CBP Deploys Facial Recognition to Verify Identities of Departing Int'l Travelers
Apr 23, 2021, 4:38 am
#166
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
What is your citizenship?
Apr 26, 2021, 9:55 pm
#169
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
US citizens can opt-out.
When I opted out on my last departure from ORD to Europe during this pandemic, I was again asked to subject myself to the biometric exit control and/or boarding thing. I refused and the airline employee wasn't all that happy about it but she ended up realizing that it wasn't required of me.
At another time at ORD this month, I saw more TSA employees hanging around with the equipment to do gate-area screening than I had seen in quite some time; but they were just hanging out waiting or talking about waiting for CBP to come along for an international flight to do their business including with the biometric exit stuff.
When I opted out on my last departure from ORD to Europe during this pandemic, I was again asked to subject myself to the biometric exit control and/or boarding thing. I refused and the airline employee wasn't all that happy about it but she ended up realizing that it wasn't required of me.
At another time at ORD this month, I saw more TSA employees hanging around with the equipment to do gate-area screening than I had seen in quite some time; but they were just hanging out waiting or talking about waiting for CBP to come along for an international flight to do their business including with the biometric exit stuff.
Apr 26, 2021, 11:38 pm
#170
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
We sure can.
But lot's of countries use FR for entries and exits to streamline airport operations and I have no objection to that. FR is usually better than humans at preventing someone else from using your passport. Showing your face to a machine instead of a human to digitally match it to your passport photo when you enter and exit the country-- well, ever used an ATM instead of a human teller?
Passive FR is creepy and prone to abuses. That would be the bank spewing cash out of your account without telling you when you walk by the bank.
The process is touchless and less work for the gate agent. Objections can be pettily self-interested rather than aligned with any philosophy of one sort or another.
I'm not sure I understand the connection. TSA and CBP serve different functions. I suppose they serve the same function when they are 'just hanging'. I must say that is not my overall impression of CBP. TSA on the other hand . . .
But lot's of countries use FR for entries and exits to streamline airport operations and I have no objection to that. FR is usually better than humans at preventing someone else from using your passport. Showing your face to a machine instead of a human to digitally match it to your passport photo when you enter and exit the country-- well, ever used an ATM instead of a human teller?
Passive FR is creepy and prone to abuses. That would be the bank spewing cash out of your account without telling you when you walk by the bank.
When I opted out on my last departure from ORD to Europe during this pandemic, I was again asked to subject myself to the biometric exit control and/or boarding thing. I refused and the airline employee wasn't all that happy about it but she ended up realizing that it wasn't required of me.
At another time at ORD this month, I saw more TSA employees hanging around with the equipment to do gate-area screening than I had seen in quite some time; but they were just hanging out waiting or talking about waiting for CBP to come along for an international flight to do their business including with the biometric exit stuff.
Apr 26, 2021, 11:54 pm
#171
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
At ORD, there is some history of the TSA and CBP teaming up to work the same international flights to do a sort of "double screening" even during this biometric exit stuff.
FRT in use can be gamed too. All it takes with some of the systems used is for the government-accepted passport photo to have been subject to some creative photo morphing by the passport user that combines the points from two individuals.
CBP and other passport control types aren't all that perfect with stopping FOG/FUG passports, but the country got by just fine without FRT exit control for decades, and it would still not be catastrophic to continue with old practices.
Where is the USG study about how FOGs get by CBP with or without photo morphing, and in some places such passport users even get by them when subject to FRT at ports of entry/exit?
The FRT process in place for one purpose can end up being exploited for other purposes, even without a disclosed or even direct image transfer between systems. That's another thing to dislike about FRT use at entry/exit ports.
Another thing to dislike about FRT is how it tends to falsely flag down ethnic minorities of some sort more than others because of how the programming bias has turned out with some of these systems. https://www.nist.gov/speech-testimon...rency-accuracy
FRT in use can be gamed too. All it takes with some of the systems used is for the government-accepted passport photo to have been subject to some creative photo morphing by the passport user that combines the points from two individuals.
CBP and other passport control types aren't all that perfect with stopping FOG/FUG passports, but the country got by just fine without FRT exit control for decades, and it would still not be catastrophic to continue with old practices.
Where is the USG study about how FOGs get by CBP with or without photo morphing, and in some places such passport users even get by them when subject to FRT at ports of entry/exit?
The FRT process in place for one purpose can end up being exploited for other purposes, even without a disclosed or even direct image transfer between systems. That's another thing to dislike about FRT use at entry/exit ports.
Another thing to dislike about FRT is how it tends to falsely flag down ethnic minorities of some sort more than others because of how the programming bias has turned out with some of these systems. https://www.nist.gov/speech-testimon...rency-accuracy
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 27, 2021 at 12:12 am
Apr 27, 2021, 1:36 am
#172
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Another thing to dislike about FRT is how it tends to falsely flag down ethnic minorities of some sort more than others because of how the programming bias has turned out with some of these systems. https://www.nist.gov/speech-testimon...rency-accuracy
Apr 28, 2021, 3:50 pm
#173
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
When I was involved with testing an aviation FRT system, considered by some as one of the very best systems, the system boasted of 95% accuracy. It now boasts of 99% accuracy (actually 98.5, rounded!). But even that is still overselling because it is not for all pax, only a moderate segment which CBP considers "in scope" (i.e. excludes young and "very" old). The real rate for all travelers is still closer to 95%. Sophisticated and only moderately-resourced bad guys can easily beat the system, not to mention that, as previously mentioned, it is not mandatory to submit/participate in the first place (at least in the US).
