SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The new report, which was released Thursday, comes on the heels of a related 2016 report showing that half of Americans’ faces are already in a facial recognition database.
“As currently envisioned, the program represents a serious escalation of biometric scanning of Americans, and there are no codified rules that constrain it,” the report concludes.
In July 2017, Ars reported that facial-scanning pilot programs are already underway in international departure airports at six American airports—Boston, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York City, and Washington, DC. More are set to expand next year. In a recent privacy assessment issued one month earlier, DHS noted that the “only way for an individual to ensure he or she is not subject to collection of biometric information when traveling internationally is to refrain from traveling.”
“We’re wondering if this is the best use of a billion dollars?” [Laura Moy, a Georgetown law professor and one of the report's authors] said. “We’ve done the research and we think the answer to that question is ‘no.’”
“When American citizens travel by air, they should not have to choose between privacy and security,” he said. “The implementation of DHS facial scanning program for US citizens leaving the country raises a number of questions.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:32PM (8 children)
To answer, we will need another billion dollars and a change of administrations. who will do nothing, regardless of who is installed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @09:34PM (7 children)
Who's administrations have increased policing and surveillance?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by milsorgen on Tuesday March 20 2018, @10:20PM (5 children)
All of them have. Obama's was probably the most disappointing while Bush's was the most egregious.
On the Oregon Coast, born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @12:52AM (4 children)
That's interesting slant. How about: Obama's was the most egregious and Bush's the most disappointing?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 21 2018, @02:42AM (3 children)
Obama came in with a message of hope and change while Bush came in with a message of "I'm stupid and will allow Cheney to expand the police state". One ended up being a big disappointment and one did exactly what he was elected to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:02AM (2 children)
I understand your point and angle. My view is Obama promised hope and change. But some good reporting I've read, complete with audio and video, shows a different hidden agenda, more about power and control. Federal and state "Civil forfeiture" on the rise, for example.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:05AM (1 child)
Doesn't really matter if he had a secret agenda as the reason he was voted for, in most cases, was for the hope and change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:42AM
I read your post as "herpa derpa durpa dooooo" because it was explaining 2+2 to an apparent idiot. The only thing that can explain such stupidity is bind tribalism where Republican == good and democrat == 666
Such idiocy will land us in trouble, we all need to pick the best candidate regardless of "tribe". I now regret thinking Ross Perot was silly, but then again I was in grade school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:43PM
don't be a fucking idiot!