FC: Replies to Wendy Leibowitz and problems with airport facecams

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Facecam archive:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=facecam

Previous message:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02752.html

Wendy's response (below) immediately follows John's.

-Declan

********

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 19:43:19 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
To: wendytech () earthlink net (Wendy Leibowitz)
Cc: declan () well com, gnu () toad com
Subject: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports?
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20011104151629.026f7570 () mail well com>

Wendy, you said:
> All in all, I don't understand the problem with face-cams at borders or
> airports. It affects only those whose pictures already appear in a database,
> and so the issue should be--who's in the database, not whether or not we use
> this unobtrusive technology.

You're close to right.  The issue is whether the public will ever be privy
to how those cameras actually work.

There are many ways to use computerized cameras.  One way is for the
system to "only" match up the faces it sees, against the faces in a small
database (say a few hundred "suspected terrorists").  This would
indeed be less objectionable than other ways.

But the catch is that once they put up the cameras, there is no way
for the public to know WHAT way they are being used.  They could
easily put the face of every passenger INTO a database, recording the
date and time and location, and then matching them up with the records
of other similar cameras (e.g. at the destination airport, in train
terminals, in hotels, in post offices, in schools, at tollbooths).

The cameras might initially be put up, with great fanfare, to match
against a small database, and they might even tell you who is in the
database (though in the current climate, where they won't even tell
you who has been arrested, I doubt it).  But when later upgraded to
match everyone who's ever been arrested -- a huge proportion of the
black population, for example -- there will only be a small
announcement.  And when further upgraded to record every face, every
time, you can believe that there will be little or no public
announcement.  The word will get out only over the government's
strenuous efforts to prevent it.  Recall turncoat Ashcroft's statement
of last month, that the DoJ will do everything it can to keep the
public from finding out every possible bit of information about what
every part of the government is doing.  How anti-democratic, how
corrupt that is.  And how sheepishly the press and the public have
accepted it.

Wendy, if you walked through the Oakland or Fresno airport tomorrow,
how would you be able to tell whether your face had been put into a
database?  And potentially matched up with your name (which the
airlines have on your ticket), your passport number (you do fly
internationally don't you?), your address (when you pick up or send
postal mail at the post office), your credit information (in hotels
and department stores), your bank accounts (at an ATM machine), your
fingerprint (at the DMV, or on the ATM's keypad), and any other
information that was handy?  In its current mooooed, the public would
even probably put up with face-cams in voting booths, recording what
every voting American thinks about their leaders.

If officials told you that it wasn't happening, would you be permitted
to examine their computers to verify their statements?  Public
officials regularly lie to protect classified information, and it's
easy to classify just about anything.  Whether your face and SS# are
in that computer is a matter of national security, miss, now just move
along and stop keeping us from doing our job.

The searches that existed in airports before this year were objectionable,
but at least they were reasonably anonymous.  You weren't pulled in for
special attention because your name or face popped up in a classified
database that you have no access to.  Everybody was treated more or less
equally, and they didn't even know your name unless it was visible on
your luggage tag.

Face-cams provide not only the opportunity to do much more intrusive
monitoring of the movements of free citizens, but they also provide
much more secret discretion to these supposedly-anonymous searches.
Such discretion is anathema to the "bright line" tests that define
what is Constitutional and what isn't.  Not to mention what is good
for the health of a democracy, and what isn't.

        John Gilmore

PS: Everyone who's talked to me about being searched in airports in
the last month has said that the airline or security officials said
they were selected "randomly".  Randomly my ass.  It's a lame coverup
for an "enemies list" of political undesirables who end up with fewer
rights and more surveillance than the political friends (or the sheep
who meekly go along with whatever the government tells them to do).
And while the initial filter is racially based, as soon as they get
the databases properly built and interfaced, they'll be able to make
much finer gradations of "danger to political orthodoxy" punishable.

