Federal facial recognition for babies? How the border is fueling a surveillance state



Tech that recognizes faces, enabling the user to permanently track, say, you, is becoming ubiquitous — now a fixture of airport security, with stadiums the next big “market.” However, the full potential of facial recognition is unrealized due to a simple obstacle: children.

Now, in the name of border security, that may be about to change — for everyone.

“Facial recognition technology (FRT) has traditionally not been applied to children,” observed the MIT Technology Review in an extensive report this month, “largely because training data sets of real children’s faces are few and far between, and consist of either low-quality images drawn from the internet or small sample sizes with little diversity. Such limitations reflect the significant sensitivities regarding privacy and consent when it comes to minors.”

Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation.

But the current thinking at the Department of Homeland Security, aired over the summer during at least one conference, suggests bureaucrats are committed to breaking the taboo on minor facial recognition. Despite denials that minor scanning is taking place, insiders approached by the Review warned that the practice could already be under way.

At June’s Federal Identity Forum and Exposition, a yearly confab drawing together government employees and contractors in what’s called the “identity management” space, the assistant director of the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management — one John Boyd — openly speculated that the agency’s so-called craniofacial structural progression initiative could soon be applied “down to the infant” at locations where the United States government receives and processes immigrants.

“If we pick up someone from Panama at the southern border at age 4,” he asked, “and then pick them up at age 6, are we going to recognize them?”

But “the border” effectively transcends the line between the U.S. and Mexico stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. Since last year, according to the Review, Customs and Border Protection “has been using a mobile app, CBP One, for asylum seekers to submit biometric data even before they enter the United States. ... After crossing into the United States, migrants submit to collection of more biometric data, including DNA.” Citing a Georgetown Law School report, the Review tallies at least 1.5 million DNA profiles in the CBP One database, “primarily from migrants crossing the border, to law enforcement databases since it began collecting DNA 'from any person in CBP custody subject to fingerprinting' in January 2020.”

In stark terms, the “border” of the United States of America is becoming any place United States government technology digitally harvests the biometric identity of people considered to be entering or exiting its territory or jurisdiction.

The transformation raises intense questions about the constitutionality of the identity-based surveillance and tracking model to which this approach to “border” security applies — one that, it’s all too easy to see, can promptly be scaled to incorporate any and all Americans, especially those targeted politically by the government or singled out for suspicion and enhanced scrutiny.

For those on the political left, the use of the border to feed the biometric borg underscores how much establishment Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation.

But for those on the political right, who have long considered heightened border security a necessity in reclaiming American sovereignty from established elites bent on flouting the rule of law to strengthen their political and economic interests, the border-to-borg pipeline dramatizes how leading-edge security technology is being used in ways the regime can and does repurpose to nullify constitutional protections for citizens, especially critics of the regime itself.

The DHS told MIT Tech Review it “ensures all technologies, regardless of type, are operated under the established authorities and within the scope of the law” while “protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all individuals who may be subject to the technology we use to keep the nation safe and secure.” What’s more, according to the statement, it “does not collect facial images from minors under 14 and has no current plans to do so for either operational or research purposes.”

Yet an anonymous former CBP official familiar with immigrant processing centers told the Review that each center he visited “had biometric identity collection, and everybody was going through it” without the facility “separating out children.”

Our data has never been so vulnerable, as cyberattacks increase at an alarming rate



When the internet first arrived on the scene, it promised liberation from the chains of tyranny. It was supposed to empower us, connect us, and protect our individuality in ways previously unimaginable. But instead of fulfilling that promise, the internet has slowly eroded the very freedoms it was meant to safeguard. Today, it has not only stripped us of our privacy but also exposed our identities to the darkest corners of the digital world.

Under the Biden administration, this erosion has accelerated at an alarming pace. Catastrophic cyberattacks, once rare and isolated, have become grim and all too regular, escalating in frequency and severity. The recent breach involving nearly 3 billion personal records, including countless U.S. Social Security numbers, is a stark reminder of how dangerously vulnerable our data has become. A hacking group known as USDoD infiltrated the digital vaults of a Florida-based organization tasked with safeguarding some of the most sensitive information in the nation. The data was not just stolen; it was commodified and sold to the highest bidder in an online marketplace dedicated to stolen identities.

