The customs and Border Protection agencies use of facial Recognition Technology was the focus of a House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing. Topics include benefits as well as concerns about data security, misidentification and privacy rights. This is just over an hour. Subcommittee on Board Security facilitation and operations will come to order. Thank you for joining todays hearing to assess u. S. Customs and borderng protection use of facial Recognition Technology. Cbp tested several types of Biometric Technologies including handheld fingerprint scanning devices and iris scanning, before deciding to pursue facial Recognition Technology as its biometricbe capability. Facial Recognition Technology uses a computer algorithm to f compare a picture taken in person at the airport or other border checkpoints to the travelers passport picture or visa. This technology can not only be a powerful tool for Homeland Security but can also help facilitate travel. However, the use of facial Recognition Technology raisesel questions about data privacy and how passengers information is used and stored. It also raises questions about the adequacy of the oversight mechanisms in place. For example, although cbp policy does not allow airlines and partners to store passengers photos, the agency does not have a robust system for conducting audits. These audits are vital to Building Public trust. Proper oversight ensures that biometric data gathered in airports is not monetized by private industry or kept in industry databases. Potential bias in identification is also a significant concern, particularly when a technology affects various races, age groups, and genders differently. In 2019 a National Institute of standards and Technology Report found that asian and African American faces were 10 to 100nt times more likely to be misidentified than white faces. The report also found that children and elderly people were more likely to be misidentified than middleaged people, and women were more likely to be misidentified than men. Nist also found that the bestperforming algorithms had undetectable differences in performance across demographic groups. Though this sounds promising, the report tested algorithms, not the system as a whole. These systems include the environment where the technology is deployed and the cameras that capture facial images. Lighting and image quality can have a Significant Impact on the success of the technology. E weve also heard concerns about potential Mission Creep in the departments use of biometric data. Current authorized uses are set by policy and guidance, which are more open to change than laws, rules, and regulations. Understanding cbps use of facial Recognition Technology and the issues and concerns surrounding its use is crucial to our responsibility to conduct oversight. Two weeks ago members of the subcommittee were briefed by government officials from customs and Border Protection, the department of Homeland Securitys office of civil rights and Civil Liberties, and the National Institute of standards and technology on cbps use of facial Recognition Technology and the safeguards in place to protect privacy. The briefing served as an opportunity for members to learn more about the technology and how it is being deployed. It was also an opportunity for members to ask questions and raise concerns regarding privacy and bias. During the briefing, we learnedr that simplified arrival has been rolled out with facial Recognition Technology in all u. S. International airports. This is the system travelers use when entering the United States. We also learned that biometric exit systems using facial recognition are active in only 26 airports. Cbp continues to expand the use of facial Recognition Technology across airports, as well as at sea and land ports of entry. Today, we will have the opportunity to continue our conversation on cbps use of facial Recognition Technology with experts from the u. S. Government accountability office, the electronic privacy information center, the brookings institution, andch pangiam. Our witnesses will discuss cbps deployment of facial Recognition Technology as well as the implications related to accuracy, bias, and privacy in verifying traveler identities. Es i look for to frank conversation on use of cbps facial Recognition Technology and now Congress Candidate meaningful oversight. With that the chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the subcommittee mr. Higgins of louisiana for an opening statement. Thank you, madam chair for holding todays hearing. I also thank our witnesses for appearing before us today, and i thank my colleagues for attending in person or virtually. This is a topic that republicans and democrats are not that far apart on. The final yards of the struggle seem to be challenging, but facial Recognition Technology is certainly an emerging asset in this digital realm and wherein they can be properly deployed ande effectively deployed to hep our nation protect its sovereignty, protect our travelers in their journeys. Were moving effectively forward through congressional oversight on this committee to determine exactly in what manner Shall Congress embrace this technology. Or conclusion with an effective asset that we should embrace maybe from the Security Industry association regarding the effectiveness of facial Recognition Technology, a letter to the committee from airlines of america essentially stating the same and a report from the National Institute of standards and technology to the u. S. Department of commerce regarding biometric search systems and their efficiency, id like to submit for the record. Without objection. Thank you, madam chair. Over the last several years, Biometric Technology has improved significantly. We all recognize this, that the technological advance of facial recognition tech should not be a surprise. Most of us here do not have the same iphone in our pocket that we had two, three years ago, much less 10 years ago. So, some of the challenges and algorithm issues and recognition concerns that originally became part of the narrative of facial Recognition Technology were completely reasonable assessments of the