Slashdot Mirror


US Government Will Be Scanning Your Face At 20 Top Airports, Documents Show (buzzfeednews.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order expediting the deployment of biometric verification of the identities of all travelers crossing its borders. That mandate stipulates facial recognition identification for "100 percent of all international passengers," including American citizens, in the top 20 US airports by 2021. Now, the United States Department of Homeland Security is rushing to get those systems up and running at airports across the country. But it's doing so in the absence of proper vetting, regulatory safeguards, and what some privacy advocates argue is in defiance of the law.

According to 346 pages of as-yet-unpublished documents obtained by the nonprofit research organization Electronic Privacy Information Center, US Customs and Border Protection is scrambling to implement this "biometric entry-exit system," with the goal of using facial recognition technology on travelers aboard 16,300 flights per week -- or more than 100 million passengers traveling on international flights out of the United States -- in as little as two years, to meet Trump's accelerated timeline for a biometric system that had initially been signed into law by the Obama administration. This, despite questionable biometric confirmation rates and few, if any, legal guardrails.

These same documents state -- explicitly -- that there were no limits on how partnering airlines can use this facial recognition data. CBP did not answer specific questions about whether there are any guidelines for how other technology companies involved in processing the data can potentially also use it. It was only during a data privacy meeting last December that CBP made a sharp turn and limited participating companies from using this data. But it is unclear to what extent it has enforced this new rule. CBP did not explain what its current policies around data sharing of biometric information with participating companies and third-party firms are, but it did say that the agency "retains photos ... for up to 14 days" of non-US citizens departing the country, for "evaluation of the technology" and "assurance of the accuracy of the algorithms" -- which implies such photos might be used for further training of its facial matching AI.

111 comments

  1. Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    So this is really a law signed by Obama and Trump is just enforcing the law. Makes it sound like Trump is the bad guy. Sorta like the border prisons.Trump just is enforcing existing law.

    1. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Trump was supposed to be different. He was supposed to undo all the bad stuff Obama did...

    2. Re: Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh... many of the pictures of buses full of migrant kids seperated from their parent were taken under the Obama regime too.

      Fake news error code: B00LSH1T

    3. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By choice. He is not required to do so. Important caveat.

    4. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presidents are allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow? I'm not sure that's the argument those who claim Trump is a dictator want to be making.

    5. Re: Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. One of the most dangerous comments I have read and misinformed. It actually is against the law for the President not to expend money for programs that congress has appropriated (there are some exceptions). Congress put that law into effect when they got into an argument with Nixon.

    6. Re:Obama signed into law. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      So this is really a law signed by Obama and Trump is just enforcing the law. Makes it sound like Trump is the bad guy. Sorta like the border prisons.Trump just is enforcing existing law.

      "Bad Guy" is subjective. IDing faces at airports is one thing; there is a legitimate risk of attack during air travel. I wouldn't agree to this technology being used almost anywhere else.

      As long as government facial recognition and tracking doesn't become normalized and spread to other place it may not be so bad. If we start seeing this in shopping centers, and fuel stations, and cameras pointing down from the interstates- then we are truly in the surveillance state.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Obama signed into law. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      As long as government facial recognition and tracking doesn't become normalized and spread to other place it may not be so bad.

      Your naivete is quaint.

    8. Re: Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pick your narrative. Does it matter who put it in?

      Either way, this isn't China or mother Russia, and I don't need more papers, no matter how much they refuse to say please!

      This isn't acceptable despite whatever emergent security concerns are manufactured. Anyone claiming this is needed needs to be shoved out the door at 30k feet.

    9. Re:Obama signed into law. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      As long as government facial recognition and tracking doesn't become normalized and spread to other place it may not be so bad.

      Your naivete is quaint.

      OK, so if this were limited to just airports and didn't spread, tell me why that would be so bad. I have questions about efficiency; but they're already tracking everyone that flies and everywhere they fly so it's not really eroding more privacy as long as it is JUST at the airports. Comparing your face to your name on your passport- how much different is that from tracking you anyway?

      I do have concerns that it will start out here and then they'll decided to put it at bus stations, train stations, down town areas, shopping centers, interstates, etc- I truly doubt this is the last we'll see of this technology... ... but if it truly stayed just at airports, how would that be so much worse than what's already in place? Go ahead and explain my "naivete".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump isn't a dictator, he's an incompetent traitor who THINKS he's a dictator. It's a big difference that ends in Federal prison.

