Is Homeland Security's Face-Scanning At Airports An Unreasonable Search? (technologyreview.com) 146
schwit1 shares an article from MIT's Technology Review:
Facial-recognition systems may indeed speed up the boarding process, as the airlines rolling them out promise. But the real reason they are cropping up in U.S. airports is that the government wants to keep better track of who is leaving the country, by scanning travelers' faces and verifying those scans against photos it already has on file... The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has partnered with airlines including JetBlue and Delta to introduce such recognition systems at New York's JFK International Airport, Washington's Dulles International, and airports in Atlanta, Boston, and Houston, among others. It plans to add more this summer...
As facial-recognition technology has improved significantly in recent years, it has attracted the interest of governments and law enforcement agencies. That's led to debates over whether certain uses of the technology violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches... Harrison Rudolph, a law fellow at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, and others are raising alarms because as part of the process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is also scanning the faces of U.S. citizens... They say Congress has never expressly authorized the collection of facial scans from U.S. citizens at the border routinely and without suspicion.
"We aren't entirely sure what the government is doing with the images," the article adds, though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks. But Slashdot reader schwit1 is still worried about the possibility of an irretrievable loss of privacy, writing that "If the DHS database gets hacked, it's hard to get a new face."
As facial-recognition technology has improved significantly in recent years, it has attracted the interest of governments and law enforcement agencies. That's led to debates over whether certain uses of the technology violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches... Harrison Rudolph, a law fellow at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, and others are raising alarms because as part of the process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is also scanning the faces of U.S. citizens... They say Congress has never expressly authorized the collection of facial scans from U.S. citizens at the border routinely and without suspicion.
"We aren't entirely sure what the government is doing with the images," the article adds, though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks. But Slashdot reader schwit1 is still worried about the possibility of an irretrievable loss of privacy, writing that "If the DHS database gets hacked, it's hard to get a new face."
no (Score:2)
Re:Hillary Clinton Murders Another One! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting for the AMA to declare "Investigating Hillary Clinton" a leading cause of death.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Vince Foster
Re: (Score:2)
Re: no (Score:1)
advanced airport security [slapthebaldy.com]
Very public location, no constitutional issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
People are not, in general, boycotting airports. Nor are they refusing to vote for candidates that are pushing for more invasive security theater.
Therefore, the government will continue to push for ever-more invasive security measures. They will not stop until they are stopped. The only thing I don't understand is why people think this is cynical. This is how the world has always worked.
Re:Very public location, no constitutional issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Very public location, no constitutional issue (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wish to argue it that way, and I am not convinced you're correct, then the airport would be the entity giving permission to search.
But if they're the entity (Score:1)
then they do not have the power of the government to enforce it. If they do, then that entity becomes the government's representative and the difference is therefore anulled.
If you wanted to argue it that way, and I am not convinced you are correct...
Oh, and to the AC, "this is a picture, so not a search", yeah, right, and if I take a photo of you in the nude, or your wife, or one of your daughters, then that's just a picture, so not an invasion of your privacy, right? Retard.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
airports may be "public" in terms of facility ownership, but they are hardly "public locations". they have extremely specific conditions on entry to the portions of the facility in which this technology is being deployed. you can't simply walk in and go straight to a gate unhindered and without cost. compare that experience to walking out your front door and to a public sidewalk or street. totally different.
they're doing this so they can conduct warrantless background checks without cause or justification o
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, but I would like some liberal activist judges (in the mold of Nixon appointees Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger) to expand the right of privacy to prevent the government from paying too much attention to anyone. The cost of knowing everything about everyone drops a little every day, but the cost of thought has remained the same. So we have great knowledge with great power, and proportionally very little wisdom being applied. In that sense, we have a very different situation than in 1800, w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Airports are very public locations.
Nope, airports in the US are generally privately-owned/managed locations. You retain your civil rights on public property, but not on private property. Private shopping malls are also free to establish policies that would seem to be in violation of basic constitutional rights - because they are on private property, and because governments are not implementing those policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Private shopping malls are also free to establish policies that would seem to be in violation of basic constitutional rights
Oh, that must be why I saw a Slaves 'R' Us at our local mall...
Airports are publicly owned in the US (Score:2)
Nope, airports in the US are generally privately-owned/managed locations.
Don't know where you got this idea but this is not true. Most airports in the us are owned by public government entities of one form or another. Airport operations are typically contracted out to private companies. Twenty seconds on google would have cleared that up for you.
