ice

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics

censorship, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, First Amendment, ice, Policy / Rejus Almole / January 13, 2026

Defending online anonymity

DHS is weirdly using import/export rules to expand its authority to identify online critics.

A Border Patrol Tactical Unit agent sprays pepper spray into the face of a protestor attempting to block an immigration officer vehicle from leaving the scene where a woman was shot and killed by a federal agent earlier, in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Credit: Star Tribune via Getty Images / Contributor | Star Tribune

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is fighting to unmask the owner of Facebook and Instagram accounts of a community watch group monitoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Pennsylvania.

Defending the right to post about ICE sightings anonymously is a Meta account holder for MontCo Community Watch, John Doe.

Doe has alleged that when the DHS sent a “summons” to Meta asking for subscriber information, it infringed on core First Amendment-protected activity, i.e., the right to publish content critical of government agencies and officials without fear of government retaliation. He also accused DHS of ignoring federal rules and seeking to vastly expand its authority to subpoena information to unmask ICE’s biggest critics online.

“I believe that my anonymity is the only thing standing between me and unfair and unjust persecution by the government of the United States,” Doe said in his complaint.

In response, DHS alleged that the community watch group that posted “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that a statute regulating imports and exports empowered DHS to investigate the group’s alleged threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder” ICE agents.

DHS claims that Meta must comply with the subpoena because the government needs to investigate a “serious” threat “to the safety of its agents and the performance of their duties.”

On Wednesday, a US district judge will hear arguments to decide if Doe is right or if DHS can broadly unmask critics online by claiming it’s investigating supposed threats to ICE agents. With more power, DHS officials have confirmed they plan to criminally prosecute critics posting ICE videos online, Doe alleged in a lawsuit filed last October.

DHS seeking “unlimited subpoena authority”

DHS alleged that the community watch group posting “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that DHS is authorized to investigate the group and that compelling interest supersedes Doe’s First Amendment rights.

According to Doe’s most recent court filing, DHS is pushing a broad reading of a statute that empowers DHS to subpoena information about the “importation/exportation of merchandise”—like records to determine duties owed or information to unmask a drug smuggler or child sex trafficker. DHS claims the statute isn’t just about imports and exports but also authorizes DHS to seize information about anyone they can tie to an investigation of potential crimes that violate US customs laws.

However, it seems to make no sense, Doe argued, that Congress would “silently embed unlimited subpoena authority in a provision keyed to the importation of goods.” Doe hopes the US district judge will agree that DHS’s summons was unconstitutional.

“The subscriber information for social media accounts publishing speech critical of ICE that DHS seeks is completely unrelated to the importation/exportation of merchandise; the records are outside the scope of DHS’s summons power,” Doe alleged.

And even if the court agrees on DHS’s reading of the statute, DHS has not established that unmasking the owner of the community watch accounts would be relevant to any legitimate criminal investigation, Doe alleged.

Doe’s posts were “pretty innocuous,” lawyer says

To convince the court that the case was really about chilling speech, Doe attached every post made on the group’s Facebook and Instagram feeds. None show threats or arguably implicit threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder any federal official,” as DHS claimed. Instead, the users shared “information and resources about immigrant rights, due process rights, fundraising, and vigils,” Doe said.

Ariel Shapell, an attorney representing Doe at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told Ars that “if you go and look at the content on the Facebook and Instagram profiles at issue here, it’s pretty innocuous.”

DHS claimed to have received information about the group supposedly “stalking and gathering of intelligence on federal agents involved in ICE operations.” However, Doe argued that “unsurprisingly, neither DHS nor its declarant cites any post even allegedly constituting any such threat. To the contrary, all posts on these social media accounts constitute speech addressing important public issues fully protected under the First Amendment,” Doe argued.

“Reporting on, or even livestreaming, publicly occurring immigration operations is fully protected First Amendment activity,” Doe argued. “DHS does not, and cannot, show how such conduct constitutes an assault, kidnapping, or murder of a federal law enforcement officer, or a threat to do any of those things.”