    11. Re:Obama signed into law. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and explain my "naivete"

      They are already using it at malls up here in the relative middle of nowhere.

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...

      You Americans (and Brits I might add) are already done like dinner.

      https://www.aclu.org/blog/priv...

    12. Re: Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that? I hate Trump and know there is a 0% chance he does any prison time. The rich and powerful do not go to jail, ever.

    13. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was supposed to undo all the bad stuff Obama did...

      And he largely has, for his part of the bargain.

      Bit of a difference between the executive twatwaffling that Obama was fond of (and should be blamed for) and Congressional felching (which Obama often does, but most certain should not, get the blame for).

      Executardation is easily reversed with a single pen, but only Congress can unfuck what Congress has fucked.

    14. Re:Obama signed into law. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You Americans (and Brits I might add) are already done like dinner.

      https://www.aclu.org/blog/priv...

      As bad as that is; it isn't the government, which was the focus of this, it is private enterprise. I definitely don't approve of private companies using facial recognition. ESPECIALLY, if they share it. If the information remains in house that isn't good, if they share it with one another, that's a whole other level of bad.

      I can definitely see the appeal to stores of using this.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Obama signed into law. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      As bad as that is; it isn't the government, which was the focus of this, it is private enterprise.

      Yes, you keep believing that. The NSA is lagging far behind Walmart.

    16. Re:Obama signed into law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking everyone's picture does nothing to prevent attacks, you stupid, kowtowing fucking coward.

  2. Bit late to the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E gates have been in service for years in UK, Australia, etc. Also UK use FRT on general CCTV for crowds around major facilities, train stations, etc. Some really clever, yet scary stuff. All fed by dedicated dark fiber back to gchq. Assumably all capturable points will fall into this bucket if not already.

    1. Re:Bit late to the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK and Australian governments aren't as scummy as the US, though -- they mostly leave their own residents alone instead of incarcerating almost 1% of their adult populations. Frankly, I'm rooting for the next recession and hoping it deepens into Great Depression II. The sooner the US goes so bankrupt that it needs to re-evaluate its punitive and "world policing" tendencies, the better. Marijuana reform only happened when governments in the US got a good, hard whack in the pocked in the 2008 recession.

    2. Re:Bit late to the party by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      The CCTV FRT has basically a zero percent success rate.

      It's useless to look in a crowd of millions for one of a database of millions. The police basically confirm this on a regular basis.

      They would be better off stopping every tenth person, in terms of catching people who might be wanted for "something" or have something they shouldn't have on them.

      In terms of "spotting the terrorist in the crowd", it's literally zero arrests over many years of deployment.

      Hell, they couldn't even trace the guys they wanted to speak to above the Novichok deaths recently. They had to correlate CCTV with passport data (i.e. look when that guy went through passport control and then pull the footage of that time).

      Don't believe the hype about face-recognition.

    3. Re:Bit late to the party by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      The Chinese have moved to gait recognition, which I understand has better accuracy than most facial recognition, and is less prone to fooling by (for example) not showing your face, and I imagine it doesn't require as clear of a picture to work effectively.

      The US is really lagging a step behind in their Social Credit System. It seems like not even Trump's executive authority is helping us to catch up. Maybe if he had better advisors, he'd have gait recognition suggested to him. Is the swamp half empty or half full? Hard to say.

    4. Re:Bit late to the party by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      . Is the swamp half empty or half full? Hard to say.

      The swamp was partially drained- and then topped back up with radioactive sludge.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Bit late to the party by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Gah.. no. a few FYIs:

      1) The technology to scan with a fairly high degree of accuracy the faces in a crowd has been pretty solid for a decade or so. The limitations are largely around the resolution of the camera and getting any given person in the crowd to look loosely towards the camera while in frame. The former is a technology problem that's not even that hard to solve the days. The latter they have methods (such as forcing you to walk through a choke point to "encourage".

      2) Anyone who has traveled internationally in recent years has most likely already been through this stuff. We're NOT talking about random scanning of a crowd. We're talking about E-Gates where you are walked into a 'pen' of sorts and have to stare directly into the camera for identification before you can pass. That's *really easy.. the issues in #1 are practically eliminated.

      3) Yes there are ways to fool face recognition (even the best tech out there..) but most of those methods are detectable in a controlled environment. Making your face hard to detect in a crowd is easy. Making your face unmatchable when standing in front of a camera and be unnoticed with a CBP officer standing by.. not so much.

