Facial Scans at US Airports Violate Americans' Privacy, Report Says (nytimes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facial Scans at US Airports Violate Americans' Privacy, Report Says (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday December 21, 2017 @04:40AM from the closer-look dept.

Ron Nixon, writing for The New York Times: A new report concludes that a Department of Homeland Security pilot program improperly gathers data on Americans when it requires passengers embarking on foreign flights to undergo facial recognition scans to ensure they haven't overstayed visas. The report, released on Thursday by researchers at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University's law school, called the system an invasive surveillance tool that the department has installed at nearly a dozen airports without going through a required federal rule-making process. The report's authors examined dozens of Department of Homeland Security documents and raised questions about the accuracy of facial recognition scans. They said the technology had high error rates and are subject to bias, because the scans often fail to properly identify women and African-Americans. "It's telling that D.H.S. cannot identify a single benefit actually resulting from airport face scans at the departure gate," said Harrison Rudolph, an associate at the center and one of the report's co-authors. "D.H.S. doesn't need a face-scanning system to catch travelers without a photo on file. It's alarming that D.H.S. still hasn't supplied evidence for the necessity of this $1 billion program," he added.

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The Supreme Court will allow it. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 04:44 · Score: 1

Trump is stacking it with patriots.
If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 04:50 · Score: -1

If the person is here on a VISA they are not citizens and thus no American's rights are being violated.
1. Re:If they're here on a VISA by gnick · 2017-12-21 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think they're only scanning Visa holders?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
2. Re: If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Since when do Americans need a visa to visit America? By definition anyone carrying a US passport should be exempt, if you believe their excuse for doing the scans.
3. Re: If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  They're not asking.
4. Re: If they're here on a VISA by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than that, it's not just international flights. There's no US exit process, so international flights depart from the same gates as domestic. The only way this would work is to scan everyone at the airport.
5. Re: If they're here on a VISA by gnick · 2017-12-21 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  The only way this would work is to scan everyone at the airport.
  It's an idea. Apparently the Chinese have already gone much further than that.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
6. Re:If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  I hope so, I've got an AMEX.
7. Re: If they're here on a VISA by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  The only way this would work is to scan everyone at the airport.
  No, just scan everyone going out a gate with an international flight.
8. Re: If they're here on a VISA by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Except any gate can have an international flight. My main experience is with United but, the same gate at O'Hare / Newark / IAD can have a flight to Hong Kong or London followed by a flight to Houston. Hell sometimes even the plane to Houston continues on to South America, meaning the same flight has a mixture of domestic/international passengers.
9. Re:If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  I fail Capitalization.
  -gnick
10. Re: If they're here on a VISA by AvitarX · 2017-12-21 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Don't they check your passport at security and/or the airline counter?
  It's been a while since I've flown internationally, but I seem to remember needing to demonstrate I had a passport at least to the airline.
  If TSA doesn't require a passport now, all they need to do is require a passport for international flights, then scan people when their ticket and passport is inspected at the security entry.
  Don't scan any US citizens or domestic flights, done.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
11. Re: If they're here on a VISA by nospam007 · 2017-12-21 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Don't they check your passport at security and/or the airline counter?"
  Sure but lots of people have several passports and lots of countries allow people to change their name when getting their passport, so to better fit in with the local crowd.
  (read not getting harassed by local foreigner haters)
12. Re:If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  No, they scan you if you use Mastercard too.
13. Re: If they're here on a VISA by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Except any gate can have an international flight.
  First of all, not true. And second, you know when a certain gate has an international flight and when it doesn't. You only use it at a gate where there is an international flight.
  
  can have a flight to Hong Kong or London followed by a flight to Houston.
  Yes, so the scanner is on when there is a flight to London boarding and not on when the flight is going to Houston. Is it really that hard?
  
  Hell sometimes even the plane to Houston continues on to South America,
  Uhhh, the plane may go on, but not without reboarding. It's an international flight, it needs different handling. The airline is going to make sure everyone on an international flight has their passports or entry documents just so they don't have to cart them back. You can't do that if you have a mix.
  And even so, if the flight is international, you turn the scanner on. If it is domestic, you turn it off. That solves the problem of scanning people who aren't going international.
14. Re:If they're here on a VISA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  You are wrong. If you research this you will find that non-citizens have most of the same civil rights as citizens under the constitution within the border of the US.
  https://www.learnliberty.org/b...
  The supreme court has even held that non-citizens have some constitutional rights outside of our border.
  Lookup Supreme Court case Boumediene v. Bush
  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush)
15. Re: If they're here on a VISA by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  There's a few passport checks on an international itinerary.
  1. Providing the info to the airline.
  2. Showing the airline (or code-share partner) the passport to print a boarding pass and check luggage. Even if the "showing" is a scan on a kiosk.
  2a. This might be skippable if you print at home, I always have luggage and no printer so I don't know how this works out.
  3. The boarding pass will have a big honking "INTL" on it when going through security, even for the domestic leg, prompting the TSA to ask for the passport as a travel document. They also write some scribbles on the boarding pass.
  4. Finally, when boarding the actual international plane, airline staff will look at everyone's passport and stamp the boarding pass with something indicating they're good to go. The gate agent will look at the stamp before letting each person in.
16. Re: If they're here on a VISA by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  2a. This might be skippable if you print at home, I always have luggage and no printer so I don't know how this works out.
  You gotta show one to the airline sometime. They need to know you have it so they won't get stuck hauling you back when you don't and can't get in at the destination.
  
  3. The boarding pass will have a big honking "INTL" on it when going through security, even for the domestic leg, prompting the TSA to ask for the passport as a travel document. They also write some scribbles on the boarding pass.
  They always write "scribbles" on the boarding pass, even for a domestic flight. As for demanding a passport, I can't recall them ever doing that to me.
  It is trivial to get around this, too. Instead of one flight, take one to a hub and then one international. I.e., one domestic, one international. Go through security for the domestic flight using your Real ID compatible driver's license, then you're already behind security for the international flight and you never deal with TSA for that.
  
  4. Finally, when boarding the actual international plane, airline staff will look at everyone's passport and stamp the boarding pass with something indicating they're good to go.
  
  No. That takes place a long time before boarding, simply so they can get it done with and board the plane faster. Passport checks at boarding take a lot of time.
  
