Proposed Law Would Turn US Borders Into Unblinking Eyes With A Thirst For Human DNA
from the all-the-bad-lawmaking-in-one-large-PDF dept
Some senators are looking to turn US borders into the equivalent of London: cameras everywhere and a host of new incursions into travelers' and visitors' privacy. Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica "outed" the not-yet-introduced bill -- titled "Building America's Trust Act" [wtf] -- since the supporting lawmakers have yet to formally announce their plans to make the US a worse country to live in, much less visit.
The one-pager [PDF] for the bill [PDF] (which is 186 pages long) makes it clear what the objective is: more surveillance, more boots on the ground, and green lights for law enforcement agencies located anywhere within 100 miles of the nation's borders. The bill calls for more judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and inspectors, as well as walls, levees, fences -- whatever might further separate the US from its bordering neighbors (but only the southern one, apparently).
First off, there will be an increase in aerial surveillance. The bill calls for an increase in manned flight hours, as well as mandating drone flights at least 24 hours a day for five days a week. This would be in addition to increased use of surveillance equipment that can be mounted on vehicles or carried by humans. The DHS will also be allowed to draft the National Guard to perform border patrol duties and construct fences and walls and set up/monitor surveillance equipment.
The list goes on and on. (And on.) Customs and Border Patrol (and any agencies assisting it) will be exempted from 30 state and federal laws governing (among other things) use of public land should it be determined these ecology-protecting statutes "interfere" with the CBP's border patrolling efforts. The bill would also exempt border security efforts from the normal federal bidding process, allowing agencies to use non-competitive means to hire employees and source contractors. The bill would also raise staffing levels, providing for signing bonuses of up to $10,000 per new hire and an expanded waiver of the CBP's polygraph test requirement.
The law would allow border security agencies to obtain Defense Department surveillance gear, with an eye on round-the-clock surveillance in some form and increased gathering of biometric information. More specifically, the bill asks for this:
The Secretary shall create a system or upgrade an existing system (if a Department system already has capability and capacity for storage) to allow for storage of iris scans and voice prints of aliens that can be used by the Department, other Federal agencies, and State and local law enforcement for identification, remote authentication, and verification of aliens. The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent possible, that the system for storage of iris scans and voice prints is compatible with existing State and local law enforcement systems that are used for collection and storage of iris scans or voice prints for criminal aliens.
This will be fed by the DHS's biometric entry-exit collection, meaning it won't just be foreign visitors adding to the pile of biometric data. The law calls for the program to be put in place at all high traffic ports of entry (including major airports) within two years. As we've seen from previous pilot programs, there's no good way to ensure US persons aren't swept up in the biometric scanning. All we have are assurances these "inadvertent" collections will be siloed off from the DHS's foreigner collection.
Customs authorities will also be given power to demand biometric info from visa applicants and DNA will be collected from all detained immigrants, whether or not they're criminally charged. This information will then be shared with the State Department and the FBI.
From there, the law adds other politically-charged stipulations, like an entire subsection entitled "Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act." Also of note: the bill would allow law enforcement to seize everything from cash to bitcoins if they're suspected to be "criminal proceeds." It also strips away any mens rea protection from accusations of money laundering, allowing the government to seize money/charge suspects with a federal crime whether or not they knowingly engaged in criminal activity.
The whole package is basically a 186 pages of surveillance expansion and xenophobic legalese. The sole benefit of the bloated bill is it consolidates so many anti-foreigner objectives into a single PDF, saving opponents the trouble of having to track a few dozen similarly-minded bills. The limits on the collection and use of biometric data are almost nonexistent and there's nothing in it specifically ordering agencies to keep US citizens out of the data pile. A number of law enforcement agencies have already offered their endorsement of the bill, suggesting it's spent some time being circulated among proponents. Now, it's in the hands of the rest of the county where it's unlikely to see as unqualified support. It's a Patriot Act but for the border -- a hysteria-based bill that panders to the president's desires.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bata, border patrol, buidling america's trust act, cbp, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As for the bill itself I think it might find resistance even among the Republicans (the good ones I mentioned) and being so broad may be it's weak point and eventual demise. We need to stay tuned and mount resistance though. With the current administration no amount of caution and activism is enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both parties should just be written off at this point. Unfortunately, the reality of our two party system means that their is no chance of a viable third party forming at the national or state level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have heard of American expatriates living in Mexico doing this, putting beyond of reach of US laws. US laws do not apply in Mexico.
