As TSA agents continue to prove their incompetence in the “War on Terror,” the Department of Homeland Security is now allocating $1 billion in taxpayer funding to create a facial recognition program that will scan Americans’ faces. A study conducted by Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology looked at the biometric scanners that are creating an inventory of the faces of individuals leaving the country at airports across the United States. While they are only at certain major airports right now, the full implementation of these scanners could cost Americans up to $1 billion. The study noted that while the “9/11 Response and Biometric Exit Account” created by Congress has the funds for the program, “neither Congress nor DHS has ever justified the need for the program.” In addition to the fact that Congress has never provided a reason why the system is needed in the U.S., the study claimed that DHS has “repeatedly questioned ‘the additional value biometric air exit would provide’ compared with the status quo and the ‘overall value and cost of a biometric air exit capability,’ even as it has worked to build it.” Not only is a government agency pouring $1 billion into a program to increase the country’s security measures even though it lacks full confidence, and has no evidence that the program it is implementing will do so, there is also the fact that the program requires Americans to give up their civil liberties, and it has never been explicitly authorized by the government. As the researchers from Georgetown Law noted: “DHS’ biometric exit program also stands on shaky legal ground. Congress has repeatedly ordered the collection of biometrics from foreign nationals at the border, but has never clearly authorized the border collection of biometrics from American citizens using face recognition technology. Without explicit authorization, DHS should not be scanning the faces of Americans as they depart on international flights—but DHS is doing it anyway. DHS also is failing to comply with a federal law requiring it to conduct a rulemaking process to implement the airport face scanning program—a process that DHS has not even started.” The study also found that the biometric scanners used by DHS are not reliable, and often make mistakes. In fact, “according to DHS’ own data, DHS’ face recognition systems erroneously reject as many as 1 in 25 travelers using valid credentials.” This means that at the country’s busiest airports, more than 1,500 travelers could be wrongfully denied boarding in a single day. As The Free Thought Project has reported, while the biometric scanners are currently located at the major airports in Boston, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York City and the District of Columbia, DHS has made it clear that they plan to roll this program out nationwide by January 2018. Sens. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, criticized the privacy implications, and called for Homeland Security to halt the facial recognition scanning program in a letter to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson: “We request that DHS stop the expansion of this program, and provide Congress with its explicit statutory authority to use and expand a biometric exit program on U.S. citizens. If there is no specific authorization, then we request an explanation for why DHS believes it has the authority to proceed without congressional approval. Additionally, we ask that you address a number of our privacy concerns with the program.” Markey told The Hill that DHS should never have started testing and implementing the biometric scanners without first receiving congressional approval, and the United States Congress should take the time to weigh the implications of the program before handing the department a blank check. “When American citizens travel by air internationally, they should not have to choose between privacy and security,” Markey said. “The implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s facial recognition scanning program for passengers leaving the country raises a number of concerns around accuracy, transparency and basic necessity.”
Definitely some disturbing implications here.. This is a toughy..and it pits two competing conflicting values; privacy and security. Here at The Daily Buzz we are ALL for securing biometric data from those NON-U.S. citizens coming to America, especially illegal aliens. With the ever growing threats to our national security and our homeland, that is just basic common sense. However, we need to be VERY careful that such efforts, and the technologies used to implement those efforts, are not used against law-abiding American citizens, without a proper warrant or other court order. We’ll keep an eye on this developing story…
New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter says President Trump should not begin to consider amnesty for illegal aliens “until there’s a wall and hell freezes over.” In a post on Friday, Coulter responded to a tweet by President Trump in which he reiterated that he would only be willing to sign off on an amnesty beginning with nearly 800,000 illegal aliens if his list of pro-American immigration principles were enacted simultaneously. Trump tweeted, “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!” Those principles include full funding for the construction of a border wall — which has been stalled in the prototype stage — as well as an end to “chain migration,” which makes up more than 70 percent of all legal immigration as it allows newly naturalized immigrants to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them. Additionally, Trump says in exchange for DACA amnesty, he wants to see an immediate end to the Diversity Visa Lottery program, whereby 50,000 visas are randomly given out all over the world every year to foreign nationals who do not have to meet a rigorous set of skills or requirements. Ann Coulter, however, says the Trump administration should not even be considering amnesty for illegal aliens. “No DACA until there’s a wall AND hell freezes over.” In a Breitbart News interview this week, Coulter said she wanted DACA illegal aliens to be deported first, citing the role that many of the enrollees of the program play in the open borders lobby and immigration activism organizations. Coulter told Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow: “It has to be said that many of the legal and illegal low-wage workers, they’re incredibly hard workers, they’re really nice people, and it occurred to me … that I actually like all of the illegal immigrants except the DREAMers. They’re the ones I want deported first because they’re the activists. They’re the obnoxious ones. They’re the ones who go to congressional offices and stamp their feet and say, “How dare you not rush to grant us amnesty?” Whereas the other illegals don’t have the time to be protesting; they’re busy working, being polite, being so friendly and nice and saying, “Merry Christmas.” No. Let’s start by deporting the DREAMers. That’s point one.” Trump signing off on any amnesty plan, no matter if it included an end to chain migration, elimination of the Visa Lottery and funding for the border wall, would be an enormous betrayal to his “America First” agenda and commitment to American workers. Amnesty for DACA illegal aliens has the potential to flood the American workforce with more low-skilled foreign labor and could trigger a surge of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border. Corporate interests, including the GOP mega-donors Charles and David Koch, have teamed up with the open borders lobby to push a DACA amnesty, as it would provide a stream of cheap, foreign labor that would further drive down the wages of America’s working and middle class.
