Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHS Will Use Facial Recognition To Scan Travelers at the Border (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on from the it's-here dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put out a notice, saying it was looking for a facial recognition system that could work with images taken of people inside their cars. The idea was that such a system could be used to scan people entering and leaving the country through the US/Mexico border and match them to government documents like passports and visas. Now, The Verge reports that DHS will be launching a test of a system aiming to do just that. The Vehicle Face System, as it's called, is scheduled for an initial deployment in August and it will be installed at the Anzalduas border crossing. The test will take place over one year and will aim to take images of passengers in every car that enters or leaves the US through the crossing.

91 comments

  1. I have a question by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't? If you want to know who someone is, tada, passport.

    1. Re:I have a question by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't? If you want to know who someone is, tada, passport.

      Presumably, to speed up processing once travelers get to the checkpoint. From TFA: [bold mine]

      Those images will be matched to government documents and travelers will be verified before they get to the border checkpoint, in theory.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:I have a question by bmimatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      As someone who somewhat frequently crosses the border with Mexico by car in SoCal... You almost never need passport to drive to Mexico, you need it when/if you want to come back to the US. When you drive south, there is no US checkpoint of any kind, just some cameras and devices. One of these definitely is a plate reader, the rest I do not know. Once you are past that, you drive through the Mexican checkpoint, which picks cars at random for inspection. Green light - you keep going, red - you pull over and Mexican border agent comes over for a quick chat.

    3. Re:I have a question by ls671 · · Score: 1

      People with multiple names and nationalities, multiple passports including fake ones etc. Don't you ever watch TV? :)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as someone that has crossed San Yisidro and Otey Mesa a hundred times to smuggle tramadol, I can tell you, the idea that 'Mexico has tough immigration checks' is a ****ing joke.

    5. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't?

      The US/Mexico boarder is so heavily traveled that anything that might help reduce the various border agents workload is potentially a good thing (one, presumably, wants them alert, and having the option of reducing the time spent on the normal sounds good to me).

    6. Re:I have a question by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It would transfer taxpayer money to the corporation that builds, installs, and maintains the system.

    7. Re:I have a question by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      speed, less humans, no need for breaks, etc.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    8. Re:I have a question by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Mexico doesn't care about Americans coming there to spend tourist dollars. That would be insane. But they have built a border wall on their southern border, while getting upset at the US for wanting to do the same.

      As a Libertarian, I'm all for open borders, as long as you check in when you come here. Self Documentation at the border seems like the best solution, and would solve all sorts of problems.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:I have a question by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      This is the primary use. They already use other automated targeting devices in advance of you arriving at the border as well(such as license plate scanners). Secondarily, it will help tracking smugglers, capturing people with falsified documents, identify people with criminal records/people who have been deported, etc.

    10. Re:I have a question by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      As someone mentioned, it will speed up processing. The line coming into the US at busy crossings is fairly long. San Ysidro, Calexico, El Paso, etc can have hour long waits at peak times.

      Secondarily, it's for security. They already use other automated targeting devices in advance of you arriving at the border as well(such as license plate scanners). It will help tracking smugglers(capturing patterns of behavior that can be profiled), capturing people with falsified documents, identify people with criminal records/people who have been deported, etc.

    11. Re:I have a question by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't? If you want to know who someone is, tada, passport.

      With facial recognition systems, the more sample photos of a subject you have, the better it works. A lot better than having just one passport picture.

      The DHS folks want to build a bigger database that allows law enforcement folks to better identify criminal folks from surveillance cameras.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    12. Re: I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Mexico does NOT have a southern border wall. In populated areas, there is some fencing, that is all.

    13. Re:I have a question by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Give money to vendors to advance the technology toward the eventual goal of ubiquitous tracking in public places.

    14. Re:I have a question by bmimatt · · Score: 1

      I've been to the south border of Mexico a few times. I haven't seen any walls, unless they put them up in the last few months. There's 7" or so fence in places you can see from the car when getting out of / returning to Mexico. Is that the "wall" you had in mind?

    15. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're going to check if you match the passport, too, though.

      They already have the booths that take a picture of you when you return to the USA that also scan your passport, so this is probably just a logical extension of that.

    16. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the counterpart to the passport.

      If someone shows you ID, you theoretically look at the ID and their face, and you compare them. (How do you know I didn't present my dad's ID, since he's drinking age and therefore allowed to go where grups go?)