After one guy was convicted in the USA, some American doing this took their operations to Mexico, putting them beyond the reach of US law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good luck with that. If the teacher of such a course ever sets foot in, or flies over, the USA, there's a good chance they'll be arrested. Given what happened with Kim Dotcom, it might happen even if they never go near the place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And then coming back to yet another secession move, even biggest than CalExit, a movement to create the Republic Of Pacificam, someone could, as long as it was not a crime in Pacifica, teach people how to beat lie detectors, and the USA would not be able to do anything about it.
Pacifica, under one proposed constitution, would also be forbidden from handing over its own citizens to any other country, for any reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a few more years that'll likely affect movie piracy cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well that clinches it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those weren't jokes
I may have exaggerated slightly for comedic effect on the subject in the past, but when I've noted that unless you absolutely must physically come to the US for some business reason don't come at all I was being quite serious.
Spend your money elsewhere, go on vacations to locations within your own country or in other countries, but for your own safety and security do not come to the US if you can avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those weren't jokes
Should people travel to the EU? I'm sure the "part of daily life" terrorist attacks are much safer there right? How about the Middle East? Africa? Asia? South America? Russia? India or Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?
You need to get a grip. The latest CDC stats show All homicides
•Number of deaths: 15,872
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.0
Stop believing that what you see on TV or read from media that have an agenda(all of them).
It's no more dangerous here than most other nations. The EU Homicide rate is at about 3.0 per 100,000. The US is at 5.0. It's significant, but no where near the war zone you are trying to imply. Again, get a grip.
If you wish to compare cities, I'll give you L.A., Chicago, Baltimore and New York. I'll take Glasgow, Marseilles, Napoli, and Istanbul.
Hell, even Canada isn't much safer in quite a few cities.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/canada-most-dangerous-cities-2016-safe-your-city/
Face it, Life is dangerous whether you like it or not. People, from every walk of life, and every country on the planet can be dangerous.
If you stay home, you might get murdered. If you go out, you might get murdered. If you travel, you might get murdered.
Get on with your life and stop buying the overblown scare tactics and fear mongering that others are selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
Try this one:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
You may be shocked by some of the stats; I know I was. For example, did you know that the murder rate in the USA is 33 times that of Canada.
Personally my apprehension, if I ever have to go to the USA, is based on government corruption, all the way from local corrupt police forces (think Joe Arpaio and TSA agents) up to and including your Administration.
While the two countries rank equally well right now in the 2016 Transparency and Press Freedom indices, it'll be interesting to see where the US ranks relative to Canada, once your President/King is done rearranging the country to suit his affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Ambrose Bierce
This country has 3 branches of government for a reason. The fact that you think Trump has some kind of power to make this his little fiefdom means that you don't understand our government in the slightest.
63 Million people voted for that guy and I was NOT one of them, but I accept the vote because that is how our government works. 4 years does not a country make.
And if you honestly think that Clinton would have been a better choice, then you can't be reasoned with and I am not going to bang my head against that wall.
That being said, enjoy your day and don't work too hard on the Molson muscle, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
If this person stays in Canada, they'll never have to deal with even a Canadian border guard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
My point was pretty clear. That you choose to ignore it says more about you than my statement does about me.
When do I graduate to being a racist, misogynist, war monger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
Should I stop believing what I read in tech blogs also?
"My point was pretty clear. "
I do not believe you
"When do I graduate to being a racist, misogynist, war monger?"
idk, do you want to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
"To argue over the degree of wrongness of these things is missing the point and perpetuates the problem."
I disagree. You cannot in all seriousness say this in the same breath as "hate groups, hateful speech, or government corruption. There is a valid scale of wrongness here that needs to be aired. You'd have us equate the USA in terms of risk with, say, Switzerland. That's a ridiculous proposition. And frankly, it's insulting.
The USA is projecting a horrible, unwelcoming front to the world, and it's worsening. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
You should apply your statistics to your opening paragraph, and any and all claims about the direct effects of terrorism in the US as well. Who is selling what, now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No mens rea for money laundering' + 'asset forfeiture' = 'we found your money guilty of being from drug proceedings (despite having no evidence whatsoever), and we're going to use that finding to prosecute you for drug trafficking'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll avoid a Cardassian Law metaphor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I am sure there are a few cheering this sort of legislation, its only because they haven't been mugged by the feds yet.
This will not make us safer.
CBP agents have been busted several times for wrongdoing, so now we are gonna remove even the laughable polygraph requirement & outsource it in no bid contracts.
Welcome to even more asset forfeiture based on the we think you're guilty but the law takes to long so we can just rob you.
This is stupid & they should be ashamed.
Sadly they will ride a high tide of support from people still unable to understand that these new rules will be used on them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just more places you folks who are afraid of America should avoid visiting I guess.
*Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Just more places you folks who are afraid of America should avoid visiting I guess."
You do realise that a lot of the people concerned about this are Americans, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I simply stated that compared to other countries, America has somewhat lax customs identification practices. It was a comparison, not an accolade.
