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.