      4) You're comparing to CCTV FRT.. So much of that footage is lacking the resolution for a proper match or a good angle on the subject, etc etc.. once again the story at hand is a high resolution camera at close range with control of the subject's position. Completely different story on accuracy.

  3. "EVIL GOVERNMENT WATCHING YOU!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation, IMHO:

    "EVIL GOVERNMENT WATCHING YOU!!! EVIL GOVERNMENT TRYING TO CATCH CRIMINALS @ AIRPORTS!!! WHY DON'T YOU PROTEST YOUR EVIL GOVERNMENT??? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??? GO ATTACK YOUR EVIL GOVERNMENT NOW!!!
    PS: Don't forget to wear your thinfoil hat @ ALL TIMES!!! Because EVIL GOVERNMENT is ALWAYS trying to read/control your mind!!!
    & ONLY trust what we anti-government (aka) anarchists tell you & nobody else!!!"

  4. I talk out of my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So scan that

  5. Welcome to reality by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is what happens when globalism makes it possible for people who want to do bad things to fly from any part of the world and get here in less than a day. This is why you have always had two choices:

    1. Restrictive travel and immigration policies, but high domestic freedom and low surveillance (domestically).
    2. Open travel and immigration and a police state that wears a velvet glove as it punches you in the gut.

    There is no libertarian option of "open travel and immigration, little surveillance" because that will last about a year before some terrorist exploits it and one up s 9/11 because he realized he could easily show up with dangerous contraband and likely not get caught.

    1. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only 3,000 people died on 9/11 -- the US's reaction to it was a gross over-reaction. To put it in perspective, 30,000 people die from misuse of guns and 30,000 people die from traffic accidents every year in the US. Option 3 is not to be cowards and accept a somewhat lower level of safety. Bombings and hijackings were relatively common in the 1970s and early 80s, yet no one freaked out to the extent that we did after 9/11.

    2. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment completely ignores the point of the article - the fact that the private companies are explicitly allowed to share the biometric data as they see fit. There is no national security need for this, it's a pure crony run.

    3. Re:Welcome to reality by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

      "Only 3,000 people died on 9/11"?

      1. Are you brain dead or has all critical thinking just ceased to exist between your ears?

      2. You're comparing a deliberate attack on a civilian population by an enemy to that 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S., 64% of which are suicides? (Gee, the more you know.). You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.

      "Bombings and hijackings were relatively common in the 1970s and early 1980s" ?

      No. Bombings and hijackings were not common in any way in the 1970s or 1980s. But, I'm assuming you think they were higher then because you remember a couple of high-profile cases. Never mind actually taking time to discover if your assumptions are correct.

      You should consider joining the fake news squad on Facebook. You'd be a star there.

    4. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Callous comment you made there. A single death to terrorist action is a horrible thing. Both the 9/11 deaths and the people you referenced dying from guns or accidents are also a sad loss of life. The fact that you imply any are acceptable as long the body count is lesser than some other unrelated event, or that we should be accepting of terrorist events, is shocking.

    5. Re:Welcome to reality by gtall · · Score: 0

      A true libertarian would fight for the right of a terrorist to one up 9/11. It isn't like they have a conscience.

    6. Re:Welcome to reality by ledow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not the OP but:

      Depends where you're from.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And: so that's only (quick maths) 10800 gun deaths a year that aren't suicide-related...?

      9/11 was a big attack. It was an atrocity. On the scale of atrocities worldwide, over time, even from the 1960's onwards, it really doesn't justify the response that it incurred. It's arguable that the US has killed many more innocent civilians in its response than were killed in the incident itself - they just weren't American, so they don't get counted, right?

    7. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, some deaths from terrorism and crime are acceptable as the price of privacy and freedom. We can't have freedom and absolute safety.
      I'd rather be callous than a trembling COWARD who values life more than the thing that makes life worth living (personal freedom).

      9/11 was a blip on the radar as far as death toll. Preventing the next such attack was solved using air marshalls and reinforced flight deck doors. No need to create the infrastructure for a police state as a response.

    8. Re:Welcome to reality by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      So, as your link proved, bombings and hijackings were not common anywhere in the world in the 1970s and early 1980s. You might as well look at the 1990s, because in 1990 there were 6 bombings/hijackings, 10 bombings/hijackings in 1991 and 11 in 1992 -- matching or surpassing most years a decade to two before.