********

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:29:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams
        in airports?
From: "Wendy Leibowitz" <wendytech () earthlink net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Hi, Declan. Not sure if it's wise to respond to throw gasoline on the
"facecams are fascist" fire, but I did want to respond to the more
reasonable people. I'll leave it to you whether or not to circulate it to FC
(what does FC stand for, anyway? I think of F****cked Company).

Someone asked, politely, in a private e-mail, what I meant by "obtrusive."
(I said facecams were less obtrusive than other, authorized searches at
borders.) Well, facecams do not require an official to touch you, which, as
a woman, I appreciate. A pat-down can feel like an invasion, and at these
check points, border guards can do a lot more if they feel like it,
particularly if they think you're carrying drugs. Face cams do not detain
you, or require you to answer questions about your trip or your life. (Our
ideological, human screens do--we've kept out communists, or tried to, for
years). Facecams don't single you out, which can be embarrassing in public,
even if you're cleared. Facecams are also quick--a value for travelers--and
certainly quicker and perhaps more accurate than the metal scans, via wand
and machine, to which we all submit, and which pick up all kinds of stuff
(depending on their settings).

The problem I have with those who oppose facecams at airports and borders
(and I was only talking about airports and borders), is that they don't say
what type of security they're FOR. If they oppose facecams, fine--the
technology, like all technology, is flawed and there are serious privacy
abuse possibilities.  Without facecams, we're stuck with our current
system--using racial and ethnic profiles to single out suspects.  I have a
lot more objections to that than to facecams. Under our current "stop Middle
Eastern-looking men" approach, we'll miss some suspects (they'll use
grandmas as terrorists) and harass a whole lot of innocent men, while
wasting time and money on other, less effective methods. (Does anyone really
think that they catch terrorists with the answers to "Did anyone give you
anything to take on board?")

John Gilmore wrote:
>You're close to right.  The issue is whether the public will ever be privy
>>to how those cameras actually work.
>>
>>There are many ways to use computerized cameras.  One way is for the
>>system to "only" match up the faces it sees, against the faces in a small
>>database (say a few hundred "suspected terrorists").  This would
>>indeed be less objectionable than other ways.

This is exactly what I favor. If the civil liberties communities (such as
the ACLU and other standard-setting organizations) come out against the use
of airport facecams, EVEN in this limited manner, without saying what proper
security methods at borders would be, then they will be disregarded by
anyone who believes that we need to increase security. Then indeed the
technology will spread, because the civil liberties advocates will not be
part of the debate. The public must insist on knowing how the technology is
used, and in limiting its use. But to oppose all facecams is as silly as
opposing all encryption. And, as with encryption, it will be
futile--facecams are already here.

There is a POSSIBILITY that we can use existing laws to ensure that citizens
have access to any information the government is keeping on them, such as an
airport facecam database. We have this right of access now, but it is rarely
used and is limited to FBI and CIA files or other government information.
People must insist that the database be open regularly for inspection and
that it consist only of suspected terrorists and wanted criminals.  A
database is a physical thing that can be checked--even randomly checked at
airports--by a government watchdog agency, a civil rights group, and even
private individuals searching for their own names. There is a need, and this
is an opportunity, to improve public access to government data. As we shake
up our security apparatus, we must insist on improvements in following the
public access laws.

I haven't heard any ideas so far from the civil liberties communities about
what they'd support, just what they oppose. There was an arrest warrant out
for Mohammed Atta in Florida, but the agents at Logan airport did not have
access to that database. Should arrest warrants be available to customs
agents and border guards? Again, the focus should be on the contents of the
database, not on the technology itself.

We can have a nice cyber spat about 1984 and the advent of Big Brother, but
that does not address the issue of how to improve security at airports and
borders.   The tone of civil libertarian debate is a subject for another
time, but generally, sneering at people who are trying to use technology to
improve security in a non-racially discriminatory way doesn't make friends
or influence people.

