DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out of Face Scans by Not Traveling | Hacker News Reader

DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out of Face Scans by Not Traveling

techdirt.com

118 pointsclumsysmurf51 comments

American bioethicist Jacob M. Appel has argued that "treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary," is inherently unethical. According to Appel, such "birthrights" are only defensible if they serve "useful and meaningful social purposes" (such as inheritance rights, which encourage mothers and fathers to work and save for their children), but the "birthright of nationality" does not do so. Economist and writer Philippe Legrain argues that the countries of the world need migration to help global trade and reduce the occurrence of regional wars.

Open borders cannot be dismissed as a utopian idea, argues Harald Bauder, because they do not propose an alternative way to organize human society but rather are a critique of closed or controlled borders.

Restrictions on mobility can only be justified if it can be shown that those restrictions prevent significant harm. Since research indicates that open borders will be better for both the natives and the migrants, and at the very least have not been shown to cause major harm, those restrictions are unjustified.

Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty. Migrants from developing countries can earn higher wages after moving to a more developed country, usually lifting them from 'developing world poverty' to 'developed world poverty'. They also send remittances to relatives in their home country, the flow of remittances being estimated to be around three times the global foreign aid spending reported by the OECD.

A literature summary by economist Michael Clemens leads to an estimate that open borders would result in an increase of 67-147% in GWP (gross world product), with a median estimate of a doubling of world GDP.

From a human rights perspective, free migration may be seen to complement Article 13 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

What would prevent a tragedy of the commons-like effect where en-masse people migrate from one place to a new one, deplete it, move to new pasture, deplete, move to new pasture, asf?

When you sleep in the same place you shit you take care of it better, or suffer the consequences of squalor. Regulation against pollution, water quality, land use, acceptable norms, etc.

With open systems, no longer the state but but corporate entities would weild power. I'm not sure that is a well thought out argument. Nevermind that this would lead to a coalescing toward culture of China and the West dominating everywhere. Not generally what progressives seek as an endgame.

Moreover, the trend is to split further. See Pakistan, India Bangladesh. They used to be one country but split. Costa Rica, panama, Mexico used to be one place, but split up, former USSR split up. They want to self agglomerate, go ahead. Do it, you share culture, values, language, but instead they split up.

The proposal would result in a different kind if colonialism not too dissimilar from the Dutch east India co where corporate entities wielded enormous power but this would be worldwide.

In the modern world migrants tend to enhance, not deplete, an area.

Your model works best for agricultural societies with no land ownership. I'm not sure how many historical examples we have of that.

In general, in the modern world, population density tends to increase economic activity and have a growth effect on GDP.

In the modern world borders also prevent competition for citizens by different social and political structures. Most tyrants and despots might be completely defanged by the loss of their populace to more just and humane regions.

It is possible open borders could create a "market system" for the greatest resource in the world: human capital. Which I guess could theoretically render war obsolete.

"In the modern world migrants tend to enhance, not deplete, an area."

You realize that's the result of controlled migration, not uncontrolled migration.

But your proposal sounds like a paradox. On the one hand you have no borders but on the other hand someone is enforcing "state actor" laws. Without borders corporations become the de facto government.

Why pay Japanese auto workers 1800 yen an hour when I can just put a factory in the middle of the Indian countryside and pay 120 rupees? But instead of just autos, do that for everything!

"What would prevent a tragedy of the commons-like effect where en-masse people migrate from one place to a new one, deplete it, move to new pasture, deplete, move to new pasture, asf?"

Nothing. In fact, that happens with freedom of capital movement all the time.

I like your comment, and thank you for citing specific authorities. However, I don't see how open borders are compatible with the prosperity enjoyed by America and much of Europe. As an ethical matter I'm inclined to agree; but as a practical matter, it would appear to me that there are only two ways to create wealth: inequality within one nation, wherein a comparative few enjoy significant advantages over many, or inequality within nations, wherein a comparative few nations enjoy significant advantages over others ("wealth" is defined here as quality of life, like highly available healthcare and other resources, not just significant capital).

