MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘facial recognition’

DHS’s Terrifying New Database, HART – The Organic Prepper

Posted by M. C. on October 7, 2019

Incidentally, the cloud hosting for HART is being done by none other than Amazon – you know, the ones with surveillance devices like the Ring doorbell and the Alexa home assistant and the Nest home security system. Does anyone see a pattern here?

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/database-dhs-hart/

by Daisy Luther

These days, you can’t really go anywhere without encountering cameras.  Going into a store? Chances are there are security cameras. Getting money at an ATM? More cameras. Driving through the streets of a city? More cameras still. Your neighbors may have those doorbells from Amazon that are surveilling the entire neighborhood.

And many of these cameras are tied into facial recognition databases, or the footage can be quite easily compared there if “authorities” are looking for somebody.

But as it turns out, it isn’t just facial recognition we have to worry about.

DHS has a new recognition system called HART.

Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology system is the alarming new identity system being put in place by the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS is retiring its old system that was based on facial recognition. It’s being replaced with HART, a cloud-based system that holds information about the identities of hundreds of millions of people.

The new cloud-based platform, called the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology System, or HART, is expected to bring more processing power, new analytics capabilities and increased accuracy to the department’s biometrics operations. It will also allow the agency to look beyond the three types of biometric data it uses today—face, iris and fingerprint—to identify people through a variety of other characteristics, like palm prints, scars, tattoos, physical markings and even their voices. (source)

Incidentally, the cloud hosting for HART is being done by none other than Amazon – you know, the ones with surveillance devices like the Ring doorbell and the Alexa home assistant and the Nest home security system. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Also note that Amazon Web Services also hosts data for the CIA, the DoD, and NASA.

More about HART

As HART becomes more established, that old saying “you can run but you can’t hide” is going to seem ever more true. The DHS is delighted at how much further the new system can take them into surveilling Americans.

And by freeing the agency from the limitations of its legacy system, HART could also let officials grow the network of external partners with whom they share biometric data and analytics capabilities, according to Patrick Nemeth, director of identity operations within Homeland Security’s Office of Biometric Identity Management.

“When we get to HART, we will be better, faster, stronger,” Nemeth said in an interview with Nextgov. “We’ll be relieved of a lot of the capacity issues that we have now … and then going forward from there we’ll be able to add [capabilities].” (source)

The DHS wants to break free of the limitations of the old system with their new and “improved” system. HART will use multiple pieces of biometric data to increase identification accuracy.

Today, when an official runs a person’s face, fingerprint or iris scans through IDENT’s massive database, the system doesn’t return a single result. Rather, it assembles a list of dozens of potential candidates with different levels of confidence, which a human analyst must then look through to make a final match. The system can only handle one modality at a time, so if agent is hypothetically trying to identify someone using two different datapoints, they need to assess two lists of candidates to find a single match. This isn’t a problem if the system identifies the same person as the most likely match for both fingerprint and face, for example, but because biometric identification is still an imperfect science, the results are rarely so clear cut.

However, the HART platform can include multiple datapoints in a single query, meaning it will rank potential matches based on all the information that’s available. That will not only make it easier for agents to analyze potential matches, but it will also help the agency overcome data quality issues that often plague biometric scans, Nemeth said. If the face image is pristine but the fingerprint is fuzzy, for example, the system will give the higher-quality datapoint more weight.

“We’re very hopeful that it will provide better identification surety than we can provide with any single modality today,” Nemeth said. And palm prints, scars, tattoos and other modalities are added in the years ahead, the system will be able to integrate those into its matching process. (source)

HART will also use DNA.

Remember a while back when we reported that DNA sites were teaming up with facial recognition software? Well, HART will take that unholy alliance even further.

The phase-two solicitation also lists DNA-matching as a potential application of the HART system. While the department doesn’t currently analyze DNA, officials on Wednesday announced they would start adding DNA collected from hundreds of thousands of detained migrants to the FBI’s criminal database. During the interview, Nemeth said the agency is still working through the legal implications of storing and sharing such sensitive data. It’s also unclear whether DNA information would be housed in the HART system or a separate database, he said. (source)

Nifty.

The DHS is operating without any type of regulation.