  The gate agent will look at the stamp before letting each person in.
  Nope. With electronic boarding passes there is no stamp to look at, and you can hold your own paper pass against the glass until it beeps "ok". They don't bother to look unless the computer tells them to -- when there's a problem.
  Nothing at all crosschecks the identity of the person getting on the plane against the records, which makes this facial scan valuable. Is the person walking down the jetway who it is supposed to be?
17. Re: If they're here on a VISA by KingMotley · 2017-12-22 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is completely false. All international flights are in terminal 4 at O'Hare. Domestic flights are in terminals 1, 2, or 3.
18. Re: If they're here on a VISA by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-22 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, your comment is completely false. Lufthansa and ANA depart from terminal 1, as well as United international flights. Air Canada departs from terminal 2. Terminal 4 is for International ARRIVALs so they can be processed via immigration, and other international airlines not lucky enough to use the main gates.
  Wikipedia article concurs with my memory. Apparently Terminal 3 also has Iberia and Japan Airlines.
19. Re: If they're here on a VISA by KingMotley · 2017-12-23 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  But why would you want to facially scan departing international flights? That would be silly. It's arriving international flights that you would want to do facial scans, and those are all in terminal 5.
20. Re: If they're here on a VISA by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-23 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  ... this whole article is about scanning departing passengers to catch Visa overstays.
  Go home, you're drunk :).
Customs can do quite a bit. by dwillden · 2017-12-21 04:52 · Score: 2

Researchers at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University's law school made this claim. Not the Supreme Court, which has granted great leeway to what customs can do at the borders. It's a legal opinion paper that is just that, opinion, with no legal standing.

--
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
1. Re:Customs can do quite a bit. by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-12-21 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  Researchers at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University's law school made this claim. Not the Supreme Court, which has granted great leeway to what customs can do at the borders. It's a legal opinion paper that is just that, opinion, with no legal standing.
  Honestly, I think facial scanning is less of a privacy violation than cupping my testicles because the airport scanner got a distortion on my shoulder when I passed through it the last time.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:Customs can do quite a bit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-23 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Researchers at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University's law school made this claim. Not the Supreme Court, which has granted great leeway to what customs can do at the borders. It's a legal opinion paper that is just that, opinion, with no legal standing.
  The highest law in the USA is the Bill of Rights, which is open-ended, allowing the people to include any rights they wish simply by asserting them (9th Amendment - rights retained by the people, 10th Amendment - rights reserved to the people). By definition, rights retained by the people can not be taken away by any entity of government, including the Supreme Court - and supersede all existing law and precedent.
  Thus, any reasonable right exists simply by being reasonable - no Act of Congress is required, no Supreme Court ruling is required - any everybody that swears an oath to uphold the law (including all police officers, judges, government executives, legislators, Presidents) has agreed to recognize this. A strong right to privacy from government surveiilance, and with respect to third party entities (include private commercial entities) is certainly a reasonable right.
  In short, the only question here is why is government treating the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, once again?
One word why: Pork by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 04:53 · Score: -1

The $1 Billion is going into someone's pocket and someone is getting kickback...
1. Re:One word why: Pork by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  porky pig did a lot more than 1 B in kickbacks.
Security theatre by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Has NEVER required evidence for the necessity. Why should this be any different?
US Violates Privacy by thebes · 2017-12-21 04:55 · Score: 0

News at 11
Remember who this treatment is reserved for by damn_registrars · 2017-12-21 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Airport security only applies to those of us who fly commercial. When is the last time the top critters in our government flew commercial? Some of them might never have. When you can charter your own aircraft you don't have to go through security, you go straight to the airplane cabin door. Same deal with government aircraft. These people get treatment that is better than the best we can buy, and they have no reason to care about what the rest of us go through.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Remember who this treatment is reserved for by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  uh, no, I fly for the air force. We waste a lot of time with security theater too. Same guy carrying weapons on this leg now nneeds to go through security on the next leg on the same airplane on his way home. It's stupid.
2. Re:Remember who this treatment is reserved for by hey! · 2017-12-21 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Airport security only applies to those of us who fly commercial. When is the last time the top critters in our government flew commercial?
  The Obama administration. Does seem like a long time ago, though.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
3. Re:Remember who this treatment is reserved for by thegarbz · 2017-12-21 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  It could be a class thing. Or maybe there's just no risk in a rich person taking himself hostage on his own aircraft.
Wait. What? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:00 · Score: 0

At American airports. Facial recognition for customers boarding foreign flights. To see if they've overstayed their visa. So the government can presumably take action to place the people they've caught onto a foreign flight because they've overstayed their visa.
Bias? Technology Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:01 · Score: -1

"They said the technology had high error rates and are subject to bias, because the scans often fail to properly identify women and African-Americans. "
Niqab?
Goat Rope by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can build a $1 billion program to catch people leaving late, but cannot do a single thing to keep people out. Besides, what's the penalty if they're on a flight home one day past their visa? Throw them in jail and then send them home?
1. Re:Goat Rope by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-21 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  but cannot do a single thing to keep people out.
  Actually, ICE is catching more illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the border since Trump was elected, although total deportations are down.
  
  Besides, what's the penalty if they're on a flight home one day past their visa?
  The penalty for overstaying a visa is that you will have a harder time getting another visa in the future.
  Disclaimer: I think immigration is good for America, and I wish we had more of it.
2. Re:Goat Rope by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  The US has a perfectly healthy legal immigration system that creates thousands of new legalized US citizens each week. If the people who are all distraught over the US deporting illegals back to their countries of origin spent more time promoting the path to US citizenship instead of just bitching maybe there would be a few less sob stories in the news each week. There have been recent complaints about people already living in the US who did not file their paperwork on time in order to stay in the country. The government then processed the paperwork for those who missed the deadline. Why didn't these people file their paperwork on time? The deadline wasn't sprung on them at the last minute. These people claim staying in the US is their sole reason for living but cannot take the time to file the paperwork on time? There have been people living in the US for over 10+ years and have did nothing in that time to become legal citizens. It's not like illegal immigration charges have a statute of limitations and just goes away since it is an ongoing crime. And illegals already living in the US with no criminal record can take the citizenship courses and tests without fear of deportation as long as they have entered the path to US citizenship.
  Do you know what the most dangerous part for those coming into the US illegally through the southern border is? Anyone starting their trek to the US from any country south of Mexico has to deal with the Mexican military guarding Mexico's southern border. The same Mexico who is always bitching about how the US goes about securing their own border. The only national border in the world that is deadlier is the NK-SK border.
  The US is as inefficient and incompetent just
  like all governments around the world. The US doesn't need to spend billions of dollars building a security wall or hire more border control agents. A well laid out mine field at the US-Mexican border would be a more effective deterrent and would be much cheaper. US mine technologies allow for remote activation and deactivation when needed.
Overstaying visas? by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-12-21 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