Wendy R. Leibowitz
Legal Technology Columnist
Editor, E-Filing Report
1140 23rd St. NW
Washington, DC 20037
http://www.wendytech.com

********

From: "Jarvis, Brian" <BJARVIS () JUSTICE GC CA>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports?
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:18:25 -0500

Re Ms. Leibowitz's point below:  with all respect I believe the key issue
lies elsewhere.  It is one of proportionality; of the policy solution
fitting the policy problem.  Unless lawmakers are convinced that the faces
of those whom they really want to catch are indeed in the databases, then
where is justification for invading the privacy of the myriad innocent
travellers whose faces will be scanned?  (I have left aside for now the
issue of the abysmally high failure rate of face recognition, which must
lead one to conclude that even if the face of a wanted terrorist were in the
database, a few days growth of beard, or a radical change of hairstyle would
allow the terrorist to pass the face recognition test untouched).

********

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011104151629.026f7570 () mail well com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 17:19:54 -0800
To: declan () well com
From: Bill Frantz <frantz () pwpconsult com>
Subject: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports?

Hi Declan -

I think the most important issues with facial recognition hardware and
software is how the inevitable false positives are handled.  We can
consider the facecam to be an automation of the policeman looking over mug
shots of wanted people before going on patrol.  Ideally, the facecam will
tell a policeman, "Doesn't that look like Jane Smith.  Here is her picture,
physical description, and the reason she is wanted."  In a place like an
airport, Jane will already be expected to show some form of ID, so the
issue of whether she is the wanted Jane Smith can be settled with
sensitivity to the fact that the facecam can and does make mistakes.

What concerns me is:

(1) Jane will suffer additional harassment after she has shown that she is
not the wanted Jane Smith.

(2) The facial database will become loaded with people like Green Party
workers, Edward Abbey readers, and others for which there is no outstanding
warrant, and the witch hunt will be on.

(3) There will be an increase in stops of innocent people in places, other
than airports, where intrusive searches are not part of the bargain.

Cheers - Bill

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz           | The principal effect of| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506         | DMCA/SDMI is to prevent| 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz () pwpconsult com | fair use.              | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

********

From: "Phil Wolff" <philw () yahoo com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports?
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:28:47 -0800

"Wendy Leibowitz" wendytech () earthlink net wrote>
... but isn't it less intrusive than a body search, or almost any other
search to which we submit at borders and airports?

Facecams are the link between videos of a public space and databases. By
canvassing all the people at a public place, like an airport or stadium,
facecams evolve the ability to identify every person, without their
involvement or permission. This is the functional equivalent of
requiring everyone to produce identification and recording their
presence at that time.

At least in Clue when someone accuses me of being using the knife in the
salon, I'm under suspicion for a specific crime. This use of the
technology presumes guilt and forces identification.

I believe I have a right to anonymity (absent suspicious behavior) when
I just walk around in public, and this strips that right. I have the
right to meet friends in public without a record being made, and
facecams are key to making a government or corporate record of that
event.

The facecams aren't 100% accurate and the databases aren't complete; but
the more they're used, the better they'll get. And there is no way to
opt out in advance.

Aside from lobbying, legislating and litigating, what can you do?
Consider wearing masks or niqab scarves to hide your face in public.
While we don't have a religious reason, perhaps defending your privacy
is a patriotic act?

Niqab
 http://www.islamicgarden.com/page1071.html

Maskarade: Show the world who you are
 http://www.themaskstore.com/

- Phil

********

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:37:56 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg () texoma net>
Organization: Internet Texoma
To: declan () well com
Subject: The problem with facecams in airports?



> From: "Wendy Leibowitz" <wendytech () earthlink net>
>
> The technology doesn't work, but isn't it less intrusive than a body search,
> or almost any other search to which we submit at borders and airports?

It is more intrusive in that it can be part of a system used to track citizens
throughout society.   It will not be  used "instead of," but "in addition to"
other tools.  And, it will be used on everyone, rather than randomly. It is
another step down the slippery slope we call "1984."

> There is a long line of cases about how intrusive border/airport 
searches must
> be,
> and the general consensus of the courts is: very. Remember we're also
> looking for drugs, so the guards can strip-search you and even hold you for
> hours or days (I believe) if they think you've swallowed drugs (you've got
> to go to the bathroom eventually).

