Trump Pushes To Reap Biometric Data From Immigrants, Americans (bloomberglaw.com) 87
Six million would-be U.S. immigrants face expanded collection of their biometric data, including iris scans, palm-, and voice-prints, facial recognition images, and DNA, under a proposed federal rule. The Department of Homeland Security also for the first time would gather that data from American citizens sponsoring or benefiting from a visa application. Bloomberg Law reports: Years in the making, the biometrics immigration rule has garnered more than 160 comments since its Sept. 11 publication. The 30-day comment period closes on Oct 13. A final version could be in place by Inauguration Day. Immigration and privacy advocates have voiced concerns over who will have to comply with the new requirements, why President Donald Trump is making this push so late in his term, and what it means for a federal agency already claiming a lack of resources.
The 300-plus-page plan updates current biometrics requirements so that "any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request, including U.S. citizens, must appear for biometrics collection without regard to age unless the agency waives or exempts the requirement." The DHS estimates an additional 2.17 million new biometrics submissions will be collected annually, an increase from the current 3.9 million, under the rule. The DHS already collects fingerprints from some visa applicants. The new rule would expand that biometrics-gathering to iris images, palm- and voice- prints. The agency wants authority to require or request DNA testing to prove familial relationships where kinship is in question. The DNA data could be stored indefinitely, under the proposed rule. The DHS essentially has until Dec. 20 to review and respond to public comments and draft a final proposal, said Doug Rand, who worked on technology and immigration policy in the Obama White House and then joined the Federation of American Scientists. "They're really running out of time. And the fact that you'd put out a final regulation on such a far-ranging new policy that touches the lives of millions of people, you're opening up to huge legal vulnerability because any plaintiff can point to the comment period of only 30 days."
The 300-plus-page plan updates current biometrics requirements so that "any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request, including U.S. citizens, must appear for biometrics collection without regard to age unless the agency waives or exempts the requirement." The DHS estimates an additional 2.17 million new biometrics submissions will be collected annually, an increase from the current 3.9 million, under the rule. The DHS already collects fingerprints from some visa applicants. The new rule would expand that biometrics-gathering to iris images, palm- and voice- prints. The agency wants authority to require or request DNA testing to prove familial relationships where kinship is in question. The DNA data could be stored indefinitely, under the proposed rule. The DHS essentially has until Dec. 20 to review and respond to public comments and draft a final proposal, said Doug Rand, who worked on technology and immigration policy in the Obama White House and then joined the Federation of American Scientists. "They're really running out of time. And the fact that you'd put out a final regulation on such a far-ranging new policy that touches the lives of millions of people, you're opening up to huge legal vulnerability because any plaintiff can point to the comment period of only 30 days."
GATTACA!? (Score:1)
Re: GATTACA!? (Score:2)
Big Brother is watching you.
Might not be as broad as it appears (Score:2)
It doesn't look like it will be as broad as it appears on its face, because it allows for the agency to waive or exempt the requirement and they probably won't want to bother with it most of the time. They're more likely to go after cases of suspected trafficking where the familial relationship is in doubt, or where there's some link to terrorism, etc., not your average tourist visa or spousal petition. That said, after the crazy rule where you had to fill in *every* line on USCIS forms, no matter how lit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they wish to be able to "waive the requirement" at whim. Not having to enforce a standard, or produce records, allows for bribery, concealment of records from subpoenas or FOIA requests, and selective enforcement against "enemies of the state" with no record of such bureaucratic bias. Like human resources doing "interviews for the right fit" instead os simple IQ tests, it leaves the bureaucracy in charge of when and if the results are used.
Re: (Score:2)
That will be the initial "STATED" goal.. but we know how these things tend to morph..
And the problem is not what they claim.. its the "off-label use" of this data that can and often do lead to problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/366442-10-times-the-intel-community-violated-the-trust-of-americas
https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911
This can very quickly become a march towards happens in China and Russia... Public Dissent =
Re:GATTACA!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets start with his wife and her parents.
Re: Donald Trump: The Psychology of dishonest peop (Score:1)
Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man
by Mary L. Trump, Donald Trump's niece and a psychologist with a PhD.
The family of Adolph Hitler would like a moment to rebut her claim...
A book full of impressions of what other people told her? Wow, that's bound to completely factual.
Isn't there a professional obligation for psychologists to refrain from diagnosing patients they've never interviewed?
Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how is it we're not all collectively losing our shit over this? I mean, the guy is a literal Nazi sympathizer. I'm not trolling or being inflammatory. Those were Nazis, and he sympathized with them. And he pulled back heavily on investigating white supremacist terrorists even though they're the cause of the majority of terrorist actions and have killed more Americans than 9/11 (seriously, google it).
So I say again, how are we not freaking out right now?
