also worth noting:
as a US citizen re-entering the country you do not have to present anything more to a customs agent than your passport.
You are not required to answer any questions at all. Where youre from, where you were, what you did, nothing, however it may result in an inspection of your bags, so it depends on whether your interpretation of liberty is based on personal convenience.
Disclosure: ive done this opt-out twice. The first time I got to sit in a room with a few other folks who had been randomly selected based on their winning complexion, and was let go after 20 minutes and a bag search. The second time the screening room was busy so i was let go immediately. at no point did i answer a single question.
The searches that even a U.S. Citizen could be subject to (without a warrant) are extremely broad[1].
> Legal precedents grant federal officers at ports of entry the power, without warrants, to require people to strip for a “visual inspection” of genitals and rectums, and to submit to a “monitored bowel movement” to check for secreted drugs.[1]
We did a deep-dive on court settlements by CBP for invasive searches and found quite a few extremely disturbing cases.[1]
> Some women were also handcuffed and transported to hospitals where, against their will, they underwent pelvic exams, X-rays and in one case, drugging via IV, according to suits. Invasive medical procedures require a detainee’s consent or a warrant. In two cases, women were billed for procedures
> also worth noting: as a US citizen re-entering the country you do not have to present anything more to a customs agent than your passport.
But as a practical matter they can detain you and do a more intense search than they would if you didn't dig your heels in and silently hand them your passport. You'd be surprised how intrusive a search absent reasonable suspicion can be at the border - they just don't have the resources to do one on everyone.
The info I've been asked for at the border is usually info the government could get if it wanted (Ex: asking where I visited when they have flight records and are looking at my passport stamps)
I'm fine with doing a little participatory security theater if it gets me home quicker and has no real cost to me.
I did this every time I re-entered the US for several years. After a few times, they took to arresting me for 4-10 hours on EVERY ENTRY, sending busses without me, making me miss connecting flights, et c. One time I was locked in a room without food, water, or medication for 12 hours. (FWIW, I'm white, a US citizen, employed, and wealthy-by-most-standards-but-not-by-HNs.)
They'd sometimes simply intimidate me, sometimes they'd make a big show about searching everything I had (not even looking in every zipper pocket), et c. In all cases they would lie to me and tell me what I was doing was illegal. (Remember: making false statements to federal agents is a crime.)
I eventually stopped after a few years and would voluntarily yield to their probing questions to avoid delays; I continued to get harassed by border guards and sent to secondary (for an additional 1-10 hours of arrest) on every entry for approximately 4 years afterward, even when answering all questions in full voluntarily. These days, they don't ask me questions, and just wave me through. I'm curious what changed a year or two ago to make them stop harassing me for exercising my rights for 24 months some time ago.
Oh, I almost forgot: one time, they digitally penetrated a Canadian woman who was my travel companion, simply because, in secondary (where we ended up because of my previous rights assertions) we both declined to unlock our phones for the border cops. They strip searched us both, and denied her entry. Denying entry is somewhat understandable due to the failure to search her encrypted device (if a bit dumb), however, sexually assaulting her and forcing us both to manipulation of our genitals is a little bit beyond their mission, in my opinion.
That is what I thought as well. Sometimes if I am in a bad mood/snarky and they ask me what I do for a living, I just say “computers”. They always ask me “computer what? engineer? programmer?” I simply respond back “computer! computer!” and they just angrily let me go.
I do this not because I want to be mean but to show them these questions are a pointless waste of time. I mean there are thousands of people who dont speak a word of english who return back. I doubt they can understand these officers, much less respond to them.
I thought those questions were more to gauge whether you were a victim of human trafficking than anything else. The details they have asked always seemed innocuous enough. Business or pleasure, how long did you stay, stuff like that. Nothing I wouldn’t tell a guy sitting next to me on the flight.
Yeah, They can demand to search your things if you want in. Including unlocking your phone, the alternative is to give them your phone while still locked, or not be let in.
