2 Senators ask DHS to suspend facial recognition at airports
 

https://epic.org/2019/03/following-e...enators-t.html

The thread title is a bit misleading. Senators do not "tell" DHS to do anything. Rather, two Senators have written a letter asking DHS to discontinue the practice.

"Telling" would require a majority of the Senate and House and the President's signature. Most likely in either the DHS authorization or as a spending prohibition in the DHS appropriation for 2020.

Moderator's Action
 

Pursuant to FlyerTalk Rule 4, the thread title has been edited to accurately characterize the topic.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

Can we talk about facial recognition technology on air travelers?

I think this should be handled as part of a much larger issue: the use of facial recognition technology by anyone, government or non-government. I don't think this is an issue that should wind its way through the courts with 'limits' being narrowly defined, court case by court case.

I'm particularly concerned about its use by DHS with no apparent oversight. This is an agency that has struggled to provide pax a quick and transparent challenge process to agency errors. There are already documented instances of facial recognition technology 'oopsies' (outside DHS). That's hardly surprising for a new and still developing (OT: read up on it - it is amazing!) technology. What is alarming is the thought that an 'oopsie' by a not-quite-ready-for-prime-time technology could lead to someone's freedoms being interfered with and no viable recourse being provided.

In short, I recall the days when a toddler would be held up at the airport because s/he was confused with a terrorist in some DHS database. There was no place for common sense and no quick and transparent recourse. I don't want to see the same thing happen with facial recognition technology.

I understand the challenges that people are pointing out with this technology, I understand the points of concern that they are raising - what I do not see is a clear path for removal of the technology in public (or even private space at the direction of the owners). Some thing that I could see being slowed down or paused, would be the followup processes (like arrests based solely on this particular tech). The actual collection of the data and images in the public forum have been clearly upheld as there is no expectation of privacy in the public spaces. the position that most government agencies would *possibly* take is that the person opts into the technology by choosing to enter the buildings and to travel by air (as most government buildings/airports have signs posted indicating that CCTV is in use). I think that if changes come, it will be on the back end, such as how they have to go about arresting someone identified by this program.

Facial Recognition technology is just another chip on the stone of personal identity loss. I think we as a people have the right to not have all of our personal information in some government/private database. Finger prints, iris scans, now face recognition scans, among other data points, should be optional and a person should have to Opt In before any information is collected. DHS is not known for being very ethical in these things so I don't support any forms to collect personal information.

Often1 is technically correct. But because this type of communication can easily segue into an amendment to a bill or into a separate bill, it would be in DHS best interest to get out in front of the issue, no?

At a minimum, clearly defining that a facial-recognition hit is not reasonable suspicion, and certainly not probable cause, of any criminal activity. And that facial recognition by itself will not be used for deprivation of liberty (including detention, including travel restrictions), property, etc. And accountability (i.e., real personal consequences with criminal and/or civil teeth) against any government actors that violate these tenants.

Of course the government will never go for that . . .

I, for one, am sick of the concept of implied consent and tired of the courts/legislature/people allowing the concept of implied consent to creep more and more into our lives. It's getting to the point where the government perceives stepping outside of your front door to be implied consent to giving up one or more rights.

Maybe (just maybe IMO) I imply consent to a TSA screening by buying a domestic airline ticket, but I certainly did not consent to being forced into a private room after an ETD alarm (since that procedure was not disclosed anywhere in advance of the ticket purchase), nor did I consent to having my travel habits and biometrics (i.e., facial recognition) hoovered up into some government database.

Agreed about the clearly defining regulations and laws - I am a big fan of writing a law based upon what the law is supposed to be, not the ginormous garbage pork laden novels we get that are labelled "The Don't Cross the Road on Red Law", 5000 pages. It is silly, and sadly the population seems to think that it is ok. When we did away with line item vetoes, and specificity in law making, we did a grave disservice to ourselves, disguised under "good intentions".

I am not so certain about implied consent in public areas like airports and city/state/federal government building/areas. The signage has been almost the same as when I was a kid, and it has crept into the expectations of most younger folks - they selfie and post in on every social media site all the time, and they think nothing of the government doing the same... at least, until it creates a situation that is detrimental to them. I think that implied consent in public areas is not going to change back from what it has been for decades. I am not arguing the right/wrong aspect, merely the way I understand the system to work.

As far as TSA, they explain the basics of a pat-down, and in some cases the other parts of screening (as needed). I am fairly certain that folks are going to argue both ways on the implied consent part of the pat-down and alarm resolution procedures that are employed - I am equally certain that there will not be major changes either way, unless some outside force acts upon it (like a court case or a completely new thought process by the head shed).

The issue is not one of implied consent but as the courts have said one has "no expectation of privacy" in a public space. So then the question becomes should the public be reminded of that in a similar manner in which road side checkpoints have to be announced so that people can chose an alternative path if they wish?

Thread drift - I think the issue with mass MMW scanning technology which is akin to a search will hit the courts before any issue with facial recognition technology. And that should be announced in advance.

Just like collecting personal biometrics without full disclosure TSA's pat down advisement leaves out critical information, such as I'm about to grab your junk.

True, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space - however, as so many gub'ment people like to say about our actual rights and freedoms, that is not without its limits.

When speaking in a low voice to a specific person in a public space, there IS a reasonable expectation that your conversation will be private. Hence, using snooper mics or hidden recording devices to record someone's conversations without their consent is prohibited in many states by two-party consent laws.

Also, the issue is not just about being seen and recognized in public by cameras. It's about being surveilled and tracked in public by government cameras.

It's my understanding that individual surveillance and tracking, i.e. following someone to see where they go, what they do, and with whom they associate, requires a warrant, just like a search, due to the invasive nature of such an activity - even when performed entirely in public view only. To me, using facial recognition in public places to identify specific individuals and track where they travel, what they do, and with whom they associate, is just as much of an invasion of privacy.

I am not against the use of facial rec on footage from cameras in public areas, by law enforcement agencies engaged in authorized criminal investigations. However, the wholesale use of facial rec to track individuals through their travels and daily activities, even in public places like airports, is as wrong as assigning an individual cop to follow someone and note every place they visit, everything they do, and every person with whom they associate, even if it is only done strictly in public places. Such activities by the government have a naturally chilling affect on both freedom of movement and freedom of association, both of which are the foundations of freedom of speech, religion, and press.

In plainer language, outside of a specific, targeted, warranted criminal investigation, no government agency has a right to know where I go, what I do, or with whom I associate, EVER. And the widespread, constant use of facial rec technology violates that.

So, no integrated facial rec in airports, no facial rec in public, no facial rec for DHS. If the FBI or some other LEO agency is investigating someone, let them pull limited, specific security camera footage of just that one person, with a warrant, and run their own facial rec on it after the fact.