Re: (Score:2)
Once you go that far, anal probes, semen samples, vaginal examination all are just a small step further. You can be strip searches and fondling will become the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Fatigue? If you've got the energy, go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:5, Insightful)
So I say again, how are we not freaking out right now?
Because the folks who crow the loudest about clinging to their guns, ostensibly in defense of the constitution, are too busy clanking beer mugs and cheering that their side presently has the ball.
I'm starting to think the founding fathers really phoned it in on that one.
Re: Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:1)
No. The founding fathers didn't "phone it in". They anticipated changes would be needed and provided a mechanism to do so. They purposefully did make it a high bar so changes have to be thoughtful, meaningful, deliberate, and agreed upon by most people in the Republic.
Not like how Pelosi is might do now with impeachment - hacking it to create a delay to get her way politically - not to find "high crimes and misdeameanors."
That's exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers *did not* want to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it though? If that's true, why did the Founding Fathers trust impeachment to the House?
Also, did the Founding Fathers "want to see" the gross dereliction of duty that McConnell exhibits in the Senate? Does refusing to consider judicial nominations from a president of the opposite party constitute consent according to these same Fathers?
It sure seems as though your view of what the Founding Fathers wanted to see aligns nicely with what you'd like to see.
Re: Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it though? If that's true, why did the Founding Fathers trust impeachment to the House?
Also, did the Founding Fathers "want to see" the gross dereliction of duty that McConnell exhibits in the Senate? Does refusing to consider judicial nominations from a president of the opposite party constitute consent according to these same Fathers?
It sure seems as though your view of what the Founding Fathers wanted to see aligns nicely with what you'd like to see.
The founding fathers intended members of congress to be people of "wisdom, ability and good character" and what they feared was unqualified people with "a talent for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" so likely they'd be appalled at the current state of congress since it is full of the latter type of people (and that goes for both the Reps and Dems).
Re: (Score:2)
Also, political parties.
They didn't exist in the same way back when the constitution was written. If so, I would imagine that we would instead see various rules that provide checks and balances related to political parties. As it stands now, we instead see that whenever different branches are controlled by the same political party, there are no checks. The party in power gets to set all the rules and make all the policies that benefit them.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to think of the U.S. Constitution as an operating system. No OS can predict which avenues a virus will attack. The alleged president is a virus.
Re: Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much. Our design had some major innovations for the time but it's attack vectors are well known and remain unpatched. The original authors and admins are all long gone and the people maintaining it now are a combination highly opinionated graphics designers, clueless MBAs, and apparently corrupt mafia-backed script kiddies. There are those of us on the sidelines (myself included) that look at it and say "well, if you could maybe patch this hole or put up a firewall maybe we can salvage it", but the entire OS is in the middle of an active takeover and on the timeline of governments the whole system is being corrupted at an alarmingly fast pace.
Re: Well, this is legitimately terrifying. (Score:2)
There have always been corrupt people and there always will be. Just don't tell me that your form of communist government is better than the current form because we'd just end up with communist corruption and less freedoms.
I won't even get into the bottomless pit that is woke identity politics.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the far right pushed the idea that anyone using the word "Nazi" is just a ranting leftist lunatic and that the very idea that there could be Nazis and Nazi sympathisers in America is absurd. It was a great tactic, make yourself so unbelievable that you can just openly be a Nazi and wave your Swastika flag while chanting "Jews will not replace us" and people who saw it with their own eyes will rationalize it away somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of trolls modding this post down. This is how it happens, not some hostile take-over but with people cheering it on.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of trolls modding this post down. This is how it happens, not some hostile take-over but with people cheering it on.
Well, as I post this, his comment is sitting at +3. But when you say downright ridiculous things like
you should expect to get some downvotes.
Nine times out of ten, whenever that guy says "google it", he's lying.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to be true. Since 9/11 the number of far right killings in the US has increased to over 300 a year, so in a decade would have exceeded the death toll of 9/11 itself (2,977).
More over the KKK is believed to have murdered at least 3,500 people up to 1968, and I can't find data for more recent times. So just the historic KKK activity was more than 9/11, although spread over 86 years.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to be true. Since 9/11 the number of far right killings in the US has increased to over 300 a year, so in a decade would have exceeded the death toll of 9/11 itself (2,977).
300 killings per year for a decade? LOL, where do you get your numbers? According to the sources [newamerica.org] I've seen, [gao.gov] the number of white supremacist killings since 9/11 is far far less than 2,977. Over an order of magnitude less.
More over the KKK is believed to have murdered at least 3,500 people up to 1968, and I can't find data for more recent times. So just the historic KKK activity was more than 9/11, although spread over 86 years.
