Committee Meeting Date: December 11,
2020

Policy Recommendations
for Public-Facing
Biometrics at Port Facilities
Eric Schinfeld, Sr. Manager, Federal
Government Relations
Veronica Valdez, Commission Specialist

Purpose
1.  To transmit policy recommendations developed by the Port working group and
reviewed by the Biometrics External Advisory Group to the Biometrics Special
Committee for the following use cases:
Biometrics for Traveler Functions Using Private, Proprietary Systems
Biometrics for Traveler Functions Using Government Systems
Biometrics for Air & Cruise Entry
2.  To receive Biometrics Special Committee feedback on the recommendations and
potential process/timeline/format for Commission consideration
3.  To receive a recommendation from the Biometrics Special Committee to the
Commission with regards to the recommendations
2

BACKGROUND


3

Biometrics Motion 2019-13 (Adopted 12/10)
1.  Adopted seven (7) guiding principles for public-facing biometrics at Port facilities:
1) Justified, 2) Voluntary, 3) Private, 4) Equitable, 5) Transparent, 6) Lawful, 7)
Ethical
2.  Established a Port working group to translate guiding principles into tangible &
enforceable policy recommendations by the end of Q1 2020, for Commission
passage by Q2 2020
3.  Established an external advisory group to provide feedback on proposed Port
working group policy recommendations
4.  Recommended the creation of an ad hoc, limited term commission committee to
oversee these efforts (Special Biometrics Committee)
5.  Put a hold on any new or expanded uses of biometrics at Port facilities until after
Commission approves of policy recommendations and adopts policies

4

Key Dates
Commission Engagement:
Two (2) Commission Study Sessions: Sep 10, 2019 and Oct 29, 2019
Commission Action adopting Motion: Dec 10, 2019
Commission Briefing: Feb 25, 2020
Commission Actions: Mar 10, 2020 and Apr 14, 2020
Development/Review of Recommendations:
Port Working Group meetings/review: Dec 2019  Aug 2020
Eight (8) External Advisory Group Meetings facilitated by consultants: Jan 17, 2020  Sep
25, 2020
Biometrics Special Committee:
Three (3) Commission Biometrics Special Committee: Feb 18, 2020; Mar 31, 2020; and
Oct 8, 2020

5

Process
1. Policy recommendations by "use case" rather than one comprehensive policy
2. Port Working Group identified five "use cases" for public-facing biometrics at Port
facilities and drafted policy recommendations for each use case:
Biometric Air Exit (Submitted and Approved)
Biometrics for Law Enforcement & Security Functions (Tabled, Moratorium)
Biometrics for Traveler Functions Using Private, Proprietary Systems
Biometrics for Traveler Functions Using Government Systems
Biometrics for Air & Cruise Entry
3.  External Advisory Group reviewed policy recommendations for each use case and
provided feedback during facilitated meetings
4.  Biometrics Special Committee reviewed policy recommendations for each use
case
6

Observations
Not "consensus" recommendations
All stakeholder concerns are being submitted along with the staff
recommendations to provide full transparency
Offered opportunity to advisory group members to submit letters
outlining their concerns
As per Motion 2019-13, these recommendations are not
meant to suggest that the Port should implement public-facing
biometrics, but rather how to do so in alignment with our
guiding principles if the Commission decides it is appropriate.
7

USE CASES


8

Law Enforcement & Security Functions
Use of biometrics, including facial recognition, to perform public-facing
law enforcement and security functions at Port facilities.
On July 14, 2020, the Port Commission extended its moratorium on
these uses as part of its motion on assessing Port policing.
Therefore, staff did not vet its policy recommendations with the
Biometrics External Advisory Group, and is not transmitting those
recommendations to Commission.
If and when the Commission wishes to revisit the issue, Port staff will
vet its draft policy recommendations with external stakeholders at
that point.
9

Air and Cruise Entry
CBP's use of biometrics, specifically facial recognition, utilizing
their TVS to confirm the identities of arriving international
passengers as they exit aircraft or cruise ships.
Entry into the United States is a federally regulated process, and all
persons arriving at a port-of-entry to the United States are subject to
inspection by CBP before entering the country.
The Port has no jurisdiction over these activities, but can still play an
important transparency and accountability role.

10

Traveler Functions Using Private, Proprietary Systems
Use of biometrics for traveler functions by private-sector entities using
proprietary systems. For example:
Current use: CLEAR
Potential future use:
Boarding of departing cruise ships or domestic flights
Ticketing and bag-check for airlines or cruise lines
Access to tenant-controlled facilities e.g. airline passenger lounge
Access to a rental car at the Port's rental car facility;
Payment at airport restaurants or retail stores in lieu of credit card
or cash.
11

Traveler Functions Using Government Systems
Use of biometrics for traveler functions where a private sector entity
might wish to use an existing government biometrics system. For
example:
An airline using CBP's Traveler Verification System for international
departing passenger ticketing or bag check
The Port could use biometrics for access to its parking garage
Any Port use of biometrics utilizing a Port-controlled system is by
definition a use of a government system, and therefore included in
this use case.

