Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

7 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Has NEVER required evidence for the necessity. Why should this be any different?

  2. Overstaying visas? by R3d+M3rcury · · 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 CanadianMacFan · · 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.

    2. Re:Overstaying visas? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Eyeroll by sjbe · · 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.

  4. We Hold Neccesity of Revenue to be Self-Evident by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  5. Re:Here's Why I Think It's Legal by DaveyJJ · · 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