Currently, there’s no regulation or oversight of government agencies collecting and using this kind of data. Civil liberty activists and some lawmakers are alarmed by this, citing concerns about privacy and discrimination. This hasn’t slowed down the DHS one iota, however.

Critics have taken particular issue with the government’s tangled web of information sharing agreements, which allow data to spread far beyond the borders of the agency that collected it. The Homeland Security Department currently shares its biometric data and capabilities with numerous groups, including but not limited to the Justice, Defense and State departments.

In the years ahead, HART promises to strengthen those partnerships and allow others to flourish, according to Nemeth. While today the department limits other agencies’ access to IDENT to ensure they don’t consume too much of its limited computing power, HART will do away with those constraints. (source)

Mana Azarmi, the policy counsel for the Freedom, Security and Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology is one of those people voicing concern.

A person might give information to a single agency thinking it would be used for one specific purpose, but depending on how that information is shared, they could potentially find themselves subjected to unforeseen negative consequences, Azarmi said in a conversation with Nextgov.

“The government gets a lot of leeway to share information,” she said. “In this age of incredible data collection, I think we need to rethink some of the rules that are in place and some of the practices that we’ve allowed to flourish post-9/11. We may have overcorrected.” (source)

You think?

Many people voluntarily provide biometric data.

Many folks provide biometric data without giving it a second thought. They cheerfully swab a cheek and send it into sites like Ancestry.com, providing not only their DNA, but matches to many relatives who never gave permission for their DNA to be in a database.

Then there are cell phones. If you have a newer phone, it’s entirely possible that it has asked you to set up fingerprint login, facial recognition, and even voice recognition. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to believe that those samples are shared with folks beyond the device in your hand. Add to this that your device is tracking you every place you go through a wide variety of seemingly innocuous apps, and you start to get the picture.

You can’t opt-out.

Back in 2013, I wrote an article called The Great American Dragnet.  At that time, facial recognition was something that sounded like science fiction or some kind of joke. Our drivers’ licenses were the first foray into creating a database but even in 2013, it far exceeded that.

Another, even larger, database exists. The US State Department has a database with 230 million searchable images.  Anyone with a passport or an immigration visa may find themselves an unwilling participant in this database.   Here’s the breakdown of who has a photo database:

  • The State Department has about 15 million photos of passport or visa holders
  • The FBI has about15 million photos of people who have been arrested or convicted of crimes
  • The Department of Defense has about 6 million photos, mainly of Iraqis and Afghans
  • Various police agencies and states have at least 210 million driver’s license photos

This invasion of privacy is just another facet of the surveillance state, and should be no surprise considering the information Edward Snowden just shared about the over-reaching tentacles of the NSA into all of our communications. We are filing our identities with the government and they can identify us at will, without any requirement for probable cause. (source)

Some people don’t even seem to mind that their identities have been tagged and filed by the US government. And even those of us who do mind have no option. If you wish to drive a car or travel outside of the country or have any kind of government ID, like it or not, you’re in the database. Six years ago, I wrote:

The authorities that use this technology claim that the purpose of it is to make us safer, by helping to prevent identity fraud and to identify criminals.  However, what freedom are we giving up for this “safety” cloaked in benevolence? We are giving up the freedom of having the most elemental form of privacy – that of being able to go about our daily business without being watched and identified.  And once you’re identified, this connects to all sorts of other personal information that has been compiled: your address, your driving and criminal records, and potentially, whatever else that has been neatly filed away at your friendly neighborhood fusion center.

Think about it:  You’re walking the dog and you fail to scoop the poop – if there’s a surveillance camera in the area, it would be a simple matter, given the technology, for you to be identified. If you are attending a protest that might be considered “anti-government”, don’t expect to be anonymous.  A photo of the crowd could easily result in the identification of most of the participants.

Are you purchasing ammo, preparedness items, or books about a controversial topic?  Paying cash won’t buy you much in the way of privacy – your purchase will most likely be captured on the CCTV camera at the checkout stand, making you easily identifiable to anyone who might wish to track these kinds of things.  What if a person with access to this technology uses it for personal, less than ethical reasons, like stalking an attractive women he saw on the street?  The potential for abuse is mind-boggling.