Anti-ICE backlash mounting amid ongoing protests

Doe’s motion to quash the subpoena arrives at a time when recent YouGov polling suggests that Americans have reached a tipping point in ending support for ICE. YouGov’s poll found more people disapprove of how ICE is handling its job than approve, following the aftermath of nationwide anti-ICE protests over Renee Good’s killing. ICE critics have used footage of tragic events—like Good’s death and eight other ICE shootings since September—to support calls to remove ICE from embattled communities and abolish ICE.

As sharing ICE footage has swayed public debate, DHS has seemingly sought to subpoena Meta and possibly other platforms for subscriber information.

In October, Meta refused to provide names of users associated with Doe’s accounts—as well as “postal code, country, all email address(es) on file, date of account creation, registered telephone numbers, IP address at account signup, and logs showing IP address and date stamps for account accesses”—without further information from DHS. Meta then gave Doe the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena to stop the company from sharing information.

That request came about a week after DHS requested similar information from Meta about six Instagram community watch groups that shared information about ICE activity in Los Angeles and other locations. DHS withdrew those requests after account holders defended First Amendment rights and filed motions to quash the subpoena, Doe’s court filing said.

It’s unclear why DHS withdrew those subpoenas but maintained Doe’s. DHS has alleged that the government’s compelling interest in Doe’s identity outweighs First Amendment rights to post anonymously online. The agency also claimed it has met its burden to unmask Doe as “someone who is allegedly involved in threatening ICE agents and impeding the performance of their duties,” which supposedly “touches DHS’s investigation into threats to ICE agents and impediments to the performance of their duties.”

Whether Doe will prevail is hard to say, but Politico reported that DHS’s “defense will rest on whether DHS’s argument that posting videos and images of ICE officers and warnings about arrests is considered criminal activity.” It may weaken DHS’s case that Border Patrol Tactical Commander Greg Bovino recently circulated a “legal refresher” for agents in the field, reminding them that protestors are allowed to take photos and videos of “an officer or operation in public,” independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported.

Shapell told Ars that there seems to be “a lot of distance” between the content posted on Doe’s accounts and relevant evidence that could be used in DHS’s alleged investigation into criminal activity. And meanwhile, “there are just very clear First Amendment rights here to associate with other people anonymously online and to discuss political opinions online anonymously,” Shapell said, which the judge may strongly uphold as core protected activity as threats of government retaliation mount.

“These summonses chill people’s desire to communicate about these sorts of incredibly important developments on the Internet, even anonymously, when there’s a threat that they could be unmasked and investigated for this really core First Amendment protected activity,” Shapell said.

A win could reassure Meta users that they can continue posting about ICE online without fear of retaliation should Meta be pressed to share their information.

Ars could not immediately reach DHS for comment. Meta declined to comment, only linking Ars to an FAQ to help users understand how the platform processes government requests.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics Read More »

ICEBlock lawsuit: Trump admin bragged about demanding App Store removal

App Store, Apple, First Amendment, free speech, ice, iceblock, immigration and customs enforcement, Policy / Mike M. / December 8, 2025

ICEBlock creator sues to protect apps that are crowd-sourcing ICE sightings.

In a lawsuit filed against top Trump administration officials on Monday, Apple was accused of caving to unconstitutional government demands by removing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement-spotting app from the App Store with more than a million users.

In his complaint, Joshua Aaron, creator of ICEBlock, cited a Fox News interview in which Attorney General Pam Bondi “made plain that the United States government used its regulatory power to coerce a private platform to suppress First Amendment-protected expression.”

Suing Bondi—along with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons, White House “Border Czar” Thomas D. Homan, and unnamed others—Aaron further alleged that US officials made false statements and “unlawful threats” to criminally investigate and prosecute him for developing ICEBlock.

Currently, ICEBlock is still available to anyone who downloaded the app prior to the October removal from the App Store, but updates have been disrupted, and Aaron wants the app restored. Seeking an injunction to block any attempted criminal investigations from chilling his free speech, as well as ICEBlock users’ speech, Aaron vowed in a statement provided to Ars to fight to get ICEBlock restored.