12

RECOMMENDATIONS


13

Biometrics for Traveler Functions (Private Sector)
The Port should not allow private sector entities to implement public-facing biometrics at Port facilities unless:
The relevant Managing Director first seeks feedback from the Technology Ethical Advisory Board and considers set criteria in deciding whether or
not to approve the implementation.
The Managing Director has notified the Port Executive Director and the Port Commission at least three (3) weeks before providing formal
approval to the private sector applicant.
The proposed application is "opt-in", both in terms of opting-in to the overall system as well as actively choosing to participate in the system at
the point of service.
The private sector operator agrees to the Port's standards and training protocols regarding avoiding unintended image capture.
The proposed usage does not scan individuals or groups without their knowledge and active participation.
The proposed technology meets and/or exceeds the Port's minimum biometric data security and privacy standards.
Those staff operating the technology agree to be trained to the Port's standards on how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and
discretion, and how to minimize mismatch likelihood, such as lighting, image capture angles and camera quality.
The private sector operator verifies that their technology demonstrates high levels of accuracy both overall and between various characteristics
particularly those relevant to biometric identification  as identified under the Washington State definition of "protected class." These
demonstrations of accuracy must result from testing in operational conditions.
The private sector operator agrees to make available an application programming interface (API) or other technical capability, to enable
legitimate, independent, and reasonable tests of those biometric technologies for accuracy and unfair performance differences across distinct
subpopulations.
The proposed usage complies with all relevant state and federal laws, including privacy and discrimination laws.
The private sector operator agrees not to disclose personal data obtained from a biometric system to a federal or law enforcement agency,
except when such disclosure is legally required.

14

Biometrics for Traveler Functions (Private Sector)
If the Port approves such an application, it should:
Form a Technology Ethical Advisory Board to advise on the ethical issues raised by implementation of biometric technology and other
innovations.
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, how to remove themselves from the program, and recourse in case of violations of those rights and/or
data breaches.
Work with the Technology Ethical Advisory Board to produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved, publicly available
information.
Conduct performance evaluations to ensure that Port staff and/or private sector operators are following all Port policies, including those related
to privacy, customer service, communication and unintended image capture.
Actively track and work with stakeholders, including private sector operators at Port facilities, to advocate for state and federal laws and
regulations that codify the goals of the Port's biometric principles.
Develop biometric training guidelines for personnel who will be administering the facial recognition technology on travelers, including the
capabilities and limitations of facial recognition, and how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion.
Develop an engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others to educate local immigrant and refugee communities
about that biometric 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.
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.

15

Biometrics for Traveler Functions (Public Sector)
The Port should not allow Port employees to implement public-facing biometrics at Port facilities  or private sector entities to
implement public-facing biometrics for traveler functions using CBP's system  unless:
The relevant Managing Director first seeks feedback from the Technology Ethical Advisory Board and considers set criteria in deciding whether or not to approve the
implementation.
The Managing Director has notified the Port Executive Director and the Port Commission at least three (3) weeks before providing formal approval to the private sector
applicant.
If the request is for implementation of biometrics for travel functions using CBP's TVS system, the Managing Director should only consider the request if a
Biometric Exit program has already been implemented and if all of CBP's Biometric Requirements regarding encryption and other security standards are complied
with.
If Port staff receive approval from the Managing Director, they must then submit a notice of intent to the Port Commission and commence an accountability report
process as defined in state law that publicizes key aspects about the biometric technology.
The proposed application is "opt-in", both in terms of opting-in to the overall system as well as actively choosing to participate in the system at the point of service.
The operator agrees to adhere to the Port's standards and training protocols regarding avoiding unintended image capture.
The proposed usage does not scan individuals or groups without their knowledge and active participation.
The proposed technology meets and/or exceeds the Port's minimum biometric data security and privacy standards.
Those staff operating the technology agree to be trained to the Port's standards on how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion, and how to
minimize mismatch likelihood, such as lighting, image capture angles and camera quality.
The operator verifies that their technology demonstrates high levels of accuracy both overall and between various characteristics  particularly those relevant to
biometric identification  as identified under the Washington State definition of "protected class." These demonstrations of accuracy must result from testing in
operational conditions.
The operator agrees to make available an application programming interface (API) or other technical capability, to enable legitimate, independent, and reasonable tests
of those biometric technologies for accuracy and unfair performance differences across distinct subpopulations.
The proposed usage complies with all relevant state and federal laws, including privacy and discrimination laws.
The operator agrees not to disclose personal data obtained from a biometric system to a federal or law enforcement agency, except when such disclosure is legally
required.

