LEER=   >
Port am
of Seattle'




PORT OF SEATTLE PUBLIC-FACING BIOMETRICS POLICY

BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT RECOMMENDATIONS

DRAFT AS OF March 9, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.   Executive Summary

2.   Introduction

3.   Basics of Biometric Air Exit

4.   Applying the Port's Public-Facing Biometrics Guiding Principles to Biometric Air Exit
1.  Justified

2.   Voluntary

3.   Private

4.   Equitable

5.  Transparent

6.   Lawful

7.   Ethical


5.   Appendix
1.   Biometrics Working Group

2.   Biometrics External Advisory Group

3.  Commission Biometrics Policy Motion

4.   CPB letter of support for the Commission principles/alignment of the principles to CBP's
biometric air exit program

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biometrics is the measurement and analysis of physical and behavioral characteristics that are used to
identify individuals through technology. Examples of physical characteristics include the unique features
of an individual's face or their fingerprint, while examples of behavioral characteristics includes an
individual's voice, signature, or how they walk.

Due to technological advances, perceived customer benefits and federal requirements, there is a
significant increase in public-facing facial recognition technology deployment by public and private
sector users, including in airport and seaport settings. In fact, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
is Congressionally mandated to implement a biometric exit and entry screening process for all
international passengers.

Facial biometrics are already being used at dozens of U.S. airports and cruise terminals by those who see
the technology as a major benefit to travelers  both because of a faster and more efficient travel
experience, as well as a more accurate security process. However, many members of the public and
various advocacy organizations have expressed concerns about the rapidly expanding use of facial
recognition. These stakeholders have raised issues around privacy, equity and civil iberties, as well as
the potential for unregulated "mass surveillance."

Public-facing biometrics are already used in various forms at the Port of Seattle's aviation and maritime
facilities, such as 1) CLEAR, a private company providing an option to those customers who want
expedited screening at U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints to voluntarily
supply their biometric data in order to verify their identities, 2) CBP's use of biometrics at Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport (SEA)! to validate departing international traveler identities, and 3)
Norwegian Cruise Line use of biometrics on ship while docked at Pier 66 to validate the identities of
disembarking passengers. CBP will also use facial recognition technology to screen almost all arriving
international passengers once SEA's International Arrivals Facility (IAF) opens in the coming year.

In advance of any expansion of biometric uses at Port of Seattle facilities by the Port or its private sector
tenants, the Port of Seattle Commission desires to develop proper policy frameworks and clear
guidelines to reduce potential misuse and abuse of biometrics, while improving public understanding of
the benefits and risks of this technology in various applications. On December 10, 2019, after holding
two Study Sessions, conducting stakeholder outreach and doing multiple site visits, the Port Commission
adopted seven "biometrics guiding principles," and directed staff to translate those principles into
tangible, enforceable policies. Specifically, the Port strives to balance operational needs, business
priorities and regulatory mandates with protections for the interests and rights of passengers,
employees and other visitors to our facilities.

Over the last three months, a working group of Port staff has collaborated with an external advisory
group of key stakeholders to accomplish that task. One of the key findings from this process is that the
various use cases of biometrics require separate analysis as to how the Port should (consistent with
local, state and federal requirements) apply the biometrics guiding principles to develop policy. One
unified set of policies is not practical because of key differences from one use case to another, such as
who manages the data, requirements imposed by state or federal law, and the benefits and risks
associated with each use.

1 On certain departing Lufthansa, Hainan, Emirates and Virgin Atlantic flights

3

This set of recommendations is specific to "biometric air exit," which is the use of facial recognition by
CBP, the Port and/or airlines as part of CBP's Traveler Verification Service {TVS) to validate the
identities of departing international airline passengers as they board the aircraft. Throughout this
document, "biometrics" and "facial recognition" will be used interchangeably because CBP's biometric
exit and entry uses facial recognition technology.

The recommendations that have resulted from the working group and external advisory group process
are listed below, along with concerns from some external advisors who do not support some of these
recommendations. All sides of the discussion are represented here to provide Port Commissioners full
information prior to adoption of any policies. Additional recommendations for other use cases will be
similarly provided.

2. INTRODUCTION

The goal of the Port's Biometric Working Group is to translate the seven biometrics principles adopted
by the Port Commission into tangible, enforceable policies that ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
that the use of public-facing biometrics at Port facilities conform to these principles.

It is important to note that the Port has broad authority to establish policies that govern the activities of
Port staff and the use of Port resources, to the extent such policies are consistent with federal law.
Private sector stakeholders operating at Port facilities (such as airlines) are also subject to the Port's
policies, to the extent that the Port's policies do not conflict with private stakeholders' own federal
obligations and/or the terms of their agreements with the Port  such as lease agreements or operating
agreements with the Port, which may vary on a case-by-case basis. The Port has very limited authority to
influence, much less direct, the activities offederal agencies operating at Port facilities.

The recommendations below are specific to biometric air exit, which is the use of facial recognition by
the Port, airline tenants, and/or by CBP itself as part of CBP's Traveler Verification Service to confirm
the identities of departing international airline passengers as they board their aircraft. It is important
to note that CBP not only has the authority to implement biometric air exit at SEA without Port
agreement, but that this is already taking place and continuing to expand. CBP is using facial recognition
for departing international passenger at SEA on departing Lufthansa, Hainan, Emirates and Virgin
Atlanticflights; therefore, the ultimate decision for the Port Commission is whether the Port wants CBP
to continue to conduct this activity at our airport, or whether they would prefer Port and/or airline staff
conduct these screenings (using Port-dictated policy guidelines).

In this document, Port staff has endeavored to recommend policies of general applicability wherever
possible; however, some recommendations are divided into 1) recommendations that apply to the Port,
2) recommendations that apply to airlines, and 3) recommendations related to CBP. Where the Port
lacks authority to mandate comaliance with particular policies, the recommendation is to work
collaboratively with these stake-olders to achieve voluntary compliance where appropriate, and/or
highlight how these stakeholders' own policies match Port principles. The Port should also advocate for
the adoption of new laws and regulations that align with the Port's biometric principles.

Finally, while the recommendations below represent the thinking of Port staff, there is not consensus
among all members of the Port's External Advisory Group on these recommendations. Therefore,
stakeholder concerns about each recommendation are also included below so that the Port Commission
can consider all perspectives before they adopt any final policies. Ultimately, the Port Commission is the
governing body that can approve any recommendations.

3. BASICS OF BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT
Biometric air exit is primarily intended to realize CBP's goal of determining whether foreign nationals
have overstayed their authorized periods of admission, as well as to confirm whether the departing
individual is truly the same person who entered the United States. Currently, this process relies upon

passenger information provided by airline carriers through CBP's Advance Passenger Information System
(APIS), which is then matched to the entry data collected by CBP officers at the time that a foreign
national was admitted to the United States.

Direction for CBP to move to biometric data collection originated as a recommendation of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission. In its final
report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "funding and completing a biometric entry-exit screening
system for travelers to and from the United States is essential to our national security." Based on the
9/11 Commission's recommendations, Congress included biometric entry/exit provisions in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The FY 2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act transferred entry/exit policy and operations to CBP. In addition, the FY
2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act authorized funding for a biometric exit program costing up to $1
billion to be collected through fee surcharges over a period of 10 years. More recently, President Trump
included direction to expedite completion of this transition to biometric identification in section 7 of
Executive Order 13769, which is known as the Muslim ban or travel ban: "The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for
all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States."

CBP has begun implementing its biometric exit program through its development of the Traveler
Verification Service (TVS) and associated pilot programs. TVS is essentially a system of related databases
hosted by CBP, containing the biometric facial recognition "template" of individuals that are ticketed on
international flights. These templates are based on images previously collected by CBP or other federal
agencies, such as from passport or visa application photos. TVS allows CBP and/or one of its authorized
partners (i.e.  airports or airlines) to deploy camera systems that capture an image of an individual and
send the image to CBP, along with the person's flight information, for processing. CBP attempts to
match the image to its "gallery" of biometric templates for that particular flight and, if it confirms a
match, transmits a "match/no ma-ch" confirmation back to the partner.

