CBP Deploys Facial Recognition to Verify Identities of Departing Int'l Travelers
Feb 28, 2017, 7:24 am
#46
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 479
This is the "biometric exit control" that has been talked about for years. Looks like they're finally moving towards implementing it.
First of all, if they are comparing the data to what's stored on the passport chip, it's clearly just a photo, not an "iris scan" as the article says, since there is no iris data stored on ePassports. This diminishes my trust in the rest of the article. Thus I would not at all surprised if they were actually CBP officers and not "US marshals" as the article says.
"I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else."
First of all the vast majority of countries in the world conduct physical exit immigration checks. The US is an outlier in not doing that. When I flew out of Australia I put my passport in the scanner, they took a picture of my face, compared it to the passport, gate opened. Only difference here is that it's an actual person doing it instead of a machine, and it's done at boarding rather than when entering the terminal because US airport infrastructure was not originally designed for this. They'll be going off data that's already been collected from you anyway (both stored on your ePassport, and collected when you entered the country). The purpose of this is to crack down on visa overstayers, not prevent US citizens from leaving. They already are more than capable of preventing someone from leaving if they need to.
First of all, if they are comparing the data to what's stored on the passport chip, it's clearly just a photo, not an "iris scan" as the article says, since there is no iris data stored on ePassports. This diminishes my trust in the rest of the article. Thus I would not at all surprised if they were actually CBP officers and not "US marshals" as the article says.
"I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else."
First of all the vast majority of countries in the world conduct physical exit immigration checks. The US is an outlier in not doing that. When I flew out of Australia I put my passport in the scanner, they took a picture of my face, compared it to the passport, gate opened. Only difference here is that it's an actual person doing it instead of a machine, and it's done at boarding rather than when entering the terminal because US airport infrastructure was not originally designed for this. They'll be going off data that's already been collected from you anyway (both stored on your ePassport, and collected when you entered the country). The purpose of this is to crack down on visa overstayers, not prevent US citizens from leaving. They already are more than capable of preventing someone from leaving if they need to.
Last edited by Kumulani; Feb 28, 2017 at 7:34 am
Feb 28, 2017, 7:30 am
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This is the "biometric exit control" that has been talked about for years. Looks like they're finally moving towards implementing it.
First of all, if they are comparing the data to what's stored on the passport chip, it's clearly just a photo, not an "iris scan" as the article says, since there is no iris data stored on ePassports. This diminishes my trust in the rest of the article. Thus I would not at all surprised if they were actually CBP officers and not "US marshals" as the article says.
"I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else."
First of all the vast majority of countries in the world conduct physical exit immigration checks. The US is an outlier in not doing that. When I flew out of Australia I put my passport in the scanner, they took a picture of my face, compared it to the passport, gate opened. Only difference here is that it's an actual person doing it instead of a machine, and it's done at boarding rather than when entering the terminal because US airport infrastructure was not originally designed for this. They'll be going off data that's already been collected from you anyway (both stored on your ePassport, and collected when you entered the country). The purpose of this is to crack down on visa overstayers, not prevent US citizens from leaving. They already are more than capable of preventing someone from leaving if they need to.
First of all, if they are comparing the data to what's stored on the passport chip, it's clearly just a photo, not an "iris scan" as the article says, since there is no iris data stored on ePassports. This diminishes my trust in the rest of the article. Thus I would not at all surprised if they were actually CBP officers and not "US marshals" as the article says.
"I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else."
First of all the vast majority of countries in the world conduct physical exit immigration checks. The US is an outlier in not doing that. When I flew out of Australia I put my passport in the scanner, they took a picture of my face, compared it to the passport, gate opened. Only difference here is that it's an actual person doing it instead of a machine, and it's done at boarding rather than when entering the terminal because US airport infrastructure was not originally designed for this. They'll be going off data that's already been collected from you anyway (both stored on your ePassport, and collected when you entered the country). The purpose of this is to crack down on visa overstayers, not prevent US citizens from leaving. They already are more than capable of preventing someone from leaving if they need to.
Feb 28, 2017, 7:33 am
#48
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 479
I will say if they start doing this on all international flights it's going to be ridiculous to have all those CBP officers out at the various gates doing this. But the only alternative is reconfiguring all the international airports. I think it's a waste of money, personally.