Private shopping malls are also free to establish policies that would seem to be in violation of basic constitutional rights - because they are on private property, and because governments are not implementing those policies.
No they do not get to violate your constitutional rights just because it is private property. The extent of their remedies in the event that you haven't committed a crime on their property is to ask you to leave. That's hardly a vio
Re: (Score:2)
If the President has to submit to this before boarding Air Force 1, then we are living in a Republic. If not, we are living in a feudal kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer wants this (Score:5, Insightful)
Boarding Pass Least of Airport Hassle (Score:2)
the reality of walking through the airport without having to show a boarding pass is going to win this argument in the end
Really? Showing a boarding pass is just about the least onerous thing you do in an airport. If it allowed them to reduce the security theatre required then I'd say it is perhaps worth it. However, since a boarding pass contains information about your seat, gate number and boarding time I am still going to want one whether or not I have to show it and once you have it showing it to someone is not really that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers want what? Consumers want speed and convenience. I don't think there's any consumer that at all thinks the process of showing an ID or a boarding pass would actually improve either of the two things they care about.
it will extend to domestic travel in time (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little chance this will not be extended to cover domestic air travel as well. That's how these things always go.
Related: Homeland Security says Americans who don't want faces scanned leaving the country "shouldn't travel" [zdnet.com]
Yes, you are in public, but there is a qualitative difference between randomly noticing someone's face in a public place, and a systemic collection of everyone's biometric data in a single central government database.
Re: it will extend to domestic travel in time (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you are in public, but there is a qualitative difference between randomly noticing someone's face in a public place, and a systemic collection of everyone's biometric data in a single central government database.
Really?
Let's take the example of a lone police officer and a face in the crowd.
The officer can spot a face in the crowd accidentally (meaning not specifically looking for it), that's OK, right?
Now, what if the officer is actually looking for the face in the crowd? That's still OK, right?
What if that officer uses a security camera and chooses to review the tape off-line (not in real-time), is that OK?
What if the officer and a friend are going to go thru the tape off-line, is that OK?
What if the officer emplo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you are in public, but there is a qualitative difference between randomly noticing someone's face in a public place, and a systemic collection of everyone's biometric data in a single central government database.
You mean like in passports, drivers licenses, and then logging the fact that you were there by ... errr... checking ID at the gate?
I'm trying to figure out what you're hoping to avoid here, but I think you lost this battle before it even started.
Re: (Score:3)
Surveillance Cameras At Border Capture License Plates, Location, Date & Time (12/07/2012)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... [huffingtonpost.com.au]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:it will extend to domestic travel in time (Score:4, Insightful)
They may tell you it's only to match a face to a boarding pass... until you find out that all those face scans that have been attached to name, address, card used to buy ticket, account/email used to buy ticket, source IP used to buy ticket, what else was purchased with card used to buy ticket, etc.... and so on now resides in a database that the gov wants to access in the name of 'security'. Then it's no longer used for face to boarding pass.
A database like that is too valuable to interests to stay private for long.
Re:it will extend to domestic travel in time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, the problem isn't the use in airports; they can easily enough tag you today and follow you through the facility-- it is when that database gets commercialized for advertising and similar uses.
The bigger threat is likely in behavior prediction long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they want to attach a full colour face to the 3D scan from their T-ray scanners. The guys on the late shift want to see what they are masturbating to.
Betteridge (Score:5, Informative)
No.
Your face is already visible to the public. And if it's an issue of tracking people _leaving_ the country, there are numerous ways to leave with no supervision whatsoever. The country you are entering may want to run a check, which is perfectly reasonable.
As for the issue of collecting facial scans, I assume that they are capturing an image for the purpose of facial recognition. Meaning that they already have a picture of you on file somewhere. Which has been true since the first person ever sat for a passport or drivers license photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your face is completely covered for religious reasons
Nope. Just the obligatory colander.
Re:Betteridge (Score:5, Funny)
>Which has been true since the first person ever sat for a passport or drivers license photo.
Yeah but those were done with very different technology.
For instance, my state added the photo to the driver's license but, by law, didn't authorize or intend to create a central catalog of photos. The law merely said the state could add a photo to the license. Years later when they went to digital licenses, the state just adopted the central database. And as time has gone on, they have increased the quality of the photos captured so they can be used for biometric matching. Several generations of technology improvements have occurred and yet the state still never got authority to keep a central photo archive. Taking a mile from an inch.