The lack of robust cybersecurity measures and the administration’s apparent complacency in the face of these threats have created a perfect storm of vulnerability and a perfect reason to vote against a Harris presidency.

This issue goes beyond mere information theft; it's about data being traded on the dark web, a clandestine corner of the internet where the most nefarious transactions take place. Unlike the traditional internet, which is accessible through standard search engines and browsers, the dark web operates in the shadows, requiring special software like Tor. This anonymity makes it a haven for criminal activity. Here, stolen data, including Social Security numbers, credit card information, and even biometric details (more on this in a moment), is sold to the highest bidder. But it’s not just identity thieves who operate in this underground marketplace. The dark web is also a hub for the most depraved individuals — pedophiles, human traffickers, drug dealers, and other criminals — who use this nebulous network to engage in their illicit trades. The consequences of this black market are dire. Once your information is on the dark web, it’s accessible to a global network of miscreants, leaving your identity, finances, and personal safety in constant jeopardy.

It’s important to emphasize that this breach, one of the largest in history, is emblematic of a broader crisis that has taken hold under the current administration. Cyberattacks have not only increased, but they have become more sophisticated, more destructive, and more targeted. The Biden administration’s response to this growing threat has been tepid at best, leaving tens of millions of Americans exposed to the ruthless tactics of cybercriminals. The systemic failure to protect our personal information is not just a lapse in security; it is a full-scale collapse of the safeguards that were supposed to defend us.

As Big Tech grows more powerful, more of our personal data — including our most intimate biometric markers, such as fingerprints, retinal scans, and voice patterns — is being stored in vast, insecure databases. The implications of this are terrifying. If you're in doubt, let me paint a quick, rather gruesome picture for you. Imagine a world where your voice can be replicated to fool your bank, where your fingerprints can be used to commit crimes in your name, and where your child's retinal patterns are exploited to create a digital double.

This is not a distant dystopia. Instead, it’s a very real threat that grows more imminent with each passing day. The Biden administration’s failure to address the escalating wave of cyberattacks has left the nation’s digital infrastructure in a precarious state.

With November fast approaching, this is something Trump and his team would do well to focus on. When we discuss borders, the focus is often on physical barriers — the walls, fences, and checkpoints that define the boundaries of nations. Yet in our increasingly digital world, we must also consider the importance of digital borders. Just as physical borders protect a country’s sovereignty and security, digital borders are essential for safeguarding our personal information and online privacy. Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, much like physical borders, digital borders have been left woefully unprotected.

The lack of robust cybersecurity measures and the administration’s apparent complacency in the face of these threats have created a perfect storm of vulnerability and a perfect reason to vote against a Harris presidency. A darling of Silicon Valley, Harris has deep ties to Big Tech, a sector that has been a significant source of support and campaign contributions throughout her political career. Should she become the next president, it is reasonable to expect that the already severe cyber threats will escalate even further. Her close relationship with these tech giants suggests she would be unlikely to pressure them to reform their intrusive, privacy-violating practices. Instead, we could see an even more lenient regulatory environment, one where the interests of Silicon Valley are prioritized over the security and privacy of ordinary Americans.

In short, our digital identities and personal data would be at even greater risk, with the full backing of a government that is more interested in maintaining its ties with powerful donors than in protecting its citizens.

Why Communist China-Connected Temu Is Worse Than TikTok

Once downloaded, Temu can access almost anything on your phone — the camera, internet, audio recordings, and more — according to one study.

Massachusetts Sued For Working With Google To Secretly Put Spyware On Residents’ Phones

A lawsuit claims Mass. violated residents' constitutional rights by installing a 'contact-tracing app' on their phones without consent.

TikTok Exec Refuses To Stop Sending Data To China

Request which was declined both times

Snap Let Democratic Campaign Groups Scoop Up GOP Voter Data

Several prominent Democratic campaign groups accessed Republican voter data as a result of what Snap, the owner of Snapchat, called an unintentional data leak, allowing those groups to optimize midterm ads, Axios reported. While there was no evidence the data leak was intentional, GOP voter data from Republican-affiliated consulting firm i360 was accessed by the […]