“I created ICEBlock to keep communities safe,” Aaron said. “Growing up in a Jewish household, I learned from history about the consequences of staying silent in the face of tyranny. I will never back down from resisting the Trump Administration’s targeting of immigrants and conscripting corporations into its unconstitutional agenda.”

Expert calls out Apple for “capitulation”

Apple is not a defendant in the lawsuit and did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Aaron’s complaint called out Apple, though, for alleged capitulation to the Trump administration that appeared to be “the first time in Apple’s nearly fifty-year history” that “Apple removed a US-based app in response to the US government’s demands.” One of his lawyers, Deirdre von Dornum, told Ars that the lawsuit is about more than just one app being targeted by the government.

“If we allow community sharing of information to be silenced, our democracy will fail,” von Dornum said. “The United States will be no different than China or Russia. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Every person has a right to share information under the First Amendment.”

Mario Trujillo, a staff attorney from a nonprofit digital rights group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation that’s not involved in the litigation, agreed that Apple’s ban appeared to be prompted by an unlawful government demand.

He told Ars that “there is a long history that shows documenting law enforcement performing their duties in public is protected First Amendment activity.” Aaron’s complaint pointed to a feature on one of Apple’s own products—Apple Maps—that lets users crowd-source sightings of police speed traps as one notable example. Other similar apps that Apple hosts in its App Store include other Big Tech offerings, like Google Maps and Waze, as well as apps with explicit names like Police Scanner.

Additionally, Trujillo noted that Aaron’s arguments are “backed by recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“The government acted unlawfully when it demanded Apple remove ICEBlock, while threatening others with prosecution,” Trujillo said. “While this case is rightfully only against the government, Apple should also take a hard look at its own capitulation.”

ICEBlock maker sues to stop app crackdown

ICEBlock is not the only app crowd-sourcing information on public ICE sightings to face an app store ban. Others, including an app simply collecting footage of ICE activities, have been removed by Apple and Google, 404 Media reported, as part of a broader crackdown.

Aaron’s suit is intended to end that crackdown by seeking a declaration that government demands to remove ICE-spotting apps violate the First Amendment.

“A lawsuit is the only mechanism that can bring transparency, accountability, and a binding judicial remedy when government officials cross constitutional lines,” Aaron told 404 Media. “If we don’t challenge this conduct in court, it will become a playbook for future censorship.”

In his complaint, Aaron explained that he created ICE in January to help communities hold the Trump administration accountable after Trump campaigned on a mass deportation scheme that boasted numbers far beyond the number of undocumented immigrants in the country.

“His campaign team often referenced plans to deport ’15 to 20 million’ undocumented immigrants, when in fact the number of undocumented persons in the United States is far lower,” his complaint said.

The app was not immediately approved by Apple, Aaron said. But after a thorough vetting process, Apple approved the app in April.

ICEBlock wasn’t an overnight hit but suddenly garnered hundreds of thousands of users after CNN profiled the app in June.

Trump officials attack ICEBlock with false claims

Within hours of that report, US officials began blasting the app, claiming that it was used to incite violence against ICE officers and amplifying pressure to get the app yanked from the App Store.

But Bondi may have slipped up by making comments that seemed to make it clear her intentions were to restrict disfavored speech. On Fox, Bondi claimed that CNN’s report supposedly promoting the app was dangerous, whereas the Fox News report was warning people not to use the app and was perfectly OK.

“Bondi’s statements make clear that her threats of adverse action constitute viewpoint discrimination, where speech ‘promoting’ the app is unlawful but speech ‘warning’ about the app is lawful,” the lawsuit said.

Other Trump officials were accused of making false statements and using unlawful threats to silence Aaron and ICEBlock users.

“What they’re doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement activities, operations, and we’re going to actually go after them,” Noem told reporters in July. In a statement, Lyons claimed that ICEBlock “basically paints a target on federal law enforcement officers’ backs” and that “officers and agents are already facing a 500 percent increase in assaults.” Echoing Lyons and Noem, Homan called for an investigation into CNN for reporting on the app, which “falsely implied that Plaintiffs’ protected speech was illegally endangering law enforcement officers,” Aaron alleged.