Exhibit 1. Biometric Air Exit Process

1            2          3        "        5

Airlines send a roster of ali the       Before boarding the plane, an      Photos are encrypted,     A facial-recognition    if there's a match, the
travelers on every international      airline asks travelers to pose for     stripped of personally     algorithm checks      traveler is allowed
flight to the Department of         a photo instead of scanning their    identifying information    each photo against    through. If there's no
Homeland Security, which          boarding pass and passports       like travelers' names      the image bank.      match, the traveler's
'
prepares an image bank of the                                  and sent to a cloud:                        documents are
|  8,
travelers using passport and visa        Airline (0        ty       based matching system         \            screened manually.
t                                 al =
phatos Homeland Security has          Jon         |           via a secure connection       a       i
i
on file.         I
&%      i
Ge                                                       1
\     3
{
AV 5          3
.             9
& "                Eke Rowisje fears                                     images offoreign
~aserssnsseaerasesson                                                       nationals 14 to 79        [Qlolal No match
years old are keptfor
75years, U.S. citizen                 @
photos are deleted     Lal
within 12 hours.

Reprintedfrom The Seattle Times

It is important to note that airports and airlines are not currently mandated to participate in CBP's
biometric air exit program. Of the two dozen airports and airlines that have partnered with CBP to

implement biometric air exit, all of them have joined the program voluntarily because they believe it
improves customer facilitation and homeland security.

Authorized users of TVS are required by CBP to comply with a set of business requirements. For
example, each camera must be connected to the TVS via a secure, encrypted connection, and each CBP's
partner's IT system must allow CBP to audit compliance with these requirements.

The biometric air exit program is only used at departure gates and only when international departing
flights are boarding. It is worth noting that, if an airport or airline does not choose to partner with CBP
to implement biometric air exit, CBP has authority to implement the program using its own staff and
equipment at any international air departure gate. This is already occurring at SEA on certain departing
Lufthansa, Hainan, Emirates and Virgin Atlantic flights.

It is also worth noting that TVS is not limited to the biometric air exist use case; for example, TVS can
also be used for other traveler identity verification functions, such as curb-to-gate implementations
(where international departing passengers' identity can be used to facilitate ticketing, bag check and
TSA screening as well). This set of recommendations considers only the use of TVS in support of
biometric air exit. With respect to the biometric air exit use case, as with any other use case utilizing
TVS, the Port will have limited visibility into (and no authority over) the design of the CBP-provided TVS
system.

CBP has stated that its biometric air exit program fully aligns with the Port's Biometrics Principles. The

agency details its thoughts on this topic in the letter agency officials sent the Port Commission in
December 2019, attached as Appendix D.

4. APPLYING THE PORT'S PUBLIC-FACING BIOMETRICS GUIDING
PRINCIPLES TO BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT

a. Justified
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
Biometric technology at portfacilities should be used onlyfor a clear intended purpose thatfurthers
a specific operational need. The port does not condone biometrics for "mass surveillance" for
example, use offacial recognition on large groups ofpeople without a lawful purpose, rather than
single-use for travelers.

1.   Key Issues to address
The Justified principle essentially speaks to two key issues of concern: 1) requiring an explicitly
articulated operational need in order to approve the use of biometrics, and 2) ensuring that biometrics
are not used for "mass surveillance" at Port facilities. The Commission motion defines mass surveillance

as scanning large groups of people without lawful purpose, rather than use on one person at one time
with their active participation.

As it relates to a specific operational need, travel document checks are a well-established activity in
connection with the boarding of an aircraft on an international itinerary. That is why CBP refers to
biometric air exit as the automation of an existing verification process. CBP is already provided
information about every person boarding a departing international aircraft by airlines, and CBP has the

picture of most travelers from U.S. passport or foreign visitor visa application photos. CBP and Congress
have determined that biometric air exit is operationally necessary to ensure national security and
ensure compliance with immigration laws.

Biometric air exit is not mass surveillance. Biometric air exit captures an image of individuals with their
awareness and active participation, which aligns with the Commission's definition. Recommendations
for protecting against unintended image capture of other individuals are included under the Voluntary
principle.

Finally, the Port should have a process in place for reviewing and approving airport or airline requests to
implement biometric air exit systems, as referenced throughout the recommendations in this document,
in order to ensure that each implementation complies with the Port's Biometrics Principles to the
greatest extent possible.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Justified" recommendations at a glance
Port                               Airline                             Federal
If staff makes request to           If airline makes request to         The port does not have
implement biometric air exit      implement biometric air exit      jurisdiction to approve or reject
program, approval must come    program, approval must come    CBP decisions regarding use
from the Aviation Managing      from the Aviation Managing      case implementation.
Director (AMD) after the AMD     Director after the AMD has
has notified the Port ED and       notified the Port ED and Port      If CBP plans to implement or
Port Commission.                Commission with an              expand biometric exit at SEA,
explanation how the proposed    they should notify the Port in
If request requires Commission    implementation aligns with all     advance.
authorization, memo to           relevant principles.
Commission must explain
alignment with Biometric
Principles.

If procurement process is
required, request information
on alignment with Biometric
principles.

If the Port implements a
"common use" biometric air
exit solution, it must be used for
all departing international
flights at SEA.

For Port

Recommendation 1a: Port staff who request implementation of a common use? biometric air exit
system at SEA gates used for international departing flights must receive approval from the Aviation
Managing Director before proceeding with the procurement process, including by providing an
explanation as to how it will comply with the Port's Biometric Principles and Biometric Air Exit Policies.
Staff must also provide documentation that their proposed process is compliant with CBP's Biometric Air
Exit Requirements? and TVS application programming interface (API) specifications.

Recommendation 2a: If the proposed implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff does not require
a Commission authorization, then the Aviation Managing Director must notify the Port Executive
Director and the Port Commission before approving the request. This notification must be at least three
(3) weeks in advance of any staff action. The Aviation Managing Director must consider the following
criteria in deciding whether or not to approve the implementation:
*   Demonstrated operational benefitaeed, which is defined as an added increased efficiency or
effectiveness in benefitte-travelerspassengenprocessing vs existing manual processes
eo   Compliance with all Port principles and policies

e   Compliance will all CBP requirements

e   Net benefit-cost to travelers  both overall and for specific subsets of travelers  of the added
customer facilitation vs. potential privacy and other risks

The Managing Director should also seek feedback from the Technology Ethical Advisory Board, once it is
established (see recommendation under Ethical).

Recommendation 3: If the requested implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff requires a
Commission authorization, then the Commission memo must include a justification as to how the
proposal complies with the Port's Biometric Principles and Biometric Air Exit Policies, as well as a
recommendation from the Aviation Managing Director on how and why this request meets the Justified
principle.

Recommendation 4: If the proposed implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff requires a
procurement, then the vendor solicitation document must include a request for explanation of how the
technology will comply with the Port's Biometric Principles and Biometric Air Exit Policies, as well as
CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements.

Recommendation 5: If the Port implements a common use biometric air exit solution, it must be used
for all departing international flights at SEA; any previously approved biometric air exit solutions
implemented by individual airlines will be removed and replaced by the Port's selected technology.

For Airlines
Recommendation 1b: An airline requesting to implement biometric air exit at SEA gates used for
international departing flights must receive approval from the Aviation Managing Director and provide
an explanation as to how the implementation will comply with the Port's Biometric Principles and


2 Meaning that the airport would provide technology that is then used by whatever airlines is using the departure
gate for a departing international flight.
3 Available
upon request (email Wilson.d@portseattle.org)
4 Available
upon request (email Wilson.d@portseattle.org)
5 Commission authorization is required for procurements valued at
or above $300,000.
8 Ibid.

Biometric Air Exit Policies. The airline requesting to implement biometric air exit at SEA gates must
provide documentation that its proposed process has been approved by CBP, specifically documenting
compliance with CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements' and TVS AP! specifications.