If you can’t leave your house without being identified, do you have any real freedom left, or are you just a resident in a very large cage? (source)

When I wrote that, it still seemed far-fetched but remotely possible, even to me. This was before we were really aware of anything like the social credit program in China or how crazy the censorship was going to become or how social media would change the very fabric of our society.

Now, it’s here and it looks like there’s no stopping it.

Be seeing you

DHS Issues RFI for Cloud-Based Biometric Processing System ...

 

 

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Facial Recognition for Your Car – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 5, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/eric-peters/facial-recognition-for-your-car/

By

eric

If you’ve ever wondered why so many new cars have Angry Samurai Face, maybe it’s because they’re annoyed about being watched all the time.

There is something called the Digital Recognition Network – which operates kind of like the fingerprint database the FBI maintains to keep track of criminals. The difference here is it’s our cars that are being kept track of.

Also that we’re not criminals.

This is a distinction of no particular relevance in the “Homeland” (doesn’t the eructation of that word make your right arm want to voluntarily snap outward and upward like a baton?) where the possibility that you might be guilty of something is sufficient to presume you are guilty.

The burden of innocence resting squarely – and perpetually – on our shoulders.

The DRN uses data gathered en masse, continuously and sans warrant or probable cause (two antiquarian ideas that just get in the way of things) by haltingly creepy devices called Automated Plate Readers  – APLRs – which are cameras connected to government computers.

These APLRs are mounted by the side of the road – or fitted to the cars used by armed government workers to harass and collect.

They scan the license plate number of every passing vehicle – very much like a bar code reader at the supermarket – and cross-reference each number with DMV/government data about the vehicle wearing that particular ear tag, ostensibly to make sure its “papers” (e.g., registration, smog/safety certification, insurance) are in order.

Also those of its owner – more on that follows below.

It’s like seine fishing; the trawler drags a huge net behind it that catches practically every fish and turtle and whatever else happens to be in the area; it’s far more efficient from the point of view of the harassers and collectors because it’s much less work and far more profitable.

DNR boasts about “data gathered from over 8 billion nationwide sightings.” They mean scannings – but “sightings” sounds less creepy and is therefore used to keep the cattle complacent.

Vigilant Solutions, which is one of the companies that provides the APRs , states on its web page that it “can offer over 5 billion nationwide detections” – they also mean scannings – and that another 150 million “detections” are added each month.

It’s also an elaboration of the principle established by acceptance in law (but contrary to the law, i.e., the Constitution and its Bill of Former Rights/Now Conditional Privileges) that it’s somehow not an abuse of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit definition – and prohibition as unreasonable – of searches conducted absent probable cause . . . if the search only takes a couple of minutes and is cursory and serves what the Nine Archons styled a “compelling state interest”  . . . though there is no mention of this qualification in the actual law (i.e., the Fourth Amendment).

If the government can lawfully stop and search cars and demand “papers” at “checkpoints” without probable cause or warrant, then why not search them electronically?

But most people have no idea they’ve just been searched – and catalogued – making it even creepier.

If the system detects something not in order then Mobile Hit Hunter comes online. It sends out a “Hut! Hut! Hut! alert to any “active law enforcement” lurking within a three-mile range of the “hit.”

Some will say all to the good. That “scofflaws” will be easier to find and punish. Yes, and the rest of us as well. And leaving aside the unchecked premise about whether laws being scoffed are legitimate laws.

These ALPRs are extremely bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Like the Terminator, they never get tired or hungry and can’t be bargained with. And they are being set up all over the country.

But it’s not just whether your “papers” are in order that these ALPRs are checking – and mulcting for.

They are also keeping track your comings and goings – even though you haven’t scoffed a single law.

Of all our comings and goings.

This is the creepiest part.

At random roadside checkpoints, you’re forced to stop and allow an armed government worker to look you and your vehicle over; compelled to hand over your papers. But that’s usually the end of it.

The APLRs and the data grid they feed do more than merely scan each passing car. They record each passing car. “Time and date stamped and accurate to within a few feet,” boasts the DNR press release.

The  government and whoever else has access to the data mine knows that you passed by that particular location at exactly 3:17 p.m. last Thursday.

When you pass the next ALPR, the government will know that also.

It will soon be – may already be – feasible to pull up data not only about where every driver has been but also where he is, in real time.

Right now.

