http://newyorkcitywired.com/biometric-data-protected-in-new-york-city/

This Friday New York will join a growing list of cities that have banned the use of facial recognition and other biometrics in certain contexts and for certain purposes. The law was enacted by the city council in December.

Under the new law, any commercial establishment that collects, retains, converts, stores, or shares biometric information from customers must post a conspicuous sign near the establishment’s entrances notifying customers in plain language that their information is being collected, retained, converted, stored, or shared. Notably, “biometric information” is defined in broad terms to include a retina or iris scan, fingerprint or voice print, scan of hand, or face geometry, “or any other identifying characteristic.” The law also prohibits receiving anything of value in exchange for biometric information.

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ideas/blog/data-privacy/2021/02/18/nyc-biometric-privacy-legislation-targets-retail-use-of-facial-recognition-technology

Failure to comply with the law can cost businesses between $500 and $5,000 for each violation, plus attorneys’ fees — so it’ll be worth it to read up on it and make sure you’re in compliance.


More posts about facial recognition in the KO Insights blog.