      This is the look-at-their-face part.

    17. Re:I have a question by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's 7" or so fence in places you can see from the car when getting out of / returning to Mexico.

      Is there also a model of Stonehenge?

    18. Re:I have a question by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Passports can be fake (created for a person using fake information), real using a different person for one occasion, shared over a longer term.
      Some nations don't have a functioning passport service.
      Nations will create a passport for cash rather than see if that person is a citizen.
      People arrive in the USA with fake created documents. Fictional new documents created to allow them to "move" to the USA and start a new life.
      People who have lived in the USA for years illegally under a fake name who want to then use that name or another new name in a "real" passport.
      The collection of real state and federal "documents" to allow for a US passport application by an illegal migrant.
      Now the USA finally has the legal and political ability to control its entry and exits, just like any other normal nation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a real libertarian I object to your demands to seemingly advocate the use of force to make people self-document. What makes a libertarian a libertarian is we are against the use of force to achieve social or political objectives.

    20. Re:I have a question by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With facial recognition systems, the more sample photos of a subject you have, the better it works. A lot better than having just one passport picture.

      The DHS folks want to build a bigger database that allows law enforcement folks to better identify criminal folks from surveillance cameras.

      This.

      It's about building facial databases which can be shared among the various Federal. and State agencies and departments.

      If anyone thinks it will only be used to identify and track "criminals" and not journalists, whistle blowers, political enemies and more, they are fools.

      Couple this with AI using facial micro-expression analysis and you can quickly learn anything about anyone, how someone will react to a given situation, their strengths & weaknesses, if they're lying or telling the truth, what makes them angry, sad, happy, what scares them, or makes them laugh, cry...or kill.

      The more data/images/video the AI has to work with, the more specific and precise the predictive ability and also conversely the ability to know what will manipulate individuals and groups to do, say, and believe whatever those in control desire.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increasing false positives to justify "requiring" a larger budget and more draconian security measures. That's the difference.

      Your passport is your passport. But automated facial recognition will be linked with things such as the no-fly and numerous other watchlists prized for their "a terrorist's name ALSO starts with one of the letters of the alphabet therefore you're him" accuracy.

      While it will only mildly increase the amount of detainees and molestations, what it *will* do is further refine the data collection of everybody's movements (it's only at the borders for now - remember china's toilets now?) and, most importantly, set off red flags and trigger minor "alarms" everywhere. Every last one of these "possible suspect" or "known terrorist" or "is black" results will be used to smack people's faces around up in the house and senate: If 50 000 false positives occur in a month, the IT crowd here will get to read about the terrible accuracy... But up in the house and senate? They'll be reading about the 50 000 terrorists that snuck in and the need to "do something about it right away".

    22. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replacing passports or speeding up anything isn't the point or the goal here.

      >We have them in law enforcement and we judged it wasn't unconstitutional. You didn't complain before we secretly installed them all so why now?
      >We have them at our borders looking out and in, and we judged it wasn't unconstitutional. You didn't complain in a way we couldn't ignore/handwave about them on law enforcement, could it be you're an illegal terrorist who hates the safety of America?
      >We have them on public buildings to keep everyone safe by knowing who everyone is and where they're going at all times, and we judged it wasn't unconstitutional. You didn't complain about it in a way we couldn't threaten and arrest you for before, could it be you're one of those dissenter thought-criminals?
      >We have them on every toilet and in every home already to keep everyone safe through our easily abused panopticon, and nobody has managed to complain without disappearing before so why would you ask now? Stand-by for execution and warn your family not to resist arrest for having harbored you.

      Slopes are never just *naturally* slippery. It takes much grease and a whole lot of effort to turn a plain into a well-oiled cliff.

    23. Re:I have a question by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I thought you guys were building a big fucking fence to take care of this.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:I have a question by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Um... not me; just reading TFA.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly.

      i work on this type of software. it uses a 3D model of your face, often taken with infrared grids like Kinect.

      a photo is 2D. in the future, Big Brother needs a 3D scan of you.

