This - if it requires "consent" but not "informed and voluntary consent", the law is worthless and just increases the amount of paperwork.
If an actual alternative has to be provided, that's a very sensible law. Biometrics can't be revoked, and every use puts them at risk, so making sure people aren't forced to let employers collect their biometrics is a good idea.
Edit: If I read it right, the "consent" is required in the pure paperwork sense, unfortunately. That means for employees it only prevents biometrics from being used covertly.
However, it still has value for non-employees, and the "written" aspect is particularly important here. A supermarket for example can't use biometrics to track people for advertising or theft protection purposes, because they'd first need to stop them at the entrance so they can sign a waiver. No cheating out of it with a small sticker "by entering these premises, you consent" in some corner.
If an actual alternative has to be provided, that's a very sensible law. Biometrics can't be revoked, and every use puts them at risk, so making sure people aren't forced to let employers collect their biometrics is a good idea.
Edit: If I read it right, the "consent" is required in the pure paperwork sense, unfortunately. That means for employees it only prevents biometrics from being used covertly.
However, it still has value for non-employees, and the "written" aspect is particularly important here. A supermarket for example can't use biometrics to track people for advertising or theft protection purposes, because they'd first need to stop them at the entrance so they can sign a waiver. No cheating out of it with a small sticker "by entering these premises, you consent" in some corner.