Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Privacy Technology

Leaked Document Reveals Upcoming Biometric Experiments At US Customs 97

Posted by samzenpus from the scan-me dept.
sarahnaomi sends word of new biometric technologies coming to U.S. entry points. "The facial recognition pilot program launched last week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which civil liberties advocates say could lead to new potentially privacy-invading programs, is just the first of three biometric experiments that the feds are getting ready to launch. The three experiments involve new controversial technologies like iris and face scanner kiosks, which CBP plans to deploy at the Mexican border, and facial recognition software, according to a leaked document obtained by Motherboard. All three pilots are part of a broader Customs and Border Protection program to modernize screenings at American entry and exit ports, including at the highly politicized Mexican border, with the aid of new biometric technologies. The program is known as Apex Air Entry and Exit Re-Engineering Project, according to the leaked slides. These pilot programs have the goal of "identifying and implementing" biometric technologies that can be used at American borders to improve the immigration system as well as US national security, according to the slides."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Document Reveals Upcoming Biometric Experiments At US Customs More

Leaked Document Reveals Upcoming Biometric Experiments At US Customs

Comments Filter:

  • Global Entry Kiosks already have this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20, 2015 @08:24AM (#49300045)

    The Global Entry kiosks use finger prints and facial recognition to verify your identity already.

    I don't see how this is a privacy concern. If you are traveling via plane, you already need to show a government issued photo id, which means the government already has your mug-shot.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sh00z ( 206503 )
      Ditto--since when is a border crossing something that could be considered anywhere in the same sentence with privacy? It's in the public interest of TWO nations!

      • Ditto--since when is a border crossing something that could be considered anywhere in the same sentence with privacy? It's in the public interest of TWO nations!

        This is far too narrow a view. You're only considering privacy AT the border crossing. The implications are vastly larger than that.

        The problem is akin to the prohibition against searching your domestic "papers" without a warrant. That Constitutional prohibition (4th Amendment) isn't there because getting your papers searched is inconvenient! The problem -- and the whole reason the 4th Amendment exists -- is because of the knowledge such searches would give the government, and the potential abuses that a

      • To sum it all up briefly, which apparently may be necessary for some readers: one should not have to give up his or her privacy not just at the border but forevermore in all situations just in order to cross the border.

    • Re:Global Entry Kiosks already have this (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @09:38AM (#49300529) Journal

      The Global Entry kiosks use finger prints and facial recognition to verify your identity already. I don't see how this is a privacy concern.

      I've no problem with the facial recognition and/or iris scanning - we already have these at UK entry points and they work well. I'm less happy about fingerprints though. You leave fingerprints everywhere and so they are easy to get hold of and potentially copy. Plus I would worry about my fingerprints ending up in a database which is searched by police. This raises the risk of either false matches or incidental matches if you happen to have been in a location where a crime is later committed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        So there is a limit to how much government surveillance you Brits will gladly accept... I just lost a dollar on a bet.

    • The iris scanners aren't new either. I was in Nexus (U.S./Canada pre-screening) before Global Entry existed, and the airport kiosks used iris scanners back then. They ended up replacing them with the fingerprint scanners currently used for Global Entry (these programs use the same kiosks at the airport). The word going around among Nexus members was that the iris scanners were too unreliable, which I can believe. I had to take off my glasses, and hold my eyelids way open with both hands, and maybe the m
  • The destination is total pervasive surveillance of the population. A false sense of control/power is the driver. JMHO...
    • Why is it that every time I read stories like this I just want to go punch a TSA agent in the cock?
      The last time I flew back from international travel I got the privilege of getting photographed like all US citizens going through customs at JFK or Newark (I forget which one I went through in January) and decided to see what I could get away with. I have a black fedora I wear so I tipped my head down until the picture of my face was just a picture of my hat and flipped the camera the bird. The border agent s

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      The destination is total pervasive surveillance of the population.

      This has always been the destination of Statists since the very concept of State was invented by humans. The only effective limit is the capabilities of the State — sensory organs of rulers and their staff, and the recording and cataloging technologies of the times. Computers greatly expanded the latter in the past several decades, they are now expanding the former — and the State wishes to use everything available to the max, as

  • Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @08:25AM (#49300051)

    So, everyone expects to be perfectly anonymous at a Customs Checkpoint, eh?

    Really? Going to a place where the guards on both sides of the border check your identity routinely, and people expect anonymity as a matter of course?

    Could we perhaps find something more important to be outraged about? Like LSU's baseball team embarrassing themselves last night? Or the morning coffee being cold? Or the birds waking my wife up early (therefore grumpy)?

    • Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @09:15AM (#49300335)

      So, everyone expects to be perfectly anonymous at a Customs Checkpoint, eh?

      I think it's more that people are worried how the collected biometric data may be used in places other than the border or for "official" purposes.

      • Are you telling us we need to start worrying about clones or pod people? How else are they going to use it in nefarious ways?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rastos1 ( 601318 )

      On Customs Checkpoint I usually hold my identification in my hand. It called a passport. It can be verified and tracked back to my country of origin. It likely also already contains a hash of my biometric data. It is also usually checked by US Embassy before I start my travel.

