41–50 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-fa... "According to the TSA, your information is generally deleted shortly after you pass the screening process and is not used for surveillance purposes."
You submit permanent biometrics as part of PreCheck and Global Entry. DHS is presumably using those data for identification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se. Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
Biometrics are abusable in so many different ways, I probably don't know them all. But here's some thoughts around that.
It's proven that police have for decades planted evidence to falsely incriminate individuals. Placing a gun at the scene of an occurrence is one example. The difference is if biometrics are "planted" they are biologically unique to you, and you have no reasonable way of disproving that "you did it".
And then there's silently denying you. Whether it's a nation's border entity, or perhaps an insurance provider, biometric data can be used to uniquely identify you and connect you to things that *are* legal, but the Administration de jour doesn't "like" (read: LITERALLY RIGHT NOW). Say something to upset the babbis in the white house? Did you give your blood to 23andme? Your fingerprint to a government agency? Yeah, good luck getting in/out of the USA freely.
Biometrics needs to be a *global and universal right to refuse*. In that, IMO you must be always able to say "no" and have it be legally binding to *any* entity saying "give me your XYZ biometrics", except _maybe_ if you're a *convicted* criminal.
This goes far beyond the whole "I never thought about it that way" problems, this is a you're fucked for life if you give away any of it. It's time we make the time to get ahead of this problem that already exists.
Join me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se. Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
Identify you when though? Important question I guess
Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry?
Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...].
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expressing your first amendment right to protest is not “almost anything.” Historically, courts have taken very dim view of government retaliation for first-amendment protected activities.
It's trivial for the state to punish you and nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts.
What are you basing this on? This administration is constantly losing in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identify you when though? Important question I guess
The US has been using ICE a lot. Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry? Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [ https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona... ]. Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE. So they can pretend…
Not ICE?
> Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
This is a first amendment violation, right?
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations? This doesn't track.
FTFA: “Protesting isn’t a listed or ‘valid’ reason for having Global Entry revoked, but being arrested at a protest is. Impeding or interfering with the agency is. And being investigated is.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport. We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se. Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme except…