Not named in the lawsuit, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also allegedly made misleading statements. That included falsely claiming “that ICEBlock and similar apps are responsible for violent attacks on law enforcement officers, such as the tragic shooting of immigrants at an ICE detention facility in Dallas, Texas, on September 24, 2025,” where “no actual evidence has ever been cited to support these claims,” the lawsuit said.

Despite an apparent lack of evidence, Apple confirmed that ICEBlock was removed in October, “based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock,” a public statement said. In a notice to Aaron, Apple further explained that the app was banned “because its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group.”

Apple never shared any more information with Aaron to distinguish his app from other apps allowed in the App Store that help people detect and avoid nearby law enforcement activities. The iPhone maker also didn’t confirm the source of its information, Aaron said.

However, on Fox, Bondi boasted about reaching “out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so.”

Then, later during sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she reiterated those comments, while also oddly commenting that Google received the same demand, despite ICEBlock intentionally being designed for iPhone only.

She also falsely claimed that ICEBlock “was reckless and criminal in that people were posting where ICE officers lived” but “subsequently walked back that statement,” Aaron’s complaint said.

Aaron is hoping the US District Court in the District of Columbia will agree that “Bondi’s demand to Apple to remove ICEBlock from the App store, as well as her viewpoint-based criticism of CNN for publicizing the app, constitute a ‘scheme of state censorship’ designed to ‘suppress’” Aaron’s “publication and distribution of the App.”

His lawyer, Noam Biale, told Ars that “Attorney General Bondi’s self-congratulatory claim that she succeeded in pushing Apple to remove ICEBlock is an admission that she violated our client’s constitutional rights. In America, government officials cannot suppress free speech by pressuring private companies to do it for them.”

Similarly, statements from Noem, Lyons, and Homan constituted “excessive pressure on Apple to remove the App and others like it from the App Store,” Aaron’s complaint alleged, as well as unconstitutional suppression of Aaron’s and ICEBlock users’ speech.

ICEBlock creator was one of the first Mac Geniuses

Aaron maintains that ICEBlock prominently features a disclaimer asking all users to “please note that the use of this app is for information and notification purposes only. It is not to be used for the purposes of inciting violence or interfering with law enforcement.”

In his complaint, he explained how the app worked to automatically delete ICE sightings after four hours—information that he said could not be recovered. That functionality ensures that “ICEBlock cannot be used to track ICE agents’ historical presence or movements,” Aaron’s lawsuit noted.

Rather than endangering ICE officers, Aaron argued that ICEBlock helps protect communities from dangerous ICE activity, like tear gassing and pepper spraying, or alleged racial profiling triggering arrests of US citizens and immigrants. Kids have been harmed, his complaint noted, with ICE agents documented “arresting parents and leaving young children unaccompanied” and even once “driving an arrestee’s car away from the scene of arrest with the arrestee’s young toddler still strapped into a car seat.”

Aaron’s top fear driving his development of the app was his concern that escalations in ICE enforcement—including arbitrary orders to hit 75 arrests a day—exposed “immigrants and citizens alike to violence and rampant violations of their civil liberties” that ICEBlock could shield them from.

“These operations have led to widespread and well-documented civil rights violations against citizens, lawful residents, and undocumented immigrants alike, causing serious concern among members of the public, elected officials, and federal courts,” Aaron’s complaint said.

They also “have led some people—regardless of immigration or citizenship status—to want to avoid areas of federal immigration enforcement activities altogether” and “resulted in situations where members of the public may wish, when enforcement activity becomes visible in public spaces, to observe, record, or lawfully protest against such activity.”

In 2001, Aaron worked for Apple as one of the first Mac Geniuses in its Apple Stores. These days, he flexes his self-taught developer skills by creating apps intended to do social good and help communities.

Emphasizing that he was raised in a Jewish household where he heard stories from Holocaust survivors that left a lasting mark, Aaron said that the ICEBlock app represented his “commitment to use his abilities to advocate for the protection of civil liberties.” Without an injunction, he’s concerned that he and other like-minded app makers will remain in the Trump administration’s crosshairs, as the mass deportation scheme rages on through ongoing ICE raids across the US, Aaron told 404 Media.