      The fact that virtually all the bombings and hijackings during those decades were outside the U.S. and the OP is commenting about 9/11 and U.S. gun deaths exclusively would made the point moot.

    9. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please dig into the fact that a large part of the attackers in the 9/11 group were from saudi's.

    10. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      The US has turned into a nation of wimps.

      Of course Big Government (both sides) loves it that way, it makes the populace easier to control.

    11. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how both the left and the right are so terrified of libertarians that they make up shit like that.

      One of the founding tenets of libertarianism is to denounce the use of force or fraud. What is terrorism if not use of force?

    12. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You forgot option 3: realize that the world is far safer than it's ever been and options 1 and 2 are paranoia stemming from hype over rare incidents.

    13. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "No. Bombings and hijackings were not common in any way in the 1970s or 1980s."

      True. Bombings and hijackings, or terrorism of any kind, have never been very common. They were more common than they are today though.

      If you think they're more common today, then you're remembering a few high-profile cases. Some stats:

      https://www.datagraver.com/cas...

      You'll sometimes see graphs of terrorism quite a bit higher in the 2010s, but these include incidents in places like Syria and Iraq as terrorism when previously they'd be (more reasonably) counted as civil wars or rebellions.

    14. Re:Welcome to reality by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. Bombings and hijackings were not common in any way in the 1970s or 1980s.

      Between 1968 and 1972, there were 130 plane hijackings in the U.S. alone, which is more than one per week.

      As to bombings, the early 80s had many bombings, many in the Beirut area and Ireland. In the U.S. there were protest bombings. In the 18 months between 1971 and 1972, there were 2,500 documented bombings in this country. The deadliest year for underground violence was 1981, when eleven people were killed in bombings and bank robberies gone bad.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    15. Re:Welcome to reality by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its not callous to point out our insane response. We have been on a war footing ever since. 3000 lives pales in comparison to the blood spent since 9/11

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Welcome to reality by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      "Only 3,000 people died on 9/11"?

      What was it Stalin said?

      "1 death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic," or something along those lines.

      AC seems to think like Stalin.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Welcome to reality by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      I believe the Anonymous Coward's point was that every day bad things happen to Americans that don't elicit even a small percentage of the reaction that the 3,000 9/11 deaths did.

      For example, in 2017 alone, 16,000 people in the USA died in non-suicide gun deaths. In one year over five times the deaths on 9/11, yet no response from law makers.

      In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, 58 people were killed and 851 were injured - But again, very little response.

      If lawmakers were genuinely concerned about making Americans "safe" there are so many things they could do - From gun safety to road safety to food safety to healthcare - That they could do but choose not to.

    18. Re:Welcome to reality by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Its not callous to point out our insane response. We have been on a war footing ever since. 3000 lives pales in comparison to the blood spent since 9/11

      I'm curious how many we have "killed" in response to that 3,000. I really don't know if we've killed that many or less. Certainly we've impacted millions, some for the better, some for the worse.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:Welcome to reality by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You forgot option 3: realize that the world is far safer than it's ever been and options 1 and 2 are paranoia stemming from hype over rare incidents.

      How much of that is down to intelligence though? If our intelligence communities didn't do such a good job, how many 9/11s would there be?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    20. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between 1968 and 1972, there were 130 plane hijackings in the U.S. alone, which is more than one per week.

      Curious about your math there, and also how many weeks are in one of *your* years? 52 weeks in a year?

    21. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The research suggests it's down to improving conditions worldwide. There really isn't a third world anymore, and for the first time in history less than half the people in the world are poor. Improved conditions apply to the developed world as well: most terrorism is domestic.

      Police and intelligence are important for heading off the nut jobs that remain, but reducing the number of desperate people with nothing to lose is a more effective strategy in the long run, and doesn't involve police states.

      Since the majority of terrorism is domestic, particularly in the US, strong border controls and foreign intelligence doesn't really help much. It's been noted that, going by the numbers, if the US wanted to reduce terrorism by closing their borders, The rest of the US states should close their borders with North Carolina.

    22. Re:Welcome to reality by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      I'm curious how many we have "killed" in response to that 3,000. I really don't know if we've killed that many or less.

      You can't be that curious then.

    23. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is your point exactly? I don't think this the fault of "globalism".

      This is more likely the fault of imperialism. When one group or another has had enough of another bigger group throwing its weight around, sooner or later the first group is going to get fed up and do something about it. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, that usually is resorting to violence and guerilla tactics. But the non-guerilla tactics of drones and cruise missiles from fleets hundreds of miles out at sea isn't exactly moral either.