The last few times I've returned to the states I haven't even had to talk to a customs agent - but signing up for Global Entry might be too much of a violation of privacy by some standards.
I understand the need to exercise freedom, and I do this when in line for TSA. I opt for hand-screening usually.
But I don't see what the point is in not answering where you visited. I'm pretty sure they already have this information so there's no point in hiding it, in my opinion. Plane tickets, hotel bookings, credit card usage, etc all will tell an easy tale as to where you were and what you did.
Either the questions depend highly on your travel destination or I don't look very suspicious. Traveling to/from US EU the most I ever get is "is this for business or personal?".
I've even got a few friendly "welcome back" when returning to the states after longer trips
Am I the only one spooked by the fact that to opt out, you now need to have your passport with you? (and for _domestic travel_ no less)
Given that the facial databases contain your data regardless, and the amount of in-airport surveillance (in that you're not gonna avoid being observed and logged), It's more of a, "we're gonna make you present your papers regardless, pick your poison"
I think the article is wrong about this. The linked EFF post mentions nothing about passports and the TSA currently accepts a wide range of ID documents for domestic flights:
Which makes sense because if you're opting out of the new automated process then you just go back to the manual process - somebody looking at your documents. Those document requirements have not changed.
In 2020 when REAL ID comes into effect then you'll need a special ID (typically a new drivers license), or failing that, a passport - but that's a separate issue.
Are they actually using this on domestic flights? I know the article mentions flying domestically but I haven't seen any evidence that this is being used for non-international flights.
The whole point of this is to implement the Congressional mandate for exit tracking without the more traditional exit controls of getting your passport checked and stamped upon exit (which most countries do).
I've flown without ID in the last year. They just passed me to a guy who asked me a few questions while carefully watching my face when I answered, and swiped my fingers for explosive residue. I had an old prescription bottle in my bag and they asked for that, but a laser printer could make a trivial copy of the label if I had ill intent.
I didn't opt out though and I suspect that may have been more difficult.
The passport is to prove US citizenship. Otherwise you cannot reasonably distinguish between permanent residents and citizens. Both can have a driver's license. Visa holders can have a driver's license too but it mentions the expiration date of your visa.
Anyone remember when we liked to proclaim how we had freedom in this country by using the example that we didn't require "travel papers" for internal travel?
Fun fact: the passport gates at UK airports appear to be biometric, but aren't. You step into a little gate, place your passport photo page down onto a scanner, and look into a camera for a photograph.
The thing which slows folks down at passport gates (and the reason the best passport control agents don't have a jocular welcoming patter) is the hello/goodbye/talking around the manual "look at your face, look at your passport".
When the gates open at Heathrow and you're allowed through, you'll immediately see a raised bank of desks behind which sit a bunch of officer who are simply manually verifying that the person in the photo appears to be the person on the passport.
I did some digging to make sure that isn't what's happening here (all the articles seem to be very vague about the "biometric" and "facial recognition" part). Here's where I got to:
> Using facial recognition, TVS enables biometric identity verification by transmitting automated queries to locate photos in DHS and U.S. Department of State databases for matching against the unique characteristics of a traveler’s facial features. As designed, this updated capability operates in a virtual, cloud-based infrastructure that can store images temporarily and operate using a wireless network, thereby eliminating the need for the tablets previously used in 2016.[1]
Interesting, I just went through Heathrow, both inbound (US to UK connection to Glasgow, then UK to US connection back). At the in-bound border control, there was a passport scan and photo, then at the gate, that photo was displayed and a second photo was taken. In my case it also was flagged and delayed my boarding while the gate agent manually told the system “he’s ok”. The agent repeatedly had me move around so the system could retake the gate photo, trying to get the gate photo to register as a match to the border control photo. Or, so I believed. Based on your comment, this was all pure theater?