In the same way, the passport has you send in two pictures. But there is a world of difference between operating a central passport photo database with facial recognition, and having a paper file somewhere with the 2nd picture sitting in it, which can only be referenced manually by a human.
Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Travelers are required to produce photo ID to board a plane, and that requirement has morphed into a need to produce photo ID to enter the terminal.
"The Government" already knows you are there, they saw your ID, if they see a face that is supposed to be there, either a face that slipped past security or a known face of a wanted/watched individual, that is something they need to know.
You gave up your right to annonynimty when you showed the TSA worker your driver's license/passport.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You gave up all your rights when you decided to be a pussy and tolerate whatever evil shit your government does instead of removing your leaders if they do not respect individual liberty and civil rights.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this insightful? It's simply wrong. You are not required to show ID to fly on domestic U.S. routes period. You'll go through a more comprehensive pat down and bag search before passing through security, but that's it. Having ID is not a requirement.
https://papersplease.org/gilmo... [papersplease.org]
Re: Let's not forget (Score:2)
The TSA disagrees with you:
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/sec... [tsa.gov]
Re: Let's not forget (Score:2)
I left my wallet at home one time a couple years ago, the airline prevented me from getting a boarding pass without ID. In your case you likely by-passed the airline and checked in and got a boarding pass before you left home.
Re: (Score:3)
...even going so far as to rule that money is speech...
Yes, because we all know that TV/radio stations and networks are happy to run people's political ads for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
Any sort of mass communication requires money. To ban/regulate money spent to communicate political/ideological ideas and positions is to effectively ban/regulate mass communications of political/ideological ideas and positions. Banning/regulating people pooling their resources to do the same is equally a ban/regulation of mass communications of political/ideolog
Re: Let's not forget (Score:2)
The TSA disagrees with you:
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/sec... [tsa.gov]
Just flew to a few countries abroad: EU and Asia (Score:3)
At every single passport control my face was scanned. That includes the EU countries.
I am not particularly outraged by this US airport policy (though I don't travel to the US much, lately).
Re: (Score:2)
I fly at least once a week from Germany to Switzerland and back. Never once I had to show my id.
Re: (Score:3)
I must have missed Switzerland joining the EU.
Depends on how the info is handled (Score:3)
Probably not unreasonable by itself. It would be possible to turn it into an unreasonable search depending on what they do with the information. If they automate a deep dive into your background then somewhere along the line they probably have crossed a line violating 4th amendment rights. But merely attaching names to faces in a place where they are already asking for your id anyway probably isn't too big a deal. It just automates basically what they are doing already.
Twitter? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe they are going to be posted on twitter, along with the rest of the voting data? All the while our dear commander in chief keeps his own tax data private.
Re: Twitter? (Score:2)
All the while our dear commander in chief keeps his own tax data private.
As it is his right to, just as it is your right to keep your tax records private.
The tradition of sharing tax forms is just that, a tradition - just like getting a White House dog or granting a reprieve to a turkey in late November.
Your desire to see his tax forms doesn't obligate him to share them.
Re: (Score:3)
All the while our dear commander in chief keeps his own tax data private.
As it is his right to, just as it is your right to keep your tax records private.
The tradition of sharing tax forms is just that, a tradition - just like getting a White House dog or granting a reprieve to a turkey in late November.
Your desire to see his tax forms doesn't obligate him to share them.
It was more about how he is quite willing to make public the private data of US citizens, while being opaque with his own. Not an attitude that inspires trust.
TSA is unreasonable (Score:1)
Almost everything they do at airports today is unreasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
You think that perhaps it is time to do away with the drivers license? At least for non-commercial drivers.
The drivers license is mission creep at its worst. Had it not been for the creation of the drivers license we'd likely not have so many other interactions, public and private, needing the showing of ID. Buying alcohol would not likely require the showing of ID today if so many adults did not already have an existing ID that met that requirement. Can you imagine the outrage if everyone had to go to
Re: Americans Are Ignorant, Possibly Stupid. (Score:2)
You think that perhaps it is time to do away with the drivers license? At least for non-commercial drivers.
No. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Assume I agree with you, how does the absence of a license prevent people from driving? You can say it's a privilege, and to exercise it one must submit themselves to a written test, test of eyesight, having their photo taken, and so forth. How is this enforced?
