When you get your driver’s license, the DMV takes your photo. No big deal right? But if you happen to be from Michigan, or 17 other U.S. states, the FBI might scan that photo using facial recognition software.

If you’re alarmed, many in Congress are right there with you. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently held a hearing on how law enforcement agencies use facial recognition technologies (FRTs).

The discussion primarily focused on the FBI’s wide-reaching use of FRTs. Representatives from both parties took aim at the Bureau’s lack of transparency and significant delays in issuing privacy impact assessments, as required by the E-Government Act. At a minimum, these assessments are supposed to reassure the public that law enforcement evaluates risks to privacy when implementing new technology. FBI witness Kimberly Del Greco danced around the issue, and committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) voiced the collective distrust of the panel in the simplest of terms: “Sorry, but we don’t believe you!”

According to a 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office, the FBI has access to at least 100 million photos from the 18 states that have a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) with the Bureau — meaning they share photos with the feds, including those taken by state DMVs. The FBI’s staggering access to state information is itself a red flag. Worse, these FBI searches are done without court-issued warrants or basic due process, which exposes innocent, law-abiding citizens to a fundamentally flawed system.

To be fair, law enforcement’s job is to keep us safe. And new technologies can play a valuable role in that mission. But even the most well-intentioned efforts can backfire. The FBI’s database, the Next Generation Identification Interstate Photo System (NGI-IPS) has a 20% margin of error and a well-established bias against racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African-Americans.

Members pressed Del Greco on what happens to those who are mistakenly identified. She didn’t offer specifics, only mentioning that they are brought in for questioning and further investigation. Being investigated by the FBI is not some benign act, even if you are eventually cleared of wrongdoing — as recent presidential candidates can attest.

For Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI), the biggest problem is the FBI’s previously reported, and potential future use, of FRTs to target protesters who simply exercise their First Amendment rights. If that sounds kooky, consider history of Martin Luther King, Jr. or anti-Vietnam protesters, when FBI’s tools were extremely low-tech compared to today’s capabilities.

The hearing made clear that the FBI’s critics are bipartisan, and several members promised to take legislative action. Congress should put clear restrictions on real-time face scanning, limiting its use to specific, targeted threats, such as terrorist attacks, or human trafficking. Further, any legislation must prohibit FBI from using FRTs to target First Amendment “activities” such as demonstrations and protests.

We don’t have to choose between safety and privacy. Proper due process, transparency measures, audits for abuse, and independent testing for bias can ensure law enforcement keeps pace with emerging technology while upholding our core values and civil liberties.