Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government Security United States Technology

DHS Wants Airport Face Recognition Scans To Include US Citizens (techcrunch.com) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the all-in-the-name-of-safety dept.
The Department of Homeland Security wants to expand facial recognition scans in the airport to also include citizens, which had previously been exempt from the mandatory checks. TechCrunch reports: In a filing, the department has proposed that all travelers, and not just foreign nationals or visitors, will have to complete a facial recognition check before they are allowed to enter the U.S., but also to leave the country. Facial recognition for departing flights has increased in recent years as part of Homeland Security's efforts to catch visitors and travelers who overstay their visas. The department, whose responsibility is to protect the border and control immigration, has a deadline of 2021 to roll out facial recognition scanners to the largest 20 airports in the United States, despite facing a rash of technical challenges.

But although there may not always be a clear way to opt-out of facial recognition at the airport, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents -- also known as green card holders -- have been exempt from these checks, the existing rules say. Now, the proposed rule change to include citizens has drawn ire from one of the largest civil liberties groups in the country. "Time and again, the government told the public and members of Congress that U.S. citizens would not be required to submit to this intrusive surveillance technology as a condition of traveling," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union. "This new notice suggests that the government is reneging on what was already an insufficient promise," he said. "Travelers, including U.S. citizens, should not have to submit to invasive biometric scans simply as a condition of exercising their constitutional right to travel. The government's insistence on hurtling forward with a large-scale deployment of this powerful surveillance technology raises profound privacy concerns," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Wants Airport Face Recognition Scans To Include US Citizens More

DHS Wants Airport Face Recognition Scans To Include US Citizens

Comments Filter:
  • The biggest movement of people is not by plane but by ground.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @06:11AM (#59479590)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • It's almost as if you believe this is about "security"and "immigration".

      • Not about immigration (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @10:52AM (#59480206) Homepage

        It's not about immigration.
        "Facial recognition for departing flights has increased in recent years as part of Homeland Security's efforts to catch visitors and travelers who overstay their visas."

        They are trying to catch people who are leaving the country after overstaying their visa.

        They're not immigrating-- they're leaving. They are solving the problem of overstaying their visa by exiting the country.

        This seems to be about harassment of foreign visitors to the U.S.

        • I dated a woman who was from Brazil. She had overstayed her visa by more than a year. She really didn't want to go back to Brazil but her mother had become ill and was wanting her to come back.

          I took her to the airport in Atlanta Georgia and was telling her good byes as I know I would never see her again and the agent checking her in kept requesting her visa, this was 2007. He kept saying that she couldn't board the plane without her visa even though she had all her documents that she is native to Brazil

          • If someone overstays their visa then immigration wants to know about it so they won't issue another visa for that person since that person is at risk of doing it again. It isn't harassment.

            • Right? Shouldn't they have records of all issued visas?

              • There are many countries you are supposed to keep the paper / stamp until your exit with you. It may be arcane or unnecessary - but as I was told in Singapore - "if you can't follow this one inane rule, why would we trust you to follow more important rules?". Respect the countries you visit - it's not that hard.

                Those of you breaking rules in countries and not being invited back should not be shocked. And this has little to do with the US.

                And NW -
                a) I don't even understand how they allowed you to be at th

            • If someone overstays their visa then immigration wants to know about it so they won't issue another visa for that person since that person is at risk of doing it again. It isn't harassment.

              This is also one of the reasons the US won't reciprocate Brazil's toursist visa deal with the USA. Presidente Bolsonaro declared that US citizens would NOT need a tourist visa for stays lasting no more than 90 days. Brazil is up in arms that Brazilians still need tourist visas to visit the US. The US noticed too many Brazilians over-staying visas. I brought my wife from Brazil on a K-1 visa and noticed a lot more scrutiny because of the actions of other Brazilians.

        • Do you feel "harassed" by abiding by other the laws of other countries when you go visit ?

          Most countries have visas and visa limits, there are some agreements by various countries to reciprocate visa waiver programs, etc.

          If you hate all visa programs and all governments and borders, fine - but this isn't a US specific issue.

  • Boil the frog slowly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @06:17AM (#59479598)

    if you want it to accept its fate. First the DHS implement targets non-US citizens, then when the infrastructure is ubiquitous and nicely broken in, just reroute the lane for US citizens.

    Americans should have rebelled en masse against the creation of the DHS in 2002. Instead, they bought the "only to control foreigners" and "for American safety" narrative - since it didn't concern them. Now it's their turn. Surprise surprise...

