16 ms·

Not Ready for Takeoff: Face Scans at Airport Departure Gates

191 points by driverdan 9y ago

matt_the_bass 9y ago
I've often wondered why the us does not have any exit passport controls. It is the only country I've been to that only checks incoming and not outgoing. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, just observing.
- matte_black 9y ago
  They do not care.
- CPLX 9y ago
  It's literally the definition of "a free country" Specifically it was always used as a sharp contrast with the policies of the Soviet Bloc which did not allow people to freely leave their countries.
  - LV-426 9y ago
    The definition of "free country" is not zero passport controls on exit, and: Robeson declared that it was “rather absurd” that he was not “allowed to travel because of my friendship - open, spoken friendship - for the Soviet people and the peoples of all the world.” http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-robeson-loses-appeal-over-his-passport http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-robeson-lose...
    - LV-426 9y ago
      Oh dear, seems like thin-skinned people here (who understandably want to remain anonymous) don't like factual posts about racial and political persecution in a certain "free country".
  - decebalus1 9y ago
    > It's literally the definition of "a free country" citation needed. First off, it does, but it only becomes visible to passengers when they violate the conditions and try to re-enter. Second, this is not the definition of a 'free country'. Third, by modern definitions of a 'free contry' (1) the USA should not be considered 'THE land of the free'. (1) https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-...
  - monksy 9y ago
    You can have your rights to leave the country stripped away by being accused of felonies, a judge can take away your PP, and even renewals can be rejected if you owe the government money.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    No it isn't. The right to depart and the right to do so without being recorded are two different hings.
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  Answers on Quora suggest it's automated, and invisible to most people. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-US-not-have-immigration-control-while-departing https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-US-not-have-immigration-c...
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  I've never understood why other countries have the exit controls. What is the point?
  - kurthr 9y ago
    The second "stamp" allows them to track how long you were in the country and which country to left through (which may not check on exit either). For visas (especially EU) this is a big deal, because you (as a US citizen) are not required to apply for a short term business/tourist visa, but you can't stay more than 30days. If you exit through the UK, however, you may not receive the exit stamp (e.g. EuroStar). They may then deny you re-entry due to the apparent violation.
    - jackweirdy 9y ago
      I think the Eurostar is the only port of exit in the U.K. where I _have_ had my passport checked - at least at my airport, exit passport checks are only random
      - jstanley 9y ago
        I've had mine checked every time I've been on a ferry, and every time I'm taken a plane. I can't think of any other ways to leave the UK than by boat, train, and aeroplane, and I've been checked at all of them.
        jackweirdy 9y ago
        By airline/train or UKBF staff? There’s a difference as airport staff won’t check visa validity etc or do the entry checks that are the subject of this chain. UKBF checks passports on departure at the Eurostar. At manchester airport at least, there are no routine outbound passport checks by UKBF
        jlangenauer 9y ago
        No, that's actually French border control. On the Eurostar, you clear the destination border when you check in, so that when you arrive you simply walk out.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Many do have exit checks (EU, most of Asia), but many don't (US, most of the Americas). I'd assume some of it in the US occurs when you buy the ticket... however, in some places you could still enter Mexico without a passport (returning is a challenge!). The bigger issue is that Congress hasn't issued a specific mandate for this collection (by a private entity) and spending authority for the apparently ~$1B program. The article's concerns are for a more intrusive security state without congressional authority. DHS’ current face scan-based program also may not comply with federal law. The program may exceed the authority granted to DHS by Congress because Congress has never explicitly authorized biometric collections from Americans at the border.26 Even if DHS has sufficient legal authority for the program, DHS has failed to complete a prerequisite public rulemaking process for the program, as mandated by federal law.
  - mcast 9y ago
    I accidentally* drove past the US southern border into Tijuana from San Diego without passport control, there was only an automated plate reader managed by US CBP. I also did not have my passport or passport card on me. Coming back the same day, there was a line to drive back into the US that took several hours. Luckily, I was allowed back in with a driver’s license by the agent. *I was dropping off 2 American friends who were taking a day trip to visit Tijuana, but the road signs were terribly marked and I crossed over unintentionally.
    - monksy 9y ago
      I've always wondered how re-entering the US is without a passport. You should be able to do it, and you should be scrutinized about it heavily.(Sounds suspicious)
      - TillE 9y ago
        Up until 2004, it was completely normal for US citizens to travel to Canada and Mexico (and back, of course) without a passport. Reentry theoretically shouldn't require a passport, as long as you can prove citizenship.
      - 9y ago
- z2 9y ago