      I'll bet you'll say something like, 'it's retaliation for the terrorists.' Why did the terrorists feel their only option was violence to begin with? Could it have something to do with the uninvited foreign armies that came into their country for one reason or another? Nah, couldn't be that at all, could it? I'm sure in 60 years or so, the U.S.A. will welcome Chinese regulars (or special forces maybe), when there is some kind of breakdown in the U.S. government/economy and the U.S. bread basket's supplies are being wasted on something (i.e. not supplying China's populace).

      If you're anti-globalist, are you also anti-imperialist?

      captcha: regent

    24. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really isn't a third world anymore

      There definitely still is. Whatever definition you use is meaningless if you believe this.

    25. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There it is, the unmatched confidence of a Slashdot AC!

      Here you are. Ignore that it's a TED talk, they do actually have legit people on occasionally, and Hans Rosling is one of those.

      https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

    26. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've identified the wrong evil people. You are giving all your rights and freedoms to the same evil people that pulled off 9/11 to protect you from a boogieman that doesn't exist.

    27. Re:Welcome to reality by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      I found some websites that have interesting info on poverty. The first one seems to suggest that around the year 2000 less than half the world was in poverty, but the graph stops just short of that. The second one says it plainly that after 2005 it dropped below 50%. I'm looking for more info, as you have to go by whatever their definition of poverty is. I did like the chart that showed dissatisfaction with living conditions, it showed that some "poor" people still had a pretty good life, while other poor folks had a really really bad life by their own measure. Cambodia, China and Bangladesh people were as satisfied or more satisfied than the survey in the USA. Naturally, you have to figure answering a survey isn't always accurate due to cultural norms about how acceptable it is to say your life sucks.

      https://ourworldindata.org/ext...

      http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

      https://ourworldindata.org/upl...

    28. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      If you haven't found it yet, gapminder.org is also good.

      The question of satisfaction and happiness and income is interesting. Most research shows that once you reach a certain point, more money doesn't make you happier (and can even make you more unhappy), and it varies tremendously with culture and across individuals. I think the peak for the US was around $60 k/year.

    29. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Radical Islamic threat is real. They won't stop until you submit or are beheaded. They'll rape your wife and daughters in the streets. We did the right thing,

    30. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we just need to kill off the remaining poor people. Right?

    31. Re:Welcome to reality by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oddly, that solution doesn't really work very well. Developing your economy, trading freely with the rest of the world and sending children (especially girls) to school seems to do the trick pretty well though.

    32. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth does GP's link "prove" that? It only covers one theater - the UK - and even there, it shows more than a dozen attacks per year for most of that period. You'd also have to check out separately figures for Israel, South Africa, Chile, Italy, the USA...

    33. Re:Welcome to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11 was certainly used a one of the excuses for the invasion of Iraq, and that has led to a 7-figure number of deaths. So, multiple orders of magnitude difference. I haven't heard any plausible explanation as to how that has made things better for anyone besides arms dealers.

    34. Re:Welcome to reality by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      Interesting thing is that they say very similar things about the US.

  6. Ha you merkins love supporting IP protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own my own image rights, I claim one abuse instance at $1000 each abuse for everything single federal employee,

    Every time I visit merkin land.

  7. This will work by mccrew · · Score: 2

    This will work, because we already saw how the 9/11 terrorists all started at the biggest airports. Oh, wait.....

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
  8. Maga Cap and Oakleys by Confused · · Score: 1

    What a great occasion to don a red Make America Great Cap and some Oakley mirror shades. To complement the outfit perhaps some face mask against the smog / dusty air.

    Good luck with face recognitions, Mr. Robot.

    NB: Guy Fawkes masks or Halloween masks of current and past presidents aren't such a good idea, they good give the security the idea you're up to no good. One needs to do this in the proper style.

    1. Re:Maga Cap and Oakleys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Please remove you hat and glasses, sir. "

      Now what are you going to do?

    2. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by orlanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what happens if a US citizen refuses? They can't be denied entry into their own country. And taking that off by force would constitute legal assault and invasion of privacy. Will the courts just wave those because "At the border."

      Serious question.

    3. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as well, and also curious about the legality of face detection camouflage (which I don't see how they could force you to remove)... https://cvdazzle.com/

    4. Re:Maga Cap and Oakleys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn...and I was thinking of wearing a Donald Trump mask...