Due to a mix-up while I was in the Army my license to drive was revoked but I didn't know about it. I drove for four or five years not knowing I didn't have the "privilege" to drive. I found out only after I went to have my license renewed. To g
Re: (Score:2)
By most estimates there are millions of people driving without a license in the USA today. Seems to me that they are likely some of the safest drivers out there because they don't want to get caught.
Um, no. Many people driving without licenses do that because their license was revoked - and for good reason, like being a habitual drunk driver and smashing into things all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Others have been in sufficiently many accidents that they can't afford insurance, and got caught driving without insurance and had their license revoked. This isn't a recommendation of driving ability either.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you admit that people can and do drive without a license? Also, you admit they had a license, and still drove poorly? I mean you cannot revoke a license if they had none in the first place.
If we cannot keep people from driving without a license then what purpose do they serve? It's not like the presence of the license makes them drive safely. All we are doing is making life inconvenient for the safe drivers. If at some point they prove to no longer be able to drive safely they are "asked" to not dr
Re: (Score:2)
So, you admit that people can and do drive without a license? Also, you admit they had a license, and still drove poorly? I mean you cannot revoke a license if they had none in the first place.
If we cannot keep people from driving without a license then what purpose do they serve? It's not like the presence of the license makes them drive safely. All we are doing is making life inconvenient for the safe drivers. If at some point they prove to no longer be able to drive safely they are "asked" to not drive any more by taking away their license. We don't need the licensee to ask people to drive safely, or to ask them to not drive if they are incapable of driving safely.
Drivers are only a problem if they fail to drive safely, and we don't need a piece of plastic in their pocket to enforce safe driving.
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law? If we cannot keep people from killing what purpose does a law against it serve? It's not like a law against murder makes them not kill.
A licensing process shows that people are at least somewhat competent at driving. When they cease to be competent, their license is revoked so that they no longer permitted to drive. Eliminating licensing would definitely increase both the number of incompetent drivers and the level of incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law?
In spite of what you might see in the movies no government entity issues licenses to kill.
Would you believe that there are 10 states in the USA that do not require a license to carry dangerous weapons like firearms? You shouldn't because the actual number is closer to 30. This wasn't always the case but people realized that the license did not make people safe, training did, enforcement did. People don't need a license to get training, and the police don't need people with pieces of plastic in their pock
Re: (Score:2)
So, you admit that people murder even though it is against the law?
In spite of what you might see in the movies no government entity issues licenses to kill.
Would you believe that there are 10 states in the USA that do not require a license to carry dangerous weapons like firearms? You shouldn't because the actual number is closer to 30. This wasn't always the case but people realized that the license did not make people safe, training did, enforcement did. People don't need a license to get training, and the police don't need people with pieces of plastic in their pockets to enforce the law.
You fail to understand that licensing is what is used to indicate that training has occurred. Without it, how does one know if training has occurred?
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand that licensing is what is used to indicate that training has occurred. Without it, how does one know if training has occurred?
You know the training has occurred because the driver is staying in their lane, stopping at stop signs, using turning signals, and so on. Every day is a driver's education exam and the "proctors" drive in white cars, wear blue uniforms, and are willing to give you your failing grade if you make a mistake.
I'm not saying get rid of all licenses, just those for people not in the business of driving. I don't think professional drivers necessarily need licenses, I'd think that the businesses that hire them wou
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine a large portion of the population don't even think much of the nonsense to show a driver license to get into a bar or buy a six pack at the grocery store.
I haven't shown an ID to buy alcohol in probably 25 years. Gray hair does that to you. Oh, and get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we're going to have a legal drinking age, there's going to need to be some form of identification involved.
Then do away with the drinking age.
The examples you gave are examples of the government creating a problem where an ID card is the solution. The government can still get their taxes, it just doesn't have to be from income and such. The government can tax the property, that's not going anywhere. Eliminate the other taxes and adjust the property taxes accordingly. Then you can have the tax collectors go around and collect from those occupying the property, like they did way back when before photographic i
Of Course it is Unreasonable (Score:2)
As far as I am concerned, if the government has no specific and articulable facts that would lead a REASONABLE person to believe that you are involved in criminal activity, then the government has no right to even ask your name, let alone look you up in a database, run your license plate, or google you.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the world where you are guilty until the powers that be think you are docile enough to be innocent.
Re: Of Course it is Unreasonable (Score:1)
if the government has no specific and articulable facts that would lead a REASONABLE person to believe that you are involved in criminal activity, then the government has no right to even ask your name, let alone look you up in a database, run your license plate, or google you.
