I feel like either you're not understanding the implications of the logging aspect in particular, or you're being disingenuous.
Firstly, we are talking about corporate surveillance. Maybe not today, but certainly tomorrow. The Australian government is already gaging private sector interest in their facial ID database, which was quietly sneaked through legislation as an anti terror measure only 2 years ago.
Secondly, these records, and all records, inevitably reach the hands of government, corporate, and finally criminal actors - usually in that order. This is again only a question of when, not if. And with access to all that data? That goes back to my original point - we haven't even thought about the implications of having such data available. But we have had a glimpse with e.g. feds getting caught looking at data of love interests.
This isn't just 'border control'. Border control is merely one of hundreds of facets in everyday life where people are being stripped of this privacy by actors who ultimately do not represent their interests.
Are you seriously going to claim that this removal of privacy and systemic logging of everyone's life is a reasonable way to tackle border control so we can stop some terrorists from being one of America's least significant causes of death? More people die to lightning strikes every year in the US than to mishaps at border control resulting in terrorism or such.
Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and claim that automated matching between the headshot on the passport NFC chip and the natural person at the gate is totally reasonable.
Bearing in mind that you don't need to hook up to any external databases to do this (all the data is on the chip)
You're dismissing everything I said because you 'don't need' to do the logging. That's not much of an argument even if we ignored the fact that governments will 100% certainly be collecting and storing and correlating and ultimately selling that data even though technically they don't need to do that in order to just make the border control aspect work - as I have shown with the AU government doing literally that with facial ID data.
Firstly, we are talking about corporate surveillance. Maybe not today, but certainly tomorrow. The Australian government is already gaging private sector interest in their facial ID database, which was quietly sneaked through legislation as an anti terror measure only 2 years ago.
Secondly, these records, and all records, inevitably reach the hands of government, corporate, and finally criminal actors - usually in that order. This is again only a question of when, not if. And with access to all that data? That goes back to my original point - we haven't even thought about the implications of having such data available. But we have had a glimpse with e.g. feds getting caught looking at data of love interests.
This isn't just 'border control'. Border control is merely one of hundreds of facets in everyday life where people are being stripped of this privacy by actors who ultimately do not represent their interests.
Are you seriously going to claim that this removal of privacy and systemic logging of everyone's life is a reasonable way to tackle border control so we can stop some terrorists from being one of America's least significant causes of death? More people die to lightning strikes every year in the US than to mishaps at border control resulting in terrorism or such.