Privacy in Action: Mark Lerner, Constitutional Alliance Co-Founder

Interview with Mark Lerner, a Co-Founder and spokesperson for the Constitutional Alliance.

Biometric facial recognition is no longer science fiction tech. In fact, it’s used in many parts of the world including Europe and the US. Chances are you use facial recognition tech every single day when you unlock your phone.

In our latest interview we tackled the subject of biometric facial recognition with Mark Lerner, a Co-Founder and spokesperson for the Constitutional Alliance. Mark is an expert witness for national and international biometrics cases. You can follow him on Twitter @MarkLerner3.

Interview with Mark Lerner:

Startpage: What do you believe are the most dangerous aspects of the public and private adoption of biometrics/Facial Recognition Technology?

Mark Lerner: The most dangerous aspect of the growing public and private adoption of biometrics in general, and specifically FRT (Facial Recognition Technology) is the growing surveillance state. The line between public and private adoption of biometrics has been blurred, if not totally erased. With the expanding growth of smart cities, law enforcement, businesses, and homeowners have created a symbiotic relationship where high resolution video feeds are linked between homes, businesses and the databases of law enforcement. There will be literally nowhere for a person to go and be out of range of cameras whether those cameras are in stores, homes, streetlights, body cameras, drones, Red light cameras, robots, or any number of other places. 

There is a Chilling Effect that the Constitutional Alliance has well documented that addresses human nature when we know we are being watched constantly.  Many people will stop attending protests, political rallies, or any other activity that can be seen as objecting to what government and/or law enforcement is doing.  The public has come to realize Watchlists are real even if we do not know who is on the Watchlists or deciding what the standards are for a person to be placed on a Watchlist. Many law enforcement agencies and others in state and federal government have exempted themselves from complying with the Privacy Act of 1974,.and other laws and/or regulations that would provide transparency. 

Proponents of the use of FRT will say that privacy can no longer mean anonymity. While it is true when we are in public our faces are exposed but that does not mean people support being identified when they are in public regardless of whether they are protesting or walking around enjoying a beautiful day. Most people do not realize there is off the shelf facial recognition software that people can buy. There are also companies that will sell access to databases of the facial images of people that have been scooped up from social networking sites. Bad actors have and will continue to find ways to use FRT for their own advantage. 

There was a time when society in large decided on what norms are acceptable. Many social issues were advanced because people were willing to speak out in public settings. There were and are times where people were split on social issues and other issues such as the 2^nd Amendment. The more the surveillance state grows, the more those that control the cameras and the use of FRT will decide what norms are acceptable rather than society. 

There are also religious implications pertaining to the use of FRT. Many people because of their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs object to being photographed and/or having their photographs/high resolution digital facial images in databases. Moreover, because there are international standards in place for the collecting, retaining, and sharing of biometrics, there are Christians that object to being in a global system of identification that controls a person’s ability to buy, sell, travel, and work.

To create a global biometric system, states and nations must:

1. Enroll their citizens (Driver’s Licenses/ID cards, passports, national ID, school ID, welfare benefit cards, etc.).
2. Adopt international standards for documents, photos and data sharing.
3. Link databases for global information sharing, global ID-tracking and surveillance. There are at least two international telecommunications systems in place currently that allow for the sharing of biometrics globally. One is Interpol (Global Police Communication System), and the other is the International Public Justice and Public Information Safety Network. Interpol announced that these two telecommunication networks have been combined. It is not clear if the databases still exist separately. It is noteworthy that the International Public Justice and Public Information Safety Network acknowledges that it acquires a great deal of its data, including biometrics, from state Department of Motor Vehicles databases.

A surveillance state and a free society cannot be reconciled. The Constitutional Alliance has proposed legislation that does not eliminate the use of Facial Recognition Technology, but it does put in place strong constraints. If surveillance cameras captured a crime being committed, law enforcement could ask a court that a John or Jane Doe warrant be approved before Facial Recognition Technology is used. In the cases of missing children or seniors, guardians or family members would have to give consent. 

Startpage: How did you first get involved in the effort to protect people from facial recognition technology?

Mark Lerner: I was alarmed about the brazen attack of our country by terrorists on 9/11/2001. I was told about FRT by a friend. I started out as a proponent of the use of FRT. On multiple occasions I visited the headquarters of the largest biometric company in the United States. I bought into the concept of having a database of suspected terrorists and comparing the facial images of people entering the United States against the facial images in the suspected terrorist database. I attended conferences about the use of biometrics and met with state legislators, state and national groups, members of Congress and their staff, and people in law enforcement in support of the use of FRT. 

It did not take long for me to come to realize the people in the biometric sector and those in government had no intention of just having a database of suspected terrorists. The goal was total global biometric enrollment. 