Feb 28, 2017, 7:36 am
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
And it is meant to control even Americans who are otherwise free and not subject to detention/arrest under the law in a land under the rule of law.
The biometric controls are primarily geared toward non-US persons, but once a capability is in place for one purpose it is often sooner or later applied to a larger population than the initial guinea pigs and early year subjects.
Feb 28, 2017, 8:15 am
#50
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 479
I never said that US citizens would not be subject to exit immigration. I wouldn't be surprised if they were, as I said the vast majority of countries in the world subject their citizens to exit immigration before allowing them to leave, whether it's through an immigration officer comparing a traveler to their passport photo, or a machine comparing a photo of a traveler to a photo stored on an ePassport chip.
If the government wants to stop a US citizen from leaving the country for whatever reason, they will continue to be able to do so, just like they are already able to now. If exit immigration were required to stop someone from leaving the country, it would have been implemented decades ago.
If the government wants to stop a US citizen from leaving the country for whatever reason, they will continue to be able to do so, just like they are already able to now. If exit immigration were required to stop someone from leaving the country, it would have been implemented decades ago.
Last edited by Kumulani; Feb 28, 2017 at 8:21 am
Feb 28, 2017, 12:39 pm
#52
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Congressionally required status report of program:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...xit%20Plan.pdf
Current public information: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometric...ty-initiatives
Short answers:
1. Because the iris program is still in developmental/pilot stages there is no policy readily available to disseminate publicly.
2. Pilots are being conducted at several of the largest Cat X US airports; the goal is to roll the full program out in 2018 starting with the largest airports first
3. This is being done by CBP, not the US Marshal's Service - inaccurate writing/editing of the article by Mr. Tucker.
Answers to questions you didn't ask: Biometrics collection by CBP and ICE goes back more than 15 years at DHS and its precursors. Congress ordered and authorized the current program back in 2013. However, program is still in developmental/pilot stage and so there is not much in the way of "policy" that can be disseminated. But here is a program strategy document https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=786880
Feb 28, 2017, 1:48 pm
#53
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
Thank you very much for your post. I really appreciate it. I find it really interesting that what is happening on the website is so different from what is appears to be happening (the website indicates that the test is for one flight per day out of ATL to Tokyo), and that this is done as a photo scan.
--Are they testing the iris scans now, or is perhaps the writer of the article mistaken (since he claimed it was a marshal instead of someone from CBP, I would not be surprised if there was another mistake as well).
--Is this being tested frequently? From a lot of airports on a lot of flights? Or is nobody disclosing this information?
--Are they testing the iris scans now, or is perhaps the writer of the article mistaken (since he claimed it was a marshal instead of someone from CBP, I would not be surprised if there was another mistake as well).
--Is this being tested frequently? From a lot of airports on a lot of flights? Or is nobody disclosing this information?
Feb 28, 2017, 2:00 pm
#54
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I can't say for sure that a US Marshal wasn't present when this was going on sometimes. I can say for sure iris scans have been used at times as part of doing this.
The GAO reports and PIAs are my friends:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683036.pdf
As I noted quite some time back, iris scans were also used. And the above is more public confirmation.
The GAO reports and PIAs are my friends:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683036.pdf
As I noted quite some time back, iris scans were also used. And the above is more public confirmation.
Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 28, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Mar 1, 2017, 6:40 am
#55
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Retinas scan
My wife and I flew to FLL from ORD around 2005 I think it was and we were told at that time Retinal Scanning was going to happen and we had our Eyes Scanned at that time in FLL. We had never heard of that before and this is the 1st time I've heard of it again. I fly over 135,000 miles a year and have been in many airports and never seen this again or heard about it till now.
Mar 1, 2017, 6:42 am
#56
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 55
I didn't say that the main reason for implementation of exit controls when flying by common carrier is to control just Americans, but exit controls are there also to control the departure of otherwise free Americans from leaving the country by common carrier. It's part of the main reason: control.
And it is meant to control even Americans who are otherwise free and not subject to detention/arrest under the law in a land under the rule of law.