technology at the time. But that the industry has advanced to tech and its effective tool. Our border our border agents, who are not with us today, but they should be, have asked for this technology to help them not just with recognition, but with streamlining the entry process at our ports of entry, its not uncommon to have foot traffic that comes across from mexico. These are mexican citizens that earn their living by essentially shopping for their neighbors and their community. They walk across and ive been there and visited with them and the bottom line is that as the cartels have strengthened their criminal efforts of trafficking at the border, the United States has been forced to respond with more stringent vetting at our ports of entry, including the foot traffic that comes across. So, these are just, you know, squared away, law abiding mexican citizens that earn a low living, shopping for their neighbors and their friends. They walk across and they bought some stuff and they go back. Because of the vetting is required to be more stringent. Due to the cartels criminal operations, the lines take longer. So they can only make maybe a line for four hours now whereas, years ago, only in line for maybe 45 minutes. So, they can only make maybe one or two trips a day instead of three or four. So this is this has had an Economic Impact on our fellow children of god and our neighbors across the border, and facial Recognition Technology could absolutely be deployed at those ports of entry, the foot traffic coming through and it will roll right through and they were not recognized and theyd be pulled from the line or they had the random check to go through the human verification thats currently a requirement. So the deployment of this technology is something that we should carryfully consider and control. We should also embrace and recognize that it has advanced tremendously since its introduction and our awareness of it over the course of the last decade. Madam chair, i thank you for holding this hearing and i look forward to questioning the panelists today. Thank you, mr. Ranking member. I now would like to welcome the panel of witnesses. Rebecca gambler from the Homeland Security offices and leads gaos work on a myriad of topics, including the Border Security efforts and the Technology Deployments along the southern border. Jeramie scott, Senior Council at the privacy center. Mr. Scotts focusing on technology such as facial Recognition Technology and privacy issues. Hes with us remotely. Nicol turner lee is the director for center of technology at brookings institution. Dr. Turner lee is the an expert on the intersection of race and wealth, and criminal justice and economic development. Shes also with us remotely. Daniel is at pandium where he helped advance biometric exit and entry systems. Without objections the witnesss full statements will be entered into the record and ill ask the witnesses to summarize his or her statements for five minutes beginning with ms. Rebecca gambler. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and discuss gaos work on facial Recognition Technology at ports of entry as part of this biometric program. Beginning in 1996, a series of federal laws has required to implement it biometric system to match arrival and departure records of foreign nationals and a bioentry system and weve identified longstanding chance to ccp deploying a biometric capability. Over the years cbp has tested versus Biometric Technologies to determine which could be on a large scale without disrupting travel and trade. Based on the results of testing, cbp concluded that facial Recognition Technology was the most travel friendly option. Paired with airlines and parents to apply at one gate for 32 travelers at one gate and all entering the country and technology at sea borts for travelers entering the u. S. They have applied facial recognition at all 159 land ports for pedestrians entering the u. S. And is in the early stages of Pilot Testing the technology for other areas of the biometrics. And gao has numerous reports on deploying a biometric system. Ill release the report from 2020 which focused on the use of facial Recognition Technology and highlight two key findings from the report. First, c bps biometric Entry Program has incorporated some privacy principles by, for example, prohibiting partners, like air carriers from storing photos and Public Notices on privacy protection. However, c bps notices have not always been current, complete, or available and have provided limited information on how to ask to opt out of facial recognition. Association, tilt of our review, c bps public website on the program did not accurately reflect the locations where cbp used or tested facial Recognition Technology. Therefore, travelers who check the website, would not see a complete list of locations where they may encounter the technology. In another example. During one of our airport visits, an airline was using facial Recognition Technology at a gate, but there were no privacy signs posted. Further, while cbp allows eligible travelers to request to opt out of facial recognition Identity Verification, the noticed we provided preserved limited processes for opting out. And we looked at ensuring complete and current information and that the privacy signage is available at all locations. At cbp implemented the first recommendation by creating a new website that outlines the locations where cbp uses facial recognition. For the second recommendation, cbp has revealed the signs and is in the process of updating them and they need to complete the efforts. Second, cbp requires the commercial partners and contractors and vendors to follow c bps Data Collection and privacy requirements, such as restrictions on retaining or using traveler photos for their own use. Cbp can conduct audits to assess their compliance, however, at the time of our review, cbp had awe at this timed only one of the Airline Partners and did not have a plan to ensure all partners, contractors and vendors are audited for compliance. We recommended that cbp develop and implement a plan to conduct products of its partners, contractors and vendors. Since our report, cbp completed