I'm always wary about this; when companies say they delete the bio-metric photos. They may delete the photos (even if they actually shred the photos), but they are still training a bio-metric model to better identify you before the photos are deleted.
> Biometric Templates: CBP creates biometric templates of historical photos and new photos for matching and storage. Biometric templates are strings of multiple numbers representing images that can be matched against other templates that represent facial images. These templates are irreversible and cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the photo, meaning that these photographs are not recognizable outside of the TVS system.
So even if no single photo of you is on their severs, they still have a fingerprint of your face that can positively identify you.
Be mindful that "delete" does not necessarily equate to "shred" [1]. There is no information available to determine if their use of "delete" means "set a Boolean flag that means 'deleted' to true" vs. "literally destroy the data so it can never be recovered" (the 'shred' [1] method).
It seems like the only effect of the opt-out option is to smooth over controversy. I wonder who went through the charade of pushing for the opt-out and treating it as a victory.
Having just gone through Heather, where facial ID is used at security and gates, I hate that the US is rolling it out. Not because I care about the photos - I’m in public, snap away - but because it doesn’t fucking work. Neither my wife nor I were recognized by the system that snapped our photo 60 minutes earlier, which caused delayed boarding, confusion with the gate agents, stress for me, and aggravated other passengers (who were stuck behind me as the agent tried to decide why the system didn’t want me to board). It was a ducking mess.
How is this worse, privacy-wise, than taking naked images of you with mm-waves when you try and get on a plane? Its just improving the efficiency of the existing system. If we're going to have border controls, why not make them work as well as we can?
> You’ll need your U.S. passport with you — even if you’re flying domestically.
So the majority of US citizens who don't have a passport can't opt out? I've already reduced the number of times that I fly to the absolute minimum. It sounds like I'll need to find a way to reduce that to zero.
If you are Nexus/Global Entry and use Clear they already have your finger print, biometrics and retina scan. Might as well add facials to that... no wait that sounds wrong. LOL
REAL ID, federalizes drivers licenses for creating a database of photos for facial recognition and metadata.
Enhanced Passport--the requirements for getting the photo include not wearing glasses and not smiling, ostensibly so that their algorithm works better.
Facial scanning at airports, so they can build up as big a database as possible.
I'm surprised they didn't require full fingerprints for REAL ID.
How much further do we go before the tyranny becomes in your face enough?
Permanent residents (and non residents) already get their prints scanned at every entry. I'm a naturalized citizen now but was always mildly bothered by being singled out (my wife and kids are US citizens by birth) for that level of screening.
> Enhanced Passport--the requirements for getting the photo include not wearing glasses and not smiling, ostensibly so that their algorithm works better.
When I renewed my driver's license a number of years ago, they required a new photo to be taken without my glasses or a smile, so that's not only a passport requirement.
In Georgia they’ve been requiring a finger print in some cases for some time. Not all fingers but I remember my index and/or thumb being scanned. I let my license expire and had to go through the joys of trying to prove my address and other stuff like the finger scan.
It's been incredibly in your face if you aren't a privileged white person since basically the dawn of the country, with a small period of kind-of-not-really-thoufh improvement around WWII. Workers rights have always been shat on, being poor sucks and keeps getting worse with every year that m4a isn't a thing, and being a visible minority obviously also sucks what with the whole police murdering you thing or ICE gestapo knocking on your door etc.
Frankly I hope they ramp it up, because maybe it'll at least open up peoples eyes to all the other insane sorts of injustices that go on.
That seems like hyperbole to me. Remember, we live in a republican democracy. Yes, it works slowly (by design). But, it works. At least we don’t have a totalitarian state to deal with.
I used to be skeptical of this stuff, too. Then, we had 18 years of no major terrorist attacks.
[+] [-] nimbius|6 years ago|reply
You are not required to answer any questions at all. Where youre from, where you were, what you did, nothing, however it may result in an inspection of your bags, so it depends on whether your interpretation of liberty is based on personal convenience.
