
US government to use facial recognition technology at Mexico border crossing - dsr12
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/05/facial-recognition-us-mexico-border-crossing
======
danschumann
I think some of the general weirdness people feel around AI policing is that
there are so many dumb laws on the books, and if we let robots judge, then
there is no mercy. Also, everyone will be in jail because, on average, every
American commits a felony every day ( because there are so many weird dumb
laws ).

I think someone should make AI to refactor law code into 1/1000 its current
size. There are like millions of lines of law, even for stuff like soybean
farming. I'm sure a lot of that is duplicitous, redundant legal speak, not a
precise computer-type language.

~~~
pjc50
Spoken like someone who's never seen a million lines of business logic in
actual code.

And it develops for the same reasons: in a complex system there's going to be
all sorts of weird corner cases, and some of them are bad, so you write some
more code/laws to deal with those outcomes ...

~~~
ErikAugust
How does that detract from the point? They are arguing for a sort of "code
deletion" and "refactoring" of laws. A far superior way of maintaining a
codebase.

Not just "ADD MORE LINES OF CODE", which you make sound is like some concrete
reality of how things always get done. It's not. And no one should strive to
do things this way.

~~~
TrainedMonkey
Adding more lines of code is something that you can control and do right now.
Changing the world so you do not have to do that takes significantly more time
and effort.

In other words, growing complexity of the system to deal with new cases is
past of least resistance.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
If we always followed that logic we'd still be using first gen OS from the
1970's, or perhaps we'd still be using the Code of Hammurabi. Reevaluating
legacy systems in the face of paradigm shift is a crucial part of natural
evolution.

------
walterbell
Airport facial scanning, [https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/593989347/facial-
scanning-now...](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/593989347/facial-scanning-now-
arriving-at-u-s-airports)

 _> CBP is testing biometric scanning at a dozen or so U.S. international
airports to ensure that people leaving the country are who they say they are,
and to prevent visa overstays. The Transportation Security Administration,
another agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is testing similar
devices at security check-in lines ... CBP hopes to have face scanners
installed at all the nation's airports in four years._

AWS facial recognition service,
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/06/06/amazo...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/06/06/amazon-
facial-recognition-cost-just-10-and-was-worryingly-good/)

 _> Even if we include costs of testing, figuring out AWS and actually running
the facial recognition on our scenario, it’s going to be under $10 ... the
ACLU found the Orlando Police Department spent just $30.99 to process 30,989
images .. Compared to other facial recognition projects currently being run by
the federal government, the Amazon service is staggeringly cheap._

~~~
Someone1234
It is a little, unsettling, when they set up checkpoints to make sure people
exiting the country are authorized to do so. I'm sure people can state good
reasons, but it feels very East Germany-est.

~~~
cryoshon
yeah. why would they want to verify we're allowed to leave? the default
assumption should be that everyone is allowed to leave...

~~~
atonse
At first this didn't add up, but I think they want to be able to prove that
you overstayed your visa. But with the current process, you can come, overstay
your tourist visa, and leave, but they don't stamp you on departure, only on
arrival, so they can't actually tell that you left.

Again, is this a real, rampant, dangerous problem? Probably not. But it's a
real use-case (so they don't have to give fake reasons) for state-wide
surveillance. Since it also claims to target foreigners (which by definition
aren't voters), most locals/voters/politicians won't care, thinking it doesn't
apply to them.

Not that I'm defending this, I think this level of surveillance is extremely
dangerous. And the most obvious thing is that they'll slowly and quietly
expand this to everyone else.

~~~
rtkwe
It has kind of been a thorn in the side of immigration enforcement though that
determining who has potentially overstayed their visa because of the lack of
exit tracking. Because of that trying to enforce visa overstays was really
hard because you just have a huge list of people who have come with not much
info about who actually left so trying to check up on visa overstays would
waste a lot of time on people who had just come and gone as required. This
trims down that list to be muuuch smaller so they can more easily check
without wasting a lot of time.

------
BurningFrog
This seems like the least objectionable place to do this.

It's already accepted that everyone passing a border show photo ID and get
their passage approved and recorded.

------
reacharavindh
I'd be surprised if they're not doing this already. I suppose they just want
it to be done more openly/legally from now...

Anyways, time to paint CV confusing patterns on cars, clothes and window
glasses..

[https://qz.com/878820/new-camouflage-promises-to-make-you-
un...](https://qz.com/878820/new-camouflage-promises-to-make-you-
unrecognizable-to-facial-recognition-technology/)

We've got to somehow make this fashionable. Confuse the heck out of image
recognition systems. At least the optical ones.

~~~
ddtaylor
Not that I agree with it but my guess is this would be seen similar to how
infrared license plate covers are deemed unlawful.

~~~
cfadvan
It’s one thing to obscure an object designed to be recognizable, and another
to regulate clothing, makeup, etc. if it’s not a mask, it’s going to probably
be legal. The first amendment is very broad, and what you wear has been
protected many times under it.

~~~
dgzl
> if it's not a mask, it's going to probably be legal.

I believe masks are also legal. First amendment + a religion that lets you
cover your face = your right.

~~~
cfadvan
It’s not that simple. If the police or border patrol want to ID you they can
compel you to remove a mask. There are also various regulations around wearing
full face masks in banks and the like.

~~~
dgzl
I believe it's very simple. If a police officer wants to do _just about
anything_ with you, they can and will, regardless of the rights you have, or
restrictions put on the police.

Also, the Bill of Rights trumps regulations, but a bank is a private entity
and you don't have rights there.