Recommendation 2b: The Aviation Managing Director must notify the Port Executive Director and the
Port Commission before approving an airline request for biometric air exit, with an explanation of how
the proposal complies with the Port's Biometrics Principles. This notification must be at least three (3)
weeks in advance of any staff action. The Aviation Managing Director must consider the following
criteria in deciding whether or not to approve the implementation:
eo    Demonstrated operational benefitreed, which is defined as ar-added-benefitio
travelersincreased efficiency or effectiveness in passenger processing vs existing manual
processes
eo    Compliance with all Port principles and policies

eo    Compliance will all CBP requirements

eo    Net benefit-cost to travelers  both overall and for specific subsets of travelers  of the added
customer facilitation vs. potential privacy and other risks

The Managing Director should also seek feedback from the Technology Ethical Advisory Board, once it is
established (see recommendation under Ethical).

For CBP
Due to both practical and legal considerations, the Port may not deny CBP the right to implement
biometric air exit at SEA using CBP's own staff and resources. However, because CBP would be making
use of Port-controlled facilities to deploy biometric air exit, it is reasonable to ask CBP to notify the Port
if and when it intends to conduct biometric air exit, so that the Port can maintain situational awareness.

In general, the Port can enhance CBP's efforts related to publicizing information about the biometric air
exit program; recommendations related to this issue are listed under the Transparent principle.

Recommendation B: The Port should request that CBP notify the Port in advance of implementing or
expanding biometric air exit.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
oe   There should te greater clarity regarding the criteria with which the Aviation Managing Director
(AMD) will decide if a request will be accepted.
o  Port staff response: Added language to Recommendation 2a and 2b to address this.

eo    Beyond the AMD process, the policy recommendations should specify the situations warranting
the use of biometrics. There should be more clarity on what constitutes as an "operational
need."
o  Port staff response: Added language to Recommendation 2a and 2b to address this.

eo   Operational need is better phrased as operational benefit.

o  Port staff response: Changed 2a and 2b

7 Available
upon request (email Wilson.d@portseattle.org)
8 Available
upon request (email Wilson.d@portseattle.org)

10

e    Net benefit-cost is different for different subcategories of individuals.

o  Port staff response: Port staff response: Changed 2a and 2b


This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staff response: For this section, added Recommendation B.

b. Voluntary
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
The use of biometrics to identify and validate travelers through portfacilities should be voluntary,
and reasonable alternatives should be providedfor those who do not wish to participate  through a
convenient "opt-in" or "opt-out" process, except in specific situations authorized by the port or
required byfederal law such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) entry and exit
requirements for non-U.S. citizens. Unintended capture of data by biometric technologyfrom those
travelers opting out ofsuch biometric data collection, or of any non-travelers or other visitors at the
airport, should be prevented; any unintended capture of this data should not be stored.

1.   Key Issues to address
There are two main aspects of the Voluntary principle: 1) providing for an opt-in or opt-out procedure,
and 2) preventing unintended image capture.

Current CBP regulations state that Because-biemetricairexit-is-afederal-pregram;-opt-out is the method
for previsiens-are-regutated-by-CBP-Current-CBRpolicy-states-that-all-departing international travelers
to choose not to participate are-allowed-to-ept-eut-ofin biometric screening.' However, the Port should
continue to pursue whether opt-in is allowed and logistically feasible. Regardless, it is essential that all
travelers fully understand this-their rights not to participate and the consequences of epting-eutsuch a
choice; similarly, the Port must ensure that opt-out or opt-in procedures are respectful and appropriate.
These issues are covered in other recommendations.

As related to image capture, the Port can specify requirements for the physical configuration of its
facilities in an effort to prevent unintended image capture during biometric air exit operations.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Voluntary" recommendations at a glance
Port                              Airline                             Federal
If port approves biometric air      Ifport approves biometric air      CBP policy states that legal U.S.
exit program implementation,     exit program implementation,     residents are allowed to optthe
port should set standards      airline staff should be trained to   out of biometric screening
for where and how facial          prevent unintended capture
recognition cameras can be       and comply with Port standards

9 From CBP guidelines: "While U.S. Citizens who
are entering or exiting the country are generally required to be in
possession of a valid U.S. passport, CBP does not require U.S. Citizens or exempt aliens to have their pictures
taken. Travelers who do not wish to participate in this facial comparison process may notify a CBP Officer or an
airline, airport or cruise line representative in order to seek an alternative means of verifying their identities and
documents."

11

used at international departure
gates and should train staff to     If the Port finds that opt-in is
prevent unintended capture      allowed and logistically feasible,
then airlines implementing
Ifprocurement process is          biometric air exit should utilize
required, request information     that as the method to
on ways the vendor can help      implement the voluntary nature
avoid unintended image capture  of the program.

If the Port approves the
implementation of biometric air
exit for use at SEA by the Port or
airlines, the Port should
continue to pursue whether
opt-in is allowed and logistically
feasible. If it is, opt-in is a
preferable way to implement
the voluntary nature of the
program.

For Port
Recommendation 6: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEA by Port
staff that requires a procurement, then the vendor proposal must include how its technology can help
minimize the unintended capture of images of nontravelers or visitors.

Recommendation 7a: The Port should develop standards and guidelines for where and how facial
recognition cameras can be used at international departure gates. in particular, these guidelines should
include ways to avoid unintended image capture for example, by positioning the camera in a direction
that does not face the main passenger area, use ofa screen behind the individual being photographed,
or use ofacamera with a minimal field view.

Recommendation 8a: If the Port approves any implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEA, the
Port should design training standards for all users of biometric exit technology at SEA that includes the
abovementioned standards for avoiding unintended capture.

Recommendation Aa: lf the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEA by the
Port or airlines, the Port should continue to pursue whether opt-in is allowed and logistically feasible. If
it is, opt-in is a preferable way to implement the voluntary nature of the program.

For Airlines
Recommendation 7b: If the Port approves the use of biometric air exit by airlines, each airline must
submit a plan for minimizing unintended capture of images of nontravelers.

Recommendation 8b: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEA, the
Port should require all participating airlines to demonstrate that their employees have received training
in line with the Port's standards for avoiding unintended capture.


12

Recommendation Ab: If the Port finds that opt-in is allowed and logistically feasible, then airlines
implementing biometric air exit should utilize that as the method to implement the voluntary nature of
the program.

For CBP
As stated above, current CBP policy states that travelers are allowed to opt-out of biometric air exit
screening. However, the Port should pursue whether opt-out is an option as well. Regardless, Ershrining
enshrining the voluntary nature of this program isregulatien-in legislation is part of the Port's federal
advocacy efforts outlined in the Lawful principle.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
e   The Port should further define and recommend opt-in and opt-out procedures, and explore
ways to institute opt-in as a legitimate option. Travelers should be engaged on their preferences
in this regard.
o  Port response: Opt-out is the CBP-required method for biometric air exit. However, we
will mandate opt-in for almost all other use cases.

e   The Port should continue to research and explore potential legal and logistical requirements of
opt-in vs. opt-out.
o  Port response: Changed text under Key Issues ta Address and For CBP. Added
recommendations Aa and Ab.

e   This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staff response: For this section, CBP would not be bound by the Port's unintended
capture standards or training rules, so those would not happen.

c.  Private
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
Data collected by biometric technology at portfacilities or by port employees from travelers through
portfacilities should be stored only if needed, for no longer than required by applicable law or
regulations, and should be protected against unauthorized access. The port opposes this data being
knowingly sold or usedfor commercial purposes unrelated to processing travelers at portfacilities
without their clear and informed consent. Individuals should be provided a process to challenge
instances where theyfeel their rights have been violated.

1.   Key Issues to address
The Private principle is an essential aspect of travelers' confidence in their participation in any biometric
air exit program. individuals want to know that their data is secure, not being used for any inappropriate

purpose, and protected.

CBP has published a Privacy Impact Assessment report that outlines its efforts to protect data privacy,
and any airport or airline implementing biometric air exit must agree to comply with CBP's business
requirements. For example, CBP does not permit its private sector partners to retain or share the photos
captured at the boarding gate (or at any other location using TVS); however, the enforcement of these

13

business requirements is currently the sole responsibility of CBP. There is no present mechanism for the
Port to enforce these business requirements.