it requires passengers embarking on foreign flights to undergo facial recognition scans to ensure they haven't overstayed visas.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something...
So if I’m visiting the US and I overstay my visa. Now I’m getting on an airplane to leave the country and they want to make sure that I didn’t overstay?
Hello? I’m leaving...
What, you’re going to arrest me for overstaying my visa while I’m leaving? And you’re going to spend a billion dollars to catch me as I do just what you want me to do—leave!
Really? My tax dollars at work...
1. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  PROTIP: It's an excuse to spy on American citizens
2. Re:Overstaying visas? by CanadianMacFan · 2017-12-21 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just so that they can spend more money to detain you, give you a trial, make you serve a prison sentence for overstaying your visa, and then send you home at taxpayer expense. All instead of just letting you leave on your own.
3. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You can thank the nytimes for providing absolutely NOTHING of value to this story.
  For a more detailed explanation try here https://gizmodo.com/homeland-securitys-airport-facial-scans-are-buggy-and-p-1821496186
  Seems the point is to catch people leaving who 'pretend' to be the offender (who has over stayed their visa) by using the offender's passport when they depart. The scam works like this: Person A overstays their visa, they give their passport to person B who flies out of the country using it. Now the electronic records show that Person A has left the country, when in fact they haven't.
  At least the plan on paper. But really, there are soooo many holes in this scheme it's like a Wile E Coyote story line.
4. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  No arrest, they'll just deny your next entry.
  Simple enough to do properly. Scan passports when leaving the country. The airlines already do it, use that data.
5. Re:Overstaying visas? by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Seems plausible, but if true it exposes an even worse problem - how easy it is for someone to book and board a flight (let alone international) with documents belonging to someone else. If this is prevalent enough that an illegal immigrant can afford it, doesn't that make the no-fly list ineffective?
  Even worse, a 2 for 1 - one of these passport offenders could give their documents and facilitate someone who is on the no-fly list.
6. Re:Overstaying visas? by DarkOx · 2017-12-21 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  YES! As a US citizen I absolutely want to know if you over stayed a visa, even if we are catching you on the way home!
  Its solid grounds for NOT extending another visa to you!
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
7. Re:Overstaying visas? by edtice1559 · 2017-12-21 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, but the next time you apply for a visa, it may get denied. Although I suspect, as others have more eloquently pointed out, that there is a more nefarious purpose. Historically we haven't worried very much about overstays.
8. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  PROTIP: It's an excuse to spy on American citizens
  I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You're going through TSA processing and you've already shown your ID, so they know you're leaving. The airline has forwarded your data to DHS already, and they've gathered your passport data. Exactly what new information is this system providing regarding your departure?
9. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  how easy it is for someone to book and board a flight (let alone international) with documents belonging to someone else.
  
  Not hard to book one. Trivial, even, if you're in cahoots with them. If you look similar, you can probably make it through security as them, too.
  
  If this is prevalent enough that an illegal immigrant can afford it,
  
  Afford what? A return flight? If they're on a short visa, they probably already have that booked. If not, a few hundred dollars to some non-US destination (like Canada, eh?).
  
  Even worse, a 2 for 1 - one of these passport offenders could give their documents and facilitate someone who is on the no-fly list.
  Sounds like you've just given the perfect reason for facial recognition -- to pick up what the TSA guy might have missed.
10. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Simple enough to do properly. Scan passports when leaving the country. The airlines already do it, use that data.
  Scanning someone's passport doesn't mean that that person is the one standing there having his passport scanned. Facial recognition at least looks at the person for his identity, not his papers. It's harder to hand your face to someone else; easy to hand them your passport.
  And facial recognition can be installed at the gate to watch people as they go on board. If the person intending to overstay the visa gets a buddy to help, it would be easy to defeat "passport scanning". The one who "needs to leave" has a flight out of the US and he goes through all the checkin and TSA, all nicely legal. It's a couple of days before the visa expires, so no problem. His buddy gets a flight to anywhere, just so he can get through TSA and to the gate. Swap boarding passes. Buddy flies out pretending to be the visa holder. Visa holder drives home. Buddy uses his own passport to fly back. TSA/DHS has a record of the visa holder leaving. Buddy gets credit for the flight he didn't take. Yes, it costs some money, but nobody is looking for the visa breaker. He's not here anymore!
  But when the facial recognition fails to match the buddy with the visa holder when he's going through the gate, the plot fails.
11. Re:Overstaying visas? by John.Banister · 2017-12-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  This made me curious about how they tell that visa holders actually leave the country, and I ended up on this page: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94-instructions.
  
  Seems like they could spend a lot less than a billion dollars and just provide a document scanner to the person who looks at your photo id and boarding pass on the way in to airport security. The scanner could do OCR on the ID, confirm the validity of the boarding pass, and prompt the TSA employee to request a passport for scanning where that's appropriate (foreign nationals departing the country (who didn't already supply their passport as ID) and US citizens departing to a country that requires a passport for entry).
12. Re:Overstaying visas? by easyTree · 2017-12-21 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ever get the feeling when someone asks what you're smoking that if you were to answer truthfully, a guy from the NSA would turn up at your door with beer and Cheetos? Freaking NSA freeloaders!
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
13. Re: Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  1) Not all illegal immigrants are dirt poor. Most arrive by plane. Some are wealthy.
  2) Security is pretend.
14. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  a guy from the NSA would turn up at your door with beer and Cheetos?
  Let him bring beer and cheetos, but he can go downtown and buy his own smokes. It would be cheaper for him than buying beer and cheetos.
15. Re:Overstaying visas? by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I meant afford the illegal services. The plane ticket is probably the easier part, compared to finding someone who looks like them, and is willing to fly out and risk an anomaly on their own passport.
16. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  compared to finding someone who looks like them
  Friends and family are cheap. Maybe even free.
  
  and is willing to fly out and risk an anomaly on their own passport.
  I'm sorry, but using someone else's passport doesn't create an anomaly on your own. You don't show both of them on the way out. And you aren't showing the other guy's when you come back. You're just another returning citizen at that point.
17. Re:Overstaying visas? by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-21 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because every country does it? China does it, Mexico does it, why's it suddenly bad when America does it?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
18. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Every foreigner entering the US is fingerprinted on arrival. How hard would it be to check the prints again on departure?
  It'd be more reliable than this bullshit, and less intrusive. Oh, and it would also - for the first time - create a plausible justification for the fingerprinting of arrivals, which has been going on since 2002...
19. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  If you're visiting the US and overstay your visa and you're trying to return home, wherever "home" might be, as you're describing, you're not an American, so therefore, no, it's not *your* tax dollars at work. :-p
20. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  The scanner could do OCR on the ID, ...
  And lots more for the TSA agent to do to make the security theater line even slower...
  And then the guy who wants to overstay just walks out the exit after his "official departure" has been logged by TSA and is never seen again.
  Or, if you think the airline would report his no-show at boarding to someone, he gets a friend with a US passport to use his boarding pass to take the flight. Now it is irrefutable that he's gone.
  