    • I mean - you're already supposedly getting a visual inspection of that you are who you say you are and have documents to prove it. just run the thing against image face database that you have from the passports anyways.

      only problems are false recognitions and not recognizing the picture as who you are. the more simplistic facial recognizing algos work really well when the sample set isn't too big.. at some point they become really bad at it. thats how they work so well for something like facebook photos w

    • if you want it to accept its fate. First the DHS implement targets non-US citizens, then when the infrastructure is ubiquitous and nicely broken in, just reroute the lane for US citizens.

      Americans should have rebelled en masse against the creation of the DHS in 2002. Instead, they bought the "only to control foreigners" and "for American safety" narrative - since it didn't concern them. Now it's their turn. Surprise surprise...

      Honestly, I think they slip these things in slowly out of habit; no one's really paying attention any more, and if they are, the humdrum of a busy little lives takes up most of a person's time.

      They could probably just drop ubiquitous surveillance on the public tomorrow with a public relations campaign similar to "What do you have to hide?" ...and there would follow a ripple of concern that would peter out into grudging acceptance in an embarrassingly short time.

    • Re:Boil the frog slowly (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @09:50AM (#59479980) Homepage Journal

      I warned about this at the time and a lot of people told me that as a non-US-citizen I basically had no rights and should expect maximum abuse because it might make them a little bit safer from Mohammed.

      Of course this was the inevitable outcome. If you allow anyone to be treated badly, if you ever create a two tier system where some have rights and some don't, it's only a matter of time before the hose gets turned on you.

    • if you want it to accept its fate. First the DHS implement targets non-US citizens, then when the infrastructure is ubiquitous and nicely broken in, just reroute the lane for US citizens.

      Americans should have rebelled en masse against the creation of the DHS in 2002. Instead, they bought the "only to control foreigners" and "for American safety" narrative - since it didn't concern them. Now it's their turn. Surprise surprise...

      And let's not forget the idiocy of an entire nation actually getting angry over the revelations of Edward Snowden.

      Why do they even need to boil the frog slowly? The government can be as arrogant as they want these days with citizens rights, because no one gives a shit about them anymore.

      Watch and see.

    • > just reroute the lane for US citizens.

      s/citizens/subjects/

  • Thomas Jefferson (Score:1, Informative)

    by Neddies ( 4140129 )
    Is rolling in his grave.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I think it's going to be less intrusive than the system I know of, if they can ID you through video feed, they aren't going to need to have a queue to check the paperwork.

      • No, you'll just have an epic fuckton of false positives, because facial recognition AI is a farce.

        Instead of a small faux-pas with your paperwork, you will get the 3rd degree in a small room because you have the same facial spacing parameters as a notorious terrorist.

        Enjoy your security, citizen.

        • Except that airports have pretty much 100% camera coverage, ID checkpoints, and a manifest of everyone who is in the airport. I'm guessing those things dramatically increases the accuracy of facial recognition.

          • For a small annual subscription they will tattoo a QR code on your forehead to speed you through the system.

            daily shaving (of the whole head) will of course be mandatory, hats and eyewear prohibited except for religious exemptions

            We will of course need far more TSA officers to helpfully remind us of the restrictions every 2 minutes - with some capricious variation of the requirements at random intervals

            the new TSA team will engage each passenger in friendly chit-chat to re-inforce suspicions

            there will be a

      • I think it's going to be less intrusive than the system I know of, if they can ID you through video feed, they aren't going to need to have a queue to check the paperwork.

        Seriously? Is anyone really this naive? This will happen approximately never in the real world. You may see it scifi movies though.

    • The problem isn't so much that it is known where you are and when. The problem starts when this is then used as a base for profiling. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time used to mean that you happened to be in a store that got robbed. That sucked, but at least it was something that was reasonably rare and you'd at least see that you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and could rectify it.

      Being in the wrong place at the wrong time now means that you happen to be in a place that is for some reason

  • Of course they F@&KING do,,, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @06:48AM (#59479648)

    When you encourage a climate of "Everyone's a threat to security", you end up with this kind of bullshit madness.

    The logical contradiction of protecting the lives and freedoms of American citizens, by throwing those things out the window, just does not seem to sink in. All that exists is "PERPS! PERPS EVERYWHERE!".

    Seriously, this shit has to end. Can we just fucking arrest all the border agents and throw them in jail already? They are a worse menace to free society than the people they claim to be trying to protect us from at this point.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrbester ( 200927 )

      "Facial recognition for departing flights has increased in recent years as part of Homeland Security's efforts to catch visitors and travelers who overstay their visas."

      So... instead of letting people that shouldn't be in the country leave, they are arrested when attempting to so they can be charged with not leaving and then thrown in jail to be deported weeks or months later. Sounds like a good waste of taxpayer money. How much would a system that flags a late departee (so any subsequent visa application i

      • Is there a citation here?