I completely agree that if you include the ~130 year history of the KKK, white supremacist killings represent 9/11 levels of of murder. But I don't believe that's what OP was referring to. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
In any event, Wikipedia lists 110 murders from right wing [wikipedia.org]
What's the evidence that Trump is involved? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing in the article proves he is involved in the decision making on this.
That aside, issues like this are why SCOTUS is so important. First this seems unconstitutional without a warrant. Second is no decision of this magnitude should be possible without Congress(elected officials) voting on it. Congress should not be permitted to delegate its Constitutional, lawmaking authority to executive agencies.
He's the President of the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you take your own advice and "bugger off" to wherever you came from, "mate"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in the article proves he is involved in the decision making on this.
The buck doesn't stop with the president. He is responsible for nothing in the administration unless proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably right. This sounds more like something promoted by his xenophobic "advisors". The alleged president really doesn't have any creative neurons, he merely repeats whatever he's told.
More assholery from the asshole-in-chief (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I am effected by this rule. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I am pretty much in the same boat (minus the disabled vet part).
And quite frankly, I don't even see the purpose of giving this even for an immigrant, especially since their backgrounds have already been vetted and are presuming all immigrants are suspicious/criminals.. when in fact the OVERWHEALMING majority (well in the high 90th percentile) are law abiding and do NOT want issues. They are acting like people are switching out ID's for each other when in fact, that's just not true.. (and lets take the absol
People here will understand. Others, maybe less so (Score:4, Insightful)
If Americans stand still for this, the beginning of the end of your experiment in representative democracy starts here. And it will spread rapidly beyond your borders. There isn't a government on the planet that isn't thirsty for this kind of capability to destroy the very idea of the term "private citizen". Also, is anybody stupid enough to believe that once the precedent for this kind of data collection is set, it will end at immigrants and their sponsors? If you think about it, you'll realize it already goes a lot further than the identified target groups, "because genetics".
Anyone supporting this is either a damned fool or a fascist.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh.. the experiment in representative democracy was over when you have a popular vote that doesn't align with a chosen president because of an antiquated electoral college. This experiment, while fun, is pretty much over.. This country doesn't want to truly learn its history (the good AND the bad.. learning only the good is called propaganda because it leads people into delusions of grandeur).. it doesn't take the clues from its and other's history to not make the mistakes.. in fact it seems to take great
What do you mean democracy? (Score:3)
What do you mean democracy? Democracy means "demos", the public, holds the power - at least through an election in the case of a representative democracy. The US has some sort of "electorocracy" in any case the government elected might not be the will of the people. E.g. in the last election, over 2 million more people voted for Hillary, in a "democracy" she would be elected. I understand the fact that there are states complicates things, but they could at least get rid of the "winner takes all" system in t
Re: (Score:2)
They already collected all of this data from my wife when she was applying for a green card(in addition to a health screening and other information), and I think they did it again when she was applying for citizenship.
The only difference is they would want to verify who I am as well(as her sponsor).
My finger/palm, face and eye data have been collected just for visiting other countries, both by the US when I return and by other countries where I have vacationed.
I wonder A) who originated this idea, and B) wh
Translated the subject for you... (Score:1)
https://papernow.org/buy-personal-statement (Score:1)
Nice try (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the strawman, but let's address the issue and law in front of us under the control of the administration rather than your lame attempt to divert attention to the PATRIOT act, another festering turd of a republican gift.
This doesn't end well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or ask a black person in the USA, or a Latino, or a Native American, or a person of Japanese descent.
Living in the 20th and 21st Century in the US included: lynchings, getting your head cracked open for trying to vote, getting driven out of your home for the color of your skin, getting your whole family permanently locked up without access to an independent judiciary or lawyer, being punished for speaking a language other than english, having your kids taken away and placed in boarding schools so they could
DNA from immigrants and their families... (Score:2)
Racial profiling (Score:2)
Racial profiling is old hat, the cool kids are doing phylogenetic profiling.
Once GI's came over to free us europeans ... (Score:1)
... from the nazi's. You held up strong ethics and helped European countries to restore democracy. Now it seems more and more those nazi ideas have become your standards. It seems trump is an admirer of fascist dictators and evil. It doesn't seem likely the EU holds a candle against your military might. So who is going to free you from fascists?
Is anyone suprised? (Score:2)
When it comes to big brother, Republicans are at the top of the game. They have never let their words of smaller government get in the way of expanding government overreach into people's lives. Witness their ongoing efforts to all but eliminate the 9th Amendment's right to privacy or the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement. Even now, they work diligently to undermine the First Amendment's right to a free and open press because who needs a free press reporting on their crimes?
After the 9/11 attacks, Republ
Trump's Biometric Data (Score:1)
Let's see the fatass deliver his biometric data before we require it from anyone else. Also Trump's DNA, in order that his rape victims can get their day in court.
tear down DHS with extreme prejudice (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
bio info already being collected (Score:1)