  and US citizens departing to a country that requires a passport for entry).
  I suppose if we're getting Mexico to pay for the wall, we can get every other country on the planet to pay for the immigration/passport control services that our TSA agents will be performing on their behalf.
21. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is really a problem? Two people swap boarding passes after passing the existing boarding pass to ID cross check to hide a visa overstay? I doubt that is a measurable blip.
  With facial recog you need a buddy that looks somewhat like you. Not a perfect foil by any means. There is also the issue of buddy returning with no record of leaving.
22. Re:Overstaying visas? by AHuxley · 2017-12-21 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Re "Now I’m getting on an airplane to leave the country and they want to make sure that I didn’t overstay?"
  After committing any number of crimes..
  If a person over stayed once what will stop them for just getting another set of documents and trying to re enter the USA?
  Leaving for a short holiday and then back to the USA illegally for decades?
  That person who stayed in the USA illegally can then be documented and never allowed back into the USA. Other nations can be warned by the USA of that persons crimes so they can not just sneak into other countries.
  That person is finally documented, returned to their own nation and then cannot legally reenter the USA. If they sneak into the USA again their face is on file and can be detected as a criminal.
  Using a face to help identify the person who stayed in the USA illegally makes it a bit more work to try and steal, forge or create new fake documents later.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
23. Re:Overstaying visas? by rtb61 · 2017-12-21 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget simple greed. Cost 1,000 million dollars, now how much of that is profit, half. Forget security or spying on Americans, apparently it doesn't work but some pack of greedy fuckers are shoving what, 5 hundred million dollars in their pocket and laughing all the way to their tax haven to hide that money. Never, ever forget simple greed, no grand conspiracy required, just a scam to steal a billion dollars. Just look at the F35 Flying Pig, the baconator express, all about pork for the military industrial complex, the most profitable scam in US history. It doesn't work on purpose, so it will have to be replaced, double plus bonus for those executives. In fact the only way they could force it in, was to claim "It will cost up to $1 billion, raised from certain visa fee surcharges over the next decade." foreignors will pay for it all, yep uh huh, sure, watch 1 become 10, watch less people arriving because excess fees and charges and the entire industry suffers, watch that tax get shifted, watch it deployed at train stations (part of the 1 becomes 10 becomes 100), all about the cash, no conspiracy required more to do with fraud.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
24. Re:Overstaying visas? by John.Banister · 2017-12-21 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think the friend would have to be someone who wasn't coming back, because otherwise the no-show on the flight that got the friend past security would be an issue that person would have to resolve when trying to come back. But, you've convinced me. Clearly we should spend a billion dollars on poorly performing facial recognition.
25. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think the friend would have to be someone who wasn't coming back, because otherwise the no-show on the flight that got the friend past security would be an issue that person would have to resolve when trying to come back.
  
  What "resolve"? "I decided not to go." It's not a crime not to take a flight that you've checked in on. The airline may get pissy about applying the money for that flight to something else, but that's why you get a really cheap flight.
  You don't think any airline would actually deny someone who didn't make one flight the ability to fly ever again on that airline, do you? No, sorry, they'll happily take your money to fly you from London to Chicago even if you skip out on half a dozen flights from Chicago to Indianapolis. If you do find such a moronic airline, then use a different airline to fly back. Delta will take customers United doesn't want all day long.
  
  But, you've convinced me. Clearly we should spend a billion dollars on poorly performing facial recognition.
  I guess the concept of justifying a process but not justifying the cost or poor performance is new. I'm explaining why a system like that would be useful, not that it has to cost a billion dollars.
26. Re:Overstaying visas? by ToasterMonkey · 2017-12-21 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can thank the nytimes for providing absolutely NOTHING of value to this story.
  This is juvenile. I like Gizmodo's Adam and David example, but all of their quotes are right out of the report itself aside from this one.
  "As one of the report’s co-authors told The New York Times,"
  The NYT article goes further than internet searches for background info.
  "John Wagner, deputy executive assistant commissioner for field operations at Customs and Border Protection, said ..."
  "Laura Moy, who helped write the report, said ..."
  "But Senators Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, expressed concerns ..."
  "In 1996, Congress ordered the federal government to develop a tracking system for people who overstayed their entry visas. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an entry- and exit-tracking system was seen as a vital national security and counterterrorism tool. The 9/11 Commission recommended in 2004 that the newly-developed Department of Homeland Security complete a system “as soon as possible.” Congress has since passed seven separate laws requiring biometric entry-exit screening."
  NOTHING of value?
27. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  With facial recog you need a buddy that looks somewhat like you. Not a perfect foil by any means.
  No system is perfect. Does that mean we should have no systems?
  
  There is also the issue of buddy returning with no record of leaving.
  You must not fly international out of the US. They don't care if you leave. You can even leave without needing a passport. The only place they care about a passport when you leave is the airline, and that's for two reasons: so they know you have a passport and they won't have to haul your ass back when you get turned away from the destination for not having a passport, and so they can send the data to DHS/ICE for no-fly. But since you can leave the country without using an airline, there is no way they can figure out that you shouldn't be coming back. If they ask, tell them you drove to Canada or Mexico and flew someplace from there.
28. Re:Overstaying visas? by John.Banister · 2017-12-21 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think the friend would have to be someone who wasn't coming back, because otherwise the no-show on the flight that got the friend past security would be an issue that person would have to resolve when trying to come back.
  What "resolve"? "I decided not to go." It's not a crime not to take a flight that you've checked in on. The airline may get pissy about applying the money for that flight to something else, but that's why you get a really cheap flight.
  You don't think any airline would actually deny someone who didn't make one flight the ability to fly ever again on that airline, do you? No, sorry, they'll happily take your money to fly you from London to Chicago even if you skip out on half a dozen flights from Chicago to Indianapolis. If you do find such a moronic airline, then use a different airline to fly back. Delta will take customers United doesn't want all day long.
  You had suggested that the friend would be taking the flight to the other country. Coming back from someplace they weren't recorded as going to after the recorded no-show on the flight that got them past security and no other record of their departure from the country would be hard to explain to US Customs/Immigration on the way back in. They could tell some story that starts with "I changed my mind and decided to go to Venezuela by boat.." But, I don't think it'd be an easy sell.
29. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  You had suggested that the friend would be taking the flight to the other country.
  
  Yes.
  
  and no other record of their departure from the country would be hard to explain to US Customs/Immigration on the way back in.
  You can leave the country without a record of it here. That's how lax the US exit process is.
  