Obviously, this technology could – and very likely already is – being used for a great deal more than sussing out registration renegades and safety inspection scofflaws.

Being able to track every American driver’s movements all the time opens up all kinds of possibilities for “revenue enhancement” – and enforcement – as well as new opportunities to control the populace by controlling its mobility.

ALPRs could for instance be used to automatically “brick” the cars of political undesirables before the driver even gets a chance to back out of a parking lot. Keep in mind the fact that many cars made since the early 2000s can be shut off and locked remotely – and every electric car has this “feature” – made possible via its “connectivity.”

With 5G almost here, the digital Death Star is practically “fully armed and operational.” But since most people can’t see it up in the sky – because it’s being erected all around them – they have no idea it even exists.

Be seeing you

week 6 – SOCIAL MEDIA & SOCIETY

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What’s the Big Problem With Facial Recognition? | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2019

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/

By:

The Oakland City Council recently gave final approval to an ordinance banning facial recognition in that city. This is part of a broader movement at the state and local level to ban outright or at least limit this invasive surveillance technology.

So, what’s the big problem with facial recognition?

Plenty.

In the first place, it’s just not very accurate, especially when reading African American and other minority facial features. It gets it wrong a lot of the time.

This isn’t just theoretical musing. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.

But as ACLU attorney Matt Cagle said, this isn’t a problem that can be fixed by tweaking an algorithm. There are more fundamental issues with facial recognition. Government use of facial recognition technology for identifying and tracking people en masse flies in the face of both the Fourth Amendment and constitutional provisions protecting privacy in every state constitution.

Berkeley, California, City Councilmember Kate Harrison is pushing for a facial recognition ban in her city. In her recommendation of the ordinance, she pointed out the inherent constitutional problem with facial recognition.

It eliminates the human and judicial element behind the existing warrant system by which governments must prove that planned surveillance is both constitutional and sufficiently narrow to protect targets’ and bystanders’ fundamental rights to privacy while also simultaneously providing the government with the ability to exercise its duties.

Facial recognition technology automates the search, seizure and analysis process that was heretofore pursued on a narrow basis through stringent constitutionally-established and human-centered oversight in the judiciary branch. Due to the inherent dragnet nature of facial recognition technology, governments cannot reasonably support by oath or affirmation the particular persons or things to be seized. The programmatic automation of surveillance fundamentally undermines the community’s liberty.

Facial recognition puts every person who crosses its path into a perpetual lineup without any probable cause. It tramples restrictions on government power intended to protect our right to privacy. It feeds into the broader federal surveillance state. And at its core, it does indeed fundamentally undermine liberty.

Be seeing you

facial

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Smile for the Cameras – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/andrew-p-napolitano/dont-smile-for-the-camera/

By

A trial in Great Britain has just concluded with potentially dangerous implications for personal freedom here.

Great Britain is currently the most watched country in the Western world — watched, that is, by its own police forces. In London alone, the police have erected more than 420,000 surveillance cameras in public places. That amounts to 48 cameras per 1,000 residents. What do the cameras capture? Everything done and seen in public.

The cameras use facial recognition technology that can capture a grimace, a pimple, a freckle, even an eye blink as you walk the streets. Software then compares whatever the camera captures to government databases. By touching the screen showing your image, the police can have at their fingertips instantly a full dossier on you — your medical, financial, law enforcement, educational, personal and employment records. Stated differently, by looking at your face on a computer screen, and without a search warrant or even any suspicion about you, British police can amass in a few seconds all the data that the government has accumulated about you.

These procedures were recently challenged by a privacy advocate named Ed Bridges in a trial in Britain’s High Court. He learned that the police had twice scanned his face into their databases and accessed personal data about him — once while he walked to a restaurant and once while at a political rally. His lawyers argued that the police need a basis in fact — some articulable suspicion — to scan anyone’s face into their database, and that without that suspicion, the police are effectively engaged in a virtual fishing expedition among innocent folks…

One would think that this Orwellian in-your-face invasion of personal freedom would have shocked the conscience of the court. It didn’t. The court sided with the police.

Could the British model happen here?

Today, a half-dozen American police departments, including New York City, Chicago, Detroit and Orlando, Florida, have begun to use facial recognition surveillance, and in none of these places has the elected governing body authorized it. Politicians have looked the other way. Only in San Francisco — where readers of this column will recall the city government infringes upon the freedom of speech — has the governing body voted to prohibit the police from using facial recognition.

