Template revised April 12, 2018.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
BRIEFING ITEM
Date of Meeting
September 10, 2019
DATE: August 5, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Eric Schinfeld, External Relations; Veronica Valdez, Commission Office
SUBJECT: Biometrics Technology Study Session
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session is to provide the Commission an overview of the state of
biometrics and facial recognition technology. The advantages of these innovations for the Port
of Seattle are clear: a faster, seamless, more convenient passenger processing experience, and
access control for sensitive areas of Port facilities. Yet there are also many perceived concerns
from the public and certain stakeholders: privacy, racial equity, cybersecurity and unforeseen
uses that raise ethical questions.
Biometrics are already being used at Port facilities – by the Port and by its private sector and
federal partners – and these technologies are on track for broader implementation, particularly
with regard to travelers and passengers. For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) is working toward implementation of facial recognition technology for all international
commercial air travelers within the next four years. Delta Air Lines and Royal Caribbean Cruises
are some of the private sector leaders bringing this technology to their airport and cruise
terminal passengers.
Therefore, it is incumbent on the Port to have a strategic and comprehensive understanding of
how this technology works, how it might be used and key policy and regulatory issues that
might need to be addressed. The study session will include expert panelists who will present on
these aspects of biometrics and answer Commissioner questions.
BACKGROUND
“Biometric authentication” – otherwise known as “biometrics” – uses biological measurements
or physical characteristics to identify individuals. Commonly biometrics include fingerprint
mapping, facial recognition and voice recognition, but it also encompasses retina scans, the way
someone sits and walks, unique body odors, and even facial contortions that can serve as
unique identifiers.
Biometrics at Other Ports
COMMISSION AGENDA – Study Session Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: September 10, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016.
As of April 2019, 19 airports were conducting some form of biometric exit implementation and
15 airports had implemented biometric entry; similarly, CBP has partnered with three major
cruise lines (Royal Caribbean, Norwegian and MSC) at various ports throughout the country.
Local, State and Federal Policy
Strong policy frameworks and limitations around the use of biometrics are few and far
between. Only a few individual jurisdictions at the local and state level have, or are considering,
such interventions. However, there is clearly growing unease among certain lawmakers and
interest groups about unregulated use of this technology.
A majority of those concerns center around the use of this technology in public spaces, where
governments and law enforcement are using biometrics to monitor travelers and tracking
movements of local residents without their awareness or consent. However, additional
concerns also exist, including:
• How biometric data is stored, for how long and with what protections against
cybercrimes or non-consensual selling of personal information;
• What access individuals should have to data collected and stored about themselves;
• How accurate the technology is related to non-white and/or non-male individuals,
including women, people of color and transgender individuals; and
• The consequences in a wide variety of contexts of such misidentification.
Locally, the City of Seattle has an ordinance, passed in 2017, that requires the Seattle City
Council to approve City departments’ use of technologies that could be used for surveillance
purposes, and set up a Community Surveillance Working Group to review and assess the
technologies before they come up for the Council’s approval. Recently, however, San Francisco
took regulation much further by becoming the first major city to ban the use of facial
recognition technology by city staff and departments; their legislation also required formal
approval for acquisition and use of any other “surveillance technology”. Several other smaller
jurisdictions around the country are considering similar legislation.
At the state level, the 2019 Washington State legislative session saw consideration in the House
and Senate of multiple proposals on biometric and facial recognition regulation – as part of a
broader discussion of consumer and data privacy regulation. One of the initial legislative
proposals was to ban local and state governments from using facial recognition until certain
conditions were met, including a report by the state attorney general certifying that systems
are equally accurate for people of differing races, skin tones, ethnicities, genders, or age.
Ultimately, no legislation was passed, but there will be continuing momentum for at least a
state-funded study of biometrics and facial recognition that includes suggestions for proposed
policy and regulation.
The Washington Legislature’s deliberation on this topic followed the California Legislature’s
2018 passage of a data privacy law that is widely considered to be the most comprehensive in
the country. The bill gives California residents new rights with regards to the ownership of their
COMMISSION AGENDA – Study Session Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: September 10, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016.
data, including the right to be informed about what kinds of personal data companies collect,
and why they have collected it. Consumers can also request deletion of personal information
and opt out of its sale.
It is worth noting that airports and seaports are often cited as exempt from any local and state
legislation because of federal pre-emption, but that is only true for the federal functions such
as TSA and CBP; local governments still have the ability to restrict their own staff from either
using or facilitating such technology.
Many advocacy nonprofits are taking strong positions that are aligned with San Francisco’s
efforts. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union – at both the Washington state level
and nationally – have taken the position that there should be a moratorium on the use of facial
recognition by governments until the technology has been fully proven to address all privacy
and equity concerns; they also believe that more technology providers should stop selling such
technology to governments until those same conditions have been met. Washington state is
also home to a number of technology companies – such as Microsoft and Amazon – that are
both in the business of developing biometric technologies and simultaneously calling for proper
regulation of them.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS BRIEFING
None.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None.