  They could tell some story that starts with "I changed my mind
  They don't have to tell any ICE agent on the way back in that they "changed their mind". ICE isn't going to care that someone missed a domestic flight. It's ridiculous to think they would.
  
  and decided to go to Venezuela by boat
  Canada and Mexico are a lot closer, and a lot of US citizens go to either or both every year.
30. Re:Overstaying visas? by John.Banister · 2017-12-22 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  You had suggested that the friend would be taking the flight to the other country.
  Yes.
  
  and no other record of their departure from the country would be hard to explain to US Customs/Immigration on the way back in.
  You can leave the country without a record of it here. That's how lax the US exit process is.
  If you go back to the start of this discussion, you'll see that that's what I had suggested changing,
  
  They could tell some story that starts with "I changed my mind
  They don't have to tell any ICE agent on the way back in that they "changed their mind". ICE isn't going to care that someone missed a domestic flight. It's ridiculous to think they would.
  
  and decided to go to Venezuela by boat
  Canada and Mexico are a lot closer, and a lot of US citizens go to either or both every year.
  Yes, but they have information sharing agreements with the US government.
31. Re:Overstaying visas? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-22 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you go back to the start of this discussion, you'll see that that's what I had suggested changing,
  You can suggest changing it, but the fact is how it is now. If you're talking about the enhanced role of TSA as being immigration and passport control for other countries, I think I've already dealt with that. It's not going to happen. TSA is not immigration and customs enforcement, not even for our own country.
  
  Yes, but they have information sharing agreements with the US government.
  Share the information that doesn't exist. The US doesn't keep track of who leaves. When you come back, they don't know how you left. The fact they don't know how you left isn't proof of a crime, it is just how it is. There is no "resolve" necessary -- you leave on someone else's boarding pass, you come back on your own passport.
  If you're smart about it, you go to a foreign airport where you don't even go through customs or immigration, you just go to your return flight's gate and start being you.
Eyeroll by sjbe · 2017-12-21 05:16 · Score: 3, Funny

It's telling that D.H.S. cannot identify a single benefit actually resulting from airport face scans at the departure gate
As if benefit analysis was EVER a consideration for DHS or TSA... I would love to see the benefit analysis of confiscating people's nail clippers from carry on luggage.
1. Re:Eyeroll by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  TSA needs to be completely disbanded, and DHS needs drastic reform!!
2. Re:Eyeroll by drew_kime · 2017-12-21 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  As if benefit analysis was EVER a consideration for DHS or TSA... I would love to see the benefit analysis of confiscating people's nail clippers from carry on luggage.
  Not funny ... True.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
So you wind up on the "Don't come back" list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Easy - they put you on the "You can't come back" list.
No tinfoil needed.
1. Re:So you wind up on the "Don't come back" list by easyTree · 2017-12-21 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  No return means no opportunity to have your ordinary behaviour criminalised with a view to using you to extract money from citizens. How does that help?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
Inasive =/= illegal by houghi · 2017-12-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Sure it is invasive, but that by itself does not make it illegal. Not even the fact that it is useless.
And if it is illegal today, I bet it will be legal tomorrow.
Law and morality are not the same.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Re:Inasive =/= illegal by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it is invasive,
  How is it invasive? It's not looking under your clothes like millimeter waves do. It's not scanning your body for ferrous metal. You don't have to stop or produce documents or anything.
  All you have to do is have your face out where it can be seen, like almost everyone already does. Heck, you have to have your face out to show the TSA security line checker anyway, because he's busy comparing your id to your face.
  The airlines have already sent your data to DHS, and you're ticket data is scanned going through TSA. They know who you are and that you are at the airport. They also know where you say you're going.
  Also keep in mind, ICE is already getting your picture when you enter the country. It's faster than the old manual system.
  Where's the invasive?
2. Re:Inasive =/= illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Law and morality are not the same
  Hint: Morality isn't the same for everyone either.
3. Re:Inasive =/= illegal by AHuxley · 2017-12-21 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  How is it illegal? Nobody was forced to travel to the USA and overstay?
  A person entered the USA with a set time to work, study or enjoy the USA. With very clear and simple set conditions.
  They became illegal when they failed to return to their own nation after a set time. A time as they said they fully understood as part of been granted a set time to be in the USA.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
We Hold Neccesity of Revenue to be Self-Evident by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

"D.H.S. doesn't need a face-scanning system to catch travelers without a photo on file. It's alarming that D.H.S. still hasn't supplied evidence for the necessity of this $1 billion program," he added.

Private companies got $1 billion in revenue.
This is America. What greater necessity could there be than a company making money?
While I agree with the headline.... by mark-t · 2017-12-21 05:36 · Score: 1

.... I don't really think that it is something that anyone has any sort of inviolable right to when they are in a public place. I don't personally go around poking my nose into other people's business because I value my own privacy, and treat others as I would like to be treated, but not everyone abides by such premises, and I'd be foolish to expect that the world around me would somehow be obliged to cater to my own values, no matter how righteous I may believe them to be. If I want privacy, I will take whatever measures are legally available to me to ensure that I have it... and as a first requirement, that's going to include not being anywhere that someone who I may not want to see or hear me is also.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Except, who cares if they overstayed, they're leaving! Worry about it when they try to come back!
2. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Except, who cares if they overstayed, they're leaving! Worry about it when they try to come back!
  If you don't catch them overstaying, how can you worry about it when they come back? Pray tell, how do you know that Achmed overstayed his visa the last time he was here when he's standing in front of you as an ICE officer now, unless you caught him doing it last time and put it in his record? How does the embassy issuing the visa know that THIS time they shouldn't issue Achmed the visa because last time he cheated, unless he was caught cheating last time?
3. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by dcw3 · 2017-12-21 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  .... I don't really think that it is something that anyone has any sort of inviolable right to when they are in a public place.
  I'd generally agree however I also don't think anyone has the right to constantly monitor us in public places, because there will come a time when it really is constant monitoring. There needs to be some limits.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
4. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  From the flight records. You don't need to catch them in the act... and even if you catch it the moment they book the ticket, it doesn't matter, you want them to leave.
  And if someone wanted to leave without a paper trail, anyone can just walk out to Canada or Mexico. Niagara Falls and Tijuana come to mind.
5. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  From the flight records.
  
  They didn't fly. They took a different route out. On time, before the visa expired.
  
  and even if you catch it the moment they book the ticket, it doesn't matter, you want them to leave.
  Of course it matters. You want them to have already left, and you don't want them to come back. You can't do the latter if you didn't catch them failing to leave on time. What if they don't book the ticket? If they're doing something illegal, why would they do the booking? They're going to try to slip out as someone else. With someone else's paperwork. But their own face.
  
