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 biom