
Americans can opt out of airport facial recognition - FrancesFinTech
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/americans-opt-out-facial-recognition-airport/
======
nimbius
also worth noting: as a US citizen re-entering the country you do not have to
present anything more to a customs agent than your passport.

You are not required to answer any questions at all. Where youre from, where
you were, what you did, nothing, however it may result in an inspection of
your bags, so it depends on whether your interpretation of liberty is based on
personal convenience.

Disclosure: ive done this opt-out twice. The first time I got to sit in a room
with a few other folks who had been randomly selected based on their winning
complexion, and was let go after 20 minutes and a bag search. The second time
the screening room was busy so i was let go immediately. at no point did i
answer a single question.

~~~
pratheekrebala
The searches that even a U.S. Citizen could be subject to (without a warrant)
are extremely broad[1].

 _> Legal precedents grant federal officers at ports of entry the power,
without warrants, to require people to strip for a “visual inspection” of
genitals and rectums, and to submit to a “monitored bowel movement” to check
for secreted drugs.[1]_

We did a deep-dive on court settlements by CBP for invasive searches and found
quite a few extremely disturbing cases.[1]

 _> Some women were also handcuffed and transported to hospitals where,
against their will, they underwent pelvic exams, X-rays and in one case,
drugging via IV, according to suits. Invasive medical procedures require a
detainee’s consent or a warrant. In two cases, women were billed for
procedures _

[1] "‘Shocked & Humiliated’: Lawsuits accuse Customs, Border Officers of
invasive searches of minors, women." (
[https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-
humiliat...](https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-humiliated-
lawsuits-accuse-customs-border-officers-of-invasive-searches-of-minors-women/)
)

~~~
pratheekrebala
One of the more extreme cases we found:

A woman was detained at Philadelphia International Airport on her return from
Punta Cana. After a few hours (~7hrs) of questioning she is pressured to sign
a consent form, denied a consultation with an attorney and forcefully shackled
and transferred to a hospital for a "monitored bowel movement" (This involves
defecating in the presence of a CBP officer; No warrant needed).

She was then involuntarily committed to the hospital for "elevated heart rate"
where she was forcefully stripped, underwent a "close visual inspection",
administered lorazepam and olanzapine through IV, underwent an X-Ray, CT Scan
along with a urine and blood workup - all of which came back negative for
drugs or other contraband.

This entire ordeal lasted nearly 24 hours. After which, she was taken back to
the airport and released to drive home. During her drive from the airport, she
crashes into a highway median. She alleges that the she wasn't advised about
the adverse effects of the medications being used to sedate her and that the
medication was responsible for the accident.

All of this happened to a U.S. Citizen; without a warrant and without
permission to call a lawyer.

This incident is discussed in further detail in the 4th section of the story
mentioned earlier [1] "Invasive Searches: A woman's 24-hour ordeal"

[1] [https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-
humiliat...](https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-humiliated-
lawsuits-accuse-customs-border-officers-of-invasive-searches-of-minors-
women/#part-4)

------
existencebox
Am I the only one spooked by the fact that to opt out, you now need to have
your passport with you? (and for _domestic travel_ no less)

Given that the facial databases contain your data regardless, and the amount
of in-airport surveillance (in that you're not gonna avoid being observed and
logged), It's more of a, "we're gonna make you present your papers regardless,
pick your poison"

~~~
chrisseaton
Isn’t a passport just a basic photo ID? Seems reasonable to ask for on to
check people are who they say they are. Everyone already has a passport.

~~~
gumby
I don't know about _everyone_ but I just looked and was shocked to learn 42%
of Americans have passports, 10X the level 25 years ago.

Personally I rarely carry any ID at all, and when I do it's a non-"real ID"
driver's license, which I have though I don't own a car. Almost anywhere where
ID is "required" (including air travel) it turns out that if you don't have
any you can still do what you want (note I'm old enough that I don't get
carded for alcohol). I generally have ID with me only if I know in advance I'm
going somewhere where I cannot do without it, a couple of times a month. I fly
more than that!

(It's absurd that a driving licenses are also IDs, but that's another
discussion).

~~~
Rebelgecko
I would guesstimate that 90% of international travel done by Americans is to
either Mexico or Canada, which didn't require a passport 25 years ago.

~~~
delecti
It's actually about 55%.

[https://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2018-O-001/index.html](https://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2018-O-001/index.html)

------
joelkevinjones
Anyone remember when we liked to proclaim how we had freedom in this country
by using the example that we didn't require "travel papers" for internal
travel?

~~~
vkou
Papers, please, comrade.

That proclamation was forgotten as soon as the Cold War ended.

------
georgespencer
Fun fact: the passport gates at UK airports appear to be biometric, but
aren't. You step into a little gate, place your passport photo page down onto
a scanner, and look into a camera for a photograph.

The thing which slows folks down at passport gates (and the reason the best
passport control agents don't have a jocular welcoming patter) is the
hello/goodbye/talking around the manual "look at your face, look at your
passport".

When the gates open at Heathrow and you're allowed through, you'll immediately
see a raised bank of desks behind which sit a bunch of officer who are simply
manually verifying that the person in the photo appears to be the person on
the passport.

I did some digging to make sure that isn't what's happening here (all the
articles seem to be very vague about the "biometric" and "facial recognition"
part). Here's where I got to:

> Using facial recognition, TVS enables biometric identity verification by
> transmitting automated queries to locate photos in DHS and U.S. Department
> of State databases for matching against the unique characteristics of a
> traveler’s facial features. As designed, this updated capability operates in
> a virtual, cloud-based infrastructure that can store images temporarily and
> operate using a wireless network, thereby eliminating the need for the
> tablets previously used in 2016.[1]

[1]
[https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/O...](https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/OIG-18-80-Sep18.pdf)

~~~
alistairSH
Interesting, I just went through Heathrow, both inbound (US to UK connection
to Glasgow, then UK to US connection back). At the in-bound border control,
there was a passport scan and photo, then at the gate, that photo was
displayed and a second photo was taken. In my case it also was flagged and
delayed my boarding while the gate agent manually told the system “he’s ok”.
The agent repeatedly had me move around so the system could retake the gate
photo, trying to get the gate photo to register as a match to the border
control photo. Or, so I believed. Based on your comment, this was all pure
theater?

~~~
georgespencer
I can only comment on inbound for UK passport holders on the way back into the
country. There is no matching to a previous photo: you are scanning your
passport and having a photo taken of your face simultaneously, whereupon the
box fires up on the screen of a guy behind the desk. (You can actually see
their screens as you walk past, with all the photos flashing up for them to
approve.)

~~~
alistairSH
So, you haven't encountered the photo at the gate? Just at security or border?
Weird. Pretty sure the flow for me was... De-plane in Terminal 5, follow signs
to Connections, through border control (non-EU), immediately enter automated
passport scan/photo machine, re-enter gate-side Terminal 5. Then, at boarding
gate, there was another photo machine which appeared to matching that photo
with the one taken back at the border check.

And Inverness had none of the above. Just a normal manual check of passport in
the security line. Not surprising, given the size of the airport.

~~~
georgespencer
I haven't at gate, no. At Newark a couple months ago they had an automated
TSA-type check at security which was capturing fingerprints, but I can't quite
remember the specifics (feels like the last few months have been either a
state of experiencing, or recovering from, jetlag).

Inverness is great btw!

~~~
alistairSH
I just need to remember that the check-in agents at small Scottish airports
don't arrive until 90 min before the first flight of the day. Even if the
first flight is 11am. It was pretty weird getting there at 9 and the BA desk
was empty with no lights on. I ran into the same thing at Edinburgh a few
years ago, but my habit is 2 hours before flights because I've been screwed by
long security lines at IAD in the past.