  And if someone wanted to leave without a paper trail, anyone can just walk out to Canada or Mexico.
  
  Yeah, so your flippant "flight records" solution is already known to be invalid.
6. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by PrimaryConsult · 2017-12-21 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm simultaneously poking two holes in the plan. One being that the people choosing to fly out on an expired visa can be data mined from a flight database without needing to be caught in the act. The other being that it is simpler, less risky* and far less illegal to walk out of the country and into another one, with a fresh visa, and then fly home. There would be no proof whatsoever of visa overstay. This scanner program is trying to catch a complex Visa scam while a far simpler (and likely more effective) one will still exist.
  *Walking out has its own risks. If the Immigration guy on the other side asks how long the person was in the US, and they lie, it's a very serious crime. If they tell the truth they risk being denied entry, at which point they have to return to US Immigration and re-enter, and the overstay will be blatantly obvious.
7. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by currently_awake · 2017-12-21 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't they keep track of visa guests, so they know when they leave? They could compare lists of people leaving the country and comparing it with the list of people on visas.
8. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  One being that the people choosing to fly out on an expired visa can be data mined from a flight database without needing to be caught in the act.
  That assumes they are flying using their own, expired paperwork.
  
  The other being that it is simpler, less risky* and far less illegal to walk out of the country and into another one,
  
  It is much harder to do that than to simply try to fly home.
  Gosh, we won't catch all the criminals with this facial recognition stuff. I guess we shouldn't even try. We won't catch all of any kind of criminal, so I guess we shouldn't even try. That does make life much simpler for everyone, even the criminals.
9. Re:While I agree with the headline.... by mark-t · 2017-12-23 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Given the risks of walking out that you mentioned (which if you had not pointed out yourself, I would have), I think saying that it's less risky than flying out is a lot like saying that cyanide has less calories than arsenic.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why I don't fly by p51d007 · 2017-12-21 05:59 · Score: 1

TSA treating almost everyone as a criminal. Having to arrive 1-3 hours early for your flight, due to searches and what not Terrible in flight services/food Delayed flights Canceled flights Most of the places I fly to, are within a days drive, so I just drive where I need to go.
1. Re:Why I don't fly by dcw3 · 2017-12-21 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  For anything less than an 8 hr drive, I typically do the same. I'll be there a couple hours later, but save the flight expense, baggage fees, and destination rental vehicle cost.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Just Americans? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 06:07 · Score: 0

I have a hard time believing they don't store the exact same data on everyone else.
Here's Why I Think It's Legal by kackle · 2017-12-21 06:07 · Score: 1

How is this (albeit malfunctioning) technology any different than a cop standing at the airport, scanning the crowd with his eyes?
1. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by klingens · 2017-12-21 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  A cop doesn't store all the pictures ever taken on a multiterabyte government database in Utah where they can be used for many many other purposes.
  The cop has a very limited memory for maybe a few hundred faces and this memory can't be copied and stored for eternity unlike the gov db.
  Basically they build a database of all citizens, maybe right now not crossreferenced to Social Security Number, but it will come. as soon as the tech is capable of it.
2. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  alcohol induced memory wipe at end of shift.
3. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by DaveyJJ · 2017-12-21 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, first off, there's the fact that research done by visual researchers reveals that that human forgets faces not of his/her ethnicity significantly faster their own ethnicity. Your memory of a face in a crowd declines in under 10 seconds, and happens even faster than that when you're glancing at someone who doesn't look like you. Crowds are also very confusing because of other visual factors that are similar in what you're looking at and distract ... movement, colours, clothing, shapes, etc.
  Second, people have an utterly terrible memory for faces, and one's cognitive ability runs across a wide spectrum. Unless there is a mark or deformity that is significant, people are generally poor with faces, especially ones in a crowd. And while it's unlikely that someone with a condition like prosopagnosia is going into law enforcement, it still means that about 2% of the population is hopelessly "blind" when it comes to recognizing people's faces. Additional research shows, in experiments we can replicate, that even close family members, if their appearance is slightly altered, are missed in a crowd to a significant degree when scanning faces in a crowd.
  Third, it takes on average 2.5 seconds for the average human to look at and recognize a face. Sometimes as long as 5 seconds. How do you imagine that you could have enough security personal around to scan the thousands of people who move through crowded public spaces like airports, train stations etc every minute or two?
  I've been in the same room as two police detectives trying to get accurate descriptions of criminals one time, and the variations of what the guys supposedly looked like from one interviewee to the next was amazing to hear. There is no way a human scanning a crowd is going to do anywhere near as good a job at facial recognition than decent software that stores potentially millions of faces (note that accuracy is debatable, and is still pretty hard to get right with most of these systems). I think the problem here are the questions around who has this data, how is it being used that you're not being told about, how long is it kept, who is it being shared with, and what is the measurement of it's success (besides a few companies making 100s of millions of dollars). A better system takes into account different physiological aspects of you ... height, weight, appendage movements, stride type and length, etc. But I have no clue whether or not it's legal, though.
  
  --
  DaveyJJ
4. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Basically they build a database of all citizens, maybe right now not crossreferenced to Social Security Number, but it will come. as soon as the tech is capable of it.
  This is different than the passport database they already have exactly how, again?
5. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by currently_awake · 2017-12-21 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  If the identification process doesn't work, that needs to be solved. Otherwise criminals/terrorists can fly using fake ID.
The Ostensible Reason For Scans is Probably False by silvergeek · 2017-12-21 06:13 · Score: 2

The ostensible reason for the scans is " to undergo facial recognition scans to ensure they haven't overstayed visas." Really, if a person is leaving, who cares at that point if they over-stayed. The good news is that they are leaving! Therefore, since they are scanning everyone, could it be that the real reason is something that they do not wish to admit.
Re:Wait. What? by Shotgun · 2017-12-21 06:16 · Score: 2

A smart traveler would overstay their VISA, and then purposely get caught. Free flight home?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Catching the wrong people by XXongo · 2017-12-21 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since when do Americans need a visa to visit America? By definition anyone carrying a US passport should be exempt, if you believe their excuse for doing the scans.
What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with? They are scanning everybody, Americans and non-Americans alike, in order to catch the ones with expired visas.
What I don't get: these are people leaving the country. If somebody has an expired visa, what they are supposed to do is to leave the country. I don't see the point of a billion-dollar program (!) to catch the people leaving; what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country.
1. Re: Catching the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-21 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Verification of a visa holderâ(TM)s exit? I know, I know, this shot is hard.
2. Re:Catching the wrong people by Plus1Entropy · 2017-12-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think what the GP was saying is that if you have a US Passport, you shouldn't have to go through the scan because you couldn't possibly be a visa holder.
  If they are scanning everybody, then that is just fucking stupid and a waste of time. So that's probably exactly what they're doing since I'm pretty sure "Fucking Stupid and a Waste of Time" is the TSA's motto.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
3. Re:Catching the wrong people by easyTree · 2017-12-21 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country.
  It's not clear how DHS could make mountains of cash from that.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
4. Re:Catching the wrong people by aaarrrgggh · 2017-12-21 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  It is cheaper than modifying all the airports to provide exit immigration controls like nearly every other country in the world. By knowing who has left, you theoretically have a tally of who has not.
  I'm torn on the issue; if CBP has the right to do it on arrival, what is different about it being on exit?
5. Re:Catching the wrong people by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  If somebody has an expired visa, what they are supposed to do is to leave the country.
  They were supposed to have already left. It's the overstay that is the illegal part.
  