Way to impose your agenda/biases into someone else's post, Mr. PaulT.
The statement about being afraid of America was in direct response to those above (including Americans) who advocated not coming here because of those "risks". I just told them other places they might want to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Waaaaaaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the whole post that didn't address it at all, just engaged in a spot of whataboutism.
"The statement about being afraid of America was in direct response to those above (including Americans) who advocated not coming here because of those "risks"."
Which does not address the things that those people are talking about at all. But, since you admit that Americans are among those warning of the risks - why should I believe you and not them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a. not notice that their computers aren't pulling up the license plate of the car, and
b. not do anything about it if they do notice.
That's assuming that they even work, which, if I remember the Mythbusters episode correctly, they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And what I am talking about is diffeernt than the sprays that Mythbusters tried. This is a plastic cover that you can by that you screw on over your license plate, that makes the number unreadable from the angles of your typical camera.
And the license plate cameras are literally right at the border itself. By the time they figured out what was going on, I would be over the border into Mexico, if I was using the San Ysidro crossing. CBP does not have jurisdiction in Mexico.
SO if you want to keep the exit cameras from being able to record your license number as you are crossing into Mexico, just put one of these on your plate and use the San Ysidro crossing where you will be over the border, before they realize they cannot get your license number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From MythBusters Episode 73: Speed Cameras:
I wouldn't know the San Ysidro crossing from a McDonald's drive-thru, so you'd be better qualified than I to say what is involved in going through that border.
But on the northern border, I usually get checked by Canadian Customs when leaving the States, and U.S. Customs when entering. So, if I tried to dash through into Canada, the Canadian Border Services Agency would be after me (who certainly have jurisdiction in Canada), and if I tried to dash into the U.S., CBP would be on my ass.
And, again, this is for the Canadian border, but up north, the border agencies share data. So, if you pull up to Canadian Customs and tell the CBSA that you were in the U.S. for a week, they can check the CBP entry record (and plate scans) and confirm that.
So, even if you put the plate covers on, even if they work, even if you run from the Mexican border agency and get away, even if you take the covers off when coming back into the U.S....
Shouldn't there be some red flags raised about why there was no record of you (or your car) leaving the U.S.?
Unless you don't get stopped at all at San Ysidro on the way in, either. In which case... Wow. I think you might need to work on securing your legal border crossings before you even consider building a wall to prevent people from avoiding them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess when I drive to Mexico in the future, if this bill passes, I will have to find a place to hide my cash where CBP agents will not find it, if they decide to stop me as I am departing the country.
The fact that you HAVE to have a big wad of cash for gas and for toll roads will make problems for travellers on long car trips to Mexico, unless they find a way to hide their cash where CBP will not find up, if they are selected for inspection upon leaving the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am thinking that if that part of the bill gets passed, CBP will be able to build the new ports of entry, as well as build facilities in some airports, which have been hampered by environmental laws.
That is one reason where there are not as many international flights, for example, from Sacramento airport. The facilities that Customs needs to handle more international flights have been held up for years by both state and federal enviromental laws. That part of the bill, the way I see it, would allow those facilities to be built, and the State of California would be unable to stop it.
Overriding California, and other states', environmental laws, and the Coastal Commision is the ONE thing that I DO agree with here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It can't be terrorism they are afraid of, as they actively endorse it. They are afraid of "the people", yes you and me. It would be funny if Hollywood were to make a horror flick where politicians were haunted by the people. It would be called "The People". Could easily modify existing zombie clips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DHS will also be allowed to draft the National Guard to perform border patrol duties and construct fences and walls and set up/monitor surveillance equipment.
And since the DHS can do whatever the fuck they want within 100 miles of the border, that means 2/3 of the US population will be subject to policing by US military personnel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
border status
Which other countries allow unidentified and unrestricted immigration? Which of those prohibit asking people who don't speak the local language what is their immigration status?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: border status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: border status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: border status
Why? Pick from: DNA sampling (coming soon), taking fingerprints, forcing open and rummaging through luggage, sexually assaulting children, eye-rolling visa and customs questions, demanding electronic devices are unlocked, demanding user accounts and passwords for online services... and then there are the known abuses, which are manifold. I could go on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Building America's Trust Act
Oh. So by "borders" they mean "agencies and offices of government"? That would be venue for installing cameras and all the other listed efforts that might lead to more trust for America (I think they mean the US).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Oliver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the Dystopian USA future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death to all blades of grass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahh, no
FTFY
"...mandating drone flights at least five days a week for 24 hours a day"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahh, no
Of course, they're going to be fined every year in the Spring when DST starts and they can only patrol for 23 hours that day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]