The Trump campaign, transition, and administration all heartily agree - now can we stop the witch hunt into supposed 'Russian Collusion' since we have no specific and articulable facts To support the investigations?
Apart from DJTJr's admission? (Score:1)
And all the other evidence, right? I mean, apart from all the evidence, there's no evidence!
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you think the government should have no right to investigate someone without already having probable cause of criminal activity?
You're going to lose privacy (Score:3)
If you want to stop these kinds of abuses you need to create a society where the people with more money than average don't get to decide who lives and who dies. Until then it's all just deck chairs on the Titanic.
What happens when law fellows raise false alarms? (Score:2)
You'd think that a law fellow would know the difference between pictures in public vs an unreasonable search & seizure.
Is there a way to disbar him for yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
Real purpose of the scan is important (Score:2)
If the purpose of the scan is strictly to more quickly and accurately answer the question "Is this person on a list of people we have decided should not fly?", I don't find the concept so offensive and in conflict with unreasonable search. However if the the purpose of the scan is (or becomes) to track the movement of citizens who are not ch
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, these are 3D scans - and the government is collecting them so they can easily unlock everyone's new iPhone 8.
Speed up what? (Score:3)
The checking of ID / boarding passes has never been the limiting factor when boarding the plane. All this would achieve is moving more people from the queue outside the gate to the queue inside the airbridge or worse on the tarmac as we wait for several hundred people to one after the other get their shit together, find some space in an overhead compartment, sit down, and then stand up again when the next person needs to move past them.
If airlines wanted to speed up boarding that would abolish priority boarding and board by seat row only and additionally actually enforce which rows they are boarding. Though they pretty much have given up on priority anyway since every schmuck has a priority card now. Heck I flew in a flight once where there were 7 people who *didn't* have priority boarding, and then some business class passenger got upset when the airline refused to let him push infront of the other priority passengers. But I digress.
Never ending story (Score:5, Insightful)
The more the USA tries to 'fight terrorism' with these kind of measures, the more the terrorist will win. Terrorist organisations come and go. Look back in history. IRA, ETA, Osama Bin Laden, Taiban, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram, Islamic State, and the list goes on. For one a terrorist, for the other a freedom fighter. But, they never last. The only thing changes is the way countries deal with it. If you look at the amount of terrorist attacks over the years, you come to the conclusion that the world has become a saver place. Yes, although we hear more of terrorist attacks due to better news coverage, there are less terrorist attacks today then 10 or 20 years ago. But governments somehow don't see that. They come up with more and more 'security' measures. But those measures don't make this world safer, they only take away freedom and privacy.
The USA has very strict anti-terrorism measures, but the attack in Boston still happened. The anti-terrorism measures in Europe also become more strict, but the attacks in Madrid, Brussels and Paris still happened. Airports are becoming a hard target, so terrorist move to other tactics, like simply taking a van and drive it into a crowded place. We have to accept that you can't stop it. Name an anti-terrorist measure and I'll tell you a way to still commit a terrorist attack. To only way to fight terror is by not giving in to fear.
Scanning faces at airports won't stop any terrorist. So, yes, I say they are an unreasonable search.
How good is image recognition? (Score:1)
Are the false match rates really good enough to make this worthwhile?
Re: (Score:2)
That created list of numbers can be compared to every police booking photograph and private sector photograph the US gov collected or has access to in seconds.
Facial Recognition Software Moves From Overseas Wars to Local Police (Aug. 12, 2015)
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0... [nytimes.com] "rate of more than one million faces a second." is now for state or city use in 2015
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like the false match rates from humans are so bad that it's likely image recognition software is better.
I'm pretty decent at recognizing people, I dashed off a fast attempt at this and got top 20% https://www.testmybrain.org/Su... [testmybrain.org]
and I tend to be the one that recognizes heavily made-up people in movies first, or when they're 20 years younger in a small role in an old movie, etc. But most people are pretty bad at it, and it's the primary job the people at the border passport checks are doing, and f
On many levels, this is a non-issue (Score:2)
As for facial images - US (and other) passports already require expression-neutral images explicitly for the purpose of machine recognition to make it impossible for multiple passports to be issued to a single individual. If you have a passport issued in the last decade or so, your face is ALREADY in "the system".
Re: (Score:2)
You have the option not to enter if you do not wish to be searched.
Do you?
