US Senators want investigation of TSA’s expanding use of facial recognition

This week, U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, a vocal advocate for privacy rights and transparency, joined forces with a bipartisan coalition to demand a thorough investigation into the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) use of facial recognition technology, signaling that the long contentious debate over the increasing use of facial recognition technology at airport security checkpoints isn’t going to cool down anytime soon.

The bipartisan group sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General Joseph Cuffari. Their message was clear: TSA’s rollout of biometric systems raises serious concerns about accuracy, necessity, and the potential erosion of passenger privacy.

Merkley’s campaign against TSA’s facial recognition efforts has garnered the support of five Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent from across the political spectrum to push back against what they see to be an overreach of federal power. The coalition reflects a widespread unease in Congress over TSA’s rapid adoption of biometric technology without sufficient oversight or safeguards.

Each of the Senators who signed the letter have advocated for a cautious and regulated approach to the government’s use of biometric technologies, emphasizing the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

“We … urge you to conduct thorough oversight of TSA’s use of facial recognition technology for passenger verification from both an authorities and privacy perspective,” the Senators said in their November 20 letter to Cuffari. “This technology will soon be in use at hundreds of major and mid-size airports without an independent evaluation of the technology’s precision or an audit of whether there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect passenger privacy.”

The Senators said, “this technology poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit TSA’s development and deployment of facial recognition tools until rigorous congressional oversight occurs.”

The involvement of Senate Republicans shouldn’t come as a surprise. Biometric Update reported last week that Senate Republicans have increasingly emphasized the importance of individual privacy rights and informed consent in the context of biometric data collection, especially as the use of biometrics becomes more widespread.

While Republicans – who will control the Senate when the new Congress convenes in January – have typically supported the use of biometrics for law enforcement and national security purposes, so long as such use is properly regulated and accountable, they’ve also been leery of how biometric data is and can be used by government agencies, particularly regarding civil liberties and the potential for abuse.

TSA’s facial recognition program has been steadily expanding, with plans to introduce next-generation credential authentication technology (CAT) equipped with facial recognition capabilities to over 430 airports nationwide. TSA touts these systems as tools to enhance security, streamline passenger verification, and reduce wait times. Yet, the Senators’ letter highlights a critical issue: TSA has failed to demonstrate that facial recognition is necessary when existing non-biometric systems, such as CAT-1 scanners, can already detect fraudulent identification.

Moreover, the technology’s accuracy remains questionable, the Senators said, noting that TSA data reputedly shows a 3 percent false negative rate in identity capture. When applied to the 2.3 million travelers passing through airports daily, this rate could result in nearly 70,000 discrepancies every day.

“TSA has not provided Congress with evidence that facial recognition technology is necessary to catch fraudulent documents, decrease wait times at security checkpoints, or stop terrorists from boarding airplanes,” the Senators said, adding that “facial recognition would also fail to stop the hundreds of people who reportedly bypass security checkpoints in a given year.”

Merkley and his colleagues say they are concerned about potential privacy issues with the program. Critics warn that these systems could evolve into one of the largest federal surveillance databases, a prospect that Merkley says he finds deeply troubling. “If this becomes mandatory,” Merkley warns, “the TSA’s program could transform overnight into a sweeping surveillance apparatus without the authorization of Congress.”

TSA claims that its facial recognition program is optional, but evidence has emerged that suggests otherwise. There are anecdotal reports from travelers who describe intimidating encounters with Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) when attempting to opt out. Travelers have recounted being pressured or misled into compliance, with TSOs sometimes claiming that opting out would lead to significant delays. Meanwhile, signage explaining the opt-out option is often poorly displayed or hidden, leaving passengers unaware of their rights.

“While TSA claims facial recognition is optional,” the Senators said in their letter, “it is confusing and intimidating to opt out of TSA’s facial recognition scans, and our offices have received numerous anecdotal reports of TSOs becoming belligerent when a traveler asks to opt out, or simply being unaware of that right.”

The Senators further said that “signage directing passengers to follow officer instructions and step in front of the facial recognition camera is prominently displays, while the signage for opting out is often strategically placed in inconspicuous locations, making it challenging to read and locate. TSOs are inconsistently trained on how to respond to passengers who request to pt out and have told passengers they will face delays for opting out.”

These tactics have not gone unnoticed by Merkley, who said he personally opted out of the program during a flight from Washington, D.C. to Portland, Oregon, his home state. Merkley said his firsthand experience, combined with numerous constituent complaints, underscores systemic flaws in the program’s implementation.

“Privacy cannot be an afterthought,” Merkley said in a statement. “It must be a fundamental consideration, especially when dealing with sensitive biometric data.”

“Additionally, despite promising lawmakers and the public that this technology is not mandatory, TSA has stated its intent to expand this technology beyond the security checkpoint and make it mandatory in the future,” Merkley said, noting that “in April 2023, TSA Administrator [David] Pekoske admitted at the South by Southwest Conference that ‘we will get to the point where we will require biometrics across the board.’ If that happens, this program could become one of the largest federal surveillance databases overnight without authorization from Congress.”

Such comments have only fueled bipartisan skepticism. Merkley and his colleagues argue that Congress has not authorized such sweeping changes to passenger verification protocols, and they demand a full audit of the program’s implications before it becomes the default at airports nationwide.

For Merkley, this fight is far from new. He has consistently championed privacy rights in the face of expanding surveillance technologies. Earlier this year, he led a bipartisan effort to include privacy safeguards in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act which became law in May. He also introduced the Traveler Privacy Protection Act, which is aimed at restricting TSA’s use of facial recognition at airports and has bipartisan support. The bill has been bottled up in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Merkley’s advocacy resonates with Americans concerned about the growing encroachment of surveillance in public spaces, a fear that many Republicans share. While proponents of facial recognition argue that the technology enhances security, opponents contend that it sets a dangerous precedent. They warn of a future where constant monitoring becomes normalized, eroding the expectation of privacy in everyday life.

The senators’ letter calls for a thorough investigation into TSA’s use of facial recognition technology, urging Inspector General Cuffari to examine its accuracy, necessity, and compliance with privacy standards. They also stress the need for transparency in how the TSA plans to handle the vast amounts of biometric data it collects. Will this data be stored securely? Who will have access to it? And what safeguards are in place to prevent misuse?

As the holiday travel season reaches its peak, the debate over TSA’s facial recognition program takes on new urgency. Millions of Americans will pass through security checkpoints, many of them unknowingly subject to biometric scans. For lawmakers like Merkley, this moment represents a critical juncture, and a chance to shape the policies governing biometric technology before its widespread adoption becomes irreversible.

At its core, the fight against TSA’s facial recognition program is about accountability. Merkley and his bipartisan allies are calling on the federal government to pause, evaluate, and justify its actions. They argue that any program with such far-reaching implications must be subject to rigorous scrutiny, not only to protect privacy, but also to uphold public trust.

“Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive. We can protect our skies without compromising the rights of those who travel beneath them,” Merkley said. “Whether the TSA will heed this call for restraint and transparency remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over facial recognition technology is far from over.

Meanwhile, Pekoske has indicated he wants to stay on as TSA Administrator under President Donald Trump, at least until his term as administrator ends in 2027. It was Trump who nominated Pekoske to head TSA during Trump’s first term as president.

“It’s important for continuity in TSA to run the second term to its conclusion,” Pekoske said.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  DHS  |  face biometrics  |  facial recognition  |  TSA  |  U.S. Government