additional audits, and others planned or underway, this is positive, but cbp needs to complete the assessments and audit partners in the environment as well as vendors and contractors who have information to personally identifiable information. In closing cbp has made progress in destroying facial recognition for traveler identification verification and addressing some privacy considerations, but additional action is needed to fully implement our remaining recommendations and will continue to monitor c bps efforts to address those recommendations. This concludes my prepared statement and im happy to answer any questions subcommittee members may have. Thank you for your testimony. Ill now recognize mr. Jeramie scott to summarize his statement for five minutes. Again, chairman, Ranking Member higgins and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on facial Recognition Technology. Epic is an independent Nonprofit Research organization in washington d. C. Established in 1994 to protect privacy, expression, and values in information age. Facial recognition is a dangerous Surveillance Technology whose risks increase as the government expands implementation for any form, including for Identity Verification. The Technology Poses serious threats to our privacy, our lifl liberties, our constitutional rights. There are accuracy and bias Impact Likely to impact marginalized groups and even a perfectly accurate unbiased facial recognition system poses a fundamental risk when widely deployed. And cbp has instituted one of the most widely recognized with the program. And facial recognition to entering travelers, including u. S. Citizens despite Congress Never granting cbp to conduct facial verification on u. S. Citizens. Nonetheless, cbp has forged ahead, obtaining passport photos from the state department to use facial recognition at ports of entry. Although citizens can opt out of facial recognition, it hasnt been easy to do in the past. The Government Accountability and the dhs data and both failing to supply adequate notice for information about the opt out procedure. And even if youre able to opt out of facial recognition, theres no way for that persons photo who was obtained, for the photo galleries for the Biometric Entry Exit Program. There were 184,000 images of travelers from the Biometric Entry Exit Program that were exposed. The subcontractor was not supposed to have. The cbp priorities failed to prevent the contractor from obtaining those images. Theyre not properly administering the Biometric Entry Exit Program and theyre beginning to expand the program. History tells us if the Program Continues its expansion unchecked. It will not just expand in the number of ports the program is implemented at, but the number of situations that the cbp facial recognition is used for. Theyve described the airport process where within from every stop, dropping off baggage, moving through tsa check points and planes is mediated by facial recognition scans. Ongoing recognition system creates a powerful and dangerous tool of advantage for the federal government. And has access to millions of visa and passports photos in addition to the millions of photos from the department of security holds in its biometric data base. The recognition system is a crowd based system that could be additional photos. The unfettered use of facial recognition puts us on a path towards a ubiquitous universal i. D. Controlled by the government. Unless reclations are put in place to limit the bo metric facial Identification Technology it will be used well beyond its purpose. And the state would be to end its use of facial technology, this will reduce the facial technology and infrastructure used for more pervasive ubiquitous identification system. At minimum, congress should put in place the fallen requirements to receive cbp as the facial Recognition Technology. The onetoone facial recognition system that does not require a data base or connection to the clouds. The prohibition on the Services Provided by third parties like clear view. And those that use the facial recognition system for investigative leads and refire that they only use its facial recognition system for Identity Verification as part of the entry, exit program and it requirement for annual audits versus the recognition system conducted by independent third parties. If they remain on operations, the safeguards are critical. For civil rights and the sensitive biometric data. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Id be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. I now would recognize. Doctor Nicol Turner Lee to summarize her statement for five minutes. Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member higgins and distinguished members of the house subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify on the use of facial recognition by u. S. Customs and Border Patrol and my concerns over diversity and how the technology is applied in context. The Brookings Institute with 100 years and looking at it does not come without challenges largely because widespread microsurveillance in jep general as disproportionately on a general case, in 2021, a black michigan man accused the Detroit Police of arrested him of shoplifting, and he was found innocent whose face was clearly obstructed by personal effects. And application to facial recognition, the New York Times identified three instances which technology has led to wrongful arrest of other black men which has been a likely owe occurrence, and theyve pointed out theres not the type of technical scrutiny needed to actually engaged in diversity, equity and inclusion in these technologies, with that, despite the tradeoff that the agency has with regard to the efficiencies and effectiveness of travelers, its important its not presumptuous in regards whether or not theres equity, diversity inclusion, as well as the sociological technologies. With that ill leave my testimony with recommendations to put before this committee as we consider appropriate use. First ethe agency must ensure transparency among travelers and other consumers subjected to face detection, and recognition. As of now, while the nonfacial recognition, identification