trump Administration Trying to Expand Collection of Biometric Data to Include DNA

[Mezyan 153]

 The new measures would include DNA, eye scans, voice recordings and photographs. Just a proposal at this point, but seems very invasive and unnecessary.

 

Treisman, R. (2020, September 02). Trump Administration Seeking To Expand Collection Of Biometric Data From Immigrants. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908599539/trump-administration-seeking-to-expand-collection-of-biometric-data-from-immigra

[ThomasNC1988 762]

9 minutes ago, Mezyan said:

 The new measures would include DNA, eye scans, voice recordings and photographs. Just a proposal at this point, but seems very invasive and unnecessary.

 

Treisman, R. (2020, September 02). Trump Administration Seeking To Expand Collection Of Biometric Data From Immigrants. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908599539/trump-administration-seeking-to-expand-collection-of-biometric-data-from-immigra

I don't know. For many years fingerprints were the best way to identify someone so that is what we did. Now DNA is just as effective at identifying someone. I am not sure how they would ever use that to identify someone quickly though. Do they intend to verify the data against databases or something of that sort? If so that seems perfectly logical. Seems prohibitively expensive, but with this administration that might be the point. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

15 minutes ago, Mezyan said:

 The new measures would include DNA, eye scans, voice recordings and photographs. Just a proposal at this point, but seems very invasive and unnecessary.

 

Treisman, R. (2020, September 02). Trump Administration Seeking To Expand Collection Of Biometric Data From Immigrants. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908599539/trump-administration-seeking-to-expand-collection-of-biometric-data-from-immigra

You think photographs are invasive? That is part of the biometric process. 

The other stuff is a bit invasive

[Mezyan 153]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You think photographs are invasive? That is part of the biometric process. 

The new expansion is photographs for facial recognition. Not the same as they currently take now. So, yeah I'd call that invasive.

[millefleur 5,052]

19 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

Now DNA is just as effective at identifying someone.

DNA is more effective than fingerprints.

 

19 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

Do they intend to verify the data against databases or something of that sort?

Pretty sure it would be stored in a database.

 

Oh, so they wanted to do this because "Voice, iris and facial recognition technologies, DHS explained, are quick ways to verify someone's identity without using physical contact" but.....there's still a margin of error and it could still be faked. There is no foolproof system.

 

DNA would be because: "The proposed policy would also authorize the the collection of DNA to verify certain familial relationships. The department said confirming the genetic relationship between adults and minors in DHS custody is in the interest of protecting childrens' well-being."

[JeanneAdil 7,076]

55 minutes ago, Mezyan said:

The new expansion is photographs for facial recognition. Not the same as they currently take now. So, yeah I'd call that invasive.

anyone that used yahoo chat with video back in 2009 and the years surrounding it found out that an English company was copying and storing our photos

 

banks are starting to use a thumbprint for ID at their service centers

 

DNA? going to be interesting to see who will collect and pay and store this info when they would not approve of the money USCIS asked for

this process is not cheap

 

but this administration will do what it can to discourage immigration (legal as they can't stop illegal)

[millefleur 5,052]

12 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

DNA? going to be interesting to see who will collect and pay and store this info when they would not approve of the money USCIS asked for

this process is not cheap

Exactly. Also, how can it be verified that the person's DNA is in fact, that person's? How would you verify their ID in the first place to ensure it is theirs? I guess they'd just use their passport or other physical ID, none of which is 100% foolproof. Even if they put every measure possible in place, some smart trickster can figure out how to game it.

 

15 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

banks are starting to use a thumbprint for ID at their service centers

So much banking is online now that I find I rarely ever set foot in a physical bank these days. When I do go to the local bank there, the security is very lax. From my experience, most things are still done with the old driver's license (verify that it's you comparing the photo) amazingly.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Mezyan said:

The new expansion is photographs for facial recognition. Not the same as they currently take now. So, yeah I'd call that invasive.

They have already been doing that for quite some time now at many POEs around the country. They have actually caught people using fraudulent visas/passports. 

https://www.fedscoop.com/cbp-facial-recognition-success/

[Mezyan 153]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

They have already been doing that for quite some time now at many POEs around the country. They have actually caught people using fraudulent visas/passports. 

https://www.fedscoop.com/cbp-facial-recognition-success/

Very interesting

[JeanneAdil 7,076]

21 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Exactly. Also, how can it be verified that the person's DNA is in fact, that person's? How would you verify their ID in the first place to ensure it is theirs? I guess they'd just use their passport or other physical ID, none of which is 100% foolproof. Even if they put every measure possible in place, some smart trickster can figure out how to game it.

 

So much banking is online now that I find I rarely ever set foot in a physical bank these days. When I do go to the local bank there, the security is very lax. From my experience, most things are still done with the old driver's license (verify that it's you comparing the photo) amazingly.

if a rule (law) is made,  there is a way for the criminal to break it 

in the case of immigration, it doesn't seem like any of these rules or EO's does much to help the process and only the honest ones get discouraged

dishonest ones will work and work to fool any system

If DNA is only good to hunt and process a criminal ,  how does it protect the US from anything?

 

my bank now has a thumbprint ID to get into my online banking / i like this safety measure since someone had a machine on a gas pump and stole my debit card info a month ago / thank God for fraud units and my bank saved me from real head aches

 

If all this is put into place i wonder if anyone with past visas is going to have to appear for this  

In 2019 8,742,068 visas were issued according to the visa stat site

 

I think one of the things they go wrong with (especially now with the covid) is that they don't require a medical exam for tourist visa 

but then i am not sitting in the oval office with blinders on

 

 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,588]

13 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

They have already been doing that for quite some time now at many POEs around the country. They have actually caught people using fraudulent visas/passports. 

https://www.fedscoop.com/cbp-facial-recognition-success/

Yup - this has a very valid security use regardless of administration.

Edited September 3, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[JeanneAdil 7,076]

4 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Yup - this has a very valid security use regardless of administration.

DNA would be too if they can afford it

i would like to see all babies done DNA at birth too

and other security measures to protect the innocent 

 

[millefleur 5,052]

2 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

DNA would be too if they can afford it

You mean if we can afford it.....since it's taxpayers/filers who pay for all this.

Edited September 3, 2020 by millefleur

[Orangesapples 1,954]

4 hours ago, millefleur said:

DNA is more effective than fingerprints.

 

Pretty sure it would be stored in a database.

 

Oh, so they wanted to do this because "Voice, iris and facial recognition technologies, DHS explained, are quick ways to verify someone's identity without using physical contact" but.....there's still a margin of error and it could still be faked. There is no foolproof system.

 

DNA would be because: "The proposed policy would also authorize the the collection of DNA to verify certain familial relationships. The department said confirming the genetic relationship between adults and minors in DHS custody is in the interest of protecting childrens' well-being."

Yeah, there is always justification for tyranny. 

 

I hope this doesn't pass. A DNA is way more invasive than fingerprints and it can be used to discriminate against people (for example for with certain genetic diseases. 

[igoyougoduke 1,679]

3 hours ago, millefleur said:

You mean if we can afford it.....since it's taxpayers/filers who pay for all this.

who cares ... the federal reserve is printing trillions to bail out wallstreet billionaires.