    26. Re:I have a question by harrkev · · Score: 1

      people with criminal records/people who have been deported

      Given that it is not that hard to enter this country and completely bypass the checkpoints, that is not really much of an argument. Honest people come in via the real crossing points. Criminals enter as far away from them as possible. This is easily proven by the number of people that have been deported three or more times, but still wind up here.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    27. Re:I have a question by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      I've worked at the border. This isn't true. People coming in with false documents or claiming a false identity is fairly common. Now, perhaps people also try to enter by other means, that doesn't mean that they don't also try to enter through the ports. Using coyotes or crossing in the desert is much more likely to result in a dangerous/negative outcome than showing up at the border with false documents or claiming you lost your documents and claiming Credible Fear asylum, so plenty of people don't do that(or can't afford it.. coyotes can be expensive)

    28. Re:I have a question by davecb · · Score: 1

      The false negative/false positive rate has to be multiplied by the (number of people in the database * number of people you're scanning) to get the (number of comparisons). You multiply that by the failure rate and you get...
      The german federal security service stopping someone's grandmother to see if she is a (male) terrorist (:-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    29. Re:I have a question by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      In theory, this is actually pretty useful. Global Entry already uses this technique - you get a basic vetting, you get fingerprinted, and you can then use it to skip the lines for immigration and customs. In practice, however, the thing that kills the whole process is the post-immigration, post-customs repeat security line that doesn't have a separate line for Global Entry and Precheck passengers. I'm looking at you, Atlanta. You have a group of people who have already been deemed low-risk, who have used biometrics, and who are experienced enough at international travel to know how it works, and you throw them in with still-drunk teens returning from Cancun.

    30. Re:I have a question by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      There is no use of force to compel people to document themselves at the border. That is a voluntary transaction in exchange for crossing the border. If the US was forcing people to cross the border, and then documenting them in the process, that would be anti-Libertarianism. All voluntary exchanges are not prohibited.

      If you don't see it as a transaction for proper legal entry, that isn't my problem, it is yours.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. "Will use"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good one... Jonathan Nolan is a Prophet, except the sentient AI, everything from Person of Interest was already old news by the 3rd Season. So who the fuck is gonna belive that DHS isn't using Facial Recognition for years...

    1. Re:"Will use"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who the fuck is gonna belive that DHS isn't using Facial Recognition for years...

      Testing/Using? Quite likely. At scale for regular use by border agents? Maybe not. Scale tends to require real contracts with real suppliers.

  3. Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DHS will use absolutely anything, at any price. Because they only will have to pay when something happens and someone finds something the DHS didn't use but conceivably could have. All other times, no skin off of their nose if it costs you your last shreds of privacy, your firstborn, your tax dollars, or whatever else.

    So it really doesn't matter that this adds nothing of value whatsoever. Competence, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, are all irrelevant. They're made out of pure cover-your-assium. That is all.

  4. I have an answer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't?

    Possibly verify the person entering is really the person named on the passport, and not someone using a forged or cloned passport?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I have an answer by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      What exactly would this do that a passport wouldn't?

      Possibly verify the person entering is really the person named on the passport, and not someone using a forged or cloned passport?

      Passports are actually checked against the DHS database and both include a photo so I'm not sure how an extra photo would help. The purpose if this new system is to process an image and pull up the record *before* the car gets to the checkpoint and speed up processing. (as stated in TFA)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. In other news ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    sales of Ronald Reagan masks near the border are up 1000%.

    1. Re:In other news ... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      sales of Ronald Reagan masks near the border are up 1000%.

      Darn it, Roland Reagan is crossing the border 10,000 times a day now? That's really busy for a guy who doesn't vote democrat from the shady rest cemetery...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Yet another reason... by Freischutz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yet another reason not to visit the USA.

    1. Re:Yet another reason... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yet another reason not to visit the USA.

      Pretty much. I've got nothing to hide, but the ever-increasing security theater intensity makes me fearful. The odds of being incorrectly flagged as a person-of-interest are incredibly low, but the consequence of such an event is massive. The more hoops I have to jump through, the more the odds and the consequence increase.

      I live in a (Canadian) border town, but I basically don't cross anymore unless I'm going to the nearby US international airport to go somewhere else.

      Shopping in Detroit? Nope. Visiting heritage places in Michigan? Nope. Attending concerts at American venues? Nope. Conferences? Art shows? Air shows? Woodward Dream Cruise? Nope, nope, nope, nope.

