Civil Rights Groups Move To Block Expansion of Facial Recognition in Airports

A coalition of civil rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union have filed an objection to the proposed expansion of Customs and Border Protections facial recognition at land and sea ports. The National Immigration Law Center, Fight for the Future, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also participating in the motion, alongside twelve others. From a report: Filed in November, CBP's proposed rule would expand the biometric exit system, authorizing the collection of facial images from any non-citizen entering the country. But in a filing on Monday, the final day of the comment period, the coalition argued that those measures are too extreme. "CBP's proposed use of face surveillance at airports, sea ports, and the land border would put the United States on an extraordinarily dangerous path toward the normalization of this surveillance," said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, in a statement to reporters. "The deployment of this society-changing technology is unnecessary and unjustified." The filing raises a variety of legal objections to the expansion, in particular arguing that Congress did not intend to authorize long-term facial recognition when it mandated biometric exit tracking in 1996. At the time, Congress left the specific method open to interpretation, but the technology for algorithmic facial recognition from a video feed was not yet developed enough to be considered.

Civil rights

[PPH]

.. don't apply at ports of entry. Not the same way they do once you are 'in'. They can search you, your luggage and vehicle without a warrant. You can be required to present some form of ID. And lots of other stuff I've forgotten. And if CBP doesn't like your answers, they can turn you around and send you back.

Once you are in, the rules change. But it isn't 'society-changing' because you haven't entered our society yet.

Re:

[hey!]

Of course civil rights apply to ports of entry. The trade offs against compelling public interests differ.

Re:Civil rights

[godel_56]

.. don't apply at ports of entry. Not the same way they do once you are 'in'. They can search you, your luggage and vehicle without a warrant. You can be required to present some form of ID. And lots of other stuff I've forgotten. And if CBP doesn't like your answers, they can turn you around and send you back.

Once you are in, the rules change. But it isn't 'society-changing' because you haven't entered our society yet.

It's not enough to be just "in". Their authority extends to 100 miles away from an international border.

Re:

[BranMan]

And since every international airport counts as an international border... and since almost every point in the US (there may be some land in Alaska that isn't) is within 100 miles of an international airport... you can connect the dots (or DOTs, pardon the pun).

It's not recognizing the face that's the problem.

[hey!]

It's the database of recognition events you amass.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

You were planning to use a fake ID if they didn't recognize you biometrically?

Re:

[Quackattack]

I'm pretty paranoid about government surveillance but accurately identifying who is coming in and out of the country seems like an entirely reasonable security measure.

Re:

[hey!]

Sure, but when you put a powerful tool in an official's hands the problem is never the *legitimate* uses.

Re:

[lpq]

No kidding. An example showing a face mask that was painted with the new ultra-black material that absorbs well over 99% of visible light, proved to me that black-faces aren't readable from background noise. The darker the face, the harder it is for anyone (human or camera) to recognize the face. In the extreme, the ultra-black material wasn't able to be seen as a face as all features disappeared because of ZERO-contrast.

To me, this was proof that facial recognition progressively must use fewer features

Re:

[sabbede]

That just means facial recognition can't yet be used by itself as evidence, not that it can or should not be used at all. I get a lot of false positive IPS and AV events, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't bother with them.

Requiring that people at CBP checkpoints take off any masks or blackout makeup is a trivial step.

You also provided the solution in your first paragraph - if the problem is a lack of contrast in the visible spectrum, use different wavelengths.

I'm not saying we should have cameras a

Re:

[lpq]

Well the black paint absorbed a wider range of light than just visible. But dunno about human skin and/or what would highlight it. Right, take off masks with a virus transmitted best by indoor, large unmasked gatherings, not to mention that to remove blackout makeup -- you have to know it is there first. If you take the step of having it match your complexion/skin color and apply it lightly enough to not be noticeable, it won't be easy spotting who has makeup on or not. What's next, showers for all flie

Re:

[sabbede]

Well so far as masks go, the virus is a temporary situation so we mustn't make long-term policy decisions because of it. And since you'd only need or use the facial recognition at the customs desk, where you have to show your face so they can compare it to your passport photo, that concern evaporates entirely.

You do know that photo ID is already required to go through customs or airport security, right? And that at least 120 countries, including the US, issue biometric passports? Or that in this case

Make your own comment,

[drkshadow]

https://www.regulations.gov/do... [regulations.gov]

Top-right, green button, Comment Now! Read the ACLU comment and express concern over some of their points. Be specific. Only address one or two, and hit them hard, specifically.

This makes us look bad to the world. This doesn't help us. This _hasn't_ helped us. We're already photographed on entry. We're already subject to facial recognition on exit. This is already there for citizens! but they call it "optional". This will just cement and encourage further encroachment of personal liberties; surveillance has already lead people to alter their legitimate behavior, and so on.

You have seven hours.

Re:

[PPH]

This makes us look bad to the world.

How so? The rest of the world checks identity upon entry. I'm sure the rest of the world would be more than happy to implement such technology.

This doesn't help us. This _hasn't_ helped us.We're already photographed on entry.

Your opinion. Those with the responsibility of preventing illegal entry seem to think it helps. Existing photos, once hand matched to an unauthorized person may end up triggering a CBP raid. Lots of guns, searchlights and dogs in urban areas. I'd rather stop them immediately where the risk to bystanders is lower.

We're already subject to facial recognition on exit.

No. I can leave the country (legally) without leaving a

WHy?

[WindBourne]

At entry ports i.e. foreign entry, I think that we have every right to do so. In fact, I think that we have a strong NEED to do this to make sure that whomever is coming in, matches the passports, and is not really a terrorist with a fake passport.

ACLU

[inhuman_4]

authorizing the collection of facial images from any non-citizen entering the country.

Remember when the ACLU used to defend the rights of Americans? Times sure have changed.

Re:

[oldgraybeard]

Yes I do, and I was on their donor list. But not any longer, since they became just another propaganda arm of the socialist left.

Re:

[Ogive17]

Remember when you could trust the government to only do what they said they were going to do? Do you honestly believe they wouldn't store data on citizens as well? The ACLU's point, at least what I believe to be one of their points, is this could easily be used against citizens as well.

My wife is a permanent resident. Each time she enters she must get her picture and fingerprints taken as well as show her government issued ID. How is facial recognition (which has a bit of an issue with false positives

Re:

[sabbede]

Remember when you could trust the government to only do what they said they were going to do?

No, that was never the case. That's why the Constitution is designed to limit what it can do.

And that's what the ACLU should be focused on - protecting the civil rights of Americans by making sure what you describe doesn't happen. American civil rights don't extend to the whole world - the ACLU needs to focus its efforts where their name says they belong.

Oh, and the possible inconvenience inflicted on a fore

Re:

[Ogive17]

Oh, and the possible inconvenience inflicted on a foreign national having to wait for a false positive to be cleared up hardly overcomes our compelling need to keep enemies from sneaking in. I'm just plain sick of having that irrelevancy used as an argument against facial recognition. That there would have slightly more work to do sifting through recognition results for people of color while the problem is corrected (and I have a hard time believing it hasn't been yet) does not represent an ethical problem,

Re:

[sabbede]

I remember that they used to defend the right to free speech no matter how they felt about what was said. I remember how a Jewish ACLU lawyer defended the right of [a certain noxious political movement /. won't let me name] to march because the right to speak and assemble is more important than any specific cause.

And I have noticed that the ACLU seems to have completely reversed its position.