  They are scanning everybody, Americans and non-Americans alike,
  
  How is the camera supposed to know that you are "an American" just by looking at you, without scanning you to figure that out?
  
  what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country.
  They should catch all of the people in the US on an expired visa, whether they are in line to leave or not.
  Are you one of those folks who goes to court to fight a speeding ticket with the excuse that the cops ought to be out catching speeders on a different street instead of the one you were on?
6. Re:Catching the wrong people by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-21 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  If they're leaving, why not just let them leave on their own rather than go through the expense of detaining them and going through the whole deportation process? What is to be gained?
7. Re:Catching the wrong people by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  If they're leaving, why not just let them leave on their own rather than go through the expense of detaining them and going through the whole deportation process?
  
  Because you want it on the record that they overstayed so they don't get another visa to do it again. You assume there will be a "deportation process" when there is no need to have one. They're leaving. They have a ticket. You're just making sure they don't get to come back.
  
  What is to be gained?
  It enforces immigration law. It prevents a criminal from getting another chance to break immigration law by overstaying his visa again. It makes people who might think it doesn't matter if you overstay a US visa because nothing will be done about it think again. These are all positive things.
8. Re:Catching the wrong people by AHuxley · 2017-12-21 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Re "what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country."
  It finally allows for a system most normal nations have. To count every person in and out of the USA.
  A face arriving legally is reconciled with a face returning to their own nation on time and within the time of their documentation.
  If they ever want to re visit the USA they are in good standing.
  
  Not on time and over staying? That person can now be found and a digital version of a "Be on the lookout" can be started.
  That prevents illegal immigration. People who thought overstaying their authorized period in the USA would just be a matter of not returning to their own nation.
  Count every face in. Count every face out. No matter what their "documents" say. Documents can be forged, borrowed, stolen. Some nations have no functional central government and no way to create documents. Criminals enter the USA on fictional documents provided by NGO of the same cult, faith.
  Once in the USA they could be anyone, doing anything they want. With a face on file they can be sorted with other national police, security services, have international law enforcement look over databases. Did that person apply for refugees protection in a few nations with great benefits? Commit crimes while waiting for their refugee status to be determined? Found to be a criminal that is now trying to get into the USA?
  Commit a lot of crimes in the USA and is now trying to exit the USA using new and different documentation?
  A face that is counted in and out of the USA can finally help detect a lot of very bad people who thought they could get away with many crimes by using different documents.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
9. Re:Catching the wrong people by currently_awake · 2017-12-21 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  They already know who left the country, those people bought tickets and presented government issued ID.
10. Re:Catching the wrong people by aaarrrgggh · 2017-12-21 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  They went through the security checkpoint, but you don't know that THEY took the flight; it could easily be a ticket-swap scam.
  Every other country (I have been to) requires an immigration exit, aside from within the EU zone of course.
11. Re:Catching the wrong people by painandgreed · 2017-12-22 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with?
  Personally, that this is supposed to be a simple solution to a complicated problem that will probably have less to do with catching people than funneling money into somebodies pocket.
12. Re:Catching the wrong people by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-22 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It prevents a criminal from getting another chance to break immigration law by overstaying his visa again.
  Someone who overstays their visa is not a criminal. Overstaying ones visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one. As for the rest of your argument, it is my opinion that the cost in money and freedom is not worth the incredibly tiny gain to be had.
13. Re:Catching the wrong people by Obfuscant · 2017-12-22 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Someone who overstays their visa is not a criminal.
  In interesting language you speak, that looks so much like English but isn't. Someone who breaks the law is a criminal.
  
  Overstaying ones visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
  It is a violation of law, and that is what the common term "criminal" means. It is not limited to the strict legal definition of "what kind of offense was it?" We're not in a legal forum or standing in front of a judge where precise legal terminology is expected. We're speekin da English.
  
  As for the rest of your argument, it is my opinion that the cost in money and freedom
  
  Well, since the "cost in freedom" is precisely zero, it must be a money issue for you. Catching criminals is usually a worthwhile thing, and catching people who abuse the immigration system is an expense that we need to pay. Why have laws if you're just going to ignore them because it costs something to enforce them?
14. Re:Catching the wrong people by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-22 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Someone who breaks the law is a criminal.
  Only if they commit a criminal offense, like theft or assault. Not if they only commit a civil offense, like speeding or overstaying a visa.
  
  It is a violation of law, and that is what the common term "criminal" means.
  No, it is not. The precise legal meaning is the same as the common meaning. People who speed are not criminals. People who litter are not criminals. People who don't keep their sidewalks clear of snow are not criminals. People who overstay their visas are not criminals.
What privacy? by mi · 2017-12-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Scanning or no scanning, they already know everything about each passenger. So, what additional privacy invasion can happen due to facial recognition?
Maybe, it is a waste of time/money — or, perhaps, a valid tool to catch frauds and cheaters flying with fake documents. But in either case it does not threaten the privacy of ordinary people (Americans or otherwise) any more, than it being impossible to fly anonymously already did...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by mi · 2017-12-21 07:08 · Score: 1

A smart traveler would overstay their VISA, and then purposely get caught. Free flight home?
Can only be done once. No visa for the same smart traveler ever again...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by XXongo · 2017-12-21 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason we care whether somebody overstays their visa is because this is a way people illegally immigrate into the U.S.: by legally entering, but then not leaving.
  If somebody who overstayed their visa leaves, the fact that they are leaving is good proof that they are not illegally immigrating into the U.S..
  These aren't the ones we want to catch.
2. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  These aren't the ones we want to catch.
  They broke the law. Why shouldn't we want to catch them? If we don't care how long they stay just as long as they leave, then how can we "catch" anyone who has overstayed? "I was going to leave next week, I promise!" Oh, ok, you weren't going to stay forever. You're ok.
3. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by XXongo · 2017-12-21 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I parked in a no-parking zone once, so I guess I'm a criminal, too.
  But if they're going to set up a billion dollar program to catch criminals, I'd say they should catch the ones that are worth the bother to catch.
4. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-21 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  These aren't the ones we want to catch.
  They broke the law. Why shouldn't we want to catch them?
  Because doing so is expensive, and using this technology degrades the privacy of citizens and foreign nationals who are here legally?
5. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I parked in a no-parking zone once, so I guess I'm a criminal, too.
  
