←back to thread

You can't refuse to be scanned by ICE's facial recognition app, DHS document say

(www.404media.co)
574 points nh43215rgb | 8 comments | 01 Nov 25 08:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
hexbin010 ◴[01 Nov 25 13:30 UTC] No.45781498[source]▶
> “ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,”

This is "computer says no (not a citizen)". Which is horrifying

They've just created an app to justify what they were already doing right? And the argument will be "well it's a super complex app run by a very clever company so it can't be wrong"?

replies(13): >>45781606 #>>45781662 #>>45781821 #>>45782252 #>>45782541 #>>45782817 #>>45782848 #>>45782971 #>>45783123 #>>45783772 #>>45784468 #>>45784720 #>>45786967 #
rgsahTR ◴[01 Nov 25 13:53 UTC] No.45781662[source]▶
> They've just created an app to justify what they were already doing right?

This was also one of the more advanced theories about the people selection and targeting AI apps used in Gaza. I've only heard one journalist spell it out, because many journalists believe that AI works.

But the dissenter said that they know it does not work and just use it to blame the AI for mistakes.

replies(5): >>45782107 #>>45782130 #>>45782878 #>>45783028 #>>45783384 #
bko ◴[01 Nov 25 16:18 UTC] No.45782878[source]▶
It's better that the alternative which is humans. Unless you think enforcing laws or ever having the need to establish identity should never take place
replies(11): >>45782905 #>>45782914 #>>45782959 #>>45782980 #>>45783029 #>>45783156 #>>45783385 #>>45784431 #>>45787217 #>>45788483 #>>45792841 #
gessha ◴[01 Nov 25 16:35 UTC] No.45783029[source]▶
As a computer vision engineer, I wouldn’t trust any vision system for important decisions. We have plenty of established process for verification via personal documents such as ID, birth certificate, etc and there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
replies(2): >>45783373 #>>45785072 #
bko ◴[01 Nov 25 17:12 UTC] No.45783373[source]▶
So I hand you a piece of paper saying I'm so and so and you just take it on face value? Why do we even have photos on licenses and passports?

You can't be serious.

replies(5): >>45783474 #>>45783516 #>>45783667 #>>45784466 #>>45786816 #
1. DANmode ◴[02 Nov 25 00:26 UTC] No.45786816[source]▶
It’s ALL security theater of varying degrees until we’re using public/private keypairs as identities.
replies(1): >>45787233 #
2. Terr_ ◴[02 Nov 25 01:54 UTC] No.45787233[source]▶
We'll still need a layer for replacement and revocation though. It'd be nice if nobody ever had their private key lost/destroyed/stolen but it's going to happen.
replies(1): >>45787265 #
3. DANmode ◴[02 Nov 25 02:01 UTC] No.45787265[source]▶
DNA+iris, and or whatever the next thing is.

Also: social recovery via trusted relatives.

Downvoted should know I’m not referring to SSO, or social media network auth.

replies(2): >>45787773 #>>45791668 #
4. DANmode ◴[02 Nov 25 04:03 UTC] No.45787773{3}[source]▶
//

> allows users to regain access to their funds without a traditional seed phrase by leveraging trusted contacts (guardians) and a predefined recovery protocol. If a user loses access, they coordinate with a quorum of these guardians, who each provide a piece of the necessary information to restore

replies(1): >>45788008 #
5. justinclift ◴[02 Nov 25 05:24 UTC] No.45788008{4}[source]▶
> they coordinate with a quorum of these guardians

Hmmm, that sounds like it would fail outright in some severe edge cases.

For example mass casualty events (fire, earthquake, war, etc) that only leaves a few survivors.

replies(1): >>45788897 #
6. DANmode ◴[02 Nov 25 09:06 UTC] No.45788897{5}[source]▶
Definitely.

Those events require special government attention and cost anyway.

Getting Grandma's taxes paid? Not so much. Or: shouldn't!

(The idea is to remove as much user and support burden as possible, not solve societies woes, haha)

7. elondaits ◴[02 Nov 25 16:55 UTC] No.45791668{3}[source]▶
It’s possible to lose one’s irises. Most identical twins have almost identical DNA. Then there’s the “right to be forgotten”, people on witness protection, refugees and immigrants who enter the system as adults, etc. I don’t think there’s an easy technical solution.
replies(1): >>45792006 #
8. DANmode ◴[02 Nov 25 17:42 UTC] No.45792006{4}[source]▶
Blind twins* will need to carry an alternative. /s

Of course the technical solution isn’t easy, (or necessarily all good),

but that doesn’t make it any less likely, or intriguing to discuss the roadmap.

(You combine the scanned data together from both of those scans, regardless of value, as your recovery mechanism, by the way - accounting for abnormal anatomy in a defined, reproducible way is a challenge, not a barrier)