The issue of giving individuals an opportunity to challenge violations of their rights is covered under the
Ethical principle.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Private" recommendations at a glance
Port                               Airline                             Federal
if/when data is transmitted        if/when data is transmitted        The port does not have
between the Port and CBP it       between the Port and CBP it      jurisdiction over CBP's privacy
must:                            must:                            policies or procedures.
a) occur over an encrypted        a) occur over an encrypted
connection;                       connection
b) be exempt from state public    b) be immediately deleted once
disclosure requirements;          complete
c) be immediately deleted once   c) not be used for any other
complete; and                   purpose
d) not be used for any other
purpose

If procurement process is
required, request information
on alighment with privacy
protections.

For Port
Recommendation 9: For any Port implementation of biometric air exit that requires a procurement, all
vendor proposals must include an explanation 0 how the technology solution will meet the Port's
biometric Privacy principles and CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements, including by providing relevant
privacy policies, data collection and storage practices, and cybersecurity practices.

Recommendation 10: The Port should endeavor to seek clarification from the State of Washington
Attorney General whether transmission of biometric data to CBP is exempt from state public disclosure
requirements, so as to Jrotect personally identifying information from release in conformity with the
Port's obligations unde-ithe Washington Public Records Act and record retention requirements.

Recommendation 11a: For any Port implementation of biometric air exit, all transmission of biometric
data to CBP should meet CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements regarding encryption and other security
standards.

Recommendation 12a: Any data transmitted to CBP by the Port or received by the Port from CBP must
be deleted in accordance with CBP's Biometric air exit requirements.

Recommendation 13a: No data transmitted to CBP by the Port or received by the Port from CBP may be
used for any other purpose other than for processing departing international passengers at the boarding
gate through TVS, in accordance with CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements. Unauthorized third-parties
may not be provided access to any such data.

14

For Airlines
Recommendation 11b: For any airline implementation of biometric air exit, any transmission of
biometric data to CBP should meet CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements regarding encryption and
other security standards.

Recommendation 12b: Any data transmitted to CBP by an airline at SEA or received by an airline at SEA
from CBP should be deleted in accordance with CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements.

Recommendation 13b: Any data transmitted to CBP by an airline at SEA or received by an airline at SEA
from CBP should notbe used for any other purpose other than for processing departing international
passengers at the boarding gate through TVS, in accordance with CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements.
Unauthorized third-parties should not be provided access to any such data.

For CBP
The Port is not legally authorized to regulate CBP's privacy policies or procedures. CBP is required to
comply with federal privacy laws and regulations, and it sets forth its compliance with many such
requirements in the Privacy Impact Assessment noted above. However, there is nc comprehensive
federal framework governing privacy protections for biometric data. The Port can 1e'p enhance CBP's
efforts related to explaining their data privacy efforts; see recommendations under tae Transparent
principle.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
e   These recommendations should better define the duration of image storage.

o  Port response: Duration of image storage is fully described in the CBP Business
Requirements, which all Biometric Air Exit users must follow.

e   These recommendations should better explore and describe what CBP audit procedures exist to

ensure that policies are being met. It is important for the Port to have insights into those audit
results. The Port should also explore how it might conduct its own audits, within the limitations
of CBP's federal jurisdiction.
o  Port response: Added language in Recommendation 19a under the Transparency
recommendations to address this concern. Added a new Recommendation 20 to
address this concern.

e   The Port should clarify the data security measures taken by the airlines and the technology
vendor, both generally and specifically with regard to unauthorized access by third parties.
o   Port response: Restrictions on unauthorized use and access  and associated data
security requirements  are fully described in the CBP Business Requirements, which all
Biometric Air Exit users must follow.

This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staff response: For this section, CBP comply with the same privacy standards as the
Port or airlines would be bound by via the Business Requirements. However, the Port
would not have control over vendor selection.

15

d. Equitable
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
The port opposes discrimination or systemic bias based on religion, age, gender, race or other
demographic identifiers. Biometric technology used at portfacilities or by port employees should be
reasonably accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds, and systems should be in place to treat
mismatching issues with proper cultural sensitivity and discretion.

1.   Key Issues to address
The Equitable principle essentially speaks to two key issues: 1) concern that facial recognition
technology does not perform as effectively on individuals who are not male Caucasians, and that 2)
regardless of why the CBP algorithm identifies a mismatch, systems should be in place to resolve the
issue with minimal impact to the traveler.

A recent study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that facial recognition
technology's ability to identify individuals with diverse characteristics varies significantly based on the
algorithm at the heart of the system, the application that uses it, and the data inputs.' However, the
NIST report confirmed that the NEC algorithm used by CBP in its Biometric Air Exit program ranked
first or second in most categories evaluated, including match performance in galleries that are much
bigger than those used by CBP. CBP attributes these accuracy rates in large part to the fact that
individuals are being compared against a database of only several hundred travelers built from the flight
manifest. The specific algorithm used is a component of the CBP TVS.

Treating no-matches or mismatches with "cultural sensitivity and discretion" requires that individuals
that are not verified through TVS are subject to additional document review in a manner and location
that draws the least possible attention to the situation and does not create a feeling of fear or
discomfort for the traveler.

2.  Working Group Recommendations
"Equitable" recommendations at a glance
Port                               Airline                             Federal
Request and compare against     Request and compare against     The port does not have
updated accuracy rates from      updated accuracy rates from      jurisdiction over CBP accuracy
CBP before approving Port-       CBP before approving airline-      algorithm.
requested biometric air exit       requested biometric air exit
program                       program

Port should develop training       All airline employees operating
standards for handling facial       biometric air exit program must
recognition mismatching issues    be trained on facial recognition
appropriately                     limitations, how to deal with
inaccuracies, and cultural
Ifprocurement process is          sensitivity
required, request information
on alignment with equity
protections

10 https://nvipubs.nist.gov/nistoubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.ndf

16

For Port
Recommendation 14: If the desired implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff requires a
procurement, then the vendor proposal must include an explanation of how it will meet the Port's
Equity principle and CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements. Vendors will need to provide, to the extent
applicable, information regarding how their equipment and services enhance, to the extent possible,
accuracy levels in identifying peoples of all backgrounds, gender, and age.

Recommendation 15a: The Port should request updated accuracy rates from CBP  including a request
for any available data segmented by key traveler characteristics  before approving any Port staff-
requested biometric air exit implementation.

Recommendation 16a: The Port should develop training standards for collecting and processing
biometric data. The training must include, but not be limited to: the capabilities and limitations of facial
recognition, and how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion.

For Airlines
Recommendation 15b: The Port should request updated accuracy rates from CBP  including a request
for any available data segmented by key traveler characteristics  before approving any airline-
requested biometric air exit implementation.

Recommendation 16b: Before approving any airline-requested biometric air exit program, the Port
should require airlines to verify that their employee training for opereting biometric air exit includes the
terms of CBP's Biometric Air Exit Requirements, the capabilities and limitations of facial recognition, and
how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion.

For CBP
The Port does not have jurisdiction over  or access to  CBP's algorithm. However, the Port can request
CBP's cooperation in sharing accuracy rates and work collaboratively to address any systemic
deficiencies in TVS attributable to travelers' backgrounds, gender, or age; see recommendations under
the Transparent principle. The Port can also design standards to ensure that travelers who cannot be
identified through TVS are subject to seconcary screening in a manner and location that draws the least
possible attention to the situation and does not create a feeling of fear or discomfort.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
e   The Port should clarify its authority to review airline training.

o  Portresponse: Port legal opinion is that we do not have authority to require specific
airline employee training. However, by asking for demonstration that airlines are
meeting our training standards, we will achieve the goals of this recommendation.

e   The Port should seek to more explicitly review and benchmark against the operational results of
other airports' biometric air exit systems. This effort is key to the recommendation to "compare
and review CBP accuracy rates before approval".
o  Port response: We receive a weekly report from CBP with accuracy rates from all
participating airports, and will include this data in our accountability report
requirements, listed in Recommendation 19a under Transparency.

17

e   This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staff response: For this section, CBP would not be bound by the Port's training
standards, so those would not happen.

e. Transparent
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
Use of biometric technologyfor passenger processing at port facilities should be communicated to
visitors and travelers. Individuals should be notified about any collection of their biometric data to
facilitate travel at port facilities, and how that data may be used, in easily understood terms. Reports
on the performance and effectiveness of the technology should also be made public to ensure
accountability.