      Now let's say I go to USA and get my biometrics scanned at the checkpoint. What is that good for if I'm not on a watch list? And most importantly - what is going to happen with the scanned data after it is determined that I'm not on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by itzly ( 3699663 )

        And most importantly - what is going to happen with the scanned data after it is determined that I'm not on a watch list?

        It goes in a database of course, so they can track your whereabouts.

        • No.

          It's sold to the advertisers.

          • It goes in a database of course, so they can track your whereabouts.

            No. It's sold to the advertisers.

            More likely, both.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by itzly ( 3699663 )

            How is a fingerprint or iris scan useful for an advertiser ?

            • Really? You know damn well advertisers want to know where you have been, what you were doing there, how long you stayed, what you bought, who you met with ...

              That level of granularity is gold for advertisers.

              • Really? You know damn well advertisers want to know where you have been, what you were doing there, how long you stayed, what you bought, who you met with ...

                I was at the airport, going through customs, about twenty minutes, didn't buy anything because they had nothing for sale but did dump a half-eaten apple into the bio-hazard agri-trash, and I met two uniformed customs agent and one dog. That's what my fingerprint on a scanner at customs will tell the advertiser.

                As for a picture: the one time I went through one of those the sun was behind me and the picture of me was completely black. I don't recall any special processing that took place as a result, it see

                • OK. To determine your footprint of importance, let's take the total population of you divided by 7 billion ...

                  • That wooshing sound was the point zinging past your head. (In which case it should be a "zing" sound, but historical precedent rules.)

                    What do advertisers learn from anyone using a fingerprint scanner at customs? "They were at the airport, going through customs ..." In fact, since you've already got to fill out customs forms that contain a LOT more information than your fingerprint gives them (what you bought, what countries you were in, are you carrying ...), the addition of a fingerprint scanner gives the

                    • Question:

                      What do advertisers learn from anyone using a fingerprint scanner at customs?

                      Answer:

                      "They were at the airport, going through customs ..."

                      So, you're a traveler, coming from one place and going to another, at a particular time and you've made (or not) certain declarations, and this ain't your first rodeo and stuff.

                      Advertisers don't have that information ... yet.

                    • Advertisers don't have that information ... yet.

                      And they don't get that from the fingerprint scanner. They get it from your much more invasive and privacy wrecking customs declaration form. What do advertisers get from the fingerprint that they don't already have? NOTHING.

                    • Ummmm ... the fingerprint?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sjames ( 1099 )

                  It also told them that you travel internationally.

    • Really? Going to a place where the guards on both sides of the border check your identity routinely, and people expect anonymity as a matter of course?

      What I expect is that they check the only document that is legally required to provide me with legal entry to my own country. I do not expect them to take my picture, finger prints, rental scan, blood sample, stool sample, perform a colonoscopy, or try to figure out if I am a terrorist by some automated scanner using some body language cues and body temp to see if I am a terrorist.

    • All of this data will eventually be collected on US citizens, and all of it will end up being handed over wholesale to law enforcement agencies. The FBI will use it with all of the care and accuracy that they did when they charged Brandon Mayfield. There, now you can be outraged.

    • So, everyone expects to be perfectly anonymous at a Customs Checkpoint, eh?

      This is such a massive missing of the point that I really have to write: WHOOOOOSH!!!

      The issue is NOT privacy "at the checkpoint". The issue is privacy everywhere and everywhen ELSE.

  • Everybody runs, Fletch (Score:3)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @08:30AM (#49300075) Journal
    In the old days, a fellow on the run could get by with a fake paper trail.

    Now the retinal transplant seems like a plausible future scenario.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @08:42AM (#49300129)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Tune in next year when we roll this shit out at stadiums, train stations, bus stops, and shopping malls.

      I think this is exactly the point. The people the government claims this will keep out (illegals and "terrorists") don't cross at regular customs offices. The whole point is to get people used to ubiquitous physical surveillance. Notice how there was no protesting by anyone when the Snowden papers revealed all our electronic communications are monitored (in direct violation of nearly every law, except the government "secret" ones)? Back in the 60's and 70's there would have been 500,000 protestors surroundi

    • Build-a-Wall: that is stupid. it didnt work in berlin, it didnt work in china, it doesnt work in Israel

      You seem to think, that if the wall fails to prevent all trespass, it may as well not exist at all. This is profoundly wrong.

      Contrary to your unsubstantiated statements, the wall did work in Berlin [berlin-life.com]:

      It was a desperate – and effective - move by the GDR (German Democratic Republic) to stop East Berliners escaping from the Soviet-controlled East German state into the West of the city

      and still works in [mcclatchydc.com]

  • Modernize: complaints. Don't modernize: ditto. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DutchUncle ( 826473 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @09:02AM (#49300241)
    Come on, people, be realistic. Slashdotters are the foremost people complaining about antiquated low-tech approaches to problems and how they could be sped up, and probably half of us already use fingerprint or face recognition on our devices. Yet we're also among the people most aware of the negative impacts of such systems and the potential for abuse.