    5. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 2

      An Ice guy I talked to said that they can not refuse a citizen entry, however they can FINE a citizen for entering contrary to the rules.

    6. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The courts might decide it is similar to if a US citizen refuses to present a passport or refuses to answer questions on entry. (I'm not sure it should be similar or what currently happens in those cases, but it is a place to look for precedent.)

    7. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by WhatHump · · Score: 1

      I suspect you would be subjected to "additional screening methods". Everything in your luggage would be inspected to ensure it was not purchased abroad and subject to duties, and you would be challenged on all your meds to prove the source/prescription is valid. Your travel documents would be thoroughly scrutinized and every last text/email/tweet/etc. on your phone would be recorded and analyzed. This would continue for every flight thereafter until you agree (submit) to the facial scanning.

      --
      "Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
    8. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So what happens if a US citizen refuses?

      I imagine it would be accompanied by an abrupt end to any sense of entitlement they thought they had as a US citizen.

      Honestly, complying seems like a small price to pay to avoid what will likely seem like a living hell that will probably make a person wish they never lived there in the first place. Hope you don't have any connecting flight... oh, and you probably won't ever be allowed to fly ever again either.

      Are you sure all that really worth "proving a point"?

    9. Re: Maga Cap and Oakleys by houghi · · Score: 1

      You still think you have rights?

      If you eant to reply, please only pount to laws that are enforced, not the fictious one, written 200+ years ago as a plot device, as if it where the 3 laws of robotics.

      Either that or show your bank account as well as the proof of payment to the two bank accounts of the one party.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. Not nearly as binary as that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One thing that helps immensely is not pissing off the neighbours. The USA has been very good at pissing off the neighbours, and it's gotten away very well indeed with it for decades with comparatively very little backlash. Compared to what the USA did abroad over the years, even "9/11" was a love-tap. But it was very well done in the sense that it riled up the natives (that's you, 'merkins, you.) wonderfully. To the detriment of rights, freedom, and liberty everywhere. Now that is irony.

    I don't condone that thing, though. But nor am I blind to its effects and its causes. I still remember standing in awe and fear watching the thing unfold from a continent away. Awe for the sheer audacity. Fear for what the USA would do next. The terrorists won, the free world lost. And is still losing, see TFS.

    Another thing that's in play here is exactly this bit:

    Department of Homeland Security is rushing to get those systems up and running at airports across the country. But it's doing so in the absence of proper vetting, regulatory safeguards, and what some privacy advocates argue is in defiance of the law.

    The same thing happened with many things after "9/11". The pervy scanners that we were promised would do some things and not other things, and then turned out to not deliver on any promise made, are a good example. This is a repeat of that.

    And that's bad. Regardless of the geopolitics. There are a handful of other kinds of bad also in play here. By bickering about your pet hate for libertarians you're glossing over the negative effects that are entirely avoiable regardless of your pet political hates. And that I count as a personal failing. One you share with many 'merkins, of course, but that doesn't mean you're in the right to ride that hobby horse so much.

  10. Re:This is only at established "ports of entry" by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The latter is the bigger problem and in critical need of being addressed by the federal government.

    All data indicates that the vast majority of those in the US illegally entered through "authorized ports of entry". Building a wall is like pulling over the car going 60 in a 55 zone while ignoring the car going 100.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  11. The horse has already left the barn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, you thought the REAL ID act was not just an excuse to give everyone photo ID?

  12. Is that the same country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that tries to villify other countries and label them police and surveillance state when they do this? Yes, it is. United States of America, the hypocritical piece of shit and prime asshole of the planet.

  13. Only 3000 people died on 9/11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But among them was found the corpses of truth, liberty, justice, and the American way that didn't look like it came from the wrong side of Stalingrad.

    o7 comrade, I see your biometrics.

    There is no request or please here. They take it without asking. We're not to China or Britain's Big Brother dystopia yet, but we sure are trying hard to outcompete them in shaming the 'American Way' (which only meant something success if you handled your business in a borderline criminal manner anyway...)

    Put a fork in it, because this thanksgiving turkey is done. Not unlike those first few native american tribes who helped those first colonists...

  14. Re:This is only at established "ports of entry" by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but to continue with the metaphor, the cars that are only doing 60 might be easier to catch.

  15. 9/11 wasn't that bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm concerned about - in order:
    1. dying from some medical problem because healthcare in this country is luxury. (hundreds of thousands die from that per year)
    2. an auto accident because people are shitty drivers and have to text or yammer on their cell phones (tens of thousands)
    3. Stress because I have to work 80 hours a week to appear "productive" so that my employer doesn't kick us to the curb and send the jobs overseas.
    4. some sexually frustrated who shoots up the place because guns are too easily acquired and kept when people go off the deep end. Mental health isn't static. (tens of thousands die from guns every year)
    5. the biggest drug problem in this country is opiates - AMERICAN made drugs. some drug addict killing me for his next fix.

    Seriously, Ahmed the terrorist (or some other immigrant) isn't even on my list. Billy Bob, however, is.

    And this Trump project is somehow, somewhere, benefiting some of his cronies because the Trump administration is the most corrupt one we have ever had.
    Thanks Republicans!

  16. And comparing it to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have a driver's license, don't have a passport (don't travel outside the country), don't have Facebook...

    1. Re:And comparing it to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you pay your rent/mortgage/ISP/insurance/IRS? You're toast.

    2. Re:And comparing it to what? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      How do you pay your rent/mortgage/ISP/insurance/IRS? You're toast.

      You don't need a facebook account to pay your taxes. If you're paying taxes to someone over facebook you're probably being scammed. :p

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:And comparing it to what? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      How do you pay your rent/mortgage/ISP/insurance/IRS? You're toast.

      You don't need a facebook account to pay your taxes. If you're paying taxes to someone over facebook you're probably being scammed. :p

      You mean that offer to pay for my taxes over Facebook using iTunes gift cards was a scam? It was recommended to me by my very trustworthy friend who happens to be Nigerian royalty.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:And comparing it to what? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You mean that offer to pay for my taxes over Facebook using iTunes gift cards was a scam? It was recommended to me by my very trustworthy friend who happens to be Nigerian royalty.

      Well, if he is Nigerian royalty you can probably trust him. There is no reason Nigerian royalty would lie to you.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:And comparing it to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your first guess was "I've been paying with my picture!" then you'd be wrong. I wish I could pay them with pics instead of cash but they don't seem to accept that.

  17. Re:This is only at established "ports of entry" by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    Perhaps, but to continue with the metaphor, the cars that are only doing 60 might be easier to catch.

    Maybe so, but to continue the analogy further, to spend billions of dollars "solving" the lesser problem is like the police spending millions of dollars on radar guns that don't read past 65.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  18. Yet another reason ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... first class flying is dying off. I don't want to get the cavity search, have to deal with the TSA cattle gates in the major airports, have to lose my Swiss Army knife because I forgot to empty my pockets at home or fly on a schedule that maximizes an airlines economy class booking. And now I don't want DHS to sell my travel itinerary to my competitors so they can front run my business deals.

    I'll take a charter flight from a private airport with no surveillance, on my own schedule. Without having to share my travel plans. And I can prop my hunting rifle up in the seat next to me.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Trump Isn't Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... had initially been signed into law by the Obama administration."

    This is the trigger for Big Giant Orange Head. He hates everything Obama did. Obama bought a dog and so Trump would not. That kind of thing, even if it is trivial and self-destructive.

    The fact that Trump is following an Obama lead proves to me that BGOH has been replaced by the Pod People (Person?).

  20. Get used to it by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work at Microsoft. They have signs on the doors telling you that you are training their AI whenever you use the door. That's right, you swipe your card for access, and they have a video camera that takes an image of your face and tries to match it to your id... they are using their own 131,000 employees to train their facial recognition algorithm!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So shill crackas should be worried?

  21. Lung cancer v 9/11 by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.

    Not likely. 9/11 was a one-off suicide attack by irrational religious fundamentalists. It probably wasn't even all that preventable.

    Out of 180,000 lung cancer deaths a year an estimated 85% are caused by tobacco use. Considering that a simple law outlawing the sale of tobacco could save upwards of 153,000 people a year (that's 51 9/11's a year) from an early death, I would say that lung cancer deaths are much more tragic than 9/11.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Lung cancer v 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why using laws to revoke our freedoms is being used as an argument against laws that revoke our freedom.

    2. Re:Lung cancer v 9/11 by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.

      Not likely. 9/11 was a one-off suicide attack by irrational religious fundamentalists. It probably wasn't even all that preventable.

      Out of 180,000 lung cancer deaths a year an estimated 85% are caused by tobacco use. Considering that a simple law outlawing the sale of tobacco could save upwards of 153,000 people a year (that's 51 9/11's a year) from an early death, I would say that lung cancer deaths are much more tragic than 9/11.

      I dislike smokers as well... But criminalising tobacco will just create a black market for it. Its an addictive product. Part of the reason smokers are so annoying is that the length they will go to in order to get and defend their fix.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  22. The plan is going well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The footholds continue to dig deeper

  23. Face scanners on the plane too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget about that tiny camera looking at you in front your seat. That TV is not just inflight entertainment, that's inflight surveillance.

  24. Pardon me good sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is this society of genetal wigs you speak of?

    1. Re:Pardon me good sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      say I', a am an American with a deep southern drawl.

    2. Re:Pardon me good sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you do in the bedroom is your business

  25. #shitholecountry #USAprisoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor Amerikuks. Trapped by AI and a wall in a nightmarescape of guns and meth.

    What a shithole country!

  26. What about Ché Guevarra tee-shirts? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    Will people with Ché Guevarra tee-shirts be flagged as terrorists?

    1. Re:What about Ché Guevarra tee-shirts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sudo make che | tee shirt

  27. IMF World Bank Propagada by bd580slashdot · · Score: 1

    Statistics from the World Bank and the United Nations Millennium Development Campaign claim to show that “extreme poverty” has been cut in half since 1996. But this claim is misleading. Here’s why. The World Bank and the IMF define "extreme poverty" as living for a day on what $1.25 or less will purchase in the United States. You read that right. The statistic IS Purchasig Power Adjusted for the United States! The International Poverty Line (IPL) of $1.25 (Purchasing Power Parity corrected for the United States) is way to low. In 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture calculated that the average person in the United States needed at least $4.58 per day just to afford adequate nutrition! If we set the IPL at a more realistic $10 a day, we see that over 5 billion people, or almost 80% of the world’s population live in poverty today. And the number is rising. Global poverty is much worse than the what the World Bank, the IMF and the UN are telling us. The $1.25 IPL that The World Bank and the UN use in their calculations, and that Hans Rosling cites in his TED talk, is totally unrealistic, but it justifies the present economic order, and that is why it is used. This is a summary of an excellent article written by Jason Hickel that was published on Friday, August 22, 2014 and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

    1. Re:IMF World Bank Propagada by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So your objection is that the UN's definition of extreme poverty reflects... extreme poverty?

      You can put the line wherever you feel like. Many of the online tools let you do so interactively. Clearly I did as well, since I said 50%, while the $1/day threshold gives about 7% of the world population. Rosling's institute suggests income groups with level 1 (extreme poverty) less than $2/day, and level 2 $8/day (hey, pretty close to the one you suggested!).

  28. A Better Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of scanning people's faces, why not scan their asses?

    TSA worker: "His face looks fine. I don't trust this guy's ass."

  29. Finally by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The US is doing what every normal nation should do.

    Count every person entering the USA legally.
    Count every person returning to their own nation after stay in the USA.
    Match the face with every passport presented and every embassy application to enter the USA.
    Try and stay in the USA an an illegal immigrant? Get detected.
    Walk around and near any US airport as an illegal immigrant? Get detected.
    Use bus, rail, car transport to travel around the USA as an illegal immigrant? Get detected.
    Apply for a bank account, rent/buy housing, request any type of gov support, pay tax as an illegal immigrant? Get detected.
    Slowly all the fake, shared and re used photo ID used by illegal immigrants will be found and reported.

    Airports are just the start.
    Expect your bank, CC, landlord, boss, gov to enter public private security partnerships to scan every face they can in real time.
    Fake and junk ID won't work when provided to illegal immigrants by a virtue signalling sanctuary city.
    Every face will be legal. Every illegal immigrant will slowly be detected as more networks are created nationally to scan every face in every US state and city.
    A detailed description of a person's life has to have US citizenship.
    Sanctuary city ID is not going to have that connection with needed US citizenship once its wider use is attempted all over the USA :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  30. MY Intellectual property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My likeness and all biometrics and other data related to me is MY intellectual property and any entity that attempts to use it without my explicit written permission or with coerced permission from me, is agreeing to pay me $10,000,000 (Ten Million U.S. Dollars) per incident on my demand.

    1. Re:MY Intellectual property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You 'intellectual property' only exists courtesy of the US state apparatus. It is the US state that is scanning your face. Your 'demand' is laughable and meaningless.

  31. Our Govt hates us. We are now China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is a wet dream template for the US.