So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
> that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real
What are you referring to?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/20/tsa-fa...
"According to the TSA, your information is generally deleted shortly after you pass the screening process and is not used for surveillance purposes."
You submit permanent biometrics as part of PreCheck and Global Entry. DHS is presumably using those data for identification.
Is DHS’s usage against the stated purpose of the biometrics collection? Was there even a stated purpose?
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se.
Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions).
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
Identify you when though? Important question I guess
The US has been using ICE a lot.
Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry?
Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...].
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
> Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border
To quote a prominent US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
> Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry?
Not ICE?
> Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
First question - CBP, as noted.
Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were.
ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
> ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens
By law or policy?
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
For sure, just sharing why someone might think they delete the data!
Better source? (Maybe?) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/ice-protester-sa...
Fair. I’ve seen this site posted on HN before, mostly in the context of business travel and tech in the airline industry, so I didn’t consider it too low quality.
In no context is Ars the better source.
This is a first amendment violation, right?
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations? This doesn't track.
> How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations?
FTFA: “Protesting isn’t a listed or ‘valid’ reason for having Global Entry revoked, but being arrested at a protest is. Impeding or interfering with the agency is. And being investigated is.”
Looks like this is a social credit system.
Global Entry absolutely is a completely voluntary social credit system? It’s an optional thing you literally subscribe to that says “I’m squeaky clean so I can skip the investigation line.”
> Global Entry absolutely is a completely voluntary social credit system?
They’re making analogy to China’s social-credit system. It would be like if Global Entry was held by most Americans and you needed it to get a credit card or board a train.
> Looks like this is a social credit system
To the extent it’s a government program with any discretion, yes. In every other respect, no.
The argument, if there is one, would probably be that following ICE was a violation of an immigration procedure (note that the person who had their GE revoked doesn’t claim they attended a protest, but rather that they were following ICE and got their picture taken). Given what I’ve seen of GE revocations historically, though, it’s equally likely to have been something like “you lived with a felon” or “unpaid traffic ticket became a warrant” or “family member was accused but never convicted of an obscure crime.”
There’s always been a pretty clear mantra that GE is a privilege not a right and that it’s always been an arbitrary and capricious system.
In some ways I think maintaining GE is probably as hard or harder than maintaining a low level (ie Secret) security clearance; it seems to be based on similar databases and discretion with less transparency, human touch, or opportunity to appeal.
They are at least (according to the 9th circuit) supposed to disclose why the GE was revoked though: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/22/2...
Expressing your first amendment right to protest is not “almost anything.” Historically, courts have taken very dim view of government retaliation for first-amendment protected activities.
It's trivial for the state to punish you and nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts.
> nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts
What are you basing this on? This administration is constantly losing in court.
They mean it’s costly - in time and money - so in practice random individuals who are abused by the government can’t defend their rights and simply have to accept losing them.
Plus even if the administration loses, why would they care? They aren’t going to jail for those losses.
> They mean it’s costly
Which is far from “nearly impossible.”
> even if the administration loses, why would they care? They aren’t going to jail
Neither is someone whose TSA PreCheck is revoked.
Yes, but even so doing it because of protest is a restraint on speech, and that's expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The first amendment may be frustratingly silent on fruit trade regulations, but it's 100% not unclear about abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport.
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
Textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation.
"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in.
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
Ok, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
Welcome to the thread! I trust your expertise, but am a little put off by your flippant tone:
> getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action”
This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say:
> Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action”
And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court in the land ruled in that individual’s favor.
Heck, you can be on a terrorism watchlist and entirely barred from flying without a conviction
There are also no consequences for the president, his agency leaders, legislators, or anyone else involved in this when they violate the constitution. At best, the victims sue and get money from taxpayers. The law must be changed to remove all types of qualified immunity from anyone in a government position.
Yes. Some would also say it violates a substantive due-process right to privacy.
Absolutely. The problem is proving in court that the pre check / global entry revocations are a direct result of the protesting. The government has levers they can use to muddy the issue and claim that it's a coincidence.
I'm not sure that they want to hide it; in any case, if it's systematic there will be thousands of these "coincidences", enough to convince a judge or jury even without investigating the revocations
Yes. Except they are attempting to make the claim that protesters are interfering with federal operations, which is a crime. Therefore, they can try to make the claim that they are only investigating potential involvement in a crime, punish you, and file it under a violation of the terms of service for precheck and global entry. IANAL, etc, but this seems to be the strategy.
I don't think that terms of service can override the constitution, in any case
Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.
Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.
40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.
You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.
So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].
Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.
So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.
See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?
Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.
So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.
