Facialized: PapersPlease - SEA Port Comm Slurps DHS Dick

[rooty]

Ty grump my little pumpkin for the wonderful web link . Port of SEA is doing this for the safety of it's citizens and to get rid of illegals living there. Liberal policies have turned the city into a shit hole.

-------- Original Message --------
On Mar 20, 2020, 8:04 AM, grarpamp wrote:

> https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/03/10/seattle-port-commission-reneges-on-its-principles-for-facial-recognition/
>
> "***All*** of the comments from the public to the Port Commission on
> this issue, as members of the Commission acknowledged, were opposed to
> the Port collaborating with CBP on facial recognition or spending Port
> money to do so. The Port issued a detailed, self-congratulatory press
> release within minutes after the vote, which strongly suggests that
> Port staff knew how the Commissioners would vote before today’s
> charade by the Commissioners of taking comments from the public and
> “debating” the issue even began. Today’s decision by the Port of
> Seattle Commission sets the worst possible national precedent."
>
> Seattle Port Commission reneges on its “principles” for facial recognition
> 2020-03-10
>
> [CBP sign at biometric boarding gate at Newark Liberty International
> Airport. Note the absence of the OMB Control Number and other notices
> required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.]
> Repudiating the principles for assessment of biometric identification
> of travelers it adopted in December 2019, and effectively mooting the
> policy development process it had begun since then, the Port of
> Seattle Commission voted unanimously today to authorize a $5 million,
> ten-year contract to purchase and install Port-owned common-use
> cameras and facial recognition stations at all 30 departure gates of a
> new international terminal.
>
> The Port issued a detailed, self-congratulatory press release within
> minutes after the vote, which strongly suggests that Port staff knew
> how the Commissioners would vote before today’s charade by the
> Commissioners of taking comments from the public and “debating” the
> issue even began.
>
> Behind the scenes, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) appears to
> have been playing hardball, using the typical law enforcement line of,
> “We’re going to do this to you anyway. You can either choose to make
> it easy for us, or we’ll make it hard on you.” The Seattle Times
> reported after the Port Commission vote that CBP recently began
> fingerprinting non-U.S. citizens boarding some international flights
> at Sea-Tac Airport. It seems likely that the implicit or explicit
> threat by CBP was that if the airport didn’t install and deploy
> automated facial recognition to track passengers, CBP would use a more
> humiliating form of biometric tracking, fingerprinting departing
> non-U.S. citizens the way it already fingerprints non-U.S. citizens
> when they arrive in the U.S.
>
> The choice for the airport and its governing board was whether to
> collaborate with CBP. Port Commissioners seemed to want to reign in
> CBP. But at the end of the day, they proved unwilling to assert their
> authority as an elected public oversight board against the malign
> convergence of interest between government agencies, airlines, and
> Port staff who identify with the police and the airline industry more
> than with the public. The Port Commissioners chose to have the
> airport actively collaborate with and front for CBP, at the airport’s
> expense, rather than dissociating itself from CBPs flagrantly illegal
> activities, making CBP do its own dirty work at its own expense, or
> trying to mitigate the damage through signage informing travelers of
> their rights.
>
> The Port press release claims that “the Commission’s goal is to
> replace CBP”, but that’s clearly false and appears intended to mislead
> the public. In fact, the sole purpose of the cameras and software to
> be purchased by the Port is to augment, not replace, the ability of
> CBP to use, retain, and share photos as its sees fit. Every photo of a
> traveler taken by the Port cameras will immediately be sent to CBP.
> There’s no plan to replace CBP, deny it access to any photos, or
> expose its secret algorithms and secret biometric databases.
>
> All of the comments from the public to the Port Commission on this
> issue, as members of the Commission acknowledged, were opposed to the
> Port collaborating with CBP on facial recognition or spending Port
> money to do so. Members of the public, including experts in
> cybersecurity and threat modeling, pointed out that many key questions
> about the Port’s proposal and CBP’s and airline’s practices, plans,
> and policies remain unanswered. Most urged the Commission to reject
> the proposal outright and withdraw its request for bids for facial
> recognition equipment. All commenters agreed that approval of the
> procurement contract would be premature until more information is made
> available to the public and the current policy development process is
> completed.
>
> In our latest written comments to the Port Commission today, which we
> summarized in person at today’s meeting (see also our previous
> submissions to the Port Commission on December 10, 2019, and February
> 25, 2020), we pointed out that:
>
> The proposed procurement and deployment would violate Federal law,
> the norms of Fair Information Practices (FIPPs), and the professed
> “principles”, including FIPPs, of both the Port and US Customs and
> Border Protection (CBP). It should be rejected, and the RFP for this
> project should be withdrawn or, at a minimum, postponed….
>
> It isn’t just that CBP is violating the Privacy Act, or that
> collecting facial images and sending them to CBP would make the Port
> complicit in this violation of Federal law. The violation of the
> Privacy Act by CBP lies specifically in CBP’s outsourcing the
> collection of this personal data to the Port, airlines, or any other
> non-Federal entities.
>
> This provision was and is included in the Privacy Act for good
> reason. The Port should heed it, and make CBP comply with Federal law
> by collecting any personal data it uses for making decisions about
