5 ms·

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-facial-recognition-safety/83726603007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-fa...

by blinded 8mo ago

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-facial-recognition-safety/83726603007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-fa... "According to the TSA, your information is generally deleted shortly after you pass the screening process and is not used for surveillance purposes."

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
You submit permanent biometrics as part of PreCheck and Global Entry. DHS is presumably using those data for identification.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
  Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?
  - lazide 8mo ago
    The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se. Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
    - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
      Identify you when though? Important question I guess
      - lazide 8mo ago
        The US has been using ICE a lot. Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictional-boundaries/ https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...]. Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest. Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Not ICE? > Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
        lazide 8mo ago
        First question - CBP, as noted. Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were. ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
        5ykh 8mo ago
        It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 8mo ago
        Not who you are responding too, but I tried to look up the legal justifications behind ICE and it’s a mess. Good luck untangling it!
        5ykh 8mo ago
        The answer to your question is irrelevant. ICE does whatever the dictator tells it to. Legal basis vs. policy basis no longer matters. The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor given the reality of what’s going on.
    - BloodyIron 8mo ago
      Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions). This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data. Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
      - lazide 8mo ago
        I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
        NotSammyHagar 8mo ago
        But it's still awful. It doesn't matter at this moment that other governments may be doing this. We don't want that for us (and I don't want it for others either).
        lazide 8mo ago
        Ok, but clearly they don’t care?
- blinded 8mo ago
  For sure, just sharing why someone might think they delete the data!

by blinded 8mo ago

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

You submit permanent biometrics as part of PreCheck and Global Entry. DHS is presumably using those data for identification.

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?
- lazide 8mo ago
  The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se. Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
  - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
    Identify you when though? Important question I guess
    - lazide 8mo ago
      The US has been using ICE a lot. Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictional-boundaries/ https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...]. Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest. Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Not ICE? > Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
        lazide 8mo ago
        First question - CBP, as noted. Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were. ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
        5ykh 8mo ago
        It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 8mo ago
        Not who you are responding too, but I tried to look up the legal justifications behind ICE and it’s a mess. Good luck untangling it!
        5ykh 8mo ago
        The answer to your question is irrelevant. ICE does whatever the dictator tells it to. Legal basis vs. policy basis no longer matters. The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor given the reality of what’s going on.
  - BloodyIron 8mo ago
    Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions). This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data. Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
    - lazide 8mo ago
      I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
      - NotSammyHagar 8mo ago
        But it's still awful. It doesn't matter at this moment that other governments may be doing this. We don't want that for us (and I don't want it for others either).
        lazide 8mo ago
        Ok, but clearly they don’t care?
blinded 8mo ago
For sure, just sharing why someone might think they delete the data!