A controversial new biometric data collection policy by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took effect on December 26, which mandates facial recognition photographs for all non-US citizens entering or departing the country at airports, seaports, and land borders. Dubbed the “DNA law” due to provisions allowing authorities to request DNA in certain cases, the rule has ignited debates over privacy, discrimination, and its potential impact on international tourism.
The regulation expands an existing biometric entry-exit system, requiring facial scans to verify identities against existing records. These images for non-citizens can be stored in DHS databases for up to 75 years, a lifetime for many travellers. Previously limited pilot programmes and age exemptions, which spared those under 14 or over 79, have been eliminated, meaning children and the elderly are now subject to the same procedures.
Measures to deter frivolous asylum claims
While the core change focuses on universal facial recognition, the rule grants DHS broader authority to collect additional biometrics, including fingerprints, iris scans, or DNA, particularly in law enforcement scenarios or for those in removal proceedings. Officials stress that such measures are not routine but are specifically meant to deter frivolous asylum claims, detect visa overstays, and improve national security. The policy aligns with efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, building on long-standing mandates for a comprehensive entry-exit tracking system.
US citizens are exempt from mandatory participation and can opt out, with their photos discarded within 12 hours if captured incidentally. Non-compliance by foreigners, however, could lead to delays or denial of entry.
Civil rights groups concerned
Critics, including civil rights groups, have raised alarms over privacy invasions and technological biases. A 2024 US Commission on Civil Rights report highlighted facial recognition software’s higher error rates for Black individuals and ethnic minorities, potentially leading to wrongful detentions or misidentifications. Privacy advocates describe the long-term data storage as “dystopian”, warning of risks from data breaches or government overreach.
Public reaction on social media has been sharply divided. Some users called the measures “unnecessary and dystopian”, predicting a decline in international tourism as visitors baulk at invasive screening. Others expressed concerns about eroding personal autonomy, with one commenting, “We are losing our autonomy slowly but surely.” Supporters, however, view it as essential for border security amid rising immigration concerns.
As implementation begins, travellers are advised to prepare for potentially longer processing times. While the government touts operational efficiency and fraud reduction, the policy goes to show ongoing tensions between security imperatives and individual rights in an increasingly digitised border landscape.