I don't feel educated enough on this matter to have a qualified opinion, so this is just me responding for the sake of discussion and in the interest of learning more. I'd like to hear counterpoints to what I just said. Intuitively I feel that any discussion of the ethics of open borders must (as a practical matter) include the socioeconomic ramifications (more generally, I think any discussion of ethics should include practical implications). To put it succinctly, it is not obvious to me that the quality of life enjoyed by e.g. Americans or Western Europeans can be evenly distributed.

What specifically makes you believe that wealth can only be attained through inequality? My gut suspicion of wealth in inequal systems is that it was transferred rather than created.

This appears construed. LIFO: The human rights do not include a right to _enter_ any country (except maybe one's own). You may also not leave a country if you are subject to lawful arrest.

Sending money home is a most human thing to do. Sending welfare money home may be seen as defrauding the common insurance policy of the host country. And what are the component parts of the suggested increase in GWP? Travel? Housing?

Also: What are the effects on the host country labour market?

The nation state serves as an organizational unit in promoting stability in and between nations. Its borders are an inherent limit to this concept.

At these borders, the nation state can enforce the necessary controls to compensate for different legislation on VAT, gun ownership rules, as well as to ensure foreign forces cannot simply perform a sneak attack by infiltration.

In short: Borders promote a structured mechanism for supporting peace in a world with plenty of incentives for people to kill, raid, rape and pillage.

Sometimes closed borders and protectionist policies can work. https://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/... looks at how closing borders prevents migrants from taking jobs at lower pay (This is NOT about the US).

""treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary...""

And why don't those people treat themselves well? If they are their own nation, cannot they have selfdetermination and decide how to carry out that selfdetermination?

Because power inequality can be enforced through violence, especially state violence, effectively enough to prevent a populace from changing their situation.

Would meddling in the affairs of other countries help with that at all? Should we export our governmental and economic systems and stabilize those places, or would that be considered colonization? And would that be a bad thing?

I mean, if we'd allow everyone from say, Bahamas (a nice country, actually) migrate to Belgium, because Belgium has a good economy, why would we not let Belgium go in and colonize the Bahamas, make it part of Belgium? I mean, in either case, the pop of Belgium + Bahamas are under Belgian govt.

> Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty.

Temporarily, yes, and it often comes with the burden of providing for the migrant for the rest of their life.

the most effective way to end poverty long-term is to create conditions in which populations of impoverished nations fix their own problems on their own soil "over there".

Exactly. The US basically had a huge forced immigration scheme a couple hundred years ago. Their descendants are still having a hard time in the US and it continues to be a huge issue for everyone involved, as recent protests show. Somehow, an even larger migration setup is going to work out smoothly?

Not to mention, if everyone could elect to move wherever they wanted: what % of the world's population would overwhelmingly choose West EU/US/Canada?

Even without the "burden of providing": Drive around Toronto and outlying areas and see, that even with Canada's still restrictive immigration policy, even across economic status, the idea that everything mixes into one cohesive society is laughably false.

Forced including slavery, racism and every legal maneuver possible to further suppress economic and social development. Not unlike what we do to illegal immigrants today.

Forced vs voluntary migration is quite an important distinction.

Argument is for removing barriers, not for forcing people to go somewhere.

Bringing people out of low-productivity environments is good for everyone, even though there may be some transition struggles (probably the number one concern for people who favor restricting immigration). It is also most likely the thing that will fix "over there" because it will force change in places losing talent, as well as educate a bunch of people, many of whom will likely want to go fix their low-productivity hometowns and countries.

Charter cities are another option, but the argument that "we need to fix over there so don't let people move" is just perpetuating the status quo more than anything.

I have seen national borders being called "world-wide caste system".

I'm not sure if it's exactly right, but I am sure that our notions of what nationality means will be challenged in the coming decades.

It's interesting that we have such reverence for statements of ethics like this when they are essentially opinions and they can vary depending upon the values of the people who hold them. There should be no pretense to objectivity in ethics.

What's the end-game of the war on terror? What victory condition do we need to achieve to get terrorists to stop attempting massacres, so we can unwind these security measures?