information is properly stored and curated by the department of Homeland Security. For national, not so much. We need the same treatment of person with identification with legal access and ability to amend those identification records, particularly biometric data and ensure that cbp inform all travelers of their rights when theyre subjected to this technology. Second, it is important to constantly with equity and inclusion. And in the case of the gentleman, suggests when the technology is implied with cases where it actually makes important eligibility determinations, it has to be right and government has departed with private Sector Companies that implement facial Recognition Technology. And with the experiences of the citizens that he gave the product. Meaning, we need more diversity in government as well as in private sector, to ensure that the efficacy of technical ability to move across contests that require and design, development and deployment are representative of other populations. And we also need to be aware that discrimination strategies, or the strategies of the Biden Administration be present when they are sold and procured by agencies like customs and Border Patrol. Third, we need to ensure and encourage widespread training for cbp professionals. By human agents, found that those agents didnt have adequate training or what it will do if it doesnt work on a passenger. And what happens when thats found. The ab the travelers with the use of facial recognition should be trained in understanding and biases and have an alternate strategy for processing. Fourth of my final recommendation is that cbp should impose additional guardrails with civil and human rights risks violated. In germany, i was able to get around a long line to make my connection, but as a result. I have no idea where my identity is scored and any biases that may have been apparent to the actual agent. Members of congress, avoid front page headlines and a constant interrogation of facial recognition, independent auditing and think about those youth cases where they can be violated. Convenience should not be a tradeoff for those important critical aspects of our citizenry as travelers. Thank you, and i look forward to your question for the remainder of this hearing. Thank you for your testimony. I now would like to recognize mr. Daniel tranciar for his statement. Thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss d bps use of recognition, im daniel trancier, im officer at pangiam. From 2016 until my departure in march of 2020 i was the deputy executive director for the office responsible for biometric information exit and transformation. Im here to share my views and experience how it strengthens and improves the arrival experience and increases Operational Efficiency in a manner thats consistent with privacy, Civil Liberties and Data Protection prence. Civil liberty and privilegesy protections were built into the program at the forefront. The program included provisions that it uses data already used for international travel. Limited Data Retention periods for u. S. Citizens and postings of notices and signings and photos are only taken with the travelers knowledge in full view where they must show their travel documents today. This is not surveillance. Cbp put forth governance how airports, airlines, vendors, and other actors could interact, and ability to safeguard data and post notice travelers about biometric processing. Cbp technology does not determine identity. The officers make the final determination of identity. This technology is one tool in a variety of others that officers use if their mission. If the travelers chooses to opt out, then traditional means occur. Its swiping the passport and or scanning the card. Theres the dhs science and maryland Test Facility and the National Institutes of standards and technology to help them test, validate and ensure optimal performance. They chose a high performing algorithm as by the vendor tests and evaluation and high performing algorithms like the one used by cbp are incredibly market. In the ongoing work of others, are key drivers of the significant Rapid Improvement of the commercial algorithms today. Third, compared to human beings, algorithms can be more accurate. There are studies that show and suggest that Border Patrol officers, police, banking employees who check i. D. s, can experience error rates, as high as 30 to 40 in the challenging conditions in which they perform the tasks. And c bps use of this technology strengthens security, introducing the i am posture threat, using documents that dont belong to them. Theyve identified over 950 of those i am postures and able to by metrically confirm over 100,000 over their period of admission here in the u. S. The facilitation benefits are also important as this program for biometric exit was implemented in partnership with airlines and airports with the goal that didnt just add another layer, but fit into the Current Operations and improved the travel process. One airlines biometric pilot showed that it could save up to nine minutes of boarder for flight and another a doubledecker aircraft in about 20 minutes. The entry system called amplified arrival begins with a simple photograph rather than digging out your passport, the officer swiping the passport and recollecting the same four fingerprints from returning visitors of the United States and the benefits of the cbp officers, refused wait times and a touch free arrival process. In conclusion, over 100 million travelers have been processed by this use of technology. While there are always improvements that can be made, implemented a well performing program that mets the biometric mandate while providing privacy, Civil Liberties foundation that it are the started from the beginning. Its continued through congress and continued engagement with advocates that will drive improvement and transparency how the program is working and performing. I look forward to answering questions. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to all our witnesses for the testimony. Ill remind the subcommittee that well have each five minutes to question the panel. I will recognize myself for five minutes and were alternate. I have myself been through an airport and have gone and used the program where they take the photo of you and it does speed up the process no doubt about that. I think i would have hesitation if i was one of those people who was misidentified or held or arrested and understand the concerns that are raised which is why we want to make sure we address those issues. Miss gambler, im going to start with you. Gao had develop a program for complains. And cbp are conduct the tests it seems like a small sample. What is your response to only seven locations . Thank you for at that question, chairwoman. We think its positive that cbp has taken steps to implement the audits, but they have a ways to go and to fully implement our recommendations our partners not only in the air environment, but land and sea environment and they need to make sure theyre conducting audits on their contractors and vendors as well. Theyre taking positive steps, but they need to implement more. Do you think that seven is an appropriate number or too small . We havent had a chance to really understand sort of what is going into these audits and how long they may be taken, but its important that cbp continue down this path and make sure theyre auditing all of their partners and vendors and contractors. And should cvb auditing airports and airlines and partners in their use of biometric equipment . They should be looking at both their privacy requirements, as well as their security requirements. And their implementation of those requirements. Lastly, what actions must cbp take before gao for the audit recommendation. They need to complete the audits they have under the air vierpt and they need to go further and audit the partners that theyre utilizing in the land and sea environment, as well as contractors and vendors who are use willing personally identifiable information. Thank you. Dr. Turner lee, a report that race and gender bias is statistically undetectible in the most accurate log rim rhythms. This does in the account for environmental factors. Can you explain how this would be for those who are not able to be identified by biotechnology. I want to make sure you can hear me the volume is lower. I can hear you. In the journal, if the appropriate lighting is not confirmed or used on darker faces, or effects like glasses or black women like myself, who change their hair, there are accuracies that allow for greater miss identification of a kid. Its important that we abing knowledge those tech nols generally when it comes to technology. I think it was suggested here that there are greater levels of you know, greater positives as opposed to false matches. Let me remind folks, a facial Recognition Software misidentified members of the black caucus as mug shots. Simply because the complexion and effects and lighting and et cetera, thats the criteria i still think we need to apply if were going to study this in a manner. Mr. Scott, how would you describe the oversights effort to maintain data privacy of travelers and what recommendations would you give to cbp in order to protect to help travelers feel that their data is protected . , well, i think the data breach i mentioned earlier is evidence that the Privacy Security protocols are lacking. You know, cbp does use oneonone facial recognition, which doesnt require a data base. They have tested that. Thats where, you know, you would take your government issues and documents like a passport and they would be scanned and compared to a realtime photo of yourself, no data base needed. No connection to the crowd and after that, the misidentification, after that is confirmed, then that information is erased and the biometric data is not kept and its a much safer way to implement the use of facial recognition. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Scott. And my time is expired and so now i will now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Higgins for questions. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. Tanciar, one of the witnesses mentioned hed spoke of a data breach, 184,000 images of travelers were stolen essentially from cbp. Are you familiar with that case . Yes, sir. Okay. Lets dig into that had a little bit because obviously, that was a criminal action and outside the parameters of any kind of contractual agreement. All americans are familiar with data theft and that sort of behavior is something that weve all learned to be quite cognizant of and we take some extreme measures to protect our data. So lets talk about the data base itself. And you can help clarify that for the committee. Explain to america how images are collected and whether or not that collection is voluntary. The data base which is used for comparisons for as travelers come through the system and are a part of this facial Recognition Technology, assessment of who they are. Exactly where does the data base come from . Certainly, mr. Higgins. The system as a whole, and the area where the data breach occurred was a very oneoff pilot of equipment in texas where somebody actually had to insert a usb drive who had access, committed work tickets, all con trarp training and a criminal act . My view its a criminal act. Im sure it was investigated. But the data base for all facial Recognition Technology. Yes, sir. Explain how we collect those images, those photos and whether its voluntary. Everybody who travels internationally, a u. S. Citizen, a person visiting the u. S. , you have to have a passport and you submit a photograph to the u. S. State department or apply for a visa and you also submit that to the state department and that information is available to uscbp. When flights are coming or leaving the United States, theres manifest data transmitted by the airline that permits vbp to match that to the travel documentation on there. Youre using the same i just wanted to clarify are the citizenry that we serve. Were talking about a technology for facial recognition that compares the image of the travelers, with the already available and willingly provided photographic many imagine of that person thatter this stating that this is me. That its okay. So what happens if a traveller is falsely