4 ms·

Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?

by datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

lazide 9mo 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 9mo ago
  Identify you when though? Important question I guess
  - lazide 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
        > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
        5ykh 9mo 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 9mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 9mo 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 9mo 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.
        JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously. To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
    - defrost 9mo ago
      > Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border To quote a prominent US historian: In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open. One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply. Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border. * https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness
- BloodyIron 9mo 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 9mo ago
    I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
    - NotSammyHagar 9mo 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 9mo ago
        Ok, but clearly they don’t care?

Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?

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 9mo ago
Identify you when though? Important question I guess
- lazide 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
        > ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
        5ykh 9mo 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 9mo ago
        This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
        lazide 9mo 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 9mo 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.
        JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously. To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
  - defrost 9mo ago
    > Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border To quote a prominent US historian: In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open. One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply. Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border. * https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness
BloodyIron 9mo 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 9mo ago
  I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
  - NotSammyHagar 9mo 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 9mo ago
      Ok, but clearly they don’t care?