      To my American friends... I live in a free nation. Coming to visit you is fucking frightening, what with the razor wire and bulletproof-vest-wearing-German-Shepherds, and the angry muscle agents with guns, and the cameras, and the cameras, and the what-the-fuck-is-that-thing scanners pointed at my car, and the simple fact that if I am misheard or misunderstood, my border-crossing "rights", along with my anus and my freedom are moment from being dramatically altered. You're nice people as people. But as a nation, your paranoia makes you scary to visit.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    2. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another reason not to visit the USA.

      Pretty much. I've got nothing to hide, but the ever-increasing security theater intensity makes me fearful. The odds of being incorrectly flagged as a person-of-interest are incredibly low, but the consequence of such an event is massive. The more hoops I have to jump through, the more the odds and the consequence increase. I live in a (Canadian) border town, but I basically don't cross anymore unless I'm going to the nearby US international airport to go somewhere else. Shopping in Detroit? Nope. Visiting heritage places in Michigan? Nope. Attending concerts at American venues? Nope. Conferences? Art shows? Air shows? Woodward Dream Cruise? Nope, nope, nope, nope. To my American friends... I live in a free nation. Coming to visit you is fucking frightening, what with the razor wire and bulletproof-vest-wearing-German-Shepherds, and the angry muscle agents with guns, and the cameras, and the cameras, and the what-the-fuck-is-that-thing scanners pointed at my car, and the simple fact that if I am misheard or misunderstood, my border-crossing "rights", along with my anus and my freedom are moment from being dramatically altered. You're nice people as people. But as a nation, your paranoia makes you scary to visit.

      There is a ton of places I'd like to visit in the US but the airport security checks, the amount of data you have to provide them with and the hoops you have to jump through to get a Visa are all a huge turn-off. Then there is the criminality and violence over there. Even If I visited some former war-zone in the Balkans like Serbia or something I'd not have to worry about getting shot by some idiot at a crossing who lost his temper because my car stalled at a green light or being mown down in a nightclub by a nutcase with an assault rifle. It's interesting to note that in 2017 around 15.500 Americans were killed in shootings, the total number of all recorded casualties of the Donbass war, military and civilian, from 2014 is around 10.000 and that's a full blown shooting war. Having said that it's not the violence in the US thats the biggest blocker. I'd actually consider visiting the Ukraine despite the war simply because they're quire unlikely to shove their latex covered hand up my ass on arrival. At some point I'm going to visit Canada but the US? No thanks!

    3. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple solution...stay the fuck out. You're not welcome here.

    4. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an option if you're unemployed or working a low-wage job. Professionals who need to travel and do business in the US have no such options. Sorry. However their quality of life is way better than yours, even accounting for those little inconveniences. Enjoy your simple life. :)

    5. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lose a lot of Canadian tourist dollars this way. I know lots of people who have the money to travel, and who shudder at the idea of travelling to or through the states now. I know fewer lower income folks in that boat. Hell, I know some poor folks who drive across the border for milk and gas.

    6. Re:Yet another reason... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't go anywhere then. I just went to Japan on vacation and not only did they take my picture, they fingerprinted me when I arrived in their nation. You go to a foreign country, you play by their rules. If you don't play by their rules, don't get upset when they kick you out.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    7. Re:Yet another reason... by Scroatzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I live in a free nation" as in "free to follow politically correct compelled speech laws." No thank you, I'll stick to the *actually free* country.

    8. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Flash. You won't be missed. Stay home.

    9. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in a free nation

      Sure, so long as you dont write anything "hateful" online. Then your IP can be tracked and you can be arrested in Canada.

      http://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/07/24/mississauga-man-charged-with-hate-crime-over-alleged-online-comments/

      My favorite part of the story is at the top:

      This story has been edited due to a publication ban.

    10. Re: Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in Switzerland, or another part of europe..? Surely you cannot be talking about the US. That would be pretty rediculous with all those "some-letter-agencies" snooping on their citizens and locking up or KILLING an insane number of them.

  7. I'm looking forward to lawsuits by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    from people with beards and glasses (most modern nerds) who get stopped and questioned for 2 hours everytime they go overseas. There's all sorts of things facial recognition has trouble with.

    As for why they're doing this, it's called probably cause. They'll use a match to establish prob cause and use that to get a warrant for searches. Same reason we do lie detector tests we've proven don't work.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm looking forward to lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lawsuits would lose, the DHS can do all that and more legally. Search you and your stuff, detain you, take your picture, etc.

      people entering and leaving have had their pictures taken for years anyway

    2. Re:I'm looking forward to lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to establish prob cause

      One does not have (many) rights at the border (refered to as the Border Search Exception), so they can decide to probe you for a good reason, or just because. The case law is pretty consistent about your (lack of) rights at the border.