Oh, that's the beauty of it all.

There is no end. No end to the war, and thus no end to the profitability of the U.S.'s contracted armament/defense manufacturers. And no end to the citizens' willingness to trade away their essential freedoms for a feeling of safety.

I probably will never visit USA. I am only worried as this might set a precedent for others and contribute to the pro-surveillance governments round the globe. Can't Trump be tricked into disapproving this?

There is no endgame. Even if terrorism stops the security measures will be used for any kind of inconvenient people. I think this will get worse until some kind of revolution or big war will rewind the clock.

End game is escalation to more regional wars and more terrorism. Hard to see something else if response to terrorism is destruction of entire cities and driving former inhabitants further into poverty and ignorance.

My guess.

When the world no longer contains young men with nothing to lose and the feeling that they are victims of oppression.

The beauty of the War on Terror is that if we are ever at risk of running out of terrorists in the world, it'll make some new ones.

With Global Entry and Precheck (which required partial fingerprinting), I mostly avoid the hassles of the US security theater. However, I'm looking at greatly increasing international flights (mostly in and out of the USA), and this is a ridiculous invasion.

With the advent of Clear (the retina-based alternative to Precheck, seemingly a harbinger of this DHS decision), I wonder how long until most of the frequent travelers willing submit all of their biometrics for a smoother and simpler travel experience.

While I have GE (I would have a Clear if I flew more) my intelligence still feels insulted every time I travel. I pay a fee to the TSA every time I travel. I paid again to get the GE which is because the fee they charge me apparently doesn't cover an adequate number of screeners to ensure a quick trip through security. All this hassle and expense and I am pretty sure that they are unable to perform their job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/new-tsa-chief-vows-im...

This happened to us in mid May 2017 coming back from Germany to Philadelphia. Lock step herded in snake lined queue, camera kiosks posted as confused passengers deciphered touch screen directives to scan their passports and stand for a photo. Each machine had what appeared to be cat5 cable and power routed to the wall. After what appeared to be a cheap thermal printout of your mug shot, passengers were instructed to take it to a human agent for further processing. The most interesting aspect of this was the big sign of NO cameras or smartphones allowed despite it being quite easy to see passport information from adjacent stations. I assumed this was the new National ID effort to put an end to any enemies of the State. After all this, there was the CBP agricultural inspection and a security check all this from direct debarcation. Basically you are trapped and there is no way of escape from these processings. Welcome to the new State.

It's nice to see other government agencies doing their part for the environment as the US withdraw from the climate accords. In this case we have the DHS making a valiant effort to reduce international flights. /s

This would get resolved quickly if face recognition were democratized: Is the public official ordering you around a known asshole? What's his Yelp rating? Suddenly, privacy would become a thing.

Funny how things don't seem to work that way. What with police officers arresting people who film them. Somehow privacy has become a privege.

The worst part for me in that the DHS likely spent billions of dollars on this solution that is likely riddled with software and hardware bugs and will ultimately catch less then a dozen petty criminals in its lifespan. Meanwhile the raw data on innocent citizens will be harvested and at best analyzed and stored indefinitely by the NSA and similar agencies, at worst it will be sold to the highest bidder - and then shortly after to any bidder.

Here's what they didn't say...

DHS shares all data with other groups. If those groups don't erase them then, well... they at least can say they delete them.

Why do they want to store the image at all?

Compare against the stored values and discard the captured image. That should be enough.

> Why do they want to store the image at all?

If the scanners are upgraded to 3D (likely at some point), it'll make for a good source of model data for future fabrication efforts.

Along the lines of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14786863

Auditing, perhaps? If someone manages to enter on a stolen passport I'm sure they'd like to be able to go back and see what image was captured and why the system returned a false positive.

As a foreign observer, to me USA are shooting themselves in the foot.

What made USA great in the first place is now being relentlessly attacked by the USA itself. That's how it seems to me as a non-expert.

I suppose we can all opt out of the surveillance state by not staying alive?

Zoom, bang! Straight to the endgame!

But who would pay for DHS? The means have become the ends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com