The biometric controls are primarily geared toward non-US persons, but once a capability is in place for one purpose it is often sooner or later applied to a larger population than the initial guinea pigs and early year subjects.
And it is meant to control even Americans who are otherwise free and not subject to detention/arrest under the law in a land under the rule of law.
The biometric controls are primarily geared toward non-US persons, but once a capability is in place for one purpose it is often sooner or later applied to a larger population than the initial guinea pigs and early year subjects.
Biometrics and airport reconfiguration are also not needed to track visa overstays. They can just use the passport information already gathered by the airlines (then instead of an airline agent, just have a CBP be the one that looks at your passport and scans your ticket to make sure you actually got on the plane).
The only reason for biometrics is to stop one person from using another's passport. That's it. They already have all the info on the photo page in their computer, so it isn't even to make sure you're not using a fake (which is why it always kills me that boarder agents insist on looking at my Nexus card after I have scanned it.... As if I went to the trouble of faking the RFID and hacking their computer, but didn't bother to get my photo right!).
Last edited by innesst; Mar 1, 2017 at 6:49 am
Mar 1, 2017, 7:02 am
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Ridiculous. No fancy biometrics or exit controls are necessary to stop law abiding citizens from leaving. If "they" wanted to stop you, they just put you on the no fly list and give your names to Canadian and Mexican land border agencies. If you're legally using your own passport, what else would be needed?
Biometrics and airport reconfiguration are also not needed to track visa overstays. They can just use the passport information already gathered by the airlines (then instead of an airline agent, just have a CBP be the one that looks at your passport and scans your ticket to make sure you actually got on the plane).
The only reason for biometrics is to stop one person from using another's passport. That's it. They already have all the info on the photo page in their computer, so it isn't even to make sure you're not using a fake (which is why it always kills me that boarder agents insist on looking at my Nexus card after I have scanned it.... As if I went to the trouble of faking the RFID and hacking their computer, but didn't bother to get my photo right!).
Biometrics and airport reconfiguration are also not needed to track visa overstays. They can just use the passport information already gathered by the airlines (then instead of an airline agent, just have a CBP be the one that looks at your passport and scans your ticket to make sure you actually got on the plane).
The only reason for biometrics is to stop one person from using another's passport. That's it. They already have all the info on the photo page in their computer, so it isn't even to make sure you're not using a fake (which is why it always kills me that boarder agents insist on looking at my Nexus card after I have scanned it.... As if I went to the trouble of faking the RFID and hacking their computer, but didn't bother to get my photo right!).
2. Many US citizens can legally enter Canada and Mexico without use of a US passport, and many of those crossings aren't impacted by no-fly lists. Some of those legal crossings aren't even going to involve actual physical inspection of the traveler's ID by the Canadian or Mexican authorities.
Mar 2, 2017, 4:09 am
#58
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX (elite) and a few others (non-elite)
Posts: 687
Speaking as someone who isn't 'Merkin, I find this discussion fascinating.
Brits have a strong cultural antipathy to ID cards (hangover from the war days, when identity papers were compulsory, and about as popular as the requirement to have a ration card and the entire rationing system). And I live in Hong Kong where carrying an ID card is compulsory (and no, a driving licence won't do - you are HK resident and carry your HKID card or you're not and you carry your passport) and police have the power to randomly stop-and-search (in some areas of Hong Kong, Chinese male youths are stopped by police on average more than once a day). HKIDs are so much part of the infrastructure here that it is incredibly difficult to get anything vaguely official (from opening a bank account arranging a telephone line) without producing it, even if the government isn't involved. So I have ample experience of this from both extremes. Here's my take on this:
The article seemed to me completely overblown. Machines may be more efficient/effective at comparing biometric data than a human being (comparing face to photo for example). In the modern world, sadly, there does seem to be some justification for checking that a traveller is who they say they are. In fact, if you accept that additional security is justified for an aeroplane trip as opposed to a train trip (which is a whole different discussion) then why should there be any difference between an outgoing international flight and an incoming one? Hijackings can happen in either direction, and terrorists can start their journey at either end. So if some sort of check needs to be made (again, a whole different discussion), why not automate it IF it makes the whole process more efficient?