16

Biometrics for Traveler Functions (Public Sector)
If the Port approves such an application, it should:
Form a Technology Ethical Advisory Board to advise on the ethical issues raised by implementation of biometric technology and other innovations.
Include in the vendor solicitation document  if the proposed implementation of biometrics for traveler functions by Port staff requires a procurement  a request for
explanation of how the vendor's technology will comply with the Port's Biometric Principles and policies; how its technology can help minimize the unintended capture
of images of nontravelers or visitors, if an image is used as part of the biometrics; how the technology solution will meet the Port's biometric Privacy principles and
policies, including by providing relevant privacy policies, data collection and storage practices, and cybersecurity practices; how it will meet the Port's Equity principle and
policies; and how their equipment and services enhance accuracy levels in identifying peoples of all backgrounds, gender, and age.
Seek clarification from the State of Washington Attorney General whether Port collection and transmission of biometric data at Port facilities is exempt from state public
disclosure requirements, so as to protect personally identifying information from release.
Request updated accuracy rates from CBP  including a request for any available data segmented by key traveler characteristics  before approving any proposed use of
biometrics for traveler functions that would use the CBP system.
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, how to remove themselves from the program, and recourse in case of violations of those rights and/or data breaches.
Work with the Technology Ethical Advisory Board to produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved, publicly available information.
Develop biometric training guidelines for personnel who will be administering the facial recognition technology on travelers, including the capabilities and limitations of
facial recognition, and how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion.
Conduct performance evaluations to ensure that Port staff and/or private sector operators are following all Port policies, including those related to privacy, customer
service, communication and unintended image capture.
Actively track and work with stakeholders, including private sector operators at Port facilities, to advocate for state and federal laws and regulations that codify the goals
of the Port's biometric principles.
Develop an engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others to educate local immigrant and refugee communities about that biometric
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.
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.

17

CBP Use of Biometric Entry
If CBP implements biometric entry at the Port's airport or cruise facilities, the Port should:
Develop recommendations to CBP for their consideration regarding ways to avoid unintended image capture at Port facilities.
Continue to pursue whether opt-out is an option for biometric entry at Port facilities.
Design training guidelines to help cruise line employees educate disembarking passenger about CBP rules regarding opt-out.
Request biometric program accuracy rates from CBP on an annual basis, including a request for any available data segmented by key traveler
characteristics.
Request that CBP make available an application programming interface (API) or other technical capability, to enable legitimate, independent, and
reasonable tests of those biometric technologies for accuracy and unfair performance differences across distinct subpopulations.
Develop suggested biometric training guidelines for personnel who will be administering the facial recognition technology on travelers, including
the capabilities and limitations of facial recognition, and how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion.
Share its training guidelines, specifically related to "cultural sensitivity and discretion", with CBP and cruise lines for their voluntary adoption.
Develop a comprehensive communications plan that notifies the general public of the implementation and all related information.
Produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved, publicly available information on related topics.
Request CBP audit reports on biometric entry systems on a regular basis and include appropriate information in the annual accountability report.
Include the specific federal laws and statutes that allow CBP to implement biometrics at Port facilities in the annual accountability report.
Actively track and work with stakeholders to advocate for federal laws and regulations that support the Port's biometric principles.
Develop an engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others to educate local immigrant and refugee communities
about the biometric entry 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.
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.

18

Questions?

19

Public-Facing Biometrics Guiding Principles
Justified      Should be used only for a clear and intended purpose and not for surveillance
on large groups without a lawful purpose
Voluntary    Should be voluntary and reasonable alternatives should be provided for those
who not wish to participate through an opt-in or opt-out process
Private      Should be stored for no longer than required by applicable law or regulations,
and should be protected against unauthorized access
Equitable    Should be reasonably accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds, and
systems should be in place to treat mismatching issues
Transparent   Should be communicated to visitors and travelers
Lawful     Should comply with all laws, including privacy laws and laws prohibiting
discrimination
Ethical      Should act ethically when deploying technology or handling biometric data
20

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 Jimerson, 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

21

Biometrics External Advisory Group
Ian 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 Medhi, 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

22

Biometric Air Exit
Use of biometrics, specifically facial recognition technology, to verify the identity of
departing international air passengers using US Customs & Border Protection's
(CBP) Traveler Verification System (TVS).
First use case reviewed
Policy recommendations were reviewed by the Biometrics Special Committee on
Feb 18, 2020
Policy recommendations were approved by the Commission on Mar 10, 2020
Executive Policy developed EX-22 on Apr 3, 2020
Review by the External Advisory Group was expedited due to Commission Action
in March. Some stakeholders felt they did not have enough time to fully vet the
recommendations

23