That may answer the legal question of whether such surveilance will pass 
minimal
constitutional muster, but it does not answer the policy question of whether it
is the thing we want to do.

> All in all, I don't understand the problem with face-cams at borders or
> airports. It affects only those whose pictures already appear in a database,
> and so the issue should be--who's in the database, not whether or not we use
> this unobtrusive technology.

Radiation may appear "unintrusive," but it has profound effects.  As face
recognition becomes more effective and prevasive, it can be used to watch 
anyone
(including "dissidents,"  technologists and business operatives) of interest to
whoever happens to control the government.  We already have experience with FBI
abuse.  The current situation is pushing us to disregard those known dangers.
Don't we need serious safeguards against all the frightening potentials of 
these
various technologies before we release them from Pandora's box in the name of
security?

Perhaps the Office of Homeland Security should be a non-partisan independent
agency with a with a charter guaranteeing respect for privacy and political
freedom and a board appointed by the President, the congress and various
segments of society  [all political parties which had candidates for President
in the preceeding election and public interest groups such as the ACLU, EPIC,
CATO, Right to Life, Christian Coalition, Aryan Nation, and the Islamic
Political Front (or, whatever it is called)] which is charge with the 
protection
of our society from the possible abuses of a police state?

********

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 16:40:06 -0500
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
From: Philo <philo () radix net>
Subject: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in
  airports?
Cc: wendytech () earthlink net

> All in all, I don't understand the problem with face-cams at borders or
> airports. It affects only those whose pictures already appear in a database,
> and so the issue should be--who's in the database, not whether or not we use
> this unobtrusive technology.

"who's in the database"? Given past history, anybody who goes through an 
airport.

Philo

********

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 14:04:08 -0800
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
From: David Honig <honig () sprynet com>
Subject: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in
  airports?
Cc: wendytech () earthlink net

At 03:23 PM 11/4/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>The technology doesn't work, but isn't it less intrusive than a body search,
>or almost any other search to which we submit at borders and airports? There
>is a long line of cases about how intrusive border/airport searches must be,
>and the general consensus of the courts is: very. Remember we're also
>looking for drugs, so the guards can strip-search you and even hold you for
>hours or days (I believe) if they think you've swallowed drugs (you've got
>to go to the bathroom eventually).

You can't be searched like that or held on domestic flights.

Her use of the phrase "so the guards can strip-search you and even hold you"
                              ^^^^^^
is telling.

********

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 22:48:24 -0500
From: Nick Bretagna <onemug () gdn net>
To: wendytech () earthlink net
CC: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports?

The technology doesn't work, but isn't it less intrusive than a body search,
> or almost any other search to which we submit at borders and airports? There
> is a long line of cases about how intrusive border/airport searches must be,
> and the general consensus of the courts is: very. Remember we're also
> looking for drugs, so the guards can strip-search you and even hold you for
> hours or days (I believe) if they think you've swallowed drugs (you've got
> to go to the bathroom eventually).
> All in all, I don't understand the problem with face-cams at borders or
> airports. It affects only those whose pictures already appear in a database,
> and so the issue should be--who's in the database, not whether or not we use
> this unobtrusive technology.
1) It doesn't work now. This doesn't mean it won't, 5 or 10 years from now. 
We should consider our laws based upon the presumption that it does work, 
because, sooner or later, it likely will.

2) How can it be misused, in a manner that a simple search cannot? Are you 
a fool, or are you simply being disingenuous?