1.   Key Issues to address
The Transparent principle essentially speaks to three key ssues: 1) the need for any use of biometric air
exit to be clearly communicated to anyone visiting SEA, 2) the need to ensure that passengers using
biometric air exit are informed in a clear, concise manner about biometric air exit, how it is used, and
their rights related to the system, and 3) the need for accountability reports to be created and published
for the public.

The Transparent principles requires that SEA passengers should be made aware that biometric air exit is
going to be used on their departing international flight, understand what it is, and be informed of their
rights related to the program (including their ability to opt-out). This requires clear, consistent and
standardized communications protocols, in coordination with airlines anc CBP.

Similarly, information about the system must be continuously verified. Performance data should be a
key aspect of the Port's review of biometric air exit implementation, and publicly verified and approved
findings should be made public.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Transparent" recommendations at a glance
Port                              Airline                             Federal
If port approves biometric air      If port approves biometric air      The port cannot require CBP to
exit program imalementationor  exit program implementation,    share information.
CBP implements, ithe:Port       airlines should cooperate with
should produce:                  the Port on communications
a) a comprehensive               and accountability reports.
communications plan
b) an accountability report
each of which should be shared
publicly through all Port
communication channels. Each
report should include all
available information released
by CBP.


18

If procurement process is
required, request information
on alignment with transparency
protections

For Port
Recommendation 17: If the Port approves an implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff that
requires a procurement, the vendor proposal must include an explanation of how it will support efforts
to meet the Port's biometric Transparent principle. In addition, once the procurement contract is
awarded, the vendor must support efforts to develop performance reports on a regular basis.

Recommendation 18a: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit by either Port staff
or an airline or CBP implements biometric air exit by exercising its federal jurisdiction, #the Port should
develop a comprehensive communications plan that notifies the general public of the implementation
and all related information, including their rights with regard to the program and recourse in case of
violations of those rights and/or data breaches. The communications plan should include specific
communications within the airport, including announcements, signage, flyers and web content.

Recommendation 19a: If the Port approves the implemer tation of biometric air exit by Port staff or an
airline or CBP implements biometric air exit by exercising ts federal jurisdiction, the Port should produce
an annual accountability report  in multiple languages  that includes all approved, publicly available
information on topics such as:
e   A description of the biometric air exit program;
Its general capabilities and limitations;
How data is generated, col ected, and processed;
CBP's privacy guidelines;
Traveler rights with regard to the biometric air exit system;
The Port's biometric air exit training standards;
Other relevant data, including any publicly available data shared by CPB about the accuracy and
effectiveness of its system;
eo    Benchmarking data against the operational results of other airports' biometric air exit systems;

e   An assessment of compliance with the Port's Biometrics Principles, CBP's Biometric Air Exit
Requirements, and the Biometric Air Exit Policy approved by the Commission;
e   Any Port conducted performance audits, within the limitations of CBP's federal jurisdiction, verifying
the results of CBP audits.
e   Any known or reasonably suspected violations of those rules and guidelines, including complaints
alleging violations;
e    Feedback about the public's experience, sought proactively in customer surveys, including whether
travelers believe that they fully understand the information about the system;
e   Any available information on data sharing within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, such as
what data is requested and by whom, within the limitations of the Port to require this information
from CBP;
e   Any airline disclosure of individuals' biometric data, within the limitations of the Port to access and
disclose law enforcement activity; and
e   Any publicly available CBP audits of the biometric air exit system.

This accountability report should be shared publicly through appropriate Port communications channels.

19

Recommendation 20: The Port should periodically conduct its own performance evaluation, within the
limitations of CBP's federal jurisdiction, to attempt to verify CBP's audit results and ensure that airline
staff are following all Port policies, including those related to privacy, customer service, traveler
communication and unintended image capture.

For Airlines
Recommendation 18b: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit by an airline for use
at SEA, it should partner with that airline on implementation of the Port's biometric air exit
communications plan.

Recommendation 19b: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit by an airline for use
at SEA, it should work with the airline to share the Port's annual accountability report through relevant
airline communications channels. The airline should also disclose to the Port as part of that annual
reporting an assessment of compliance and any known or reasonably suspected violations, including
complaints alleging violations and any disclosure of an individual's biometric data.

For CBP
The Port does not have jurisdiction over CBP's transparency procecures. However, CBP does provide
notice to travelers at SEA and other the designated ports of entry trough physical signage, verbal
announcements and/or flyers with Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), opt-out procedures, and
additional information on the program. As stated above, the Port can implement additional signage and
communications on this topic.

As it relates to evaluation of the technology's accuracy and effectiveness, the Port cannot require CBP to
share this information, but it can request and help publicize CBP-provided performance data and any
publicly-available audits.

Recommendation 19c: The Port should include in its communications plan and accountability reports all
available and approved information publicly released by CBP about the biometric air exit program,
including data on privacy, accuracy, audits, and other program details.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
e   The Port should seek greater clarity from CBP on data sharing within the U.S. Department of
HomelandSectrity, such as what data is requested and by whom, within the limitations of CBP's
federal jurisdictior. Similarly, airlines should disclosure any data sharing that occurs of
individuals' biome=ric data.
o  Port response: Added to the requirements of the accountability report, under
Recommendation 19a and 19b.

e   The Port should include in the Accountability Report any feedback about the public's
experience. This should be proactive information gathering rather than simply reactive to
complaints. The public should be asked whether they fully understand the information about
the system.
o  Port response: Added to the requirements of the accountability report, under
Recommendation 19a.

20

*   This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staff response: For this section, edited recommendations 18a and 19a to make it
clear that they would happen in all scenarios.

f.   Lawful
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
Use of biometric technology and/or access to associated biometric data collected should comply with
all laws, including privacy laws and laws prohibiting discrimination or illegal search against
individuals or groups.

1.   Key Issues to address
The Lawful principle essentially speaks to the legal justification for CBP's biometric air exit program. As
discussed above, CBP has stated that the biometric entry/exit program is based on several Congressional
(Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; FY 2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act; FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act) and Administration (Executive
Order 13769) authorizations.

There are several active conversations in Congress regarding the need for additional regulation of the
federal government's use of biometrics and facial recognition technology, but no clear direction as of
yet. Similarly, there are several conversations in the Washington State Legislature regarding regulation
of biometrics and facial recognition. Airlines and the Port may be subject to state and local law to the
extent they voluntarily deploy TVS in support of CBP's biometric air exit initiatives.

This is a rapidly evolving area of the aw and the extent to which biometric air exit may be further
regulated is not yet clear.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Lawful" recommendations at a glance
Port                              Airlines                           Federal
Port staff should comply with      Airlines should engage with port   CBP is subject to all federal law
existing laws, and actively          in tracking and advocating state   and regulations
advocate for additional state      and federal biometric
and federal biometric             regulations
regulations

If the Port approves the
implementation of biometric air
exit by Port staff or an airline or
CBP implements biometric air
exit by exercising its federal
jurisdiction, Port staff should
develop a comprehensive
understanding of how local,
state and federal data breach
statutes would apply to a
biometric air exit data breach,

21

and what recourse travelers
would have in those situations.
This information should be
shared as part of the Port
communications plan.

For Port
Recommendation 21a: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff or an
airline, it must comply with all state and federal laws including privacy and discrimination laws.

Recommendation 21b: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit by Port staff or an
airline or CBP implements biometric air exit by exercising its federal jurisdiction, Port staff should
develop a comprehensive understanding of how local, state and federal data breach statutes would
apply to a biometric air exit data breach, and what recourse travelers would have in those situations.
This information should be shared as part of the Port communications plan.

Recommendation 22a: Port staff should actively track and work with stakeholders to advocate for state
and federal laws and regulations that codify the goals of the Port's biometric principles.

For Airlines
Recommendation 22b: The Port should engage its airline partners in its advocacy for state and federal
laws and regulations that codify the goals of the Port's biometric principles.