        From quick google-fu:

        Consequences of Overstaying A Visa In USA
        The issue of overstaying a visa in the U.S. while on a nonimmigrant visa has been receiving serious attention in recent years. Some of the consequences of overstaying your visa status are:

        Visa overstays may be barred from returning to the U.S. for ten years or three years depending on the period of overstay or “unlawful presence”.
        Visa overstays may be restricted from applying for Extension of Stay or Change of

    • How is this any more intrusive than showing your ID and confirming you are the passenger traveling? This is just a better way to check that you are who you say you are. Do you think showing your ID at the airport is a menace to society? The data already knows you are traveling, unless you are not who you say you are.

      And you're the one getting hyperbolic - enforcing visa stays in no way is saying "everyone is a threat to security"

      questions:
      - are you mad at all the other countries (or unions) for enforcing

      • This is MUCH worse than showing your ID. Facial recognition is NOT accurate and these records will be stored and used to build up a profile of you that WILL be used against you in a way that a person looking at your ID card can't do.

        This is a huge difference in scale which becomes a difference in kind. It may be a public place but this level of surveillance was not possible to do before.

        This has nothing to do with border safety. This is about using a technology WAY BEYOND what it is actually capable of and

        • a person looking at your ID card can't do.

          The person might not, but the organization that person is part of definitely can, and do, nothing is going to change, instead of getting tracked by agents in a surveillance room you'll get tracked by agents in a surveillance room with a square around you.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Hizonner ( 38491 )

            It's not practical to have humans take notes on everybody who passes a checkpoint, let alone on everybody who just happens to wander through some large area. It is practical to have computers do either one.

            • It's not practical to have humans take notes on everybody who passes a checkpoint, let alone on everybody who just happens to wander through some large area. It is practical to have computers do either one.

              Practical or not, the guy checking your paperwork before allowing you to go into the boarding area is taking notes of everyone that wanders through.

              • It is not the same as a facial scan that can and will be cross-referenced with many other systems and can be used to provide real time tracking inside the airport and after that.

    • Your post is everything wrong with America Today including you. Let me break it down.

      You are right about the climate being created by "everyone is a threat" doctrine that governments like to create. You are most definitely right that this doctrine is used as an excuse to remove liberty, it is literally part of the how to build a tyrannical government playbook. Do you know who exposed this? America's founding fathers... do you know who would be hated most if they existed right now? America's founding fa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        If we've learned anything from Nuremberg, it's that "just following orders" is no excuse.

        • Yes, because there is nothing like... having this only choice.

          You must die refusing to do what your superiors commanded now or face the "possible" wrath of the people with a grudge later?

          Why do you give everyone else that helped build their governments and not doing anything before it went to hell a pass but willingly want to bust the balls of people too fucking afraid to resist? Cowards do die multiple deaths but many are complying because they don't want their family getting fucked in the ass either.

          It's

        • This is not true, it was an oft-used and oft-accepted excuse for the Allies. Look at the ‘unrestricted submarine warfare’ issue. We openly admitted to doing the exact same thing, but only the German side was punished.

          What we learned from Nuremberg is that interpretation of conduct is reserved by a war’s winner.

          When someone from a telemarketing call center calls you in violation of the law, how many times are they held personally responsible?

          Zero.

          Especially in the USA, “following or

      • I agree with the general tone of what you’ve said, but you didn’t seem to catch an obvious point that you made.

        Yes, 80% of the people do nothing, which means that it’s practically impossible for the 20% to vote them out.

        “Critical Thinking” begins at an IQ ~110, which means that roughly 70% of people are below this, and instead learn through repetition.

        In a Democracy, the vote of someone with an IQ of 90 counts the same as the vote of someone with an IQ of 140. And there are WA

  • Can't stop US citizens (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @07:26AM (#59479706)
    I thought any US citizens were always allowed to leave the USA, unless there is an arrest warrant against them or something similar. And I thought any US citizens always, with no exception, had the right to enter the USA. Again, there may be a few who will get arrested as soon as they set foot in the country, but these also have the right to enter (and get arrested).

    • That doesn't mean there aren't required checks. You *generally* still have to go see a customs agent (or automated gate entry), even though it's most often a "welcome home", they certainly have the right to ask you a lot more questions.

      Similarly ?TSA? has to clear you on a passenger manifest from a departing country - used to be you had to check in at least an hour before international flights (checked in 59 minutes early from heathrow once, wasn't allowed to check in).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      That gets asked of courts every few decades and over generations.
      A US passport when entering the USA again is not diplomatic immunity.
      Questions and a search is allowed...