Disclosure: ive done this opt-out twice. The first time I got to sit in a room with a few other folks who had been randomly selected based on their winning complexion, and was let go after 20 minutes and a bag search. The second time the screening room was busy so i was let go immediately. at no point did i answer a single question.
[+] [-] pratheekrebala|6 years ago|reply
> Legal precedents grant federal officers at ports of entry the power, without warrants, to require people to strip for a “visual inspection” of genitals and rectums, and to submit to a “monitored bowel movement” to check for secreted drugs.[1]
We did a deep-dive on court settlements by CBP for invasive searches and found quite a few extremely disturbing cases.[1]
> Some women were also handcuffed and transported to hospitals where, against their will, they underwent pelvic exams, X-rays and in one case, drugging via IV, according to suits. Invasive medical procedures require a detainee’s consent or a warrant. In two cases, women were billed for procedures
[1] "‘Shocked & Humiliated’: Lawsuits accuse Customs, Border Officers of invasive searches of minors, women." ( https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-humiliat... )
[+] [-] dontbenebby|6 years ago|reply
But as a practical matter they can detain you and do a more intense search than they would if you didn't dig your heels in and silently hand them your passport. You'd be surprised how intrusive a search absent reasonable suspicion can be at the border - they just don't have the resources to do one on everyone.
The info I've been asked for at the border is usually info the government could get if it wanted (Ex: asking where I visited when they have flight records and are looking at my passport stamps)
I'm fine with doing a little participatory security theater if it gets me home quicker and has no real cost to me.
[+] [-] sneak|6 years ago|reply
They'd sometimes simply intimidate me, sometimes they'd make a big show about searching everything I had (not even looking in every zipper pocket), et c. In all cases they would lie to me and tell me what I was doing was illegal. (Remember: making false statements to federal agents is a crime.)
I eventually stopped after a few years and would voluntarily yield to their probing questions to avoid delays; I continued to get harassed by border guards and sent to secondary (for an additional 1-10 hours of arrest) on every entry for approximately 4 years afterward, even when answering all questions in full voluntarily. These days, they don't ask me questions, and just wave me through. I'm curious what changed a year or two ago to make them stop harassing me for exercising my rights for 24 months some time ago.
Oh, I almost forgot: one time, they digitally penetrated a Canadian woman who was my travel companion, simply because, in secondary (where we ended up because of my previous rights assertions) we both declined to unlock our phones for the border cops. They strip searched us both, and denied her entry. Denying entry is somewhat understandable due to the failure to search her encrypted device (if a bit dumb), however, sexually assaulting her and forcing us both to manipulation of our genitals is a little bit beyond their mission, in my opinion.
[+] [-] AznHisoka|6 years ago|reply
I do this not because I want to be mean but to show them these questions are a pointless waste of time. I mean there are thousands of people who dont speak a word of english who return back. I doubt they can understand these officers, much less respond to them.
[+] [-] intopieces|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thekid314|6 years ago|reply
Yes, this happened to me and other journalists.
[+] [-] DuskStar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] docker_up|6 years ago|reply
But I don't see what the point is in not answering where you visited. I'm pretty sure they already have this information so there's no point in hiding it, in my opinion. Plane tickets, hotel bookings, credit card usage, etc all will tell an easy tale as to where you were and what you did.
[+] [-] nullwasamistake|6 years ago|reply
I've even got a few friendly "welcome back" when returning to the states after longer trips
[+] [-] existencebox|6 years ago|reply
Given that the facial databases contain your data regardless, and the amount of in-airport surveillance (in that you're not gonna avoid being observed and logged), It's more of a, "we're gonna make you present your papers regardless, pick your poison"
[+] [-] jahewson|6 years ago|reply
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
Which makes sense because if you're opting out of the new automated process then you just go back to the manual process - somebody looking at your documents. Those document requirements have not changed.
In 2020 when REAL ID comes into effect then you'll need a special ID (typically a new drivers license), or failing that, a passport - but that's a separate issue.