Great Britain — where many American-style civil liberties are protected — lacks a written constitution. Instead it has a 600-year-old constitutional tradition, acknowledged in court rulings and reflected in legislation. Yet, as we have seen, court rulings can bend with the political winds. Those winds are often fanned by the intelligence community and by law enforcement, which have succeeded in establishing sufficient fear among the public and sufficient acclimation to surveillance so that folks like Ed Bridges are made to appear as outliers wasting their time rather than patriots defending personal liberty.

Could the British model happen here?

Our federal government’s 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus already captures every keystroke — even those which we think we have deleted — on every device used to transmit digital data on fiber optic cable in the United States. That covers every mobile, desktop and mainframe device. The government, of course, will not acknowledge this publicly. Yet some of its officials have told as much to me privately. They have also told me that they believe that they can get away with this so long as the data captured is not used in criminal prosecutions.

Why is that? The last thing the feds and rogue police want is for government agents to be compelled to answer under oath how they acquired the evidence they are attempting to introduce. Yet the admission of spying assumes that the right to privacy, which is guaranteed in Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, is protected from governmental invasion only for criminal prosecution purposes. And dozens of American police departments have accepted this assumption as they have begun to use devices that attract cellphone signals as one walks or drives near them, thus enabling them to follow movements of the innocent without suspicion…

The Fourth Amendment is an intentional obstacle to government, an obstacle shown necessary by history to curtail tyrants.

Could the British model happen here? Digitally, it has. Could the ubiquitous cameras be far behind?

Be seeing you

Des costumes de policier et policière pour petits et grands

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Google’s got a new face-tracking camera for your home. We’ve got questions

Posted by M. C. on September 9, 2019

Beyond ridiculous. They will likely sell millions.

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-nest-hub-max-a-new-face-tracking-camera-for-your-home-weve-got-questions/

By

Google Home and Nest Hub gadgets already feature microphones that are always listening for the words that wake up the Assistant (“OK, Google” or “Hey, Google”). Now, the search giant’s newest gadget for your home, the Nest Hub Max smart display, adds in a camera that’s always watching for a familiar face.

Google calls the feature Face Match, and it uses facial recognition technology to remember what you look like. After that, you can tap on the screen to see personalized bits of data like calendar appointments and Google Duo messages whenever it recognizes you.

The Nest Hub Max isn’t the first product to bring facial recognition technology — and the legal and ethical considerations that come with it — into people’s homes. Smart phones have been using the technology to let us unlock our devices and authorize purchases for years, and a growing number of smart home gadgets that use cameras are putting it to use, too, including Google’s own Nest Hello video doorbell.

Still, it’s a product that seeks to give Google a wider window into our lives at a time when the company is already facing questions about the way it handles our personal data. I wanted to take a closer look at how those privacy standards apply when you add always-watching cameras into the mix.

You’ll start with Face Match by using your phone to scan your face, which creates a “face model” that the device attaches to your user profile. After that, when you’re in front of the device and it recognizes you, you’ll see personalized details like calendar appointments and Google Duo video messages from your contacts.

I had a lot of questions for Google about this feature, and about the camera’s ability to spot a raised hand gesture in order to pause or resume playback, too. For instance: Is the camera always recording in order to process what it sees and spot familiar faces or gestures? Is it sharing everything it sees with Google’s cloud?

“If camera sensing is enabled and the camera is on (i.e., not turned off via the hardware or software switch), then the camera is continuously processing pixels to look for faces and/or gestures,” a Google spokesperson explained. “This processing is done locally on the device, and no pixels leave the Nest Hub Max.”…

Many users prefer the sense of privacy offered by a shutter that they can leave closed when the device isn’t in use, especially if they plan to keep it somewhere like a bedroom. Amazon seemed to figure that out in between last year’s second-gen Amazon Echo Show smart display, which lacked a shutter, and this year’s Amazon Echo Show 5, which added one.

When asked about the lack of a shutter, Google defended its design by downplaying the distinction between kill switch and shutter altogether.

“We’ve included a mic plus camera switch that electrically disables both the camera and mics, making it functionally equivalent to a physical camera shutter,” said a Google spokesperson….