[1]: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/federal-teacher-striking/
Yes. So are raiding a WaPo journalist’s home, arresting observers / recorders of ICE activity, threatening to arrest teachers for speech, forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms, or shooting a civilian who is legally carrying a firearm at a protest, etc. These are all positions of Trump or key members of his administration.
It’s clear the constitution is something in their way, not something they respect. By violating it a little bit each day, it’ll lose meaning and half the country will be primed to replace it.
I mean, yes, because it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech.
But also Global Entry isn't really a thing, it's kind of just like a weird privilege some people can get ... because ... ??? It's just a fake-privilege thing. Taking it away doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything/going anywhere they would have anyways.
It's a privilege pretty much anyone can get if they have a clean record, pay the fee, and do the interview.
Taking it away can mean a much longer wait returning to the US. And while that certainly isn't an earth-shattering problem that is going to cost people their lives or general freedom, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional rights.
The idea that you can be so dismissive about that concept is a bit chilling, to be honest.
To be clear, I find it horrifying.
I also find Global Entry, TSA Precheck, and especially Clear to all be problematic, along with the fact that people flying on private jets don't need to go through the same TSA checks that the rest of us do. Hell, I even think it's bad to have different lines at customs for citizens vs. non-citizens. I think the most-privileged of us should use the same public infrastructure as the least-privileged of us.
My comment was a reflection of multiple different opinions on different topics.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
The far right are largely the people voting against robust safety nets and low inequality...
The leaders of the right are against a robust safety net, yes.
Populist right voters however hate socialism but also want the government to keep their hands off their medicare and social security.
And vehemently oppose any expansion of those things to people they want to suffer. Populist right voters hate the idea that there isn’t someone “below” them and will vigorously and violently oppose any attempts to alter the pecking order. Let’s not make excuses, here.
That is true, but there is still the rest of the country, and Trump’s ratings are dropping as everyone finds out they don’t like fascism. I’m hoping we don’t just go back to business as usual.
Reliable, now that’s a funny claim.
Reminder the rise of the far right was pushed by wealthy who wanted to get wealthier. There was no grassroots movement of status anxiety or grievance.
We had safety nets, they were no defense against the right.
That might be true, but I wonder if this advice is too late. Today, a lot of the right - not just far right but mainstream right - seems to be overtly supremacist. They don’t mind federal agencies tweeting out Nazi content. They don’t mind Trump hosting Nick Fuentes at his house. They don’t mind undoing the citizenship of lawful immigrants.
This is solid advice for 30-40 years ago but today it's a little too late..
You can also look at it as early for 2070.
The problem with biometrics, as in biologically unique biometrics (fingerprints, blood, retina, etc) is that once it's in a database, you're fucked *for life*. It's unrealistic to destroy said records with absolute certainty in the entirety of the universe. Data is pervasive, and biometric databases are likely the most lucrative data to sell and share.
Biometrics are abusable in so many different ways, I probably don't know them all. But here's some thoughts around that.
It's proven that police have for decades planted evidence to falsely incriminate individuals. Placing a gun at the scene of an occurrence is one example. The difference is if biometrics are "planted" they are biologically unique to you, and you have no reasonable way of disproving that "you did it".
And then there's silently denying you. Whether it's a nation's border entity, or perhaps an insurance provider, biometric data can be used to uniquely identify you and connect you to things that *are* legal, but the Administration de jour doesn't "like" (read: LITERALLY RIGHT NOW). Say something to upset the babbis in the white house? Did you give your blood to 23andme? Your fingerprint to a government agency? Yeah, good luck getting in/out of the USA freely.
Biometrics needs to be a *global and universal right to refuse*. In that, IMO you must be always able to say "no" and have it be legally binding to *any* entity saying "give me your XYZ biometrics", except _maybe_ if you're a *convicted* criminal.
This goes far beyond the whole "I never thought about it that way" problems, this is a you're fucked for life if you give away any of it. It's time we make the time to get ahead of this problem that already exists.
Join me.
> You can lose Global Entry for complaining about a customs officer. Putting an apple from your flight in your bag, and then not declaring it can cost you your Global Entry. So can attempting a coup against the United States. So, too, now it seems just for protesting against government policy.
This is incredibly scary and violating. It’s not in line with due process and our societal values. But I also wonder if the right realizes that they’ve slowly morphed into the same social credit score authoritarianism that they have criticized for years.
> It’s not in line with [...] our societal values.
The scary thing is that I think it is in line with the social values of a disturbingly sizeable, growing group of Americans.
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46823261
I don’t think that this is a dupe, the ramifications of citizens being removed from Global Entry and PreCheck lists wasn’t part of the NYT article AFAIU.
Curious that at its current score and comment count it’s no longer on the front page, despite being neither flagged nor marked as dupe.
Edit: guess it’s flipping in between page 1 and 2 per refresh.