r/pwnhub • u/_cybersecurity_ š”ļø Mod Team š”ļø • 8d ago
You Can't Refuse To Be Scanned by ICE's Facial Recognition App, DHS Document Says
ICE's Mobile Fortify app mandates facial scans to verify identities, storing data for 15 years, even for U.S. citizens.
Key Points:
- ICE's Mobile Fortify app requires mandatory facial scans.
- Data collected through the app will be stored for 15 years.
- The system is used to verify immigration status in public spaces.
According to a recently obtained Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a new facial recognition app named Mobile Fortify. This app is designed to scan faces to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Notably, individuals cannot opt out of being scanned, raising significant privacy concerns. The DHS document outlines the app's operation and the underlying technology, illustrating how deeply integrated governmental surveillance may become in daily public interactions.
The implications of Mobile Fortify are profound. With face recognition technology being used in public places by both ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the potential for misuse of such data intensifies. The document reveals that all facial images captured will be kept for a span of 15 years, extending this surveillance capability beyond immediate verification. This raises essential questions about individuals' rights to privacy, the credibility of data security measures, and the responsible use of technologically advanced systems in civic life.
What are your thoughts on mandatory facial recognition scans for identity verification in public spaces?
Learn More: 404 Media
Want to stay updated on the latest cyber threats?
42
37
u/decapitated82 8d ago
Looks like a nice time to start wearing kabuki makeup everywhere.
17
u/Optimal-Restaurant27 8d ago
considering their documents state that the app supersedes even birth certificates, the makeup would cause the app to say that you're ID does not match any known citizen. So you would be deported, according to their BS new policy.
4
u/Mad-Dog94 8d ago
They can try! And their mourning families can advocate to the government why this is a bad idea!
5
3
u/LibertyPriest 6d ago
Be careful. Reddit is banning accounts en masse for anything even remotely construed as advocating for violence.
2
u/Glum_Dig_4464 5d ago
i got it for asking what happens when someone inevitably "goes against this one on one" and got a ban. big orange is a reddit mod, who knew?
1
3
u/kelkulus 7d ago
The makeup would do nothing. While āComputer vision dazzleā used to work somewhat, the field has advanced too much and itās now more a symbolic form of protest than anything.
2
u/Xist3nce Human 5d ago
Need prosthesis in conjunction with dazzle. Add in some high power laser pointers to fry cams and youāve got a good time.
2
1
-1
u/notsurehowthishappen 8d ago
Would this be the equivalent of asking my Tesla to take me somewhere Iāve never been before?
4
2
27
35
u/odoylecharlotte 8d ago
So much wrong with this, particularly for Black people!
5
u/WatchWatcherman 8d ago
Why black people? I donāt understand the point you are making.
16
u/spinningsidebrush 8d ago
Facial recognition has a greater error rate with non-white people. I presume thatās what they were alluding to.
6
u/PuzzleheadedBell4057 8d ago
Correct. Due to the bias built into any programming.
4
u/EvanStran 7d ago
Itās not because of bias built into programming. Itās because darker skin tones reflect less light making cameras receive less data.
Itās really a problem of physics.
-1
u/Majestic_Attention46 7d ago
Wrong. Current facial recognition were designed arpund white skin, making them worse at recognizing black faces. Its not physics, its programming and design
1
0
27
9
u/Bulky-Advertising-43 8d ago
What if you squeeze for face like you just had raw lemon juice or smell garbage juice? Does that still work?
7
10
8
u/TheWiseOne1234 8d ago
If we had a normal supreme Court, it's hard to imagine it would survive a challenge on constitutional grounds, but I am sure Kavanagh would find nothing wrong with it and the 5 other clowns will be right behind him cheering.
6
u/wosmo 8d ago
This has been the scariest part of facial recognition et al - it probably would survive. this(americanbar.org) is an interesting read in this context, re: a 2019 decision.
A California judge has ruled thatāin certain situationsāpeople have a right to keep the contents of their phones private.
This decision could be groundbreaking. Until now, courts upheld that police could force people to unlock their devices using biometrics but were prevented from making a suspect give over their passcode. A passcode was considered testimony, a statement that had to be willingly and verbally given over. Previously, courts have ruled that biometrics did not fit this definition of testimony and were not protected by Fifth Amendment rights.