That's the rub, of course. I get constantly hacked off when going back into the UK that I have to queue up for a stupid bloody e-gate which takes twenty times as long to process me and my passport as a human would, particularly when half of the sodding things aren't working, and three immigration personnel, who could be doing something useful (such as - oh, I don't know, CHECKING PASSPORTS!), have to sit around at their desks getting bored out of their brains but need to be on standby in case there is a problem processing someone going through the gates. AARRGGHH!!
I personally think it is mad that America (and some other countries) check who is coming in but don't check who is leaving - how else can you check compliance with visa and work permit restrictions?
Anyway. A couple more thoughts on the article. Passports conceptually have been around a lot longer than the author suggests, having first been regulated under UK legislation in the early 15th century, and the term started being used in the UK legal system in the mid-16th. One other interesting thing is the statement that the data captured for US citizens would be deleted. How about the rest of us???
Brits have a strong cultural antipathy to ID cards (hangover from the war days, when identity papers were compulsory, and about as popular as the requirement to have a ration card and the entire rationing system). And I live in Hong Kong where carrying an ID card is compulsory (and no, a driving licence won't do - you are HK resident and carry your HKID card or you're not and you carry your passport) and police have the power to randomly stop-and-search (in some areas of Hong Kong, Chinese male youths are stopped by police on average more than once a day). HKIDs are so much part of the infrastructure here that it is incredibly difficult to get anything vaguely official (from opening a bank account arranging a telephone line) without producing it, even if the government isn't involved. So I have ample experience of this from both extremes. Here's my take on this:
The article seemed to me completely overblown. Machines may be more efficient/effective at comparing biometric data than a human being (comparing face to photo for example). In the modern world, sadly, there does seem to be some justification for checking that a traveller is who they say they are. In fact, if you accept that additional security is justified for an aeroplane trip as opposed to a train trip (which is a whole different discussion) then why should there be any difference between an outgoing international flight and an incoming one? Hijackings can happen in either direction, and terrorists can start their journey at either end. So if some sort of check needs to be made (again, a whole different discussion), why not automate it IF it makes the whole process more efficient?
That's the rub, of course. I get constantly hacked off when going back into the UK that I have to queue up for a stupid bloody e-gate which takes twenty times as long to process me and my passport as a human would, particularly when half of the sodding things aren't working, and three immigration personnel, who could be doing something useful (such as - oh, I don't know, CHECKING PASSPORTS!), have to sit around at their desks getting bored out of their brains but need to be on standby in case there is a problem processing someone going through the gates. AARRGGHH!!
I personally think it is mad that America (and some other countries) check who is coming in but don't check who is leaving - how else can you check compliance with visa and work permit restrictions?
Anyway. A couple more thoughts on the article. Passports conceptually have been around a lot longer than the author suggests, having first been regulated under UK legislation in the early 15th century, and the term started being used in the UK legal system in the mid-16th. One other interesting thing is the statement that the data captured for US citizens would be deleted. How about the rest of us???
Mar 2, 2017, 10:43 am
#59
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Thank you very much for your post. I really appreciate it. I find it really interesting that what is happening on the website is so different from what is appears to be happening (the website indicates that the test is for one flight per day out of ATL to Tokyo), and that this is done as a photo scan.
--Are they testing the iris scans now, or is perhaps the writer of the article mistaken (since he claimed it was a marshal instead of someone from CBP, I would not be surprised if there was another mistake as well).
--Is this being tested frequently? From a lot of airports on a lot of flights? Or is nobody disclosing this information?
--Are they testing the iris scans now, or is perhaps the writer of the article mistaken (since he claimed it was a marshal instead of someone from CBP, I would not be surprised if there was another mistake as well).
--Is this being tested frequently? From a lot of airports on a lot of flights? Or is nobody disclosing this information?
Mar 2, 2017, 7:35 pm
#60
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
Does anyone know how to get information about this part of the pilot phase, since the website is out of date? Is there any information about the flights or airports where this is taking place?
Why are the website and other documents about this so out of date with so little information?
Will a rulemaking process, and thus a request for comments come about after the pilot phase has been completed?
Why are the website and other documents about this so out of date with so little information?
Will a rulemaking process, and thus a request for comments come about after the pilot phase has been completed?