“More broadly, the purpose [of the lawsuit] is to hold government officials accountable for using their authority to silence lawful expression and intimidate creators of technology they disfavor,” Aaron said. “This case is about ensuring that public officials cannot circumvent the Constitution by coercing private companies or threatening individuals simply because they disagree with the message or the tool being created.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

ICEBlock lawsuit: Trump admin bragged about demanding App Store removal Read More »

Formation of oceans within icy moons could cause the waters to boil

astronomy, freezing, ice, moons, oceans, planetary science, Science / Kris Guyer / November 25, 2025

That can have significant consequences on the stresses experienced by the icy shells of these moons. Water is considerably more dense than ice. So, as a moon’s ocean freezes up, its interior will expand, creating outward forces that press against the gravity holding the moon together. The potential of this transition to shape the surface geology of a number of moons, including Europa and Enceladus, has already been explored. So, the researchers behind the new work decided to look at the opposite issue: what happens when the interior starts to melt?

Rather than focus on a specific moon, the team did a general model of an ice-covered ocean. This model treated the ice shell as an elastic surface, meaning it wouldn’t just snap, and placed viscous ice below that. Further down, there was a liquid ocean and eventually a rocky core. As the ice melted and the ocean expanded, the researchers tracked the stresses on the ice shell and the changes in pressure that occurred at the ice-ocean interface. They also tracked the spread of thermal energy through the ice shell.

Pressure drop

Obviously, there are limits to how much the outer shell can flex to accommodate the shrinking of the inner portions of the moon that are melting. This creates a low-pressure area under the shell. The consequences of this depend on the moon’s size. For larger moons—and this includes most of the moons the team looked at, including Europa—there were two options. For some, gravity is sufficiently strong to keep the pressure at a point where the water at the interface remains liquid. In others, the gravity was enough to cause even an elastic surface to fail, leading to surface collapse.

For smaller moons, however, this doesn’t work out; the pressure gets low enough that water will boil even at the ambient temperatures (just above the freezing point of water). In addition, the low pressure will likely cause any gases dissolved in the water to be released. The result is that gas bubbles should form at the ice-water interface. “Boiling is possible on these bodies—and not others—because they are small and have a relatively low gravitational acceleration,” the researchers conclude. “Consequently, less ocean underpressure is needed to counterbalance the [crustal] pressure.”

Formation of oceans within icy moons could cause the waters to boil Read More »

DHS offers “disturbing new excuses” to seize kids’ biometric data, expert says

biometric data, cbp, customs and border protection, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DNA testing, face scans, ice, iris scans, Policy, voice prints / Paul Patrick / November 5, 2025

Sweeping DHS power grab would collect face, iris, voice scans of all immigrants.

Civil and digital rights experts are horrified by a proposed rule change that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to collect a wide range of sensitive biometric data on all immigrants, without age restrictions, and store that data throughout each person’s “lifecycle” in the immigration system.

If adopted, the rule change would allow DHS agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to broadly collect facial imagery, finger and palm prints, iris scans, and voice prints. They may also request DNA, which DHS claimed “would only be collected in limited circumstances,” like to verify family relations. These updates would cost taxpayers $288.7 million annually, DHS estimated, including $57.1 million for DNA collection alone. Annual individual charges to immigrants submitting data will likely be similarly high, estimated at around $231.5 million.

Costs could be higher, DHS admitted, especially if DNA testing is conducted more widely than projected.

“DHS does not know the full costs to the government of expanding biometrics collection in terms of assets, process, storage, labor, and equipment,” DHS’s proposal said, while noting that from 2020 to 2024, the US only processed such data from about 21 percent of immigrants on average.

Alarming critics, the update would allow DHS for the first time to collect biometric data of children under 14, which DHS claimed would help reduce human trafficking and other harms by making it easier to identify kids crossing the border unaccompanied or with a stranger.

Jennifer Lynch, general counsel for a digital rights nonprofit called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that EFF joined Democratic senators in opposing a prior attempt by DHS to expand biometric data collection in 2020.

