Committee Meeting Date: October 8, 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

USE CASES


7

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.
8

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.

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

RECOMMENDATIONS


11

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.
12

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR:
1. Traveler Functions using Private, Propriety Systems
2. Traveler Functions using Government Systems


13

Justified
Should be used only for a clear and intended purpose and not for surveillance on
large groups without a lawful purpose
Approval Process and Notification
Recommendation: If the Port has the ability to approve an application, the relevant Managing
Director should consider certain criteria in deciding whether or not to approve the implementation,
and consult with a newly created Technology Ethical Advisory Board. If the risks from the biometric
implementation are deemed significant, then the Managing Director should deny the application.
Recommendation: If the Managing Director plans to approve the request, they must first notify the
Port's Executive Director and the Port Commission at least three (3) weeks in advance before
providing that formal approval, and/or go through a Commission approval process. In specific
circumstances, Port staff should also undergo a community engagement process before seeking
Commission approval.

14

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
Approval Process and Developing Guidelines
Recommendation: When the Port has jurisdiction to do so, it should not approve biometrics that do
not include an opt-in provision, unless there is a demonstrated need to do so, such as a public health
mandate. In this context, opt-in refers to both opting-in to the overall system (enrolling your
biometrics in a database or gallery) as well as opting in to participating in the system at the point of
service. The Port should not approve any applications for biometrics that operate by scanning large
groups of people to identify those individuals who have opted in.
Recommendation: The Port should develop guidelines for where and how biometrics can be used at
Port facilities. In particular, these guidelines should include standards for "opt-in" and "opt-out"; and
standards to avoid unintended image capture if facial recognition is implemented. Operators must
demonstrate that they have been trained on these guidelines and standards.
15

Private
Should be stored for no longer than required by applicable law or regulations, and
should be protected against unauthorized access
Standards & Requirements
Recommendation: When the Port has jurisdiction to do so, the Port should develop and enforce
minimum biometric data security and privacy standards.
Recommendation for Traver Functions using Private, Proprietary Systems: For any proposed
implementations of biometrics for traveler functions that have obligations related to U.S.
Transportation Security Administration security and data privacy regulations (i.e. CLEAR), the
proposal must demonstrate full alignment with the Port's Air Security Program rules and
requirements.

16

Equitable
Should be reasonably accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds, and systems
should be in place to treat mismatching issues
Training Guidelines & Accuracy
Recommendation: The Port should develop biometric training guidelines for personnel who will be
administering biometric technology on travelers.
Recommendation: Applications for use of this technology must demonstrate that it performs at 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. Applicants
must agree 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.
17

Transparent
Should be communicated to visitors and travelers
Communications Plan and Accountability Report
Recommendation: The Port should develop a comprehensive communications plan that notifies the
general public of the implementation of public-facing biometrics at Port facilities, and all related
information. The Port should also produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved,
publicly available information.
Performance Evaluation
Recommendation: The Port should periodically conduct its own performance evaluation, within the
limitations of its authority, to ensure that Port employees and/or private sector operators are
following all Port policies.

18

Lawful
Should comply with all laws, including privacy laws and laws prohibiting
discrimination
Compliance and Advocacy
Recommendation: Before the Port approves the implementation of public-facing biometrics, it must
ensure that the proposal complies with all relevant state and federal laws, including privacy and
discrimination laws.
Recommendation: 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.
Recommendation for Traveler Functions using Government Systems: For airlines proposing to use
CBP's Traveler Verification System, they must also include documentation of their compliance with
CBP's Business Requirements.
19

Ethical
Should act ethically when deploying technology or handling biometric data
Engagement
Recommendation: The Port should develop an engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit
organizations and others to educate local immigrant and refugee communities about any biometric
programs.
Recommendation: The Port should work with local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations and others
to inform local immigrant and refugee communities 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: The Port should form a Technology Ethical Advisory Board to advise on the ethical
issues raised by implementation of biometric technology and other innovations.
Privacy
Recommendation: The Port should require that operators do not disclose personal data obtained
from a biometric system to a federal or law enforcement agency, except in certain situations.
20

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR:
Air and Cruise Entry


21

Justified
Approval Process and Collaboration
Recommendation: The Port should include the specific federal laws and statutes that allow CBP to
implement biometrics at Port facilities in the annual accountability report so that travelers and the
public understand. The Port should develop recommendations to CBP for their consideration
regarding ways to avoid unintended image capture at Port facilities
Voluntary
Approval Process
Recommendation: The Port should continue to pursue whether opt-in is an option for biometric
entry at Port facilities. If not, the Port should design training guidelines to help cruise line employees
to educate disembarking passenger about CBP rules regarding opt-out.


22

Private
Audit Reports
Recommendation: The Port should request CBP audit reports on biometric entry systems on a regular
basis and include appropriate information in the Accountability Report (see recommendation under
"Transparent" principle).
Equitable
Accuracy and Training
Recommendation: The Port should request biometric program accuracy rates from CBP on an annual
basis. The Port should also 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.
Recommendation: The Port should develop suggested biometric training guidelines for personnel
who will be administering the facial recognition technology on travelers, and how to deal with
mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion. The Port should share its training guidelines,
specifically related to "cultural sensitivity and discretion", with CBP and cruise lines for their
voluntary adoption.
23

Transparent
Communications Plan and Accountability Report
Recommendation: The Port should request that CBP notify the Port if and when they intend to
conduct biometric entry. The Port should develop a comprehensive communications plan that
notifies the general public of the implementation and all related information. The Port should
produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved, publicly available information.
Lawful & Ethical
Advocacy
Recommendation: Port staff should actively track and work with stakeholders to advocate for federal
laws and regulations that support the Port's biometric principles. The Port should also identify
existing pieces of legislation to support.
Engagement
Recommendation: The Port should develop an engagement plan with local jurisdictions, nonprofit
organizations and others to educate local immigrant and refugee communities about the biometric
entry program and how to report incidents  in multiple languages and in culturally appropriate
ways.
24

Questions?

25

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
26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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.
30