For CBP
CBP is subject to applicable federal law and regulations.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
es   The Port shoulc address what tools and/or recourse exists for travelers in case of a data breach,
and specifically the Port's role in that situation.
oPort response' Added data breach recourse into its communications plan under
Recommenda-ion 18a. Added data breach research as recommendation 21b.

e   This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will still be
implemented|if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.
o  Port staffiresponse: For this section, nothing would change. The Port is going to pursue
recommendation 22a regardless.

g.  Ethical
The Port Commission's Biometrics Motion states that:
The port and its partners should act ethically when deploying biometric technology or handling
biometric data. Ethical behavior means actions which respect key moral principles that include
honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights. In particular, use of biometrics at
portfacilities should comply with Resolution No. 3747, establishing the port's Welcoming Port Policy
Directive to increase engagement with, and supportfor, immigrant and refugee communities.

1.   Key Issues to address

22

As mentioned by several of the Port's external stakeholders, the Ethical principle is an important
complement to the Lawful principle, because of the current lack of comprehensive state and federal
laws governing facial recognition technology.

Several of the recommendations on this topic are covered under other principles like Equity (treating
people fairly and with dignity), Privacy (protecting individual rights) and Justified (no "mass
surveillance"). However, the most tangible aspect of this principle is alignment with the Port's
"Welcoming Port Policy" (Resolution 3747).1

The Welcoming Port Policy commits the Port to "to foster a culture and environment that make it
possible for our region to remain a vibrant and welcoming global gateway where our immigrant
communities, refugee residents, and foreign visitors can fully participate in  and be integrated into 
the social, civic, and economic fabric of our region." To the extent consistent with federal laws and
obligations, the practical applications of this policy include not.denying anyone services based on
immigration status; prohibiting any Port employees, including law enforcement officers, from
unnecessarily asking about citizenship or immigration status; and taking tangib'e steps to make all
visitors to its facilities to feel welcome and safe. As it relates to immigration en"orcement, the policy
includes calls for the Port  within the restrictions of federal law  to "defer detainer requests from ICE";
restrictions on "providing federal immigration agents with access to databases without a judicial
warrant"; and restrictions on carrying out "a civil arrest based on an administrative warrant."

The biometric air exit program generally provides CBP with information that it already has: CBP already
compiles galleries of travelers' facial biometrics from photos that travelers are required to submit (i.e.,
passport or visa application pictures). The airline also already provides CBP with passenger manifests
and traveler data through the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) system. That is why CBP
refers to biometric air exit as an "automation of an existing system" rather than a new border security
measure.

2.   Working Group Recommendations
"Ethical" recommendations at a glance
Port                             Airlines                            Federal
If port approves biometric air     If port approves biometric air      CBP is bound by all relevant
exit program implementationor  exit program implementation,    federal laws as referenced
CBP implements, then engage     then airlines should work with    above  including anti-
(along with relevant partners)     the Port to educate local           discrimination and civil liberties
with local immigrant and          immigrant and refugee            statutes.
refugee communities in           communities
multiple languages and
culturally appropriate such that
they can
a) be educated
b) share concerns about
incidents

The Port should form a
Technology Ethical Advisory

1 https://www.portseattie.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/2018 05 08 SM 8a reso.pdf

23

Board to advise on the ethical
issues raised by implementation
of biometric technology and
other innovations


For Port
Recommendation 23: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEA or CBP
implements biometric air exit by exercising its federal jurisdiction, the Port should develop an
engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others to educate local immigrant
and refugee communities about the biometric air exit program. Specifically, the Port should ensure that
these communities are fully informed about the program, the technology and their rights  in multiple
languages and in culturally appropriate ways.

Recommendation 24a: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEAor
CBP implements biometric air exit by exercising its federal jurisdiction, the Port should work with local
jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others to inform local immigrant and refugee communities  in
multiple languages and in culturally appropriate ways  about resources for sharing concerns about any
incidents in which they do not feel they have been afforded their full legal rights and/or their treatment
has not been fully respectful.

Recommendation 25: The Port should form a Technology Ethical Advisory Board  composed of
community stakeholders, academics, technology experts and other key stakeholders  to advise on the
ethical issues raised by implementation of biometric technology and other innovations. This advisory
board should be consulted on a regular basis to ensure that Port technology implementation 
specifically new biometrics programs  are fully aligned with this principle.

For Airlines
Recommendation 24b: If the Port approves the implementation of biometric air exit for use at SEAor
CBP implements biometric air exit by exercising its federal jurisdiction, the Port should work with
participating airlines to inform local immigrant and refugee communities  in multiple languages and in
culturally appropriate ways  about resources for concerns about any incidents in which they do not feel
they have been afforded their full egal rights and/or their treatment has not been fully respectful.

For CBP
CBP is bound by all relevant federel laws as referenced above  including anti-discrimination and civil
liberties statutes. The best way to ensure ethical behavior is to enshrine it in statute, which relates back
to the advocacy recommendations above. In addition, the Port will continue to engage regularly with
CBP to share our expectations that all individuals traveling through our facilities have full access to their
legal rights and are receiving appropriate treatment.

3.   Stakeholder Concerns
External Advisory Group members raised the following concerns:
e   The Port should explicitly include opt-out procedures in its public outreach.

o  Port responses: Added to the communications plan under Recommendation 18a.


e   This document should explicitly articulate which of the Port recommendations will stili be
implemented if CBP  not the Port or airlines  implement biometric air exit.

24

o  Port staff response: For this section, edited recommendations 23, 24a and 24b to reflect
that these would happen in any implementation scenario.




























25

APPENDIX
o Appendix A  Port Biometrics Working Group

Matt Breed, Chief Information Officer
Julie Collins, Director, Customer Experience
Commander Lisa Drake, Port of Seattle Police Department
Laurel Dunphy, Director, Airport Operations
Marie Ellingson, Manager, Cruise Operations
Eric ffitch, Manager of State Government Relations, External Relations
Bookda Gheisar, Senior Director, Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
James Jennings, Director, Airline Relations
Ron limerson, Chief Information Security Officer
John Mclaughlin, Senior Port Counsel
Anne Purcell, Senior Port Counsel
Russ Read, Manager, Maritime Security
Wendy Reiter, Director, Aviation Security
Kathy Roeder, Director of Communications, External Relations
Eric Schinfeld, Senior Manager of Federal Government Relations, External Relations
Deputy Chief Mark Thomas, Port of Seattle Police Department
Veronica Valdez, Commission Specialist
Todd VanGerpen, Manager, Aviation Innovation
Dave Wilson, Director, Aviation Innovation
















26

o Appendix B  Port Biometrics External Advisory Group

lan Baigent-Scales, Airport Customer Development Manager - Airport Operations, Virgin Atlantic
Airways
Sasha Bernhard, Legislative Assistant, Office of US Representative Suzan DelBene
Dana Debel, Managing Director, State and Local Government Affairs, Delta Air Lines
Adele Fasano, Director, Field Operations, Seattle Field Office, US Customs & Border Protection
Eric Holzapfel, Deputy Director, Entre Hermanos
Suzanne Juneau, Executive Director, Puget Sound Business Travel Association
Scott Kennedy, State and Local Government Affairs Manager, Alaska Airlines
Jennifer Lee, Technology & Liberty Project Director, ACLU
Maggie Levay, Director Guest Port Services, Royal Caribbean
McKenna Lux, Policy Manager, CAIR-WA
Yazmin Mehdi, Outreach Director, Office of US Representative Pramila Jayapal
Nina Moses, Stakeholder Relations Manager, US Transportation Security Administration
Irene Plenefisch, Government Affairs Director, Microsoft Corporation
Sheri Sawyer, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee
Victoria Sipe, Director Shore Operations, Holland America Group
Rich Stolz, Executive Director, One America
Elizabeth Tauben, Manager Port Guest Services & Clearance, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
Jennifer Thibodeau, Public Policy Manager - Western States, Amazon Web Services
Jevin West, Director, Center for an Informed Public, University of Washington















27

o Appendix C  Commission Biometrics Motion

MOTION 2019-13:
A MOTION OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION

adopting guiding principles for the public-facing use of
biometric technology at Port of Seattle maritime and
aviation facilities; establishing a working group to
develop policy recommendations governing public-
facing biometric use at the port; and establishing
deadlines for further actions.

AMENDED AND ADOPTED
DECEMBER 10, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Biometrics is the measurement and analysis of physica and behavioral characteristics that are used to
identify individuals through technology. An example of a physical characteristic includes the unique
features of an individual's face or their fingerprint. An example of a behavioral characteristic includes an
individual's voice, signature, or how they walk.