------
dsfyu404ed
The way I see it is that your face is kind of like your license plate number.
The government being able to map your likeness to your official metadata
(taxes, license, etc) is somewhat legitimate. It's when they start tracking it
everywhere that I have huge issues. Feeding security camera footage into
facial recognition software is like putting up an ALPR at every street corner.
It's not an invasion of privacy per-se but because technology allows all that
metadata to be sifted through on demand at scale it's basically government
stalking.

The facial recognition ship has long sailed for 1st world citizens thanks to
how many pictures most of us have online, official photos for ID, etc, etc.
The government can already map your face to your identity.

This particular program is probably more targeted at the non US residents
crossing the border because the three letter agencies don't have access to as
much good data and metadata on them. Because all the Mexican government
agencies don't share ID photos with the three letter agencies the three letter
agencies have to do it themselves hence facial recognition at borders.

As others have said I'd be very surprised if they weren't just trying to
legitimize something they were already doing.

~~~
John_KZ
Exactly. Facial recognition already happens, but it's it's "natural", analog
form. The border guard will make sure your documents are valid and the face in
the document matches that of your face. That's more than adequate. If it's
important to visa conditions, the date of entry/exit can be recorded, or for
the sake of security, the date can be recorded in an offline log to be opened
only by due process.

Photographing and storing data on millions of people without probably cause,
sharing them with third parties (like Amazon) and keeping them forever, that's
not just unnecessary, but also dangerous.

------
drak0n1c
There was a prior HN discussion about a previously convicted felon and four-
time deportee who still managed to re-enter via the regular border crossing
and steal a million dollars in gold. This technology will solve that edge
case.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16327728](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16327728)

~~~
test6554
Ideally it would eventually dramatically speed up the border crossing process
and reduce visible red tape.

------
1ba9115454
It's my understanding that the error rates are so high with these systems even
in good conditions that they are next to useless.

~~~
ta76567656
They're probably quite useful in obtaining _probable cause_ , much like drug
search dogs.

~~~
gowld
you mean "simulating" probable cause, like drug search dogs do?

------
kchoudhu
If they're anything like the automated data collection kiosks at LAX, this is
going to be a colossal failure. In my experience, they are terrible at
identifying brown people and children. Good luck implementing this at scale.

------
alottafunchata
Good

------
amaccuish
But, but, China!

------
samueldavid
wtf? what are they complaining about? this is just a common check, is
basically on every decent airport.

~~~
jstanley
Even if surveillance is already widespread, that doesn't make more
surveillance a good thing.

~~~
mieseratte
> Even if surveillance is already widespread, that doesn't make more
> surveillance a good thing.

I'm one of those types who uses cash, doesn't own a cell-phone, doesn't have
Facebook or any of the others, opts for pat-downs at the airport as a form of
protest, etc. etc.

Having security and surveillance on our ports of entry seems entirely
reasonable to me.

The problem I can imagine is that we're almost guaranteed to run into No-Fly-
List style mistaken-identity situations and I sincerely doubt CBP will have
reasonable recourse for such mistakes.

~~~
actuallyalys
My privacy-related concern is that historically, surveillance data tends to be
kept for long periods of time and used for purposes other than what it was
collected for. My other concern is that I don't really welcome immigration
officials having any more tools, giving how they're abusing the tools they
already have.

~~~
mieseratte
That's a very fair and real concern, given "Synthesis Centers" and somewhat
frequent allegations of parallel construction.

I suppose the proper answer is "Unfuck our security apparatus" but absent
that, I see how abstaining from extremely abusable tools, e.g. this facial
recognition, is a reasonable response.

------
pimmen
I'm an EU citizen. If I drive from Juarez to El Paso I assume I can contact
the company the CBP is using to find out what they're doing with my data?

Edit: I previously wrote the CBP, but I meant the company that owns the facial
recognition tech and stores my facial data.

~~~
frockington
I'm pretty sure the CBP would give you the finger and ask you to "come and get
it". I really don't understand why Europeans think other nations will follow
other nations laws

~~~
JBReefer
No dude, the EU Army will back him up, so will the EU Navy and EU Airforce.
The law applies globally.

------
kolbe
I'm not sure what the general objection is to facial recognition technology.
What's the difference between this and hiring a team of autistic savants who
can remember a ton of faces? They use their eyes (cameras) to look at faces,
and their brains (algorithms) to classify the image. One just costs a lot less
to create.

~~~
jamiek88
Oh come on.

You can reduce almost anything that way.

‘What is wrong with a surveillance balloon hovering over every city following
all citizens and logging their activity? It’s no different to the police
officer on the corner observing the public’.

It’s a matter of scale, efficiency and generality.

The scariest thing imaginable is a truly efficient government. Our system
works because there is room for rebels and alternate ways of thinking and
living to bubble into the whole polity.

Gay rights for example.

If the government had had the ability to monitor all homosexuals back when the
laws were truly terrible - they’d all be in prison.

Runaway slaves? Same deal.

~~~
kolbe
On the other hand:

Murder and rape? Same deal.

I think it's perfectly correct to believe that the US government in its
current state is pure shit for more than just the reasons you mentioned. But
forced inefficiency sounds like a ridiculous way to go about fixing it.

If society takes issue with the laws, fix the laws. But having a law that
relies on selective and inefficient enforcement is a stupid law.

~~~
rtkwe
Searching and following a particular person with probably cause is fine under
the constitution allowing the police effectively follow anyone 24/7 strips
away a lot of 4th amendment protections. The fact that the laws haven't quite
caught up to the ability of police to spy on people en mass should not be a
justification for them doing so. Law makers lag behind the public and the
state of technology by decades.