    3. Re:I'm looking forward to lawsuits by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Advanced facial recognition can work on an almost 3d series of side, top down, looking up image of a face.
      Beards and glasses do not create a problem as so many other measurements are taken of a face.
      Modern facial recognition has had a lot of nations spend a lot of money on funding to ensure a face can be detected and the measurements will be correct and the results fast.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:I'm looking forward to lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares about nerds. Nobody. Unless it's to make fun of them. Let them rage: nerd rage is the funniest rage.

  8. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is how you destroy freedom.

    If you have any sense at all you'll rage against this at all cost.

    1. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, who is voting for all this shit? Don't Rs and Ds both agree that a police state is a bad idea? I thought we had bipartisan agreement on this stuff, at least at the voter level. But maybe not at the government level? The Rs and Ds should both see which of their people betrayed them and vote them out!

  9. Might be true, but this story says otherwise by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > no skin off of their nose if it costs you your last shreds of privacy, your firstborn, your tax dollars, or whatever else.

    Your name and passport number isn't private while crossing the border. Cameras and computers and cheaper than border guards. Seems to me this will cost fewer tax dollars and have roughly zero privacy impact.

    > doesn't matter that this adds nothing of value whatsoever. Competence, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, are all irrelevant. They're made out of pure cover-your-assium. That is all.

    Seems more cost-effective to me. They have their problems, of course, as all government entities do. This doesn't seem like an example of any of that.

    The whole "within 100 miles of the border" thing they did a while back - THAT was fucked up.

    1. Re: Might be true, but this story says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "did". That have been doing "that whole 100 miles" thing for decades and continue to do it today. Hell, I just drove through one hours ago and they are COVERED with dozens of cameras watching every single inch of the driver, passengers and vehicles.

    2. Re:Might be true, but this story says otherwise by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Cameras and computers and cheaper than border guards.

      LOL!

      You don't know who's installing/running this, do you?

      If any guards are removed you can bet their salary goes into the new boss's pocket.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Might be true, but this story says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > no skin off of their nose if it costs you your last shreds of privacy, your firstborn, your tax dollars, or whatever else.

      Your name and passport number isn't private while crossing the border.

      That really isn't the issue here.

      Cameras and computers and cheaper than border guards.

      Government and IT spending? I think we cannot safely make that assumption.

      Seems to me this will cost fewer tax dollars and have roughly zero privacy impact.

      You use those words, but I don't think you understand what they mean very much. That, you're you're deliberately misrepresenting what's at stake here. Because a (well-trained) border guard typically has a good "nose" to sniff out nervous and otherwise suspiciously-acting people and he's there so he can stare'em in the face a bit and see how they react, but doesn't have perfect recall of everything he's seen forever until explicitly deleted (which never happens). Electronic systems, the reverse.

      So, idiot or dishonest. Take your pick.

  10. So DHS is not happy enough already? by hAckz0r · · Score: 0

    Its not enough that they get my photograph in my passport folder. They then take my photograph as I hand them my photograph found in that passport. Now they want to take more photographs to do facial recognition, because they don't have enough photographs to be completely sure that I was the same person that just handed them my passport?

    And I thought I was the one that was supposed to be paranoid at the border crossing?

    1. Re:So DHS is not happy enough already? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People try to share passports.
      Skilled people sell fake US passports.
      People in the US gov sell real new US passports for money to anyone with money.
      People create a series of fake and real documents all over the USA to build up a new identity to then get a real US passport.
      So the photo in a US passport cannot be trusted as the entire creation of a US passport cannot be trusted.
      People walking around wanting to enter the USA can get passport form any nation selling passports. Nations that give away their citizenship to anyone who walks into their nation. Nations with no real passports creation ability.

      A lot of different ways of getting a new US passport. A lot of ways of getting a real passport from some other random nation for money or as a person with no paperwork.

      The USA now has a few more databases and cameras to finally see if a face on a presented passport is a face that has existed in the USA, is of interest in another nation. Separated from data and a photo in a fake or new passport.
      An image can show a person real origin story globally. Rather than the story their "new" passport image was created around.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. The Border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US border control was already pretty unfriendly before 9/11, I have no idea what it must be like now (and this as a white male who speaks English as a first language).