  Did you think this has something to do with immigration law?
  
  But if they're going to set up a billion dollar program to catch criminals,
  Immigration violations, not just generic "criminals".
  
  I'd say they should catch the ones that are worth the bother to catch.
  They are. It is worth catching the ones who are leaving, too. You can't flag their record as being disallowed back in unless you catch them first.
  If you aren't going to bother trying to catch them, and thus don't care about the violation, why bother having the law? And how do you prosecute others who do the same thing when you've already said you don't care about some who do it? Equal treatment under the law? Ring a bell?
6. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Because doing so is expensive
  Enforcing laws always costs money. Is that an excuse not to have any laws?
  
  and using this technology degrades the privacy of citizens and foreign nationals who are here legally?
  Think about it a minute. This is not a camera on a public street where nobody knows who anybody is until the facial recognition identifies them so they can be tracked. This is a US airport secured area where you must show ID just to enter, where your face is already compared to that picture ID, where the airline has already collected your passport information and forwarded it to DHS, and your boarding pass is scanned and verified while your ID is being examined. And finally, the passport that you are using to travel on is already in a massive government database -- either a US database for US passports or other country for their citizens -- which includes your picture.
  The only new bit of information that facial recognition provides is that the face matches one for a temporary visa holder, or not. But for all those honest folk whose privacy you are worried about, the government already knows you don't have an expired visa, that you are traveling, and what flight you are taking. They can even identify at least one specific point you were at, at a specific time, and from there can easily track you around the airport with existing security cameras.
  Sorry. Just because a government camera looks at your face doesn't mean your privacy is violated. "OMG, they're looking at my face and gathering data they already have!" Ummm. Ok.
7. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by AHuxley · 2017-12-21 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  re "These aren't the ones we want to catch."
  The act of "overstays their visa" is illegal and that person needs to be removed and returned to their own nation.
  The "removed" part ensures they can never legally return to the USA.
  What are they doing while they "overstay their visa"?
  Working illegally? Not paying tax? Crime? Using city, state and federal support services that are for actual US citizens who need help?
  A person in the USA illegally could be leaving for any number of reasons and then returning illegally to the USA.
  A relaxing holiday in their own nation and then back to steal from the USA for decades again.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
8. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by currently_awake · 2017-12-21 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  So if "The only new bit of information that facial recognition provides is that the face matches", then why is the government doing this? These people already identified themselves, the DHS already knows who they are, so why spend the money? This is probably a field test of facial recognition in a semi-controlled enviornment, prior to connecting the system to cameras on street corners.
9. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  So if "The only new bit of information that facial recognition provides is that the face matches", then why is the government doing this?
  Because knowing that the person walking down the jetway is the person they claim to be is an important piece of data, especially for non-citizens on a short-term visa.
  
  These people already identified themselves, the DHS already knows who they are, so why spend the money?
  They didn't identify which people are actually leaving versus walking back out the exit.
10. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by XXongo · 2017-12-22 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you aren't going to bother trying to catch them, and thus don't care about the violation, why bother having the law?
  
  The purpose of the law is to stop illegal immigration by people coming in with a legal visa and then staying. The ones who leave are not staying.
  
  And how do you prosecute others who do the same thing when you've already said you don't care about some who do it?
  This question makes no sense. Saying "we don't choose to spend a billion dollars on a system to catch people who are leaving anyway" does not in any way make a statement "we can't prosecute people who don't leave."
11. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by XXongo · 2017-12-22 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  What are they doing while they "overstay their visa"?
  For the most part: spending money.
12. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-22 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  BINGO! There gain to be had from this is minuscule, but at least it's expensive, and can be used to invade our privacy!
13. Re:Only once (Re:Wait. What?) by Obfuscant · 2017-12-22 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  and can be used to invade our privacy!
  You keep saying that despite all the evidence that shows otherwise. I've pointed out how there is no invasion of privacy. How about you show there is something, other than just repeating "invasion of privacy, invasion of privacy, look at the bad man invading our privacy!"
  I'm not debating the expense, so go jump up and down somewhere else.
\o/ by easyTree · 2017-12-21 07:41 · Score: 1

...evidence for the necessity of this $1 billion program, ...
Pretty sure the evidence can be found within the above sentence fragment.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Wait. What? by Obfuscant · 2017-12-21 08:13 · Score: 1

A smart traveler would overstay their VISA, and then purposely get caught. Free flight home?
I don't know where you get that from. They've already paid for the ticket home. If they're lucky, they make that flight. More likely they'll miss that flight and have to pay a rebooking or itinerary change fee, plus lodging when the next available flight is two days away.
Why do you think the US is going to pick up the price of the ticket they already have?
Re:The Ostensible Reason For Scans is Probably Fal by AHuxley · 2017-12-21 12:30 · Score: 1

Re "who cares at that point if they over-stayed"
So that they can never return to the USA legally again.
They might be on a holiday and think they can just reenter the USA again.
The point is to legally document their crime and return them to their own nation.
No getting back into the USA again. The USA can then provide that persons details to many other nations and warn them about that persons crime.
That person knew they had to return to their own nation after a set time. They understood they did not get unlimited time to work and just wonder around the USA.
By counting every face in and out of the USA the USA is protected and so are many other friendly nations.

Re "scanning everyone" could help detect the people with fake, forged, borrowed or stolen documents.
They might have overstayed but the documents they present to go on a holiday might not be their own.
So scanning everyone detects people who entered the USA a long time ago and who thought they could enter and exit the USA with impunity.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Even more telling... by Narcocide · 2017-12-21 14:49 · Score: 1

... is that they attained funding and were allowed to deploy it without answering any of these issues first.
tyranny by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-21 17:24 · Score: 1

We have become a caricature of the Soviet Union.
Consent to search... by MercTech · 2017-12-22 11:06 · Score: 1

Check the doors, roads coming in, windows next to doors.
You will probably find words to the effect of, "Entering this facility constitutes consent to identification and search." along with a bunch of legal code gobbledygook that cites the authority to do that under Federal law and legal code in the local jurisdiction. You are giving implicit consent whenever you walk in the door.
So far, posted signs giving implicit consent have stood up in court.
Yep, kinda crappy.

--
NRRPT/RCT