As usual Ann nails it on the head. And her point about the obnoxious, entitlement-minded so-called “Dreamers” is extremely well taken! They ARE the ones getting in everyone’s face demanding that they be granted amnesty. We agree with Ann.. Dreamers SHOULD be the first to be deported. But, here at The Daily Buzz, we’ve adopted more of an “option D” approach to deporting illegal aliens here in America; “all of the above.” There are between roughly 15-22 MILLION illegal aliens in this country (the Dems will say 11 million; the same number they’ve used for over 15 years, btw)!! To put that into some perspective, in Colorado the total population according to the last census was about 4.5 million. In other words, there are three timess as many illegal aliens already here in America as is the entire population of the state of Colorado!! So, that is why we’ve been saying that we to be deporting illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands…paying particular attention to known gang members, convicted criminal aliens, and those already determined by an immigration judge to be deported…regardless of age or gender. If we did just that, we’d make a HUGE dent in the illegal immigration crisis that is crushing our country and it’s infrastructure. Of course we need to immediately secure our southern border and BUILD THE WALL NOW!!! For more on that, see our comments below the anchor baby article we posted the other day (scroll down 4 articles).
Two California professors are criticizing farmers’ markets for causing “environmental gentrification” in which “habits of white people are normalized.” San Diego State University geography professors Pascale Joassart-Marcelli and Fernando J. Bosco contend that farmers’ markets are “white spaces” oppressing minorities in a chapter for “Just Green Enough,” an environmental anthology focused on urban development. Environmental gentrification is defined as a process where “environmental improvements lead to … the displacement of long-term residents,” according to the anthology. The professors, as reported by Campus Reform, say farmers’ markets are “exclusionary” because locals cannot “afford the food and/or feel excluded from these new spaces.” The SDSU professors, who teach classes like “Geography of Food” and “Food Justice,” argue that “farmers’ markets are often white spaces where the food consumption habits of white people are normalized.” While such markets are typically set up to help combat “food deserts” in low-income and minority communities, the academics argue that they instead “attract households from higher socio-economic backgrounds, raising property values and displacing low-income residents and people of color.” “The most insidious part of this gentrification process is that alternative food initiatives work against the community activists and residents who first mobilized to fight environmental injustices and provide these amenities but have significantly less political and economic clout than developers and real estate professionals,” the professors argue. They claim that, while “curbing gentrification is a vexing task,” the negative externalities of “white habitus” formed at farmers’ markets can be managed through “slow and inclusive steps that balance new initiatives and neighborhood stability to make cities ‘just green enough.’” Joassart-Marcelli and Bosco received funding from the National Science Foundation to research “the role of food in structuring everyday life in immigrant and low-income urban neighborhoods.”
..which you and I paid for. That’s your hard-earned tax dollars at work…NOT! You’re welcome, guys. What a bunch of mind-numbing psychobabble!! I love going to the farmer’s markets here locally each summer. And, one of my favorite ones is in downtown Denver. For those of you who live locally in the greater Denver area, it’s off of Colfax and right in front of East High School; an inner city Denver Public School (DPS) high school…not exactly in the burbs. And, when I’m there I see people of ALL ages, both genders, and ALL ethnicities. So, this study by a couple anti-white, racist professors in California shows just how out-of-touch with reality these pointy-headed electoids really are. Farmer’s markets are set up by local vendors to simply sell their produce and other wares. Yes, sometimes they set them up in the burbs or in middle-to-upper income areas. Absolutely. That’s called BUSINESS. Imagine that?! But, other times, they set them up in urban areas as well, and their customers are from ALL walks of life and socioeconomic circumstances. What a bunch of self-loathing, racist, offensive idiots! Parents; If you have kids in their classes, yank ’em out quick! Unreal..