    1. Re:The Border by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      The US border control was already pretty unfriendly before 9/11, I have no idea what it must be like now (and this as a white male who speaks English as a first language).

      9/11 was almost 17 years ago. If you don't know how it is now, are you saying that you haven't crossed the US boarder in at least 17 years? I am not sure how someone that crosses the boarder that infrequently can add much to the conversation. Are you saying that because you had a bad experience 17+ years ago, that you assume it really sucks now? Personally I cross the US border about once a year. My inbound experience (where you deal with the US boarder control folks) has generally been good. I have had a few times where they have been snarky but I haven't observed that the the overall level of snarkyness has changed much after 9/11. You do need a passport now when before 9/11 you could just use your driver's license for land based crossing.

  12. Perfect place to put facial recognition, IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly can't believe this isn't already in place.

  13. One more reason to never visit Freedumbland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a shithole cuntry! Thank god we have limits on immigrants from that shithole!!

  14. Come back, Ljubavi! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The first use of this new facial recognition will be to try to catch Melania as she seeks asylum status with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Welp. We're in a giant prison now. by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Title says it all.

    1. Re:Welp. We're in a giant prison now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet most people on this site will defend the warden until their dying breath.

    2. Re:Welp. We're in a giant prison now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already been training the younger generation to live in a jail with the education system.

    3. Re:Welp. We're in a giant prison now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed. but the prison won't be complete until border wall is done.

      remember, a wall keeps us IN as well as it keeps them OUT.

  16. No you don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already looked into it. The same gay biometric crap I want to get away from happening in the US would happen to me if I relocated to Canada. You guys may be better for EXISTING citizens of Canada but for our potential emigrants, Canada is just as bad as the US, EU, Asia, the big parts of Oceania, and the majority of South America/Africa.

    The number of places left that don't do biometric entry or exit, and especially don't do full handprints, dna, plus 3 point, or 3d facial imaging is getting surprisingly small.

    Anyone who has been thinking of GTFOing, had better look into it sooner rather than later. You can still exit the US without all those biometrics, but formal renunciation requires entering an embassy where you can expect one or more of those techniques to be used on you.

  17. It works! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Juan
    Juan
    Juan
    Juan
    Enrique
    Juan
    Juan
    Juan
    Two kids disguised as an adult in an overcoat
    Juan
    Juan
    Juan

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  18. You're right, it just became a bigger issue lately by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You're right, since 1953 border patrol has had the authority to act within 100 miles of the border. It seems that in the last ten years or so they have significantly increased their interior operations.

  19. You should probably steer clear by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if Peter Watt's experience is anything to go by. I'm consistently embarrassed by my country. Hell, We've now had to presidents who support torture for Pete's sake.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You should probably steer clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "refused to comply with orders"

      plenty of examples of others like him as well

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMYxKMh3prxnM_4kYZuB3g

    2. Re:You should probably steer clear by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      plenty of examples of others like him as well

      You mean people who don't reflexively bend over and grab their ankles for mindless authoritarian goons? Boy, I hope so.

  20. Look like tough conditions by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    Recognising faces in moving cars sounds like a pretty tough scenario with lots of problems and low reliability. Even in case of forcing drivers to slow down and look at certain spot, it wouldn't be too simple. Other relevant issues are the low number of pictures available for most of people (1, 2?) and the high probability of conditions which might have a negative impact on the faces' visibility.

    If I were one the companies trying to push forward automated (facial) recognition systems, I would focus on improving their reliability under more favourable conditions. Getting involved in situations with low probability of success seems a quite bad long-term move for a new technology.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  21. Quick! by wiretrip · · Score: 1

    Someone sell a truckload of Trump masks to the Mexicans :-)

  22. Fix the real problem by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

    Invest into businesses in Mexico and other countries so that the folks there get decent jobs that secure their outcome and generate a decent standard of living. That will be far cheaper than any border wall or facial recognition or other high tech toys.None of those who risk their lives coming to the US do that just for fun. If they no longer see a need to leave their home country the issue will mostly be resolved. It will also make it less likely that people see a career in the narcos as a viable path. I bet anyone would rather glue cars together than be constantly on the run.

  23. The BBB program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boot every Brown Butt!

  24. Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it speeds up the process, it would be a great improvement.