If you get a driver license you are required to sign a statement that you waive the right to deny a search for alcohol. If there is a state that does not have a similar waiver then I'd be surprised. Do you say that if you do not wish to be searched then don't drive? I've often wondered, what would happen if a person was driving without a license and refused a search for alcohol? They signed no waiver. Seems to me the reasonable thing to do is drive without a license.
In most states shops that sel
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right (Score:2)
>" though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
OK, could there be any funnier statement? That is just beyond unbelievable. So no photo is retained, no record of the comparison retained, and no meta data or biometric representation is retained, by ANY government or private agency? And how would they prove that?
The really sad part is that there are actually people out there who would believe such things. The only
False Positive rate? (Score:2)
I'm ok with it, as long as everyone understands about false positive matches, and gets the requisite education in statistics to treat the results with the proper amount of skepticism.
Yes. (Score:2)
Yes, it is an unreasonable search.
FTA: The effort is in response to a years-old mandate from Congress that DHS implement a biometric system for recording the entry and exit of non–U.S. citizens at all air, sea, and land ports of entry.
The Supreme Court can strike down illegal laws, or more specifically, ones in conflict with the US Constitution. So, just having a Congressional Order doesn't make it ethical, legal, right, or enforceable.
Additionally, this is clearly outside of the purview of the DHS.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it won't. At least, not for the reasons you claim, which are nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't. At least, not for the reasons you claim, which are nonsense.
I'm just quoting the TSA Mission Statement articles, which, like any US Federal Agency, are written by Congress, and are Law. No Federal agency has authority beyond that to which is specifically placed under its purview.
To feed the troll by responding: I am right, and you are wrong.
My predicting when in the future specific events cannot be wrong, you douche, because it is a prediction. And if such comes to pass, it will have different wording, but will (as I predict) boil-down in some way to the reach of
I would think not (Score:2)
You're in a public place. You, just like the police, can be filmed and / or watched at any time.
You can't bitch about one and demand the other.
Yes again. (Score:2)
FTA: "... According to DHS, if a U.S. citizen asks not to participate, an available CBP officer “may use manual processing to verify the individual’s identity.”"
and
FTA: "... , but DHS says that all data pertaining to the images is deleted within 14 days."
So, "If a US Citizen..." STOP right there. Hey, you TSA dipshit, I just showed you my US Passport, therefore you know for certain that I am not a foreign national, and am exempt from this facial-scanning scrutiny.
Then the deletion of "d
Re: (Score:1)
Merriam-Webster: a (1) : to belong as a part, member, accessory, or product (2) : to belong as an attribute, feature, or function * the destruction pertaining to war (3) : to belong as a duty or right * rights that pertain to fatherhood b : to be appropriate to something which rule pertains?
So, the "the photo-derived biometric data" (your phrase) is an attribute or function of the image and therefore "data pertaining to the images" (your cite FTA) to be
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try? Did you check the dictionary? I did.
Merriam-Webster:
a (1) : to belong as a part, member, accessory, or product (2) : to belong as an attribute, feature, or function * the destruction pertaining to war (3) : to belong as a duty or right * rights that pertain to fatherhood
b : to be appropriate to something which rule pertains?
So, the "the photo-derived biometric data" (your phrase) is an attribute or function of the image and therefore "data pertaining to the images" (your cite FTA) to be "deleted within 14 days." ...)
(It might be arguable that the raw image scan data is the image and therefore not data pertaining to the image. I do not believe that this is correct, but
Also, your comment about fingerprint databases is irrelevant because nobody said that anything was deleted from those databases.
I use the more-trusted American Heritage Dictionary, and as an international backup to that, the OED.
My fingerprint example was simply the best-available comparative case for discussion. Nothing more.
You should learn to quit reading things into text that were not placed by the author. Don't project your conspiratorial world-view onto things that the rest of us (thinking people) write. Put your tin-foil hat back on and go talk to some poltergeists.
It's hard to get a new face. (Score:2)
Understanding The Consequences (Score:2)
This is the most important perspective for me. The moment we see blanket surveillance or blanket monitoring or blanket call screening or capturing license plates of all vehicles... we have moved into a scenario where the observers
Re: (Score:2)
CCTV and other more hidden methods get all that on file. They have a smart phone on at any time?
2. Rights of Access and Usage. Airports often got different legal protections for international travel. Also consider the history of le
Please excuse the profanity, but... (Score:2)
"the Department of Homeland Security is saying it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Isn't that what passports are for? (Score:2)