The Port of Seattle has long used various forms of biometrics at its aviation and maritime facilities  for
access control and verification of employee, contractor, vendor, and consultant identity. However,
biometric technology  particularly facial recognition is increasingly being deployed on the customer-
facing side of airport and cruise operations, as both an identity validation and a customer facilitation
tool to speed up check-in, boarding, and screening processes.

As with any developing technology, public sector leaders have an obligation to ensure appropriate and
responsible use of not on y the technology itself, but the related data that is generated. The port
commission believes proper biometric policy should balance operational needs, business priorities, and
regulatory mandates with protections for the interests and rights of passengers, employees, and other
visitors to our facilities.

TEXT OF THE MOTION

Port ofSeattle Principles for Public-Facing Biometric Technology
The commission hereby adopts the following principles to guide the use of public-facing biometric
technology at Port of Seattle facilities:

(1) Justified: Biometric technology at port facilities should be used only for a clear intended
purpose that furthers a specific operational need. The port does not condone biometrics for
"mass surveillance"  for example, use of facial recognition on large groups of people without
a lawful purpose, rather than single-use for travelers.

(2) Voluntary: The use of biometrics to identify and validate travelers through port facilities
should be voluntary, and reasonable alternatives should be provided for those who do not

28

wish to participate  through a convenient "opt-in" process where possible or "optout"
process if "opt-in" is not possible, except in specific situations authorized by the port or
required by federal law such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) entry and exit
requirements for non-U.S. citizens. Unintended capture of data by biometric technology from
those travelers opting out of such biometric data collection, or of any non-travelers or other
visitors at the airport, should be prevented; any unintended capture of this data should not
be stored.

(3) Private: Data collected by biometric technology at port facilities or by port employees from
travelers through port facilities should be stored only if needed, for no longer than required
by applicable law or regulations, and should be protected against unauthorized access. The
port opposes this data being sold or used for commercial purposes unrelated to processing
travelers at port facilities without their clear and informed consent. Individuals should be
provided a process to challenge instances where they feel their rights have been violated.

(4) Equitable: The port opposes discrimination or systemic bias based on religion, age, gender,
race, or other demographic identifiers. Biometric technology used at port facilities or by port
employees should be accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds, and systems should
be in place to treat mismatching issues with proper cultural sensitivity and discretion.

(5) Transparent: Use of biometric technology for passenger processing at port facilities should
be communicated to visitors and travelers. Individuals should be notified about any collection
of their biometric data to facilitate travel at port facilities, and how that data may be used, in
easily understood terms. Reports on the performance and effectiveness of the technology
should also be made oublic to ensure accountability.

(6) Lawful: Use of biometric tecnology and/or access to associated biometric data collected
should comply with all laws, ncluding state and federal privacy and consumer data
protection laws and laws prohibiting discrimination or illegal search against individuals or
groups.

7) Etnical: The port and its partners should act ethically when deploying biometric technology
or handling biometric data. Ethical behavior means actions which respect key moral
princip'es that include privacy, honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity, and individual
rights.  n particular, use of biometrics at port facilities should comply with Resolution No.
3747, establishing the port's Welcoming Port Policy Directive to increase engagement with,
and support for, immigrant and refugee communities.

These principles will apply until a more comprehensive policy is put in place, through the working group
process laid out below.

Biometric Working Group
Through this motion, a port working group is established to develop further recommendations
governing port policy related to use of public-facing biometric technology, which shall be submitted to
the commission by the end of the first quarter of 2020. Issues to be addressed by this working group
include the following:
the strategic use and objectives of biometrics;
procurement;

29

e   transparency and accountability for biometric implementation;
auditing of this technology to ensure compliance and accuracy, and auditing prior to approval of
expansion of technology;
commitments or agreements with airlines, cruise operators, and other port tenants and users;
handling biometric data collected and stored from the technology;
protection of personally identifying information;
data security protocols and protection from unlawful or unauthorized access;
alignment with the port's Welcoming Port Policy;
state and federal policy priorities;
outreach and public awareness strategy to prepare travelers and community members;
e   and any other relevant topics that arise.

In addition, the working group should develop a comprehensive list of known public-facing biometric
implementation being planned at port facilities over the next five years.

The working group will include, but not be limited to, representatives from the following port
departments: Aviation Security; Aviation Operations; Airport Innovation; Maritime Security; Maritime
Operations; Commission Office; Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; Information and
Communications Technology; Information Security; Government Relations; Legal; and Police. The
working group shall also engage active participation from an advisory group comprised of community
partners, travelers, maritime and aviation industry partners, and other impacted stakeholders. The
working group shall meet at least once a month. The policy recommendations shall be delivered to
commission by the end of the first quarter of 2020. The commission may create a special committee (an
ad hoc, limited term commission committee) to oversee these efforts and expects a policy governing the
use of public-facing biometric technology to be delivered to the commission by the end of the second
quarter of 2020.

Implementation of Public-Facing Biometric Technology at Portfacilities
Upon adoption of the port's policy by the end of the second quarter of 2020, public-facing biometric
technology may be implemented at port facilities if it demonstrates alignment with biometric principles
and meets the port's operational requirements. Port leadership will implement an approval process for
any proposals for new or expanded use of public-facing biometric technology to ensure alignment with
these principles. Any proposal for new or expanded use of public-facing biometric technology will be
communicated in advance directly to the port commission and through the port's external
communications channels. The use of public-facing biometric technology at port facilities is subject at all
times to the port's requirements. The port's biometric policies should be incorporated into
commitments or agreements governing the use of biometric technology at port facilities.

Because the port does not have jurisdiction over the use of biometrics by the federal government at our
facilities, the port will communicate these principles to CBP and other federal partners such as the U.S.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Coast Guard. We will not only notify them of our
desired standards, but also work with these agencies and Congress to ensure that federal programs in
place at port facilities are aligned as closely as possible with port policy regarding utilization of public-
facing biometric technology.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION


30

Due to technological advances, perceived customer benefits, and federal requirements, there will be a
significant increase in public-facing facial recognition technology deployment by public and private
sector users over the next few years, including in airport and seaport settings that will impact travelers
and other visitors to our facilities. In advance of this expansion, the port commission believes that it has
an obligation to institute proper policy frameworks and clear guidelines to reduce potential misuse and
abuse, while improving public understanding of the benefits and risks. Specifically, the port must ensure
individual privacy, civil liberties, and equity, and that biometric technology and use of the associated
data is aligned with state and federal laws intended to protect those rights.

Biometrics are used in various forms at the port's aviation and maritime facilities:
e   Across the port, port-issued identification cards currently utilize fingerprint biometrics to access

secure or restricted areas or to permit authorized personnel access to port facilities outside of
normal business hours or in locations where there is no other monitoring of access. In addition,
many port employees are issued iPhones with fingerprint and facial recognition as an alternative
to password protection, and facial recognition'is also used on Microsoft Windows 10.
e   At Seattle-Tacoma International Airport {SEA), airport employees are required to scan their
fingerprint at many secure doors throughout the facility. SEA also offers travelers the option of
using CLEAR to validate the identity of a traveler as they process through TSA checkpoints using
biometric technology instead of using traditional identification and validation methods.
e   On the maritime side, biometric data is required by federal regulation for issuance of TSA-issued
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) smart cards that are required to access
maritime facilities regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard and cruise terminal operational areas. In
addition, the cruise industry is increasingly taking advantage of biometrics as a passenger
facilitation tool; for example, Norwegian Cruise Line and CBP have partnered for use of facial
recognition for disembarkation of guests at Pier 66.

One of the leading drivers of the expected deployment of public-facing biometrics over the next few
years is implementation by CBP of a Congressionally mandated biometric exit-entry screening process
for international air passengers. SEA's International Arrivals Facility will incorporate facial recognition for
almost all arriving passengers (other than those U.S. citizens who opt out), and CBP is working with the
port and its airline partners to incorporate this technology into departing international passenger
processes.

Facial recognition is also increasingly being utilized by the port's private sector partners. Delta Air Lines
opened the first full biometric airport terminal in Atlanta in November 2018, and is working to bring
aspects of their "curb to gate" experience to SEA. Similarly, many of the port's cruise partners are
working to streamline the check-in and boarding process for their travelers through facial recognition.