Be seeing you

Google Chrome Silently Listening to Your Private Conversations

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Facial recognition: ten reasons you should be worried about the technology

Posted by M. C. on August 30, 2019

With so many concerns about facial recognition technology, we desperately need a more prominent conversation on its impact on our rights and civil liberties. Without proper regulation of these systems, we risk creating dystopian police states in what were once free, democratic countries.

dystopian police states”  We are already beyond the “risk” stage.

http://theconversation.com/facial-recognition-ten-reasons-you-should-be-worried-about-the-technology-122137

The Conversation

1) It puts us on a path towards automated blanket surveillance

2) It operates without a clear legal or regulatory framework

3) It violates the principles of necessity and proportionality…

4) It violates our right to privacy…

5) It has a chilling effect on our democratic political culture…


6) It denies citizens the opportunity for consent…

7) It is often inaccurate…

8) It can lead to automation bias…

9) It implies there are secret government watchlistsNothing “implicit” there-MCViewPoint)

10) It can be used to target already vulnerable groups

Be seeing you

Face-Recognition Using OpenCV: A step-by-step guide to ...

You are than just a number. You are lots of numbers.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watchdog says FBI has access to about 640M photographs

Posted by M. C. on June 4, 2019

Kimberly Del Greco, a deputy assistant director at the FBI, said the bureau has strict policies for using facial recognition. She said it is used only when there is an active FBI investigation or an assessment, which can precede a formal investigation.

This is the same FIB that worked to get Hillary elected.

The same FIB that is trying to unseat a sitting US president.

Trust them?  Believe them? NO. Believe the worst? YES.

Kennedy wanted to smash the CIA, the FIB might have been next. He got dead. Robert Kennedy hated Hoover but Robert got dead. Ron Paul got much of what little vote count he received stolen. Remember the Maine.

Who will risk getting dead?

https://apnews.com/6f45d569c3084c5ca823ced145de8f82

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government watchdog says the FBI has access to about 640 million photographs — including from driver’s licenses, passports and mugshots — that can be searched using facial recognition technology.

The figure reflects how the technology is becoming an increasingly powerful law enforcement tool, but is also stirring fears about the potential for authorities to intrude on the lives of Americans. It was reported by the Government Accountability Office at a congressional hearing in which both Democrats and Republicans raised questions about the use of the technology.

The FBI maintains a database known as the Interstate Photo System of mugshots that can help federal, state and local law enforcement officials. It contains about 36 million photographs, according to Gretta Goodwin of the GAO.

But taking into account the bureau contracts providing access to driver’s licenses in 21 states, and its use of photos and other databases, the FBI has access to about 640 million photographs, Goodwin told lawmakers at the House oversight committee hearing…

Be seeing you

ruby ridge

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CBP’s Airport Facial Recognition ‘Is Not a Surveillance Program’

Posted by M. C. on June 3, 2019

The system is intended to help agents keep better tabs who is entering and leaving the country.

Sounds exactly like surveillance to me.

Sounds exactly like the government is lying.

https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/05/cbps-airport-facial-recognition-not-surveillance-program/157373/

By Jack Corrigan,

Lawmakers and civil liberties advocates might be pressing law enforcement agencies to scale back their use of facial recognition software, but international travelers should only expect to see more of the tech in the years ahead.

It’s been almost two years since Customs and Border Protection began deploying facial recognition systems at U.S. airports, and despite the recent backlash against the software, the agency’s efforts show no signs of slowing down. But if you ask Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner, the agency’s use of facial recognition falls far short of the dystopian panopticon feared by many of the tech’s critics.

“This is not a surveillance program,” Wagner, who heads CBP’s biometric entry and exit initiative, said in a conversation with Nextgov. “We are not just hanging a camera in an airport and randomly identifying people … as they’re walking through.”

Under Wagner’s program, CBP agents use facial recognition to compare real-time images of international travelers to the photos on their passports or visas. For arrivals, people have their faces scanned while officers review their travel documents, and for departures, the tech captures images right at the boarding gate…

The system is intended to help agents keep better tabs who is entering and leaving the country.

Be seeing you

be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

DHS plan for face scanning at airports sparks alarm

Posted by M. C. on April 24, 2019

Like telecommunication, the plan is to have a dossier on everyone.