------
the_pwner224
Looks like a shortened version of [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/skip-
surveillance-opti...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/skip-surveillance-
opting-out-face-recognition-airports)

------
Jill_the_Pill
They delete the photo after 12 hours, but probably not the measurements for
recognition.

~~~
samschooler
I'm always wary about this; when companies say they delete the bio-metric
photos. They may delete the photos (even if they actually shred the photos),
but they are still training a bio-metric model to better identify you before
the photos are deleted.

> Biometric Templates: CBP creates biometric templates of historical photos
> and new photos for matching and storage. Biometric templates are strings of
> multiple numbers representing images that can be matched against other
> templates that represent facial images. These templates are irreversible and
> cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the
> photo, meaning that these photographs are not recognizable outside of the
> TVS system.

So even if no single photo of you is on their severs, they still have a
fingerprint of your face that can positively identify you.

[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/biometric-exit-
faqs](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/biometric-exit-faqs)

~~~
btown
> cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the
> photo

Is this really true with GANs these days? Not that this was meant to be a
technical statement of course... but I'd imagine you could train a network to
create a photo that activates a given template?

~~~
samschooler
I would assume it is using some sort of public-private key encryption to
generate the fingerprints. I say this because they say "anyone outside of
CBP." So with the proper key, and fingerprint, you can probably reconstruct a
photo, or some sort of deepmind type image.

------
dkarl
It seems like the only effect of the opt-out option is to smooth over
controversy. I wonder who went through the charade of pushing for the opt-out
and treating it as a victory.

~~~
throwayEngineer
Ikr, "opt out" for the government means, put on theatre to act like people can
opt out.

------
gumby
By the way the whole idea of passports is barely a century old and was a
temporary measure for WWI.

Beware scope creep.

~~~
jandrese
Didn't it just replace a patchwork mess of systems used by countries
beforehand?

~~~
gumby
Prior to WWI, European border controls had pretty much dissolved (Prisoner of
Zenda notwithstanding). The history section of the Wikipedia page on passports
is pretty good though mostly Europe-oriented.

I was actually specifically taking about US passports (sorry I wasn’t
explicit) which were introduced during and until the end of the Wilson
administration and then were revived in WWII (for travel to Europe before the
US entered the war). Again, the history part of the US passport Wikipedia page
is not a bad overview.

------
alistairSH
Having just gone through Heather, where facial ID is used at security and
gates, I hate that the US is rolling it out. Not because I care about the
photos - I’m in public, snap away - but because it doesn’t fucking work.
Neither my wife nor I were recognized by the system that snapped our photo 60
minutes earlier, which caused delayed boarding, confusion with the gate
agents, stress for me, and aggravated other passengers (who were stuck behind
me as the agent tried to decide why the system didn’t want me to board). It
was a ducking mess.

------
onetimemanytime
Sure, be prepared for a cavity search and your name on a "he thinks he's a
smart ass" list.

~~~
koolba
I'm sure that most of us that will opt-out of this type of thing are already
on that particular list.

~~~
mieseratte
I opt for a pat-down every time. I doubt this will put me on any worse of a
list.

Thanks for sharing OP!

~~~
orblivion
I stopped opting out because I didn't see the point to continue. The opt-out
moment is over. One could argue it contributed to getting rid of the more
dangerous backscatter devices, but the millimeter waves remain. If it comes
back for another reason I will rejoin for the duration. But I personally am
not so shy that I care about a body scan. It seemed upon reflection that it
was just vanity or resentment on my point to continue, and I was just
inconveniencing myself.

If you have a counter-argument I'm all ears, but I just don't see the point
for myself, here and now, to opt-out.

~~~
ukyfngim
> I was just inconveniencing myself.

Oh, you put up the scanners, hired folks to do pat downs, are requiring me to
take off my shoes, remove my laptop, etc?

I thought that was the TSA. Would you please stop?

The current approach is making us less safe, and we'd all be better off with
the pre-9/11 security framework.

Edit: By "we" I mean Americans. America's enemies would be SOL.

------
Areading314
How is this worse, privacy-wise, than taking naked images of you with mm-waves
when you try and get on a plane? Its just improving the efficiency of the
existing system. If we're going to have border controls, why not make them
work as well as we can?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _How is this worse, privacy-wise, than taking naked images of you with mm-
> waves when you try and get on a plane?_

We don't have mm-wave scanners scattered across the country. We do, however,
have cameras. Everywhere. CBP is under the Department of Homeland Security
[1]. It's not a stretch to take the models, hardware, experience and scans CBP
builds and use them in the interior.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection)

~~~
Areading314
I guess it just seems odd that we'd support actively limiting technological
capability, rather than focusing on laws and policies that law enforcement
should obey. It reminds me of the law in California that prevents police from
using automated speed traps, so officers need to spend all this time and
expense pulling people over for speeding, which leads to subjectivity, and
ends up just being a waste of everyones time. If people really don't want
speed limits, they should be raised or abolished.