The goal of the United Nations in the document TRANSFORMING OUR WORLD: THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is total global biometric enrollment. This requirement/goal is Item 16.9 on page 30 of the document. There has been much written about this goal but suffice it to say what is being called for is a high resolution digital facial image/photograph that is facial recognition compatible of every person on earth. That goal is nearly complete now. 

Often the Constitutional Alliance is asked how can people that live in remote villages of countries around the world possibly be enrolled in a global system of identification and financial control? Donkeys are the answer. Literally tables and laptop computers are put on donkeys and delivered to remote areas in countries. India’s population is approximately 1.4 billion people. Nearly the entire population is already enrolled in India’s biometric identity scheme named Aadhaar.

Startpage: What rationale have governments and companies applied to encourage people to accept mandatory biometric enrollment?

Mark Lerner: Convenience and public safety are the two most used selling points of biometrics in general, and specifically FRT. People all over the world are told that the day is coming when we will not need to carry identification documents such as drivers’ licenses, or for that matter people will not need to carry money. A person’s biometrics will be linked to databases that are also linked to their bank accounts. In some countries such as the United States a person’s facial image or fingerprints are already used instead of identification documents. 

The public safety selling point is very compelling if people do not think the disadvantages of the surveillance state. We are told if there are cameras everywhere and FRT is used, law enforcement can identify people that commit crimes and eventually track them down. The criminals can range from terrorists to shoplifters. 

Once facial images are captured of people in public the facial images are compared to facial images in many different databases. These databases are often not current and/or have many errors. The point is often made by many that FRT is not accurate. The Constitutional Alliance does not use that argument because with Artificial Intelligence, FRT is getting more and more accurate by the day. The stronger argument is the opposition to the surveillance state and the protection of the rights of people. 

Startpage: Why do feel that repealing the Real ID Act 2005 is important?

Mark Lerner: The Real ID Act 2005 is the tool used for enrollment of all adults into the global system of identification and financial control. The standard for the digital facial image/photo on the drivers’ license was provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Real ID Act 2005. 

The standard reads as follows. “17 The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”

In layman’s terms what the footnote meant was going forward all drivers’ licenses issued with a photo in the United States would be facial recognition compatible, and further the standard used for the photo/high resolution digital facial image would be an international standard allowing for the global biometric information sharing. The ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations, and the ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. 

The only way to stop mandatory global biometric enrollment in the United States is to repeal specific sections of the Real ID Act2005. People calling for a complete repeal have not read the law. There is a provision of the Real ID Act 2005 that repeals Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. Section 7212 gives the federal government control of state issued drivers’ licenses. In other words, repealing the Real ID Act fully would among other things leave us right back where we are today; the federal government would still dictate standards for drivers’ licenses and when we would be required to provide drivers’ licenses to law enforcement and others. 

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can use the Official Purposes of the Real ID Act to require a person provide a Real ID compliant license to purchase a firearm and/or ammunition. The Secretary can require a compliant license for anyone to send money Western Union out of the country. People from the right and left sides of the political aisle should be appalled of the power Congress gave the Secretary. Congress cannot overrule the Secretary because the president would veto a bill to stop what the Secretary wants. 

Startpage: Are there ways that people can protect themselves? What can we today?

Mark Lerner: We all must call for the Real ID Act 2005 to be surgically repealed.  The Constitutional Alliance opposes the federal government having control over the issuance of drivers’ licenses. The public must contact their state legislators and members of Congress demanding the surgical repeal of the Real IDS Act 2005.

There will be lawsuits going forward that will have as Causes of Action protecting our First and Fourth Amendment rights. These lawsuits will go straight to the heart of the Real ID Act. The public needs to support these lawsuits by donating to the plaintiffs and letting others know about the lawsuits. 

We strongly encourage people to visit the Constitutional Alliance’s website and sign up for our weekly email updates and our monthly newsletter. An informed public is the best defense against a growing surveillance state. We ask people to share with others what they learn from the email updates and monthly newsletters.

Startpage: We appreciate that you are a Startpage user, why do you choose to search in private and why is data privacy important to you?

Mark Lerner: Data privacy is critical for several reasons. When we do searches of an issue or subject, the search is a snapshot in time of something we are interested in. Searches often do not reflect what we are thinking about doing or will do. If people use search engines that do not protect their search history corporations or law enforcement can use our search history believing they know what we are thinking, leading to many false assumptions about us. 

Many members of the Constitutional Alliance including myself use Startpage because we do believe protecting our privacy is important. 

I would suggest that people think about how many times others have made false assumptions about them based on the way they are dressed, the people they are with, the kind of car they drive, where they live and so on. Now I would ask people to think about the thousands of searches they have done on a variety of issues. If government or corporations used those searches to profile the people doing the searching how many false assumptions would government or corporations make about each of us. Finally, I would ask the question, what business is it of law enforcement or corporations what searches we do?