There was so much opposition to that rule change that DHS ultimately withdrew it, Lynch noted, but DHS confirmed in its proposal that the agency expects more support for the much broader initiative under the current Trump administration. Quoting one of Trump’s earliest executive orders in this term, directing DHS to “secure the border,” DHS suggested it was the agency’s duty to use “any available technologies and procedures to determine the validity of any claimed familial relationship between aliens encountered or apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security.”

Lynch warned that DHS’s plan to track immigrants over time, starting as young as possible, would allow DHS “to track people without their knowledge as they go about their lives” and “map families and connections in whole communities over time.”

“This expansion poses grave threats to the privacy, security, and liberty of US citizens and non-citizens,” Lynch told Ars, noting that “the federal government, including DHS, has failed to protect biometric data in the past.”

“Risks from security breaches to children’s biometrics are especially acute,” she said. “Large numbers of children are already victims of identity theft.”

By maintaining a database, the US also risks chilling speech, as immigrants weigh risks of social media comments—which DHS already monitors—possibly triggering removals or arrests.

“People will be less likely to speak out on any issue for fear of being tracked and facing severe reprisals, like detention and deportation, that we’ve already seen from this administration,” Lynch told Ars.

DHS also wants to collect more biometric data on US citizens and permanent residents who sponsor immigrants or have familial ties. Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU’s speech, privacy, and technology project, told Ars that “we should all be concerned that the Trump administration is potentially building a vast database of people’s sensitive, unchangeable information, as this will have serious privacy consequences for citizens and noncitizens alike.”

“DHS continues to explore disturbing new excuses to collect more DNA and other sensitive biometric information, from the sound of our voice to the unique identifiers in our irises,” Bhandari said.

EFF previously noted that DHS’s biometric database was already the second largest in the world. By expanding it, DHS estimated that the agency would collect “about 1.12 million more biometrics submissions” annually, increasing the current baseline to about 3.19 million.

As the data pool expands, DHS plans to hold onto the data until an immigrant who has requested benefits or otherwise engaged with DHS agencies is either granted citizenship or removed.

Lynch suggested that “DHS cites questionable authority for this massive change to its practices,” which would “exponentially expand the federal government’s ability to collect biometrics from anyone associated with any immigration benefit or request—including US citizens and children of any age.”

“Biometrics are unique to each of us and can’t be changed, so these threats exists as long as the government holds onto our data,” Lynch said.

DHS will collect more data on kids than adults

Not all agencies will require all forms of biometric data to be submitted “instantly” if the rule change goes through, DHS said. Instead, agencies will assess their individual needs, while supposedly avoiding repetitive data collection, so that data won’t be collected every time someone is required to fill out a form.

DHS said it “recognizes” that its sweeping data collection plans that remove age restrictions don’t conform with Department of Justice policies. But the agency claimed there was no conflict since “DHS regulatory provisions control all DHS biometrics collections” and “DHS is not authorized to operate or collect biometrics under DOJ authorities.”

“Using biometrics for identity verification and management” is necessary, DHS claimed, because it “will assist DHS’s efforts to combat trafficking, confirm the results of biographical criminal history checks, and deter fraud.”

Currently, DHS is seeking public comments on the rule change, which can be submitted over the next 60 days ahead of a deadline on January 2, 2026. The agency suggests it “welcomes” comments, particularly on the types of biometric data DHS wants to collect, including concerns about the “reliability of technology.”

If approved, DHS said that kids will likely be subjected to more biometric data collection than adults. Additionally, younger kids will be subjected to processes that DHS formerly limited to only children age 14 and over.

For example, DHS noted that previously, “policies, procedures, and practices in place at that time” restricted DHS from running criminal background checks on children.

However, DHS claims that’s now appropriate, including in cases where children were trafficked or are seeking benefits under the Violence Against Women Act and, therefore, are expected to prove “good moral character.”

“Generally, DHS plans to use the biometric information collected from children for identity management in the immigration lifecycle only, but will retain the authority for other uses in its discretion, such as background checks and for law enforcement purposes,” DHS’s proposal said.