identified . Theyre in the line, theyre falsely identified or theres a failure to identify. What exactly happens to that person . Well, if youre departing the United States and no match is returned, the regular process ensues. So, the gate agent will verify your passport ask them to step out of line and show their passport . Normally that doesnt map where they step out of line. If theres a failed match, they look at the passport, scan the boarding card and off they go. Thats it . Thats it. Kung of any reason why there would be objections to the full deployment of this technology as it currently exists, recognizing the fact its come a long way in the last decade and certainly its advancing as we speak. I mean, they there is an image thats been presented to the citizens that we serve, that this is some sort of nefarious technology and theres big brother watching you, but, really, its used in photographic images that travelers willingly have provided and theyre available in their passport or visa drivers license, we already, we had that information, it just speeds up the travelers passage through a Security Check point and if, for some reason, their image is not not recognized for for flagged for false identity, theyre falling out of the line and going through the normal check of a human being, is that correct . Thats correct. Madam chair, im encouraged that were having this hearing, i think were forward towards some Common Ground here, which is far from uncommon in in body. So, thank you for holding the hearing and i thank our witnesses. All right, well, thank you, Ranking Member. The chair will now recognize other members for questions, they may wish to ask the witnesses as previously outlined ill recognize members in by seniority and then minority. Unmute yourself for questions. The gentle woman from new york, miss clark. I thank you, madam chair and i thank our Ranking Member and i thank the very Accomplished Panel this afternoon for sharing your expertise with us. Our congress director, consumers, excuse me. Im sorry, the consumer Border Protection agency collecting information from noncitizens for the Entry Program however, congress did not specify which they should use. Im sorry, directed the customs and Border Protection agency, i had a mistake there, congress did not specify which the agency should use. In terms of privacy and risk of surveillance, facial recognition is one of the most problematic biometrics to implement. Mr. Scott if facial algorithms are only accurate under ideal conditions, should cbp continue the facial recognition tech nol for biometric entering and exit . Obviously, you know, how accurate these ak rhythms work, they need to be tested on an ongoing bases. Thats one reason, but not the only reason. But, you know, our larger concern is the implementation of a facial recognition system in the first place, you know, the government using photos that u. S. Citizens gave to get a passport. Thats why i gave my photo over to get a passport, to have control over my identification. And with facial recognition, the government is taking control over identification. It becomes a universal i. D. That is part of the fear where the government now controls the ability to identify you when they want with your consent, without your consent, with your knowledge or without your knowledge. Thats a larger concern, particularly when there are no overarching regulations in place to prevent the expansion of this program. Are there other biometric systems that can be adopted instead of facial recognition that ensure travelers privacy is protected in and are more accurate and secure, mr. Scott . Well, i think the cbp has tested other ones, fingerprint, iris and you know, fingerprint is accurate technology, its been around for a long time. My understanding from the documents that ive read, through the freedom of information act received, the stuff posted by cbp, and my meetings with cbp, they went with facial recognition for a large part, its easy and the fact that its easy is one of the concerns here for the expansion of the program because its easy to expand. Its easy to take a facial recognition system and then use it for other purposes beyond the initial purpose for the implementation of the program in the first place. It can be connected to other sources of data, other photos in a very easy manner and without, again, with proper regulations in place, its bound to expand. And thats why its recommended, not even facial recognition and if facial recognition is a oneonone system, and one to many. Okay. Many u. S. Citizens with frt biometric entry and system and customs may not be aware that they have the right to opt out, especially if there isnt sufficient or visible signage at key points throughout the exit, entry process to alert them of this right. Additionally, some travelers may be concerned or even afraid of what will happen if they opt out. So, my new question is for ms. Gambler, along with that, what else can they do traveler u. S. Citizens are not only aware of the rights to opt out of frt, but also fully understand what the process is after and there will know the be any repercussions if they are to opt out . Yes, thank you for the question, congresswoman. Your question speaks to one of the key findings from our report which is that cbp needs to make sure that the in thes, whether thats on signs or through other mechanisms that cbp use toss uses for the facial Recognition Program and all of those mechanisms are providing clear, complete, Accurate Information about the ability of eligible travelers to opt out of the facial Recognition Technology. That should include information about alternative screenings that individuals, that travelers could go through and also, to be clear, that there arent any consequences from opting out of the use of facial Recognition Technology. So those things, making sure that that information is complete across all of the c bps different notice mechanisms and that its available particularly where facial Recognition Technology is used, those things are important. Thank you, i yield back. Good to see you, and to everyone else, have a pleasant day. I yield back, madam chair. Great. Thank you to the representatives from new york. I now recognize the gentle woman from texas, ms. Floores, youre recognized. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today as well. I firmly believe that facial Recognition Technology has a potential to play a vital role in our countrys National Security going forward, specifically combatting cartels, terrorists, drug smugglers and child sex traffickers. That being said, as congress, we need to ensure that the appropriate guardrails are in place, concerning the use of this technology and that the Data Collected with it to make sure we are balancing legitimate Public Safety concerns with the individuals privacy and liberty. The question is for mrs. Gambler, could you please elaborate how Law Enforcement officers and agencies are able to utilize biometrics and facial Recognition Technology to specifically counter cartels, terrorists, drug smugglers and child sex traffickers. Yes, thank you for the question, congresswoman. That has not been specifically part of the work that gao has done, looking at the c bps use of facial recognition for the exit Entry Program. As relates to the use of facial Recognition Technology within the Biometric Entry Exit Program, cbp has looked at use, helped the travelers verification process, it can help expedite the process and helps cbp to ticket potential use of fraudulent travel documents, for example. So within that environment of the Biometric Entry Exit Program, cbp does benefit from the facial Recognition Technology. Another question, could you specifically give me specifics on our number of times that the biometrics and facial Recognition Technology has successfully stopped in terms of Human Trafficking . I dont know if that specific data is available, congresswoman, but we would be happy to follow up on what data cbp may have on its efforts and provide your response back after the hearing. I would love that. Thank you so much. Thank you, madam. Ill yield my time back. Well, thank you. Im going to go ahead and go for a second round on for anybody who wants to ask questions. Mr. Tanciar, im curious if you have any information or data. Do you know how often this system, whether its the port of land, sea ports, airports, how often a person is identified as like a possible person of a cartel . Do we know if its like 5 or 10 or less than 1 . Is there any data that some way we can look for that data . Unfortunately, i dont have that data and im not aware where that data exists. The system has been used to match people to their identity document, while there certainly have been identifications of nefarious and bad actors, theres a culmination of data that goes into that identification, not just facial recognition. Im just curious, if im a bad actor. Am i going through the biometrics and im just curious how often it might come up and thats something maybe ill just follow up, if you were payable to get that data. My next question, dr. Turner lee, since many of the facial recognition technologies are procured by federal agencies. How do we make it more accountable for inclusive and representative technologies . Chairwoman, thats a great question and thank you for the opportunity to answer. I think whats most important here, despite the fact that were seeing a hightech cal success rate with the question, that we have to ensure that the private sector who ultimately is where were procuring not only the faces, but some of the technologies that run the back hall of these systems, that they have a couple of principles in mind and in addition to privacy and security, that they should also have the diversity and equity on their team. They should be regularly committed to doing types of third party audits, civil rights audits and audits for treatment of impact of their products and working alongside the agency. There should be a common goal of enturing that theres no technical breakdown of the implication of its use. And the only thing that i would share in the comment to you, chairwoman is that we are, again, presumptuous, just because its for travelers that its foolproof. Weve not seen any that has not seen its complications. While we pull back from interrogating the tech following technologies, and the partnership that they have a responsibility to share and demonstrate the type of transparency and accountability as well as the diversity and equity in their own Business Practices and models. Thank you. Mr. Scott. How can we look at the potential tradeoffs of their rights and convenience of identification and verification processes for travelers . Well, one, as mentioned before this signage needs to be more visible. A lot of times people dont see the signs about facial recognition or the potential to opt out if youre a u. S. Citizen, but they also need to know actually before. Before going through the airport or any other port of entry. Its hard to really process and think about the consequences of facial recognition when youre actually at the airport travelling through the high stress situation and get through security lines, et cetera, so people need to understand prior to that, and they need to be information to inform people prior to them travelling so they understand more about the use of facial recognition, but also, you know, with the lack of regulations right now, you know, its arguably impossible for people to understand the possible consequences of submitting to facial recognition because its impossible to think about what type of Mission Creep, what happened in terms much what will this information be used for down the road . How did will facial recognition be implemented in the future . Will it become a universal identification controlled by the government, further, further putting the asymmetry of power between the individual and the government . Thank you. Dr. Lee turner, do you have anything you want to add to that . Yeah, i completely agree. Not only do we have that sign animal available before people go to the airport. We have to be culturally sensitive and goes to having some level of lived experiences of the population is your veiled by the technology. Signage needs to be in spanish, in multiple language, accessible to people with disabilities. Were assuming that most people understand how the technology is being used in light of the tradeoff of convenience and i think thats a very poor assumption of us as federal stewards to ensure that were not in some way, now in the future, trampling on peoples civil rights. Thank you, i think its an interesting conversation, in my mind the government has my california drivers license photo and passport photo yet as a traveler im looking for convenience and speed, how quickly can i go, so i think there has to be that conversation about the tradeoffs and i just do wonder, too, how much longer you would go through security if you decided to opt out versus, you know, just doing biometrics and so a lot more to discuss, but representative higgins, the floor is yours for your second round. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. Tanciar, im going to ask you about exactly what happens when you encounter a imposter, and the gentleman describing not having controlled the i. D. And they have the passport as you stated and i have control of my i. D. , but with facial Recognition Technology, the government has control of your i. D. And again, it paints quite a nefarious picture. May i say i was a Police Officer for a long time before i came to congress and, its an everyday affair you had interaction with someone that did not have their drivers license with them to identify themselves. Was not an uncommon encounter that that person had something to hide, usually had a warrant. They would lie about their identity. Theyd give you a name and date of birth, of usually of a friend or a Family Member that they knew was clean, did not have a warrant and they could be quite convincing. Quite convincing, but if you have some time on the street you could pick up the vibes that they were lying and youd call it in to dispatch. Send me a picture. Theyd send it to your phone. You run the drivers license by name and i. D. , which you can do, and dispatch would send an image of that drivers license to my phone. So now i had the picture of the guy he said he was, id show it to you and say, thats not you, man. Why dont you tell me who you really are and what the warrant is for and wed move forward. So to think, to state, insinuate that Law Enforcement doesnt have your image in the computer is just not reality. So, what happens when you encounter 1500 impostors, the facial Recognition Technology is pretty good at picking up someone thats attempting to use someone elses identity. What happens exactly if you encounter an impostor . Well, its a multilayered effort. So the first instance of the photo being taken and no match being returned, will then go to a onetoone against the document and then if onetoone against the document doesnt return anything against the document that the traveler has in their possession. Thats correct, that has in hand which might not be theirs. They obtained because they felt they looked enough like the person on the document and they were trying to pass that off for entry, and you know, cbp officers work long, hard hours and have a very important task. Sometimes people are good at that. Looking like whats on the document, but the facial Recognition Technology helps identify that upfront, but that doesnt make the decision. Then there is a whole process of interviewing, where did you get the document. How did you obtain the document, what street did you grow up on and theres lots of factors. Thats an interesting point because the streamlined check point with that facial Recognition Technology provides, that does it allow the agents to spend more time in the interview process if they have someone that needs to be questioned . Yes, it does. Those administrative processes of handling the documents and looking at a one by one square to the person thats eight automated and that gives me, the person, more time with the person intent on the travel. Okay. Madam chair, i very much appreciate youre holding this hearing today and thank our witnesses for appearing and i thank miss gambler, i have a question id like to submit to you, its more extensive, id like in writing. After the hearing my office is deliver it. Look forward to the question and happy to provide a response. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, i want to thank the witnesses for valuable testimony and the members for their questions shl, the members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing. Without objection, the committee record shall be open for 10 days. Hearing no further business, this subcommittee stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] today, members of congress will participate in their annual baseball game in washington d. C. Live coverage from Nationals Park begins at 7 p. M. Eastern on cspan. You can also watch on cspan now, our free mobile video app or online at cspan. Org. Cspan brings you an unfiltered view of government. Our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to Daily Press Briefings to remarks from the president. Scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for the email and stay uptodate on everything happening in washington each day. Subscribe today using the qr code or visit cspan. Org connect to subscribe anytime. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government who are funded by these Television Companies and more. Including media com. The world changed in an instant. Media com was ready. Internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. Schools and businesses went virtual and we powered the new reality. Were built to move you ahead. Media com supports cspan along with these Television Providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. Well take you live now to the capitol where the senate is ready to gavel in. Today lawmakers will consider president bidens nominee to be u. S. Ambassador to malta. A confirmation vote set for 1 45 eastern today. This is live Senate Coverage here on cspan2. The presiding officer the senate will come to order. The chaplain dr. Barry black will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, today make our lawmakers instruments of your grace and goodness. Teach them to be patient with themselves and others