And, as noted upthread, the database can (and is/will be) used for other purposes. Which is the real intent for the developers; airport operators can exploit FRT separately and in conjunction with cell phone tracking for marketing and advertising purposes. For example, we can target ads to you as soon as we recognize you are on the property. We trace your path through the airport using your phone, and then target ads to your email or device (and even on display monitors that you will pass) as you pass through the airport ("Hey, S107, welcome back - here's 15% off your next donut/coffee at Dunkin Donuts on the way to your flight. Have a wonderful flight!").
We already track every device that pings our networks....now we can more efficiently monetize that data courtesy of the federal gubmint.
And, as noted upthread, the database can (and is/will be) used for other purposes. Which is the real intent for the developers; airport operators can exploit FRT separately and in conjunction with cell phone tracking for marketing and advertising purposes. For example, we can target ads to you as soon as we recognize you are on the property. We trace your path through the airport using your phone, and then target ads to your email or device (and even on display monitors that you will pass) as you pass through the airport ("Hey, S107, welcome back - here's 15% off your next donut/coffee at Dunkin Donuts on the way to your flight. Have a wonderful flight!").
We already track every device that pings our networks....now we can more efficiently monetize that data courtesy of the federal gubmint.
Apr 29, 2021, 3:55 pm
#175
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
FRT need not even be tied to full-face recognition. It can be tailored to narrower sections of the face. I have to try to see if I can find out if DHS/CBP have any of their FRT-using systems with a capability already in place to do this.
May 20, 2021, 3:08 am
#176
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
On a trip from ORD to Europe this year, I encountered CBP trying to mislead Americans and Canadians into thinking this facial image capture biometric exit was mandatory. When one of the passengers pushed the matter, one CBP employee at the gate tried to engage in the fishing expedition questions about cash and cash-equivalents being exported after the group were made to concede that the automated biometric exit was optional and not required of Americans. But the CBP group wouldn’t just concede. Instead the CBP was saying the airline can mandate this, with a sort of insinuation that the airline could deny transport to Americans out of the US on the basis of them refusing to participate in it. Just weird. 6 or so CBP employees and a mean-looking sniffer dog for less than 45 departing passengers. Biometric exit was way slower per passenger than what I’ve encountered when these flights are packed and were done without the facial image capture.
What’s more interesting than the CBP departure control party is that the airlines aren’t stopped by CBP from making their own use of images captured during the biometric exit process.
By the way, want to have fun with this? Give the camera just your side profile and do so with a mask covering part of your chin. On flights out of the US, I’ll have to try that myself if I suspect I’m going to get grief for being the first to opt out as is my due right still on flights out of the US.
What’s more interesting than the CBP departure control party is that the airlines aren’t stopped by CBP from making their own use of images captured during the biometric exit process.
By the way, want to have fun with this? Give the camera just your side profile and do so with a mask covering part of your chin. On flights out of the US, I’ll have to try that myself if I suspect I’m going to get grief for being the first to opt out as is my due right still on flights out of the US.
May 21, 2021, 8:45 am
#177
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
By the way, want to have fun with this? Give the camera just your side profile and do so with a mask covering part of your chin. On flights out of the US, I’ll have to try that myself if I suspect I’m going to get grief for being the first to opt out as is my due right still on flights out of the US.
May 21, 2021, 9:17 am
#178
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
If use of facial recognition isn't required by law it should be a violation of personal standards of conduct for a government employee to mislead (lie) to a person on the matter. Such actions by the government employee should be cause for dismissal.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Standards of Conduct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Standards of Conduct
May 22, 2021, 10:23 am
#179
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,669
May 22, 2021, 10:33 am
#180
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
Originally Posted by cbp.gov
While U.S. Citizens who are entering or exiting the country are generally required to be in possession of a valid U.S. passport, CBP does not require U.S. Citizens or exempt aliens[1] to have their pictures taken. Travelers who do not wish to participate in this facial comparison process may notify a CBP Officer or an airline, airport or cruise line representative in order to seek an alternative means of verifying their identities and documents. CBP discards all photos of U.S. Citizens within 12 hours of identity verification.
[1] By law, CBP may require certain aliens to provide biometric identifiers to confirm their admissibility pursuant to 8 CFR 235.1(f)(ii) or, at specified airports, their departure pursuant to 8 CFR 215.8(a)(1). Some aliens are exempt from any requirement to provide biometrics, including: Canadian citizens under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act who are not otherwise required to present a visa or be issued a form I-94 or Form I-95; aliens younger than 14 or older than 79 on the data of admission; aliens admitted A-1, A-2, C-3 (except for attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 visas, and certain Taiwan officials who hold E-1 visas and members of their immediate families who hold E-1 visas unless the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security jointly determine that a class of such aliens should be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii); classes of aliens to whom the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine it shall not apply; or an individual alien to whom the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Director of Central Intelligence determines this requirement shall not apply.
[1] By law, CBP may require certain aliens to provide biometric identifiers to confirm their admissibility pursuant to 8 CFR 235.1(f)(ii) or, at specified airports, their departure pursuant to 8 CFR 215.8(a)(1). Some aliens are exempt from any requirement to provide biometrics, including: Canadian citizens under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act who are not otherwise required to present a visa or be issued a form I-94 or Form I-95; aliens younger than 14 or older than 79 on the data of admission; aliens admitted A-1, A-2, C-3 (except for attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 visas, and certain Taiwan officials who hold E-1 visas and members of their immediate families who hold E-1 visas unless the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security jointly determine that a class of such aliens should be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii); classes of aliens to whom the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine it shall not apply; or an individual alien to whom the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Director of Central Intelligence determines this requirement shall not apply.
CBP didn’t even yet care to get “date” right above.