Of course it will be always accurate, always private, never any mistakes. You can bet your life on that.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/440323-dhs-plan-for-face-scanning-at-airports-sparks-alarm

Lawmakers and civil liberties advocates are calling on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt plans to begin using facial recognition technology on nearly all departing air passengers within the next four years.

The agency’s plan has reignited the fight over the sensitive technology. Critics say facial recognition technology is not ready for large-scale deployment and that DHS has failed to establish specific rules to prevent abuses and policies for handling the collected data.

“The Department of Homeland Security is plowing ahead with its program to scan travelers’ faces, and it’s doing so in absence of adequate safeguards against privacy invasions, data breaches, and racial bias,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement to The Hill. “Homeland Security should change course and stop its deployment of facial recognition technology until it meets that standard.”

Markey and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) have raised these concerns with DHS over the past year, releasing statements and sending letters to the agency urging it to halt the program until it puts specific safeguards in place. So far, according to Markey’s office, the department has ignored their warnings.

DHS has been implementing its “biometric exit” program, which photographs some visitors when they are departing the U.S., for years, expanding to 15 major airports with plans to reach five more. President Trump in 2017 signed an executive order speeding up the rollout of the face-scanning technology, and Congress in 2016 authorized up to $1 billion over the next 10 years to implement the program.

The stated purpose of the program is to identify non-U.S. citizens who have overstayed their visas, but it captures the faces of U.S. citizens as well. The agency says it has successfully identified 7,000 people at major U.S. airports who have overstayed their visas.

The DHS report published last week, which was provided to the House and Senate judiciary committees, is the latest sign that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — DHS’s largest federal law enforcement agency — is fast-tracking the implementation of the program at the country’s largest airports.

That has privacy advocates in an uproar…

Be seeing you

facial

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

DHS wants to ramp up use of facial recognition at airports from just 15 to almost all in 4 years | Daily Mail Online

Posted by M. C. on April 20, 2019

According to the DHS, the technology is not only scalable, but also extremely accurate.

That makes me feel better. From ACLU about Amazon’s scanning technology misidentifying members of congress.From ACLU about Amazon’s scanning technology misidentifying members of congress.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6937737/DHS-wants-ramp-use-facial-recognition-airports-just-15-4-years.html

By James Pero For Dailymail.com

 

  • Facial recognition software could soon be standard in airports across the U.S.
  • The tool would be used to track people coming in and out of the country
  • Photos of passengers would be run against a database of visas and passports 
  • DHS’ interest in facial recognition comes amidst rising human rights concern

Despite concerns over facial recognition’s impact on civil liberties, public agencies have continued to apply the tool liberally across the U.S. with one of the biggest deployments coming to an airport near you.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that it plans to expand its application of facial recognition to 97 percent of all passengers departing the U.S. by 2023, according to the Verge.

By comparison, facial recognition technology is deployed in just 15 airports, according to figures recorded at the end of 2018.

In what is being referred to as ‘biometric exit,’ the agency plans to use facial recognition to more thoroughly track passengers entering and leaving the country.

The system functions by taking a picture of passengers before they depart and then cross-referencing the image with a database containing photos of passports and visas.

According to the DHS, the technology is not only scalable, but also extremely accurate.

In its current iteration, a summary states that the technology has scanned more than 2 million passengers with a near-perfect match rate of 98 percent.

In its limited deployment, the DHS says that it has helped to identify 7,000 passenger overstays since being introduced in 2017 as well as six passengers attempting to use identification not belonging to them…

Among the most unlikely voices of caution against the widespread deployment of facial recognition has been Microsoft — one of the biggest and most sophisticated purveyors of facial recognition software.

This month the company announced that it denied lending its software to an unnamed California law enforcement agency who planned to use the tool to scan the faces of people the agency pulled over, so that it could be checked against a database.

The reason behind the decision, according to Microsoft President, Brad Smith, is that the company felt the software — artificial intelligence systems that use machine learning to improve its capabilities — would disproportionately affect people of color and women…

One of the most vocal critics, the ACLU, has argued that scanning someone’s face skirts laws involving probable cause and could be used for mass government surveillance…

Be seeing you

TSA

Your Alternative to Facial Recognition

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »