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.”

The IRS may start requiring facial scans to access financial documents



The Internal Revenue Service may soon require the American people to digitally scan their faces in order to file their taxes and access their financial records, the Washington Post reported.

Currently, Americans can file their taxes the way they always have, via the United States Postal Service or e-file, but by the summer of 2022, the IRS is expecting Americans to upload pictures or brief videos of their face via smartphone, tablet, or computer to access their personal records, per a November 2021 press release from the IRS.

The federal government awarded an $86 million contract to the digital security firm ID.me in order to accomplish this feat. ID.me is already testing this system; if individuals try to access their IRS documents online, there is a good chance they will encounter the ID.me identification protocols.

ID.me reported that in December 2021, more than 60,000 face photos were submitted in a single day, although it is unclear how many of these were uploaded by taxpayers. There were also high numbers of complaints regarding the identity verification process that caused people to abandon the process out of frustration.

According to ID.me’s website, “the company’s technology meets the highest federal standards” and already has existing relationships with “27 states, multiple federal agencies, and over 500 name brand retailers.”

The company’s homepage touts its relationship with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Linkedin, and the insurance company USAA. Notably, ID.me also does business with the Chinese technology company Lenovo.

The United States government buys a considerable amount of technology from Lenovo, despite it being controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and funneling sensitive data to the Chinese intelligence apparatus.

What the IRS’ relationship with ID.me means for the future of private tax preparation services — like H&R Block — remains to be seen, but adding the requirement of facial recognition to access one’s tax records is likely not to be a popular decision once implemented on a large scale.

Furthermore, despite digital technology infiltrating every aspect of the human experience, there remains a sizable discrepancy in the American people’s tech-savviness. Many people in older generations still struggle with accessing and navigating digital platforms, whether they have access to the internet or not.

Some members of Congress have expressed concern over giving ID.me such power over sensitive personal information and what it could mean for the future of data privacy and transparency in government.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) called the IRS and ID.me collaboration a “very, very bad idea” and that it would “further weaken Americans’ privacy.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said that he was “very disturbed that Americans may have to submit to a facial recognition system” to “access personal data on the IRS website.”

I\u2019m very disturbed that Americans may have to submit to a facial recognition system, wait on hold for hours, or both, to access personal data on the IRS website. While e-filing returns remain unaffected, I\u2019m pushing the IRS for greater transparency on this plan.https://twitter.com/AliciaAdamczyk/status/1484219775740002307\u00a0\u2026
— Ron Wyden (@Ron Wyden) 1642725625

A Senate Finance Committee aide told the Washington Post that the committee is working toward scheduling meetings with the IRS and ID.me to address these concerns.

Federal judge says forcing alleged Capitol rioter to unlock laptop 'with his face' doesn't violate 5th Amendment



A federal judge ordered a man accused of participating in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol to unlock his laptop "with his face" after prosecutors said the laptop likely contains video footage from his helmet-worn camera that would incriminate him.

Defendant Guy Reffitt was arrested in January and charged with five federal crimes, including bringing a handgun to the Capitol grounds during the riot and obstructing justice by allegedly threatening his family, saying he would kill them if they turned him in. He has plead not guilty to all charges.

FBI investigators seized his Microsoft Surface Pro laptop and other technological devices after obtaining a search warrant earlier this year, CNN reported. The laptop was password-protected, but the investigators said it could be unlocked with facial recognition technology. Prosecutors believed the laptop contained more than six gigabytes of footage from Reffitt's helmet-worn camera, which would show that he had participated in the riot and trespassed on the U.S. Capitol grounds.

Attorneys for the defense had argued in court filings that Reffitt couldn't remember his password and that the search warrant for the laptop had expired.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to compel Reffitt to sit in front of the computer's camera and unlock it with his face. Judge Dabney Friedrich sided with their arguments, agreeing that forcing the defendant to unlock the laptop did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment grants anyone in the U.S. the right to remain silent if they are charged with committing a crime, a protection for an innocent person "who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Courts have previously ruled that a defendant cannot be compelled to turn over computer passwords. Passwords are considered "testimonial" evidence, which a defendant can refuse to provide to law enforcement because doing so would mean answering a question based on the contents of their thoughts.

However, the prosecution successfully argued that those protections do not extend to a person's physical features, like their face or fingerprints, which can be used in place of password protection and are considered physical pieces of evidence. According to TechCrunch, the FBI also argued in its indictment that ordering Reffitt to sit in front of his computer and unlock it with his face "would not run afoul of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

Several court rulings support this argument. In 2014, a Virginia judge said police could compel a defendant to provide his fingerprint to unlock a cellphone that may have contained incriminating evidence because a fingerprint, like giving DNA or a handwriting sample, is physical evidence. Similar cases were decided in 2016 and again in 2017.

"The self-incrimination analysis for biometric and face scanning would be the same as for Touch ID," Jeffrey Welty, a UNC-Chapel Hill law professor, said in a 2017 interview with The Verge.

"Standing there while a law enforcement officer holds a phone up to your face or your eye is not a 'testimonial' act, because it doesn't require the suspect to provide any information that is inside his or her mind."