    This isn't random scanning, or general surveillance - this is a Customs checkpoint, where their ENTIRE JOB is to know who is passing in and out of the country. This is one of the ONLY places where such technology is justified. The danger isn't the open explicit mandated checkpoints, it's the misuse of this technology at every commuter station and the entrances to entertainment or shopping venues - and the availability of government-collected information (which we are coerced to provide) to commercial interests for non-public purposes. Though on a practical level it's more likely to go broke because someone got access to my finances through stupid commercial activity.
    • Except the southern border is open, and people are even given IDs of their choice. The only use of this technology is targeted oppression

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by itzly ( 3699663 )

      this is a Customs checkpoint, where their ENTIRE JOB is to know who is passing in and out of the country.

      If biometrics data is only taken at these checkpoints, what reference are they going to use to determine identity ?

      • The typical use case is to go both ways; out and back in (for residents), or in and back out (for visitors). When you pass through, the biometrics data is linked to the passport or other reference. At a minimum, one can confirm that someone claiming to be a returning resident really is the same person who left; and that a departing visitor really is the same person who entered; and if there is a maximum time for visitors (default or visa), whether a visitor has overstayed his/her/its maximum time.

        My po
  • I see this as complimentary information on your passport/ID against frauds/fake papers. Why is it touted as an invasion of privacy ?
    • It is bad because we find out about programs through leaks or once they are implemented. The public is now taken completely out of the debate. The govt stonewalls us everytime we try to get information. The govt outright lies to us and our congressmen over and over again. At a very fundamental level our system is broken. Our ability to influence our govt is gone. We can not choose our leaders based on factual information anymore. Our govt is treating us, its people like the enemy. Our govt treats our quest
      • I should elaborate on the our inability to influence: We can not make informed choices anymore about who we wish to have represent us, because, so many important things are being hidden from us. It is impossible to use our vote to fix things that we don't even know are happening until the info is leaked. And once it is leaked, the game of misinformation starts at which point it becomes impossible to tell a truth from a lie.
    • Do you see a difference between a photograph and biometric data? That's the difference.
  • We have them Mexicans INVADING America. We have to secure the border and keep them out. They are diluting our culture and they don't want to learn English and they are bringing ebola and they are bringing measles because they don't have vaccination. It's the downfall of America. SECURE THE BORDER NOW!!!

  • Just at entry or exit points? Think again. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Let's not forget that border patrol has authority up to 100 miles inland from the border (so just not around the border of Mexico). This means this tech could be used in most of the big cities around the U.S. The full details of the border can be found at http://www.thenation.com/article/180649/66-percent-americans-now-live-constitution-free-zone

  • At the ATL airport. Pretty whizzy. I think it may have actually sped up the process. The only strange part was you basically move through a set of various stations and checks, like 4 or 5 before you finally talk with an agent about declarations at the end. It was pretty streamlined and pretty easy to use the devices.

  • While border crossing has typically meant displaying government issues documentation, primarily a passport and any related travel/entry visas. This requires informed consent of the traveller, they are asked to display their papers. The question is, what about programs that aren't obvious or informed consent?

    The part that is concerning is the existence of classified "experiments" where is it not clear what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used.

    History has repeatedly sh

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by itzly ( 3699663 )

      age-old discrimination based on racial profiling, bigotry, and sterotypes, not any actual accurate information.

      Accurate information is often unavailable. Imprecise information, especially if you have a lot of it, is useful.

  • I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why the airline, TSA, or anybody else should care who I am when I fly. I could be the worst terrorist in the world, and if their security measures are adequately indicating that I'm unarmed, it's safe to let me fly.

    It's a government issue and an airline issue, where they really want to know who I am for control over tickets and control over the people. Somewhere along the way their insistence that it was for security reasons became the accepted, unchallenged t

    • Identification at airports is a giveaway to the Airlines to kill the second hand ticket market. Airlines don't want an entire industry propping up to buy tickets way in advance at cheap rates, and resell them to travelers.
  • ..and I didn't speak up because i wasn't Mexican.

    Remember, whether it's immigrants or Guantanamo prisoners: if it's good enough for Them, then it's good enough for Us.
  • Just dual boot the laptop and have it not ask which OS to load unless you tap a certain key during the boot sequence. Customs workers are happy because they think they have access, travelers are happy because their data is safe, and lawmakers can go fuck themselves because their ignorance precedes them.

  • The last time that I (a US citizen) flew back from Canada (last December), I got directed to a kiosk that I inserted my passport into and that took a photo of my face. When I got my last passport photo, I was clean shaven, had just got my haircut and was 20 lbs heavier. When I went through Passport Control, I hadn't had an opportunity to shave for a few days, I hadn't had much sleep either and it had been a couple months since I got my haircut. The kiosk could not match my passport photo against how I l

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close