  Yet the onus is on visitors to prove that they did not overstay their visa, if leaving by land/sea, or if by some airline/airport fluke the departing passenger list didn't make it over to the DHS. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1674/~/report-departure-if-entering-by-air-and-departing-by-land https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1674/~/report-d...
astura 9y ago
Ignoring false positives for a second, isn't this easily fooled by putting on a prosthetic nose or something? Or plastic surgery? Hollywood makeup is pretty good at drastically altering someone's appearance in a few hours at the most. I don't know why a motivated terrorist can't just change their appearance before bombing a plane. Who is this really going to stop?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  It's not even that hard. Grow a long beard and get punched in the face the day before your flight.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    The goal isn't to have a 100% success rate, it's to work most of the time in order to speed up processing.
    - bobwaycott 9y ago
      I believe you are confusing the rationale provided for the goal.
    - Rebelgecko 9y ago
      This isn't speeding up an existing process, it's adding a new one. My understanding is that you still need a TSA person to look at your ID when you go through security
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    I feel like even a mediocre TSA agent is going to be suspicious about the heavily bearded man with a serious bruise on their face. I mean, unless that matches your passport!
    - mynameisvlad 9y ago
      What, exactly, are they going to be suspicious about in this hypothetical of yours? Humans are pretty good at matching up facial features naturally, a black eye and beard aren't going to trip up anybody looking at you.
dawnerd 9y ago
If DHS stops doing this, there’s still lots of companies that will including Delta. I think if they fix the failure rates they could make it a much more efficient system and perhaps turn it into a form of preclearance for supported countries. http://news.delta.com/delta-opens-first-biometric-self-service-bag-drop-us http://news.delta.com/delta-opens-first-biometric-self-servi...
lerie82 9y ago
Shouldn't they just do a fingerprint scan then?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  That would be much harder to fly under the radar because fingerprinting is what you do to people who are arrested. People wouldn't put up with that so easily. There's been some rumblings of the "uniqueness" of fingerprints being far less than you'd think. Fingerprinting everyone who flies would just produce more false positives. The people that's bad for overlap a lot with the people who stand to benefit from invasive security theater.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I'd be very interested in any source material you have detailing these 'rumblings', both from the first hand experience of having been fingerprinted (which is oddly misrepresented in TV and movies) and from a general interest in forensic history. As a child I recall an antique book on criminology which spoke glowingly of the reliability of fingerprints in investigations, and cited the unsuccessful defense of one convict who claimed (sometime in the late 19th century) that fingerprinting was a 'hazy and fallacious method imported from France, where many innocent men have been convicted by it." It is true that juries have an unfortunate tendency to believe in the first order results of any technical procedure, from ducking stools to DNA matching.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Some guy from IIRC Texas got arrested in connection with some letter bomb terrorist stuff. IIRC the only connection was the fingerprint. His lawyers basically assumed he did it until some other law enforcement agency finger printed some guy in North Aftrica who fit all the other evidence (i.e. he was known to them as the kind of guy who would be involved in that stuff) and his prints matched as well. I saw it mentioned as a small anecdote in a paper/article/blog about the "rigor" of the forensic "sciences". Google couldn't help me find the original source.
  - 9y ago
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Not that I approve of this in any way but I'll run out of money long before I run out of places in The US and Canada I want to go visit.
- mikestew 9y ago
  Same boat here, I in no way approve of this. From a pragmatic POV, though, I’ve spent 35 years wandering the U. S. on my motorcycle, and probably most Canadian provinces. I’ve covered 49 of 50 states, but Canada still has a lot of holes. If I can get to the Northwest Territories, more Yukon, the Maritimes I’ve missed, all before old age takes me, I’ll consider that good. So it makes it pretty easy to fly once, twice a year at most. Between the CO2 output of a cross-country flight and all the responsible parties making flying as unappealing as possible, if I never step foot on a plane again it would be fine by me.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  'Traveling broadens the mind.' Some people never leave their hometowns, either. I can't speak for you in particular, but generally, staying in our home countries greatly narrows the ideas and experiences we are exposed to. It's a big, big world, and there is nothing in the U.S. which can substitute for Delhi or Tokyo or Vatican City.
jacquesm 9y ago
We have these in NL. They malfunction frequently, people don't understand what is going on and the people staffing them are unable to do much to improve throughput. It was just a cost savings measure so that fewer border guards can process more people but from the point of view of the travelers it is a net loss. Before there would be a very short wait, you'd walk up to the border guard (one of three or four on duty typically), put your passport on their desk, they'd look at it for three seconds and swipe it, then you'd be on your merry way 10 seconds later. Now you wait for 10 or 15 minutes (if you're lucky), insert your passport into the machine, wait for the silly glass doors to close, have your passport spat back out again, repeat the whole thing, find that you were looking a bit too low, so re-do that and so on until finally the second set of silly glass doors opens and you can move on. It's a complete failure from a usability point of view.