~~~
JohnFen
> rather than focusing on laws and policies that law enforcement should obey.

There is a very long history in the US demonstrating that such laws aren't
terribly effective.

------
JohnFen
> You’ll need your U.S. passport with you — even if you’re flying
> domestically.

So the majority of US citizens who don't have a passport can't opt out? I've
already reduced the number of times that I fly to the absolute minimum. It
sounds like I'll need to find a way to reduce that to zero.

------
mtgx
Can you, really? How do you opt out of the government giving the original data
to airlines in the first place?

[https://twitter.com/jetblue/status/1118607244290084864](https://twitter.com/jetblue/status/1118607244290084864)

------
mattlondon
> 75 years for non-citizens

WTF?! _Years_? Seriously? I hope to hell that is a typo.

------
kxter
If you are Nexus/Global Entry and use Clear they already have your finger
print, biometrics and retina scan. Might as well add facials to that... no
wait that sounds wrong. LOL

~~~
chaseha
Convenience or privacy, it's a tough choice to make. I'm thankful for Global
Entry / Clear having to travel most weeks for work

~~~
dawnerd
Same, worth the tradeoff when you get to zip right past huge lines, and with
the added pre-check, makes going in and out of MCO a hell of a lot easier.

------
aug_aug
Anyone ever seen Face Off (1997) with good ole Nick Cage?! Here we go...

------
turk73
The pieces of the puzzle that all go together:

REAL ID, federalizes drivers licenses for creating a database of photos for
facial recognition and metadata.

Enhanced Passport--the requirements for getting the photo include not wearing
glasses and not smiling, ostensibly so that their algorithm works better.

Facial scanning at airports, so they can build up as big a database as
possible.

I'm surprised they didn't require full fingerprints for REAL ID.

How much further do we go before the tyranny becomes in your face enough?

~~~
afpx
That seems like hyperbole to me. Remember, we live in a republican democracy.
Yes, it works slowly (by design). But, it works. At least we don’t have a
totalitarian state to deal with.

I used to be skeptical of this stuff, too. Then, we had 18 years of no major
terrorist attacks.

~~~
sneak
How do we not have a totalitarian state?

You can't publish evidence of state war crimes without the CIA doing a
character assassination job on you (pending a real assassination).

You can't travel anonymously.

You can't publish anonymously.

You can't make bank transfers out of the country for arbitrary purposes.

You can't deposit or withdraw cash above a trivial amount without significant
scrutiny which is reported to the government. Financial companies failing to
report can be criminally liable; it is illegal for them to protect your
privacy.

It's illegal to not let the state know where you habitually sleep (state
ID/driver's license requirements).

You can't drive from place to place without being subject to arbitrary "I
smelled marijuana" search.

Every single phone call, SMS, and email is logged by the government.

Every single train and airplane ride is logged by the government in realtime,
and government ID is required to board planes (and some trains).

Every single payment card swipe is logged by the government in realtime, and
has been since 2008.

The government can, at any time, with zero burden of proof, freeze any/all of
your payment cards and deposit accounts.

The government can, at any time, with zero burden of proof, freeze your
ability to send/receive electronic payments.

You can't make private transactions (e.g. at a casino) over a trivial amount
in cash without having to submit identity documents.

Our government runs a global network of extrajudicial torture prisons.

Our government regularly uses illegal and inhumane conditions against
_children_ to dissuade people from seeking human rights (specifically to
asylum).

Our government runs an extrajudicial network of assassination robots that
target citizens and foreigners alike, with basically zero oversight about who
they kill or why.

Our government has been known to retaliate with bogus charges against anyone
who stands publicly against their illegal activities, e.g. Joseph Nacchio.

I'm really confused as to what would have to happen for you to think that we
_do_ live in a totalitarian state.

~~~
jahewson
What you're describing is authoritarian, not totalitarian. A totalitarian
state has only one political party with all others being banned.

~~~
sneak
Does an impenetrable and indiscernible duopoly count? I'm pretty sure the US
only has two flavors of one "continuous war" party that serves the
military/corporate interests that conduct 24/7 electronic surveillance of
everyone in power.