[+] [-] khuey|6 years ago|reply
The whole point of this is to implement the Congressional mandate for exit tracking without the more traditional exit controls of getting your passport checked and stamped upon exit (which most countries do).
[+] [-] alasdair_|6 years ago|reply
I didn't opt out though and I suspect that may have been more difficult.
[+] [-] rdschouw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rebelgecko|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelkevinjones|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vkou|6 years ago|reply
That proclamation was forgotten as soon as the Cold War ended.
[+] [-] georgespencer|6 years ago|reply
The thing which slows folks down at passport gates (and the reason the best passport control agents don't have a jocular welcoming patter) is the hello/goodbye/talking around the manual "look at your face, look at your passport".
When the gates open at Heathrow and you're allowed through, you'll immediately see a raised bank of desks behind which sit a bunch of officer who are simply manually verifying that the person in the photo appears to be the person on the passport.
I did some digging to make sure that isn't what's happening here (all the articles seem to be very vague about the "biometric" and "facial recognition" part). Here's where I got to:
> Using facial recognition, TVS enables biometric identity verification by transmitting automated queries to locate photos in DHS and U.S. Department of State databases for matching against the unique characteristics of a traveler’s facial features. As designed, this updated capability operates in a virtual, cloud-based infrastructure that can store images temporarily and operate using a wireless network, thereby eliminating the need for the tablets previously used in 2016.[1]
[1] https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/O...
[+] [-] alistairSH|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sensecall|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedieaston|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_pwner224|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jill_the_Pill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samschooler|6 years ago|reply
> Biometric Templates: CBP creates biometric templates of historical photos and new photos for matching and storage. Biometric templates are strings of multiple numbers representing images that can be matched against other templates that represent facial images. These templates are irreversible and cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the photo, meaning that these photographs are not recognizable outside of the TVS system.
So even if no single photo of you is on their severs, they still have a fingerprint of your face that can positively identify you.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/biometric-exit-faqs
[+] [-] pwg|6 years ago|reply
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shred_(Unix)
[+] [-] samfriedman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
The claim they do this. Who knows if they really do?
[+] [-] dkarl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
Beware scope creep.
[+] [-] alistairSH|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Areading314|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
So the majority of US citizens who don't have a passport can't opt out? I've already reduced the number of times that I fly to the absolute minimum. It sounds like I'll need to find a way to reduce that to zero.
[+] [-] mtgx|6 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/jetblue/status/1118607244290084864
[+] [-] mattlondon|6 years ago|reply
WTF?! Years? Seriously? I hope to hell that is a typo.
[+] [-] kxter|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaseha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aug_aug|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turk73|6 years ago|reply
REAL ID, federalizes drivers licenses for creating a database of photos for facial recognition and metadata.
Enhanced Passport--the requirements for getting the photo include not wearing glasses and not smiling, ostensibly so that their algorithm works better.
Facial scanning at airports, so they can build up as big a database as possible.
I'm surprised they didn't require full fingerprints for REAL ID.
How much further do we go before the tyranny becomes in your face enough?
[+] [-] knz|6 years ago|reply
Permanent residents (and non residents) already get their prints scanned at every entry. I'm a naturalized citizen now but was always mildly bothered by being singled out (my wife and kids are US citizens by birth) for that level of screening.
[+] [-] holy_city|6 years ago|reply
They do in California!
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
When I renewed my driver's license a number of years ago, they required a new photo to be taken without my glasses or a smile, so that's not only a passport requirement.
[+] [-] wil421|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s4vi0r|6 years ago|reply
Frankly I hope they ramp it up, because maybe it'll at least open up peoples eyes to all the other insane sorts of injustices that go on.
[+] [-] afpx|6 years ago|reply
I used to be skeptical of this stuff, too. Then, we had 18 years of no major terrorist attacks.
[+] [-] billybrown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whatCameras|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]