The changes will also help protect kids from removals, DHS claimed, by making it easier for an ICE attorney to complete required “identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations.” As DHS explained:

DHS proposes to collect biometrics at any age to ensure the immigration records created for children can be related to their adult records later, and to help combat child trafficking, smuggling, and labor exploitation by facilitating identity verification, while also confirming the absence of criminal history or associations with terrorist organizations or gang membership.

A top priority appears to be tracking kids’ family relationships.

“DHS’s ability to collect biometrics, including DNA, regardless of a minor’s age, will allow DHS to accurately prove or disprove claimed genetic relationships among apprehended aliens and ensure that unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are properly identified and cared for,” the proposal said.

But DHS acknowledges that biometrics won’t help in some situations, like where kids are adopted. In those cases, DHS will still rely on documentation like birth certificates, medical records, and “affidavits to support claims based on familial relationships.”

It’s possible that some DHS agencies may establish an age threshold for some data collection, the rule change noted.

A day after the rule change was proposed, 42 comments have been submitted. Most were critical, but as Lynch warned, speaking out seemed risky, with many choosing to anonymously criticize the initiative as violating people’s civil rights and making the US appear more authoritarian.

One anonymous user cited guidance from the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while warning that “what starts as a ‘biometrics update’ could turn into widespread privacy erosion for immigrants and citizens alike.”

The commenter called out DHS for seriously “talking about harvesting deeply personal data that could track someone forever” and subjecting “infants and toddlers” to “iris scans or DNA swabs.”

“You pitch it as a tool against child trafficking, which is a real issue, but does swabbing a newborn really help, or does it just create a lifelong digital profile starting at day one?” the commenter asked. “Accuracy for growing kids is questionable, and the [ACLU] has pointed out how this disproportionately burdens families. Imagine the hassle for parents—it’s not protection; it’s preemptively treating every child like a data point in a government file.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

DHS offers “disturbing new excuses” to seize kids’ biometric data, expert says Read More »

US gives local police a face-scanning app similar to one used by ICE agents

cbp, ice, immigration, Policy / Rejus Almole / November 4, 2025

“Biometric data used to identify individuals through TVS are collected by government authorities consistent with the law, including [when] issuing documents or processing illegal aliens,” the CBP statement said. “The Mobile Fortify Application provides a mobile capability that uses facial comparison as well as fingerprint matching to verify the identity of individuals against specific immigration related holdings.”

404 Media quoted Cooper Quintin, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as saying that “face surveillance in general, and this tool specifically, was already a dangerous infringement of civil liberties when in the hands of ICE agents. Putting a powerful surveillance tool like this in the hands of state and local law enforcement officials around the country will only further erode peoples’ Fourth Amendment rights, for citizens and non-citizens alike. This will further erode due process, and subject even more Americans to omnipresent surveillance and unjust detainment.”

DHS proposes new biometrics rules, definition

In related news this week, the Department of Homeland Security is proposing rule changes to expand the collection and use of biometric information. The proposed changes are open for public comment until January 2, 2026.

“The purpose of this rule is to establish a standard and provide notice that every individual filing or associated with a benefit request, other request, or collection of information is subject to the biometrics requirement, unless DHS exempts a category of requests or individuals, or a specific individual,” the proposal said. “This includes any alien apprehended, arrested or encountered by DHS in the course of performing its functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. As it relates to benefit requests, other requests and collections of information, notice of this requirement will be added in the form instructions for the relevant forms, as needed.”

The proposed rule change would expand the agency’s definition of biometrics “to include a wider range of modalities than just fingerprints, photographs and signatures.” The proposed definition of biometrics is “measurable biological (anatomical, physiological or molecular structure) or behavioral characteristics of an individual.” This includes face and eye scans, vocal signatures, and DNA.

US gives local police a face-scanning app similar to one used by ICE agents Read More »

ICE’s forced face scans to verify citizens is unconstitutional, lawmakers say

biometric data, customs and border protection, face scans, facial recognition, ice, Online Privacy, Policy / Paul Patrick / October 29, 2025

“A 2024 test by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that facial recognition tools are less accurate when images are low quality, blurry, obscured, or taken from the side or in poor light—exactly the kind of images an ICE agent would likely capture when using a smartphone in the field,” their letter said.