      • The last court decision was in favor of human rights at the border though. Diplomatic immunity applies to people who have committed crimes. We are talking about innocent people here.

        I do think they have to let US Citizens in the country even if they do not cooperate at all. You don't have to answer any questions as long as you can prove your citizenship and identity. People have tested this and it has always worked.

        I don't think any US citizen has ever been stranded at the border if they had valid ID. You m

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re "innocent people" still get asked questions when entering any nation ... even the USA.
          Re "citizenship and identity" will allow a person to enter the USA. That will not stop a search, questions...
          The "security" ensures a US citizens is not part of, supporting an banned group, funding, moving cash for a banned group, supporting an other nation...

  • one small step at a time, first scan incoming travelers, nobody will complain.
    the next step is to include all travelers, and even if you manage to stop it, they'll try again.
    it's just an extra step, keep trying until you succeed.

  • But although there may not always be a clear way to opt-out of facial recognition ...

    It seems that this is just the next logical step. Abiding human rights or laws was never the intention.

  • Totalitarian practices are always turned against own citizens at some point in time. And at the end they always hurt them.

  • Then we're one step closer to being just like China.

    Rockefeller's ghost says: Now we only have to beat them in capitalism. ;)

  • And put Cat Stevens and Sen. Ed Kennedy on it.

  • Good thing (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @09:25AM (#59479916)
    I'm so glad life is finite and I'm on the downside. I don't want to be around much longer because it's not going to get any better.

  • I'm not a criminal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @09:53AM (#59479992) Journal

    And shouldn't be treated as one. It's not up to me to prove I'm not guilty, it's up to you to prove I am.

    This is another reason I no longer fly.

  • Meringuoid's Law (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

    cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (Weimar Germany)...

    from a Slashdotter on November 24, 2005 [slashdot.org]

  • Isn't that how it works today?

    They scan everybody and if they aren't in the NSA database they must be a dirty foreigner.

  • 1984 might happen in 21st century America. The UK too, but nobody cares.

  • I'm a libertarian, but I don't understand the privacy concern. You already have to be identified by a ticket and by photo ID at security. We already have cameras all over the airport. What's the practical concern? As far as I can tell, you don't have any privacy at the airport as it is unless you are committing fraud.

    • Re:What privacy concern? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @10:50AM (#59480198)
      Yea, and to fly internationally, you already have to have a passport, so the US Gov already has your face. If anything, this feels more like government inefficiency is the only thing protecting our privacy at this point.
      • In this case, the TSA already has your picture. Now it's DHS that wants your picture. One would think that the TSA can probably freely share information with DHS but there's probably some pesky law somewhere that prevents it.

        • DHS is already provided flight manifests, with your name and passport before your plane ever leaves, or arrives. Who are all these people that are flying internationally anonymously ?

  • Rule change? Congress needs to decide this. Rules, regulations and laws are different names for the same thing.

    The Constitution says that legislative decisions must be made by the Legislature. It does not give Congress the authority to delegate its responsibility to another branch.

    The Executive agencies should be enforcing the law, not making them. If a law is unclear the executive should go to Congress for clarity.

  • Welcome to our glorious new future. Want to travel from New York City to Jersey City? Papers, please. This is the kind of dystopia we are headed to. To stop terrorism and "think of the children!", of course. We are being slowly conditioned for this.
  • You like visions of dystopian futures, Slashdot? Here's an obvious one: DHS ends up being the de-facto power in this country, controlling everything and everyone, with no limits, no warrants necessary, basically American Gestapo.
    You happy with your accomplishments, Republicans? You're the ones that created this mess.

  • this is both Unconstitutional in the US at a federal level, at a state level, and violates the treaty rights of EU and Canadian citizens in the US.

    • I'm tiggered - how? On each of those 4 points. Curiosity bordering on disbelief.

    • Sure, but what does constitutionality matter? The Supreme Court issues such decisions as “yes, it’s unconstitutional, but here’s how you can do it in a way that we’ll allow it.”

      See: Drunk Driving Checkpoints.

      The other awesome thing about unconstitutional laws, is that there is no penalty for enacting them.

      Just pass the law, and settle with the recalcitrant who may bring a suit (to prevent it from being heard in a court).

      If it does make it to court, and the law is declared unco

      • My point is that the ACLU and various state attorney generals will sue, and it will be eventually found to be unconstitutional.

        Just because we have corruption at all levels doesn't mean we aren't a nation of laws and slavers.

  • oh, sorry, "Face" recognition (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I have bad hearing in one ear and I thought you said "feces" recognition and I made an "Olympus Mons" [slashdot.org] for the airport security folks.

    Needless to say I walked to the Funk Pop convention that year.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close