Let's see:
  a) There is no reason to presume that faces cannot be "profiled", 
stored, and thus retained for future quick searches for presence at a 
location. There is no reason to presume that such profiles cannot and will 
not be exchanged or placed into a central database. Regardless of any laws 
passed "at first", any such protection, once cameras are allowed, can be 
presumed as "ephemeral" in its limitations -- such limitations are 
inevitably eroded be a government eternally seeking to expand its power: 
The Rico Statutes were to be limited "to mafia kingpins" -- now they are 
used against mom and pop drug violations. The Federal Income Tax was passed 
to "soak the rich" -- last time I checked, most all of us are taxed by it. 
The classifications of acceptable "search and seizure" have inevitably 
widened year after year, with laws against seaborne piracy being used 
against -- horror of horrors -- men who solicit women!!
  b) There is no reason to presume it will only be used against 
"terrorists" only. Once cameras are there, its use will be extended to all 
crimes, no matter how ephemeral or trivial. Do we dare spit on the street? 
Litter? See "a" above.
  c) What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? This 
is a fairly clear and distinct one, I think, yet all the laws passed since 
911 fail to ack such a difference in any substantial way, if at all. King 
George III, no doubt, considered George Washington, Sam Adams, and friends 
to be "terrorists": dumping tea into the bay, sniping at "authorized agents 
of the crown", and blowing up armories. Such technologies, if working, can 
clearly be used against a resisting subject populace at least as much 
against terrorists, and probably far more. Suppose the Chinese had been 
knowingly able to chase down not just the ringleaders at Tianenmen Square, 
but all the others in the milling crowd? Would such a crowd dare form? I 
believe the phrase "chilling effect" comes to mind.
  d) Have you ever read, oh, what's the book -- oh, yeah: "1984" -- 
written by some ignorant clown named George Orwell. It seems a stretch, 
perhaps, but perhaps his horrific vision of a society with cameras 
everywhere might be considered, oh, somehow indicative of the horror of a 
society with, say, cameras everywhere??? The phrase "Duh!?" seems, oh, 
insufficient, somehow.
  e) Once more, there is no reason to presume that faces cannot be 
"profiled", stored, and thus retained for future quick searches for 
presence at a location, and even interlinking and tracing activities -- 
clearly of significant blackmail potential, esp. by government officials. 
The potential for misuse by a state on the way to becoming a police state 
seems incredibly obvious. See "d" above. Remember, Germany went from the 
relatively benign Weimar Republic to invading Poland in the course of only 
15 years. I think it's fairly safe to say that the Nazis would have truly 
loved to have cameras everywhere, to say nothing of "facial ID software". 
1984, indeed.


You know, I have to say that the presence of cameras in the tower of 
Independence Hall seems like one of the greatest ironies of our time.


To be honest, I agree we will have cameras pretty much everywhere, for 
reasons set out in David Brin's excellent article linked below. The key 
question is not really if they ought to be there -- they will be -- it's 
pretty much unavoidable. However -- the true question also isn't one about 
what will be kept in the database -- it all will. The true question is: who 
will have access?
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html 


********

From: "Jones, Greg" <greg.jones () qci net>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Wendy Leibowitz: What's the problem with facecams in airports
        ?
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:49:39 -0500

In reply to Wendy Leibowitz, who wrote "All in all, I don't understand the
problem with face-cams at borders or airports. It affects only those whose
pictures already appear in a database,
and so the issue should be--who's in the database, not whether or not we use
this unobtrusive technology."

The problem is that, first, it is an enormous waste of money in an industry
that is suffering poor economic performance already, and, second, it is a
distraction and a sop to the fearful rather than an effective means of
providing security.

The second of these that is the far greater problem.  Our law enforcement,
intelligence, and military communities have a superstitious faith that
technology can replace intelligent, well-trained human beings.  Americans
have watched government pour billions (perhaps trillions)of dollars down
techno-project black holes.  None of those dollars stopped the attacks of
9-11.

However, we will not see this Congress, or the FBI, or the CIA, or Ashcroft
step up and say, "We missed those clues and warnings.  We did not take steps
to stop the entry of these people into America.  We did not allow Americans
to protect themselves."

No, they are all saying, "We need the shiniest, most expensive, newest
technologies in order to make America safe.  We need new powers to
investigate without Judicial oversight.  We need to be permitted to do
whatever is necessary, regardless of Constitutional rights, in the interest
of protecting American safety and freedom."

Installation of facecams is just another security scam -- expensive and
easily defeated, providing no truly effective security.

********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------