Don’t Want ICE To Scan Your Face? Too Bad, You Might Not Have A Choice

Listen to the article

0:00

0:00

1.0x

Key Takeaways

Playback Speed

Select a Voice

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has put more federal immigration officers in public view and equipped them with new facial recognition technology. One of these tools is Mobile Fortify, an app that lets agents collect photos and biometric data like fingerprints on the spot—and people have no chance to refuse. With Mobile Fortify, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers can photograph anyone they encounter and run the image through Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases, including Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Traveler Verification Service, which stores photos of people entering the United States. Mobile Fortify performs an instant match and returns identifying details—such as name, nationality, and any deportation orders—while the photo remains in government files for 15 years, even for U.S. citizens.

While the quiet expansion of the surveillance state is troubling enough, a February DHS document recently obtained by 404 Media through a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that federal immigration agents don’t allow individuals to consent before collecting this sensitive data. “ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data,” the document states.

The document—a Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA) which outlines the privacy risks of new technologies rolled out by the DHS, according to 404 Media—was jointly prepared by ICE and CBP privacy offices. It identifies CBP as the technical service provider responsible for maintaining Mobile Fortify’s back-end systems. ICE field agents use the software on government-issued smartphones, while CBP supplies infrastructure and data services. According to the PTA, access to Mobile Fortify is restricted to ICE agents and officers, a limited group of CBP administrative personnel, and select officers assisting with removal operations.

The stated purpose of Mobile Fortify is to identify noncitizens who are removable from the United States. But the PTA notes that agents may collect information on any individual they encounter, regardless of citizenship, because an officer cannot determine someone’s status before performing the check.

Members of Congress have raised concerns about the breadth of the program. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D–Miss.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told 404 Media that ICE officials have said they will prioritize the results of a Mobile Fortify hit over documented proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate.

Thompson called the practice “frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional,” arguing that it risks misidentifying Americans as deportable noncitizens.

The document’s revelation is not surprising given the size and scope of ICE’s surveillance strategy, which has quietly grown in recent years. Backed by billions of dollars in funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, federal immigration agencies have expanded their use of AI-driven facial recognition, location tracking, automatic license plate readers, and other digital surveillance tools. As Reason’s Autumn Billings has documented, these systems are increasingly being directed not just at immigration suspects but at protesters and political opponents of the administration—evidence that DHS’s surveillance network is being repurposed for broader domestic monitoring.

Some lawmakers, including Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), are pressing the agency to explain its growing reliance on facial-recognition technology and to set limits on how it’s used. But, so far, no legislation has been passed to restrict ICE’s biometric surveillance, and the agency continues to deploy tools like Mobile Fortify without any formal mechanism for refusal. For now, there appears to be little the public can do to opt out of a system designed to see and store information on everyone.

The post Don't Want ICE To Scan Your Face? Too Bad, You Might Not Have A Choice appeared first on Reason.com.

Read the full article here