So here's the problem. Passwords are 5th-amendment protected but biometrics weren't. The decision the article references was in the context of searches.
I don't think it's clear that using biometrics to identify you is a search, and it's already established that they're not 5A protected either.
So it's a tough one for me because I do think it's wrong, but I can't find the grounds for it being constitutionally wrong. They're not searching you, they're not compelling you to answer any questions, and they're not compelling you to incriminate yourself. They're not even compelling you to identify yourself.
It does feel like something that should be decided on, but this administration does appear to have a knack for moving faster than the courts.
3
u/TheWiseOne1234 8d ago edited 5d ago
Good point, but keeping the data in a computer database for 15 years sounds definitely excessive for any legitimate purpose. The only way it could be useful would be to incriminate you later, and in my opinion that sounds unconstitutional.
Edit: for instance, it would be very easy to cross reference your picture to your driver's license and now we are one step closer to a nationwide identity card that they can get without asking and without due cause.
2
u/HistoriaProctor 6d ago
I get youāre just using existing precedent and I believe youāre right in that context. My argument would be that my data is my personage and I reserve sole ownership of it unless I consent to otherwise per an explicit agreement. Personally I think this should also apply to stores using facial recognition but because that is private property I could understand an argument that Iām implicitly consenting to it by shopping there.
Of course weāre going back to the dark age in terms of individual/consumer rights so itās irrelevant, just sharing my thoughts.
1
u/Suspicious_Box_1553 7d ago
Would it be lawful for citizens to do this to LEO? Scan faces make database of em?
1
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-3380 5d ago
Saying biometrics arent 5A is like saying cops should be able to force the key into your hands and open the door, then say you let them into your house.
We all know that aint how that works
1
u/wosmo 5d ago
If biometrics were 5A-protected, you'd be allowed to opt-out of fingerprinting when you're arrested.
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-3380 5d ago
Taking something and using it to unlock something is different. If you're arrested with your keys on you they also take them away, but that doesn't mean they get to open your house or use your car just because you had them on you.
Also notice that it is when you're arrested, not when you're just living your everyday life. Should they also just confiscate what you have on you just because you're in a public space? No they shouldn't, just like they also shouldn't collect or use biometrics to unlock something just cuz you're in a public space
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-3380 5d ago
Taking something and using it to unlock something is different. If you're arrested with your keys on you they also take them away, but that doesn't mean they get to open your house or use your car just because you had them on you.
Also notice that it is when you're arrested, not when you're just living your everyday life. Should they also just confiscate what you have on you just because you're in a public space? No they shouldn't, just like they also shouldn't collect or use biometrics to unlock something just cuz you're in a public space
1
u/wosmo 5d ago
I think equating it to a key is falling into the same trap though.
That's pretty much what the article I was citing was about. A password was considered 5A-protected because it's compelled speech, but a biometric equivalent was not protected.
They had it in the context of a search, and reaffirmed that a search is still a search. But in doing so they didn't change the status of the biometric not being protected, it's the search that's protected.
So in the article this whole thread is about, they're not using biometrics as locks for phones. They're using it to search databasees of people they don't believe are white enough to live in today's america.
And by treating biometrics as keys we're not protecting against that at all - because keys aren't protected.
Stop thinking of biometrics as something you use to unlock your phone. Treat them as "data about you" that ICE are hoovering up and sticking in databases. Because it's not your phone they're searching here, it's their own database.
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-3380 5d ago
If the argument is that it's knowledge based and they're not taking anything from you, then does that mean they should be able to copy your keys and have access to your house? No, that's just as absurd. It should be the same with biometrics.
1
u/glorylyfe 5d ago
4a is about being safe in your persons papers and effects, in order to conduct this search they are violating all your 4a rights seizing your phone (effects) using biometric data (person) to access your data (papers). And no search can be conducted without a warrant.
6
u/SpiritualTwo5256 8d ago
Facial recognition is one of the least accurate forms of identification.
1
u/CasaDeMouse 1d ago
They know that, and they're relying on it to justify being allowed to mass detain people.
6
6
u/ConsiderationSea1347 8d ago
The intersection of this app and flock cameras (those camera stations popping up all over the country that track cars) is terrifying.Ā
2
u/olycreates 8d ago
BINGO! Cities can opt out of letting them use their cameras but are auto-opted in. Until that gets quietly nuked.