Some members of the public and various advocacy organizations have expressed concerns about the
rapidly expanding use of facial recognition. These stakeholders have raised issues around privacy,
equity, and civil liberties, although their main focus has been on broad law enforcement use of this
technology for "mass surveillance" rather than the kind of customer facilitation uses that are being
considered at port facilities. They view the use of appropriate regulation to ensure protections against
abuse, discrimination, and unintended consequences to be a condition for approval of the use of these
technologies.


31

o Appendix D  CBP Letter to the Port


1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20229

U.S. Customs and
Border Protection


Port of Seattle Commission
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98121

Dear Commissioners,

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is in possession of a draft copy of the Port of Seattle's
proposed document concerning the principles for use of biometric technology at Seattle port
facilities, and is awarc that this motion will be considered at a Commissioners meeting on
December 10, 2019.

This letter is to confirm CBP's agreement with the principles outlined in the motion and to
commend the Port of Seattle Commission on its efforts regarding adoptionof biometric technology
at its facilitics. CBP agrees with the Port of Seattle's biometric principles and finds they align
fundamentally with CBP's mission and approach to beter sccure our nation by incorporating
biometrics into its comprehensive entry-cxit system.

In support of the motion, CBP provides the following explanation on how CBP lives by these
principles today in application of facial recognition technology in its biometric matching service,
the Traveler Verification Service (TVS).

Seattle Port Principle & CBP Alignment

1)  Voluntary: The use of biometrics to identify and validate travelers through Port facilities
should be voluntary, and reasonable alternatives should beprovidedfor those who do not wish
to participate  through a convenient  "opt-in" or "opt-out" process, excepl in specific
situations authorized by the Port or required byfederal law such as U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) entry and exit requirements for non-U.S. citizens. Unintended capture of
data by biometric technologyfrom those travelers opting out ofsuch biometric data collection,
or ofany non-travelers or other visitors at the airport, should be prevented; any unintended
capture ofthis data should not be stored.

CBP Alignment: U.S. citizens are not within the scope of CBP's biometric entry-cxit
program, and those who do not wish to have a photo taken may request alternative
processing, which typically involves a manual review of their travel documents. CBP posts
information on opt-out procedures near the point of departure or arrival into the United
States.




32

Page 2
Seattle Port Commission Biometric Motion

2) Private: Data collected by biometric technology at Portfacilities or by Port employeesfrom
travelers through Portfacilities shouldbe storedfor no longer than required by applicable law or
regulations, and should be protected against unauthorized access. The Port opposes this data
being knowingly sold or usedfor commercialpurposes unrelated to processing travelers at Port
Jacilities without their clear and informed consent.

CBP Alignment: As outlined in the TVS Privacy Impact Assessment (DHS/CBP/PIA-056
Traveler Verification Service  November 2018"), once a match is made, U.S. citizens'
photos are retained for no more than 12 hours in the TVS cloud for disaster recovery
purposes, then deleted. CBP retains only a confirmation of the crossing and the associated
biographic information. No photos of U.S. citizens are retained under this process.

Facial images for arriving and departing foreign nationals are retained by CBP for up to
two weeks, not only to confirm travelers' identities but also to assure continued accuracy
ofthe algorithms. As always, facial images of arriving and departing foreign nationals are
forwarded  to  the  U.S.  Department  of Homeland  Security  Automated  Biometric
Identification System (IDENT) system for future law enforcement purposes, consistent
with established DHS processes and regulations?

CBP's Business Requirements do not allow its approved partners such as airlines, airport
authorities, or cruise lines to retain the photos taken under this process for their own
business purposes. The partners must immediately purge the images following transmittal
to the TVS, and the partner must allow CBP to audit compliance with this requirement.

3)  Equitable: The Port opposes discrimination or systemic bias based on religion, age, gender,
race or other demographic identifiers. Biometric technology used at Portfacilities or by Port
employees shouldbe reasonably accurate in identifyingpeople ofall backgrounds, andsystems
should be in place to treat mismatching issues with proper cultural sensitivity and discretion.

CBP Alignment: CBP is fully committed to the fair, impartial and respectful treatment of
all members of the trade and traveling public. CBP has rigorous processes in place to
review data and metrics associated with biometric entry and exit facial comparison
performance.  Significant variance in match rates that can be attributed to demographic
variables have not been detected.  Additionally, CBP is partnering with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of
facial comparison technology used in CBP's biometric entry-exit efforts, in order to
improve data quality, integrity, and accuracy.

4)  Transparent: Use ofbiometric technologyfor passengerprocessing at Portfacilities should
be communicated to visitors and travelers. Individuals should be notifiedabout any collection

! DHS CSP/RIA,O38 Teavaler Veiifigation Servjge- November 32isavailable at:






33

Page 3
Seattle Port Commission Biometric Motion                        \
oftheir biometric data tofacilitate travel at Portfacilities, and how that data may be used, in
easily understood terms.

CBP Alignment: CBP strives to be transparent and provide notice to individuals
regarding its collection, use, dissemination, and maintenance of personally identifiable
information (PII). CBP works closely with partners to post the required privacy notice on
signs for impacted travelers and the public in close proximity to the cameras and
operators, whether the cameras are owned by CBP or the partners. In addition, tear sheets
are available as requested.

When airlines or airports are partnering with CBP on biometric air exit, the public is
informed. We provide notice to travelers at the designated ports of entry through both
printed and electronic signs, LED message boards, and verbal announcements to inform
the public that photos will be taken for identity verification purposes and of their ability
to opt-out of having their photo taken.

5)  Lawful: Use of biometric technology and/or access to associated biometric data collected
should comply with all laws, including privacy laws and laws prohibiting discrimination or
illegal search against individuals or groups.

CBP Alignment: CBP is committed to ensuring that our use oftechnology sustains and
does not erode privacy protections. We take privacy obligations very seriously and are
dedicated to protecting the privacy of all travelers. CBP complies with all federal legal
requirements, including under the Privacy Act of 1974, as well as all DHS and
government-wide policies. In accordance with DHS policy, CBP uses the Fair
Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) to assess the privacy risks and ensure
appropriate measures are taken to mitigate any risks from the use of biometrics. As CBP
is bound by the above mentioned privacy laws and policies and data collection
requirements, partnering stakeholders are also held to the same standards, which ensures
accountability with the public on how both government and the private sector use
biometrics.

6)  Ethical: The Port and its partners should act ethically when deploying biometric technology
or handling biometric data. Ethical behavior means actions which respect key moralprinciples
that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights. In particular,
use ofbiometrics at Portfacilities should comply with Resolution No. 3747, establishing the
Port's Welcoming Port Policy Directive to increase engagement with, and support for,
immigrant and refugee communities.

CBP Alignment: CBP is fully committed to the fair, impartial and respectful treatment of all
members ofthe trade and traveling public.

7)  Justified: Biometric technology at Port facilities should be used only for a clear intended
purpose thatfurthers a specific operational need. The Port does not condone biometricsfor

3 The Fair InformationPractice Be Fram     for Fron
is available at: hifps://w                                     poly at the        Lsof Hons  0  Security



34

Page 4
Seattle Port Commission Biometric Motion

"mass surveillance" for example, use offacial recognition on large groups ofpeople without
a lawful purpose, rather than single-usefor travelers.

CBP Alignment: CBP TVS matches travelers to their travel documents only. It is not a
surveillance program. CBP introduced the use of facial recognition technology into an already
established process that requires the verification of an individual's identity when entering or
exiting the United States. CBP is simply replacing the current manual travel document
comparison with facial comparison technology.

As outlined in the TVS PIA, CBP and partners inform travelers of the process through signage
and announcements describing how a photo is taken and submitted to the TVS; this photo is
used solely for the purpose of matching the traveler to the travel document and ensuring that
the travel document being presented belongs to the bearer of the document.

Again, CBP strongly supports the list ofprinciples outlined by the Port of Seattle. We look forward
to working with the Port of Scattle Commission on the use of facial comparison technology in Port
of Seattle facilities.

Sincerely,
Plbs
P. Wagner
Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations













35