DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers

from the ALL-YOUR-FACE-ARE-BELONG-TO-US dept

The DHS is moving forward with the deployment of facial recognition tech at ports of entry, including US airports hosting international flights. The tech is still in its infancy, more prone to ringing up bogus hits than removing criminals and terrorists from circulation. But the DHS -- like many other government agencies -- isn't afraid to let a mere toddler do an adult's job. Faces will be scanned, whether travelers like it or not.

The DHS has issued an undated Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF] meant to unruffle the feathers of Americans it informed last year that not traveling internationally was the only way to opt out of this collection. The next phase of the facial rec tech deployment dials things back a bit, offering a bit more in the way of data collection/retention constraints.

In an effort to mitigate the impacts of this expanded collection, CBP seeks to minimize the data it maintains by purging facial images as quickly as possible after use. Each traveler’s biographic and biometric data is deleted from the TSA-issued device, either at the time of the next passenger’s transaction or after two minutes, whichever occurs first. All PII collected for the TVS transaction is stored in a secure database within the CBP network. CBP does not retain images of U.S. Citizens in ATS-UPAX but does retain images of non-U.S. Citizens for up to 14 days for confirmation of the match, as well as evaluation and audit purposes. CBP deletes all photos, regardless of immigration or citizenship status, from the TVS cloud matching service within 12 hours of the match.

[...]

TSA will only use these photos for identity verification at the checkpoint and cannot access the photos after the inspection is completed.

This is one of the better data retention policies the government has rolled out, especially considering it pertains to a border security program. But the DHS is far more vague -- and in some cases appears to be fudging the truth -- when it comes to details about data sharing. DHS claims this data won't be shared with airlines because the airlines have no interest in the data. As Edward Hasbrouck of Papers, Please points out, this statement runs contrary to the DHS's actions.

The joint government/industry interest and intent to develop and deploy a shared system of automated facial image tracking and control of travelers is made clear in white papers on government/industry biometric strategy and in the agendas for events at which CBP, TSA, and industry executives get together to discuss their plans.

Next month’s Future Travel Experience Global 2018 conference, for example, includes presentations by the planning and implementation directors for CBP’s “Biometric Exit” program, followed later the same day by a “working session” with CBP, airline, and airport executives on “Implementing advanced passenger processing with automation and biometrics”.

As for allowing American travelers to opt of the program, the DHS's stance has softened from its earlier "just don't travel" posture. Travelers can bypass face-scanning kiosks, but that just routes them towards CBP secondary inspection. All the CBP/DHS has to do to encourage more opting-in is make the non-scan option as laborious and invasive as possible. As has already been observed by Papers, Please, opting out sends American citizens to the same line as foreign international travelers, ensuring the wait for clearance is much longer than utilizing the facial rec option. Bottlenecks are good way of routing traffic where you want it to go, rather than where it would naturally flow.

The end goal isn't more surveillance of international travelers. The DHS ultimately wants to harvest faces from every domestic traveler in the US. It's not stated in the Impact Assessment, but there are already signs the agency has no interest in limiting this to those arriving from foreign countries.

Use of automated facial recognition is intended by the DHS to become a routine element of the surveillance and control of all air travelers, foreign and domestic. As the head of the CBP, Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, said in a press release in June 2018, “We are at a critical turning point in the implementation of a biometric entry-exit system, and we’ve found a path forward that transforms travel for all travelers.” [emphasis in the original]

The best way to fight this is to opt out. It may subject travelers to longer waits at checkpoints, but it also forces CBP agents to process more people the old fashioned way, without the aid of the DHS's new tech. Annoying the government by refusing to be traffic-shaped by deliberate bottlenecks can be its own small victory, even if the War on Terror machinery continues to rack up loss after loss to terrorists.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, dhs, domestic travelers, facial recognition, privacy, tsa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Sep 2018 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...people became very scared after 9/11..."

    I agree, have an insightful vote.

    I will admit that I became scared after 9/11, for a couple of days, or maybe it was weeks. Then I realized that there were several failures that allowed that to happen.

    The reaction by the government, and I mean the executive and legislative branches, was merely a recognition of an opportunity. They had an agenda.

    Maybe there was a significant portion of the populace who were also scared, but they were accepting the things government had to say, and not looking closer at the situation. They didn't think long term. They didn't realize what was behind the manipulation the government presented. They didn't comprehend that the press was merely puppeting what the government told them. They didn't realize the long term and very personal impacts of government actions.

    Then the facts started to roll in. WMD's were a lie. Law enforcement's failure to keep track of people who the knew about that wanted to learn to fly, but not land, etc..

    There are all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories out there. The problem is, some of them might not be so crazy.

    That we let the government continue to rely on our supposed fear and increase the abrogation of our rights is a serious issue. Some point out that there are so many laws, many of which we don't know about (and some of them secret (what the hell is up with that, secret laws?)) that we, all of us, could commit several felonies daily, the only conclusion I can find is that the government is tracking us for the sole purpose of 'if we do something they don't like' they then have the ability to find us and charge us with 'something'. Until then, just keeping us under the pressure of whatever they are currently doing is good enough. When they want to pop you, they will.

    According to our current president, this post is a good reason to jail me, if for no other reason than to keep me from pointing out...reason. Good thing the law isn't on his side...yet. But the DOJ is working on social media competitiveness. Do you really think that is about competition? Or control? It is not the DOJ's job, it is the FTC's job. Why are they stepping in? Could it be because Trump is lambasting his Attorney General for not, well I don't know because I only read the headlines, but lambaste it was. Push here, get reaction there. It does not matter to them what they push, so long as the reaction leads to what they want. Power and control.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.