If ICE’s use continues to expand, mistakes “will almost certainly proliferate,” senators said, and “even if ICE’s facial recognition tools were perfectly accurate, these technologies would still pose serious threats to individual privacy and free speech.”

Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told 404 Media that ICE’s growing use of facial recognition confirms that “we should have banned government use of face recognition when we had the chance because it is dangerous, invasive, and an inherent threat to civil liberties.” It also suggests that “any remaining pretense that ICE is harassing and surveilling people in any kind of ‘precise’ way should be left in the dust,” Guariglia said.

ICE scans faces, even if shown an ID

In their letter to ICE acting director Todd Lyons, senators sent a long list of questions to learn more about “ICE’s expanded use of biometric technology systems,” which senators suggested risked having “a sweeping and lasting impact on the public’s civil rights and liberties.” They demanded to know when ICE started using face scans in domestic deployments, as previously the technology was only known to be used at the border, and what testing was done to ensure apps like Mobile Fortify are accurate and unbiased.

Perhaps most relevant to 404 Media’s recent report, senators asked, “Does ICE have any policies, practices, or procedures around the use of the Mobile Fortify app to identify US citizens?” Lyons was supposed to respond by October 2, but Ars was not able to immediately confirm whether that deadline was met.

DHS declined “to confirm or deny law enforcement capabilities or methods” in response to 404 Media’s report, while CBP confirmed that Mobile Fortify is still being used by ICE, along with “a variety of technological capabilities” that supposedly “enhance the effectiveness of agents on the ground.”

ICE’s forced face scans to verify citizens is unconstitutional, lawmakers say Read More »

Trump admin pressured Facebook into removing ICE-tracking group

facebook, ice, Policy, trump administration / Mike M. / October 14, 2025

Attorney General Pam Bondi today said that Facebook removed an ICE-tracking group after “outreach” from the Department of Justice. “Today following outreach from @thejusticedept, Facebook removed a large group page that was being used to dox and target @ICEgov agents in Chicago,” Bondi wrote in an X post.

Bondi alleged that a “wave of violence against ICE has been driven by online apps and social media campaigns designed to put ICE officers at risk just for doing their jobs.” She added that the DOJ “will continue engaging tech companies to eliminate platforms where radicals can incite imminent violence against federal law enforcement.”

When contacted by Ars, Facebook owner Meta said the group “was removed for violating our policies against coordinated harm.” Meta didn’t describe any specific violation but directed us to a policy against “coordinating harm and promoting crime,” which includes a prohibition against “outing the undercover status of law enforcement, military, or security personnel.”

The statement was sent by Francis Brennan, a former Trump campaign advisor who was hired by Meta in January.

The White House recently claimed there has been “a more than 1,000 percent increase in attacks on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers since January 21, 2025, compared to the same period last year.” Government officials haven’t offered proof of this claim, according to an NPR report that said “there is no public evidence that [attacks] have spiked as dramatically as the federal government has claimed.”

The Justice Department contacted Meta after Laura Loomer sought action against the “ICE Sighting-Chicagoland” group that had over 84,000 members on Facebook. “Fantastic news. DOJ source tells me they have seen my report and they have contacted Facebook and their executives at META to tell them they need to remove these ICE tracking pages from the platform,” Loomer wrote yesterday.

The ICE Sighting-Chicagoland group “has been increasingly used over the last five weeks of ‘Operation Midway Blitz,’ President Donald Trump’s intense deportation campaign, to warn neighbors that federal agents are near schools, grocery stores and other community staples so they can take steps to protect themselves,” the Chicago Sun-Times wrote today.

Trump slammed Biden for social media “censorship”

Trump and Republicans repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for pressuring social media companies into removing content. In a day-one executive order declaring an end to “federal censorship,” Trump said “the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”

Trump admin pressured Facebook into removing ICE-tracking group Read More »