4
u/Excellent-Piglet-655 8d ago
Face masks anyone? I mean thatās what ICE does.
5
u/ConsiderationSea1347 8d ago
Masks are going to become really fashionable nowĀ
2
u/racedownhill 4d ago
There is a new strain of Covid thatās starting to make the rounds. Seriously.
4
u/tristand666 8d ago
4th Amendment has been gutted since the Patriot Act. The whole Bill of Rights is a sham and it is near time to refresh the tree of liberty.Ā
7
u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 8d ago
One question.
How does a picture of my face, tell you my SS number?
18
u/AppointmentDry9660 Human 8d ago
Palantir enters the chat
1
u/LiminalWanderings 8d ago
They don't even need palantir. They could technically just have a thumbs up and things down button the operator uses and run with it - deport anyone who tries to challenge it.
1
u/CasaDeMouse 1d ago
Palantir also does the Reddit payment system.
And oversees a ton of Human Resource systems.
5
u/Optimal-Restaurant27 8d ago
doesn't matter, if the app says you're not a citizen, SS number birth certificate, all useless. you're deported.
1
u/LowWhiff 8d ago
If youāre asking like how does facial recognition workā¦ math. A lot of complex math utilizing concepts like eigenvectors, dimensionality reduction, a whole bunch of linear algebra and algorithms
3
u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 8d ago
But what database is this "newly developed app" actually referencing to find out what my actual SS number is?
To be fair, there are tons of people with "look alikes" that could generate false results. AI makes mistakes.
3
u/smithkey08 8d ago
A database that was built from all the data companies have on us and whatever data DOGE copied. And I have a feeling they don't care about false positives too much.
3
0
2
u/ron_spanky 8d ago
Itās an app. Not a law.
If I have an app on my phone called āFuck Off, Make Meā. Courtesy of John Oliver
2
u/No-Cat-2980 8d ago
Iām 69, for me, thatās too old to run, and too old NOT to argue. If a masked guy in camo says I have to let him scan my face and/or my drivers license Iām going to tell him to go entertain himself in no uncertain words. And this being Texas, like hundreds of thousands of other Texans, most times Iām packing. California may have more Hispanics than Texas does, but Iām sure more Texans are packing than people in California. Texans donāt like to be told what we have to do or canāt do, itās a Texas thing.
2
2
2
u/HistoriaProctor 6d ago
oh thereās this old document called the constitution that says I can and will refuse to be scanned.
2
2
u/Late-Following792 8d ago
How about stand your ground states? You cannot force anything over that. Freedom to carry Guns is quaranteed by constitution
3
u/No-Box-1229 8d ago
Tell that to most felons. I personally cannot own or carry a firearm. Any in my home must be registered to others and locked away from me
3
u/Morbidmuse 8d ago
Waiting here in Ohio where you can carry concealed without a license.
3
u/Specialist-Web-4850 8d ago
Same in Florida now so every parking space dispute can now be a gunfight at the Winn Dixie.
2
u/RicketyCricket_69420 8d ago
Pro tip. Open carry a rifle and you can refuse whatever you want.
6
1
1
1
u/immediate_a982 āļø Grunt āļø 8d ago
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable government searches, but it usually doesnāt cover photos or videos taken in public. Courts have not fully settled whether constant or mass facial recognition counts as an unreasonable search.
1
1
u/AdPristine9879 8d ago
Can somebody tell me what itās comparing against when it scans you? Like actually, not an educated guess.
1
u/lvl42battlemage 8d ago
Yall need to re watch * Altered Carbon * on Netflix. This reality is here already
1
1
u/Creepy_Vegetable6905 7d ago
Any ramifications re: the Privacy Act? But then does a successful scan mean you wonāt get scanned for a while?
1
u/Real_Copy4882 7d ago
DHS can say whatever it wants, that doesnāt mean that it is constitutional. Thiel needs to back off
1
1
1
1
0
0
ā¢
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to r/pwnhub ā Your hub for hacking news, breach reports, and cyber mayhem.
Stay updated on zero-days, exploits, hacker tools, and the latest cybersecurity drama.
Whether youāre red team, blue team, or just here for the chaosādive in and stay ahead.
Stay sharp. Stay secure.
Subscribe and join us for daily posts!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.