> individuals, including facial images of travelers, directly from those
> individuals. CBP could collect this data itself at Sea-Tac, as it does
> at some other airports. It doesn’t want to, but it has clearly
> demonstrated that it could do so.
>
> If there is one lane at a departure gate, or on arrival, where a
> uniformed CBP agent is photographing travelers, and one lane without a
> Federal law enforcement officer with a camera, travelers will have a
> much clearer and more informed choice – and one that, unlike the
> proposal before the Port Commission, might comply with the Privacy
> Act.
>
> Port Commissioners claimed, quite implausibly, to think that having
> the Port install and operate the cameras would give the Port some
> control of how CBP uses the photos after the Port sends them on, or at
> least more control over signage. But CBPs “Biometric Air Exit Business
> Requirements” for its airline and airport “partners”, which were
> finally disclosed only two days ago in response to our request, and
> were never provided to or reviewed by the Port’s “Biometrics External
> Advisory Group” (BEAG), tell a different story about who’s in control.
> As we explained in our comments:
>
> Some Port staff, in their proposals to the BEAG and the Port
> Commission, have suggested that by owning and operating facial
> recognition systems the Port would have more control over signage and
> other notices provided to the public to enable more informed consent
> and mitigate the harm to the public of CBP’s (illegal) activities.
>
> But in fact, the proposed procurement would have exactly the
> opposite effect. By agreeing to comply with CBP’s “Requirements” –
> which are explicitly incorporated by reference in the RFP and the
> proposal for action by the Port Commission – the Port would be tieing
> its own hands and committing itself to display CBP’s signs –
> regardless of their truth or falsehood or their compliance with the
> law – and not to display any signage, make any announcements, or
> provide any information not approved by CBP.
>
> Item 8 of CBP’s “Requirements” would prohibit the Port from
> posting any signs or distributing any communications pertaining to
> CBP’s use of biometrics without CBP’s prior approval.
>
> Item 13 of CBP’s “Requirements” would obligate the Port to post
> whatever signage CBP demands, regardless of whether the Port considers
> it inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete.
>
> In effect, these provisions would amount to a (self-imposed) gag
> order not to criticize CBP, and a (self-imposed) agreement to serve as
> a mouthpiece for CBP propaganda, regardless of its truth or falsehood.
> Rather than enabling the Port to mitigate the harms of CBP’s (illegal)
> practices through more or better signs or announcements, the proposed
> action by the Port Commission would prevent the Port from doing so.
>
> If CBP fails – as it has failed to date at Sea-Tac and all other
> airports with biometric departure gates – to post the notices required
> by the Paperwork Reduction Act, informing individuals, regardless of
> citizenship or immigration status, of their right not to respond to
> any Federal collection of information that does not display a valid
> OMB Control Number and PRA notice, the Port itself should post such
> notices at all gates. But the Port won’t be able to do so without CBP
> approval (which wouldn’t be likely to be granted) if the Port
> Commission approves the proposal on your agenda for action today.
>
> Port Commissioners approved a motion declaring that CBP’s uses of
> facial recognition at airports are “lawful”, while simultaneously and
> hypocritically dismissing our objections to CBP’s flagrant violations
> of Federal law by saying that, “We’re not judges. If a court says it’s
> illegal, we won’t do it.” This ignores the fact that, as we also noted
> in our comments, CBP and DHS have promulgated regulations exempting
> the databases in which they store facial images from the rights
> otherwise available to individuals under the Privacy Act to access,
> accounting of disclosures, and civil remedies for violations. This
> makes it all but impossible to have CBP’s practices reviewed by the
> courts.
>
> Today’s decision by the Port of Seattle Commission sets the worst
> possible national precedent. But it doesn’t render the Port’s ongoing
> process of developing policies for use of biometrics at Sea-Tac
> entirely irrelevant. We will continue to monitor the process and
> engage with the Port Commission as it considers use of facial
> recognition (in collaboration with, and sending passenger photos to,
> CBP and perhaps in the future the TSA) by airlines and other
> commercial entities for their own purposes.
>
> As we noted in response to the first draft of a Port of Seattle policy
> for “non-Federally mandates” uses of biometrics:
>
> Missing from that draft is any explanation of the purpose or
> justification for airlines to identify passengers, independent of any
> Federal mandate.
>
> Airlines could, and did, operate for decades without requesting ID
> from passengers. Airlines began asking (but not requiring) passengers
> to identify themselves only when they were ordered to do so by the FAA
> (the predecessor of the TSA). The only lawful reason for airlines to
> ask passengers for ID is to satisfy a government mandate.
>
> As common carriers, airlines are required to transport all
> passengers, regardless of who they are, and are required to sell
> tickets at prices determined by a public tariff.
>
> An airline cannot lawfully “reserve the right to refuse service”.
> It cannot lawfully personalize prices or charge different prices based
> on passengers’ identities.
>
> So why do airlines think they “need” to identify passengers at
> all, by any means?
>
> One cannot assess the justification (or lack thereof) for
> biometric identification of travelers for non-Federally mandated
> purposes without first assessing the justification (or lack thereof)
> for identification of travelers generally for such purposes.
>
> This assessment is entirely absent from the draft recommendations
> for Port policy, but is essential.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 14001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200320/93ee0946/attachment.txt>