- monksy 9y ago
  I feel that I want a border guard more than this. This isn't going to catch someone doing something funny. (Like smuggling drugs out of the country, or smuggling other people out)
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > This isn't going to catch someone doing something funny. (Like smuggling drugs out of the country, or smuggling other people out) That's not what it is for. It's simply to verify that what your passport says about you picture wise matches your face, and to be able to detain you in case you have an outstanding arrest warrant or open traffic fines.
    - erric 9y ago
      Or aren't allowed to leave the country for "safety" reasons.
      - sterlind 9y ago
        perhaps you haven't gotten your exit visa!
cypherpunks01 9y ago
Is there currently no possibility of opt-out for this - what happens if you refuse on legal grounds? Will DHS not allow US citizens to leave the country unless they consent?
- GuB-42 9y ago
  How can they tell you really are a US citizen unless they check your ID? The cameras do just that. The problem is that it is done poorly.
- dannyw 9y ago
  The program is apparently a field trial and optional.
joering2 9y ago
> DHS should not be scanning the faces of Americans as they depart on international flights—but DHS is doing it anyway Unless I missed something and this article is about Zimbabwe Airport Security, how the heck is this legal AND ongoing in The United States Of America, the land of the rule and the law?? Let me push it one degree further: what stops DHS from using captive bolt pistol on you when you exit, whenever they decide they want to? Don't say "the law forbids killing", law forbids scanning people's faces. I am truly interested what will stop them from using captive bolt pistol on you?
- mLuby 9y ago
  Assuming positive intent with this question. Pretty sure scanning faces on private property isn't illegal any more than using security cameras would be. As to causing literal harm to people, that is against the law. And even if it weren't in the US, other nations would have some serious issues with us harming their citizens on exit.
  - joering2 9y ago
    They are violating at least 4th. And what do you expect for example Canada do when their citizens are killed while existing? Nuke USA ??
bogomipz 9y ago
>For its part, DHS says that airport face scans are designed to verify the identities of travelers as they leave the country and stop impostors traveling under someone else’s identity." And yet you already have to show an ID and a boarding pass to a DHS agent as part of security in order to get to the gate in the first place. If only those clowns could focus on making the absurd bit of theater they currently have even just the slightest bit more efficient.
- iak8god 9y ago
  > If only those clowns could focus on making the absurd bit of theater they currently have even just the slightest bit more efficient. Maybe efficiency is not the goal. Cui bono? We got all those nifty body scanners in part because Michael Chertoff, right after serving as director of DHS, went around promoting scanners on behalf of his consulting client, body scanner manufacturer Rapiscan[1]. [1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/airport-scanner-...
  - mLuby 9y ago
    Follow the money…
oliv__ 9y ago
One step closer to our amazing future. This is really getting out of hand... Why do 300m people have to suffer for the boogeyman terrorist? I mean isn't this the whole point of terrorism? To get you to do things you don't want to because hey 1 in a million potential threat? Where does this stop? This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control and mass surveillance. It's pretty depressing.
- erric 9y ago
  >One step closer to our amazing future. This is really getting out of hand... It was already well out of hand when congress approved the patriot act as a knee jerk reaction to terrorism. That was the proverbial straw and everything since has just been gravy for the MIC and other companies milking the government teat.
  - sebnap 9y ago
    Read Carroll Quigley, read Gioele Magaldi, combine.
  - zeep 9y ago
    thanks Obama for repealing, not signing the extension and for not expanding the "PATRIOT" Act /s
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > To get you to do things you don't want to because hey 1 in a million potential threat People are willing to curtail the right to keep and bear arms (and it is a right, whereas there is no official right not to be surveilled in public) for a threat which is within an order of magnitude of it; and we can only really tell what the rate is like with the current countermeasures. If the rate climbs after removing countermeasures, will your opinion change? I'd still be against pervasive surveillance if the rate went up maybe tenfold.
  - hammock 9y ago
    It could be argued that all the lawful gunowners together are causing less harm and/or hassle than all the TSA combined. In other words, having a gun as last resort protection against a tyrant isn't hurting anyone the way an extra hour of unproductive scanning and associated privacy intrusions are.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nsm 9y ago
Who makes the rules about how long these records can be stored and so on? Do citizens have a say? I feel I’d be ok with this as long as the data was used once for a quick criminal check or whatever and then discarded. Of course, we need strong verification that the data is really deleted.
- ntaeuc4nt 9y ago
  Absolutely. This is the real problem. It's not bad that they came up with such a system. It's that they haven't thought it through so it's ripe for abuse. There definitely need to be safeguards in place before it's actually implemented that spell out what can and can't be done with the data, who has access, how long it will be retained, etc.
Havoc 9y ago
Personally I don't have a problem with this. I do want gov to take ID control at borders seriously & if face rec helps with that fine. Less pleased about stuff like "we need your passwords". That's invasive bullsh.

191 points by driverdan 9y ago

I've often wondered why the us does not have any exit passport controls. It is the only country I've been to that only checks incoming and not outgoing. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, just observing.

matte_black 9y ago
They do not care.
CPLX 9y ago
It's literally the definition of "a free country" Specifically it was always used as a sharp contrast with the policies of the Soviet Bloc which did not allow people to freely leave their countries.
- LV-426 9y ago
  The definition of "free country" is not zero passport controls on exit, and: Robeson declared that it was “rather absurd” that he was not “allowed to travel because of my friendship - open, spoken friendship - for the Soviet people and the peoples of all the world.” http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-robeson-loses-appeal-over-his-passport http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-robeson-lose...
  - LV-426 9y ago
    Oh dear, seems like thin-skinned people here (who understandably want to remain anonymous) don't like factual posts about racial and political persecution in a certain "free country".
- decebalus1 9y ago
  > It's literally the definition of "a free country" citation needed. First off, it does, but it only becomes visible to passengers when they violate the conditions and try to re-enter. Second, this is not the definition of a 'free country'. Third, by modern definitions of a 'free contry' (1) the USA should not be considered 'THE land of the free'. (1) https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-...
- monksy 9y ago
  You can have your rights to leave the country stripped away by being accused of felonies, a judge can take away your PP, and even renewals can be rejected if you owe the government money.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No it isn't. The right to depart and the right to do so without being recorded are two different hings.
ojbyrne 9y ago
Answers on Quora suggest it's automated, and invisible to most people. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-US-not-have-immigration-control-while-departing https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-US-not-have-immigration-c...
CydeWeys 9y ago
I've never understood why other countries have the exit controls. What is the point?
- kurthr 9y ago
  The second "stamp" allows them to track how long you were in the country and which country to left through (which may not check on exit either). For visas (especially EU) this is a big deal, because you (as a US citizen) are not required to apply for a short term business/tourist visa, but you can't stay more than 30days. If you exit through the UK, however, you may not receive the exit stamp (e.g. EuroStar). They may then deny you re-entry due to the apparent violation.
  - jackweirdy 9y ago
    I think the Eurostar is the only port of exit in the U.K. where I _have_ had my passport checked - at least at my airport, exit passport checks are only random
    - jstanley 9y ago
      I've had mine checked every time I've been on a ferry, and every time I'm taken a plane. I can't think of any other ways to leave the UK than by boat, train, and aeroplane, and I've been checked at all of them.
      - jackweirdy 9y ago
        By airline/train or UKBF staff? There’s a difference as airport staff won’t check visa validity etc or do the entry checks that are the subject of this chain. UKBF checks passports on departure at the Eurostar. At manchester airport at least, there are no routine outbound passport checks by UKBF
        jlangenauer 9y ago
        No, that's actually French border control. On the Eurostar, you clear the destination border when you check in, so that when you arrive you simply walk out.
kurthr 9y ago
Many do have exit checks (EU, most of Asia), but many don't (US, most of the Americas). I'd assume some of it in the US occurs when you buy the ticket... however, in some places you could still enter Mexico without a passport (returning is a challenge!). The bigger issue is that Congress hasn't issued a specific mandate for this collection (by a private entity) and spending authority for the apparently ~$1B program. The article's concerns are for a more intrusive security state without congressional authority. DHS’ current face scan-based program also may not comply with federal law. The program may exceed the authority granted to DHS by Congress because Congress has never explicitly authorized biometric collections from Americans at the border.26 Even if DHS has sufficient legal authority for the program, DHS has failed to complete a prerequisite public rulemaking process for the program, as mandated by federal law.
- mcast 9y ago
  I accidentally* drove past the US southern border into Tijuana from San Diego without passport control, there was only an automated plate reader managed by US CBP. I also did not have my passport or passport card on me. Coming back the same day, there was a line to drive back into the US that took several hours. Luckily, I was allowed back in with a driver’s license by the agent. *I was dropping off 2 American friends who were taking a day trip to visit Tijuana, but the road signs were terribly marked and I crossed over unintentionally.
  - monksy 9y ago
    I've always wondered how re-entering the US is without a passport. You should be able to do it, and you should be scrutinized about it heavily.(Sounds suspicious)
    - TillE 9y ago
      Up until 2004, it was completely normal for US citizens to travel to Canada and Mexico (and back, of course) without a passport. Reentry theoretically shouldn't require a passport, as long as you can prove citizenship.
    - 9y ago
z2 9y ago
Yet the onus is on visitors to prove that they did not overstay their visa, if leaving by land/sea, or if by some airline/airport fluke the departing passenger list didn't make it over to the DHS. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1674/~/report-departure-if-entering-by-air-and-departing-by-land https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1674/~/report-d...

astura 9y ago

Ignoring false positives for a second, isn't this easily fooled by putting on a prosthetic nose or something? Or plastic surgery? Hollywood makeup is pretty good at drastically altering someone's appearance in a few hours at the most. I don't know why a motivated terrorist can't just change their appearance before bombing a plane. Who is this really going to stop?

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
It's not even that hard. Grow a long beard and get punched in the face the day before your flight.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  The goal isn't to have a 100% success rate, it's to work most of the time in order to speed up processing.
  - bobwaycott 9y ago
    I believe you are confusing the rationale provided for the goal.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    This isn't speeding up an existing process, it's adding a new one. My understanding is that you still need a TSA person to look at your ID when you go through security
- QAPereo 9y ago
  I feel like even a mediocre TSA agent is going to be suspicious about the heavily bearded man with a serious bruise on their face. I mean, unless that matches your passport!
  - mynameisvlad 9y ago
    What, exactly, are they going to be suspicious about in this hypothetical of yours? Humans are pretty good at matching up facial features naturally, a black eye and beard aren't going to trip up anybody looking at you.

dawnerd 9y ago

If DHS stops doing this, there’s still lots of companies that will including Delta. I think if they fix the failure rates they could make it a much more efficient system and perhaps turn it into a form of preclearance for supported countries. http://news.delta.com/delta-opens-first-biometric-self-service-bag-drop-us http://news.delta.com/delta-opens-first-biometric-self-servi...

lerie82 9y ago

Shouldn't they just do a fingerprint scan then?

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
That would be much harder to fly under the radar because fingerprinting is what you do to people who are arrested. People wouldn't put up with that so easily. There's been some rumblings of the "uniqueness" of fingerprints being far less than you'd think. Fingerprinting everyone who flies would just produce more false positives. The people that's bad for overlap a lot with the people who stand to benefit from invasive security theater.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I'd be very interested in any source material you have detailing these 'rumblings', both from the first hand experience of having been fingerprinted (which is oddly misrepresented in TV and movies) and from a general interest in forensic history. As a child I recall an antique book on criminology which spoke glowingly of the reliability of fingerprints in investigations, and cited the unsuccessful defense of one convict who claimed (sometime in the late 19th century) that fingerprinting was a 'hazy and fallacious method imported from France, where many innocent men have been convicted by it." It is true that juries have an unfortunate tendency to believe in the first order results of any technical procedure, from ducking stools to DNA matching.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Some guy from IIRC Texas got arrested in connection with some letter bomb terrorist stuff. IIRC the only connection was the fingerprint. His lawyers basically assumed he did it until some other law enforcement agency finger printed some guy in North Aftrica who fit all the other evidence (i.e. he was known to them as the kind of guy who would be involved in that stuff) and his prints matched as well. I saw it mentioned as a small anecdote in a paper/article/blog about the "rigor" of the forensic "sciences". Google couldn't help me find the original source.
- 9y ago

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

Not that I approve of this in any way but I'll run out of money long before I run out of places in The US and Canada I want to go visit.

mikestew 9y ago
Same boat here, I in no way approve of this. From a pragmatic POV, though, I’ve spent 35 years wandering the U. S. on my motorcycle, and probably most Canadian provinces. I’ve covered 49 of 50 states, but Canada still has a lot of holes. If I can get to the Northwest Territories, more Yukon, the Maritimes I’ve missed, all before old age takes me, I’ll consider that good. So it makes it pretty easy to fly once, twice a year at most. Between the CO2 output of a cross-country flight and all the responsible parties making flying as unappealing as possible, if I never step foot on a plane again it would be fine by me.
forapurpose 9y ago
'Traveling broadens the mind.' Some people never leave their hometowns, either. I can't speak for you in particular, but generally, staying in our home countries greatly narrows the ideas and experiences we are exposed to. It's a big, big world, and there is nothing in the U.S. which can substitute for Delhi or Tokyo or Vatican City.

jacquesm 9y ago

We have these in NL. They malfunction frequently, people don't understand what is going on and the people staffing them are unable to do much to improve throughput. It was just a cost savings measure so that fewer border guards can process more people but from the point of view of the travelers it is a net loss. Before there would be a very short wait, you'd walk up to the border guard (one of three or four on duty typically), put your passport on their desk, they'd look at it for three seconds and swipe it, then you'd be on your merry way 10 seconds later. Now you wait for 10 or 15 minutes (if you're lucky), insert your passport into the machine, wait for the silly glass doors to close, have your passport spat back out again, repeat the whole thing, find that you were looking a bit too low, so re-do that and so on until finally the second set of silly glass doors opens and you can move on. It's a complete failure from a usability point of view.

monksy 9y ago
I feel that I want a border guard more than this. This isn't going to catch someone doing something funny. (Like smuggling drugs out of the country, or smuggling other people out)
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > This isn't going to catch someone doing something funny. (Like smuggling drugs out of the country, or smuggling other people out) That's not what it is for. It's simply to verify that what your passport says about you picture wise matches your face, and to be able to detain you in case you have an outstanding arrest warrant or open traffic fines.
  - erric 9y ago
    Or aren't allowed to leave the country for "safety" reasons.
    - sterlind 9y ago
      perhaps you haven't gotten your exit visa!

cypherpunks01 9y ago

Is there currently no possibility of opt-out for this - what happens if you refuse on legal grounds? Will DHS not allow US citizens to leave the country unless they consent?

GuB-42 9y ago
How can they tell you really are a US citizen unless they check your ID? The cameras do just that. The problem is that it is done poorly.
dannyw 9y ago
The program is apparently a field trial and optional.

joering2 9y ago

> DHS should not be scanning the faces of Americans as they depart on international flights—but DHS is doing it anyway Unless I missed something and this article is about Zimbabwe Airport Security, how the heck is this legal AND ongoing in The United States Of America, the land of the rule and the law?? Let me push it one degree further: what stops DHS from using captive bolt pistol on you when you exit, whenever they decide they want to? Don't say "the law forbids killing", law forbids scanning people's faces. I am truly interested what will stop them from using captive bolt pistol on you?

mLuby 9y ago
Assuming positive intent with this question. Pretty sure scanning faces on private property isn't illegal any more than using security cameras would be. As to causing literal harm to people, that is against the law. And even if it weren't in the US, other nations would have some serious issues with us harming their citizens on exit.
- joering2 9y ago
  They are violating at least 4th. And what do you expect for example Canada do when their citizens are killed while existing? Nuke USA ??

bogomipz 9y ago

>For its part, DHS says that airport face scans are designed to verify the identities of travelers as they leave the country and stop impostors traveling under someone else’s identity." And yet you already have to show an ID and a boarding pass to a DHS agent as part of security in order to get to the gate in the first place. If only those clowns could focus on making the absurd bit of theater they currently have even just the slightest bit more efficient.

iak8god 9y ago
> If only those clowns could focus on making the absurd bit of theater they currently have even just the slightest bit more efficient. Maybe efficiency is not the goal. Cui bono? We got all those nifty body scanners in part because Michael Chertoff, right after serving as director of DHS, went around promoting scanners on behalf of his consulting client, body scanner manufacturer Rapiscan[1]. [1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/airport-scanner-...
- mLuby 9y ago
  Follow the money…

oliv__ 9y ago

One step closer to our amazing future. This is really getting out of hand... Why do 300m people have to suffer for the boogeyman terrorist? I mean isn't this the whole point of terrorism? To get you to do things you don't want to because hey 1 in a million potential threat? Where does this stop? This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control and mass surveillance. It's pretty depressing.

erric 9y ago
>One step closer to our amazing future. This is really getting out of hand... It was already well out of hand when congress approved the patriot act as a knee jerk reaction to terrorism. That was the proverbial straw and everything since has just been gravy for the MIC and other companies milking the government teat.
- sebnap 9y ago
  Read Carroll Quigley, read Gioele Magaldi, combine.
- zeep 9y ago
  thanks Obama for repealing, not signing the extension and for not expanding the "PATRIOT" Act /s
microcolonel 9y ago
> To get you to do things you don't want to because hey 1 in a million potential threat People are willing to curtail the right to keep and bear arms (and it is a right, whereas there is no official right not to be surveilled in public) for a threat which is within an order of magnitude of it; and we can only really tell what the rate is like with the current countermeasures. If the rate climbs after removing countermeasures, will your opinion change? I'd still be against pervasive surveillance if the rate went up maybe tenfold.
- hammock 9y ago
  It could be argued that all the lawful gunowners together are causing less harm and/or hassle than all the TSA combined. In other words, having a gun as last resort protection against a tyrant isn't hurting anyone the way an extra hour of unproductive scanning and associated privacy intrusions are.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nsm 9y ago

Who makes the rules about how long these records can be stored and so on? Do citizens have a say? I feel I’d be ok with this as long as the data was used once for a quick criminal check or whatever and then discarded. Of course, we need strong verification that the data is really deleted.

ntaeuc4nt 9y ago
Absolutely. This is the real problem. It's not bad that they came up with such a system. It's that they haven't thought it through so it's ripe for abuse. There definitely need to be safeguards in place before it's actually implemented that spell out what can and can't be done with the data, who has access, how long it will be retained, etc.

Havoc 9y ago

Personally I don't have a problem with this. I do want gov to take ID control at borders seriously & if face rec helps with that fine. Less pleased about stuff like "we need your passwords". That's invasive bullsh.