Biometrics are more protected in IL than an other states as well. Facebook settled a big lawsuit just for automatically tagging people (actually the suit was about storing the biometric face data at all without consent)
They are. BIPA is top rate. I looked at the statute, which excludes Illinois state and local government entities, but does not talk of federal bodies. I don't know enough about the supremacy of federal statutes to know how that works, and most discussions note that the statute excludes "the government" which is not totally accurate.
Legal action against this is going to be a tough, possibly unfeasable battle.
Whatever the laws are, they probably contain exceptions for the use of biometrics for law enforcement purposes.
In terms of court precedent, biometrics are not protected by the 4th amendment, because your face is not considered a secret that the government could compel you to reveal.
The supreme court has effectively removed all of the possible mechanisms to sue ICE or DHS and hold them accountable, with the sole exception of having the DOJ prosecute them on your behalf, which is of course never going to happen. The only remaining possibility to hold them accountable for crimes appears to be within the states judicial systems- but most are currently setup to not allow this, deferring to the federal mechanisms which only very recently stopped existing.
Question for a future (2026?) dystopia: if our faces aren't secret or private for 4A/5A purposes, can we start making them secret/private by walking around in public with a balaclava?
We now know why people had such weird makeup/facial modification attachments in dystopian sci-fi.
Luckily we have libertarians, 1990s Republicans, and Hannity and Infowars fans that will fight vehemently to stop this sort of face scanning. It is all of theirs' nightmare scenarios way past all their red lines up there with Walmarts turned into relocation camps.
But until they sort it out is it possible to make temporary tattoos (or just stickers) with patterns that make facial scanning unfeasible?
It used to be cv dazzle [0] is 15 years young. But its questionable if it works anymore.
Theres also a bunch of of digital camo, most seem to target IR cameras [1] here's a homebrew version.
> It used to be cv dazzle [0] is 15 years young. But its questionable if it works anymore.
I fed all the CV Dazzle demo pictures into some free Amazon facial recognition demo a few years ago. It was a pretty shitty demo, but the makeup didn't even slow it down. It had no trouble at all finding the faces, assigning ages or genders, or locating facial features. And once you've located the features, you're going to have no trouble identifying the person if they're in the database.
Agreed there are definitely a lot of Libertarians and Republicans that definitely object to random use of facial recognition as presented.
As I mentioned in another comment, I'd like to see any clarifying statements from ICE/DoJ on this before jumping to conclusions as framing often cuts off portions of video or otherwise warps framing of events. Not to mention, I don't recall seeing any mention of a request for comment in the article.
The Netherlands has a law that makes it illegal to cover your face. Officially this is to help the police but its also a great tool against religion. Constitution>god
Beyond this, state law may not supersede federal authority. This will likely go to the Supreme Court before it's actually decided, short of congressional action (unlikely).
I'm not sure if these requests are only made if other ID isn't available or a refusal to present id happens. That said, I'm not sure how this qualifies as reasonable suspicion in terms of stopping someone without evidence of some other crime in progress or as part of a warranted raid activity. Though stops on highways within 100 miles of a border is very much permitted for identification, unsure if this would fall under those provisions.
While I absolutely support deportations, this appears at first glance to be over the top... but I'd like to see any clarifying statements from ICE, which I don't recall seeing in the article.
