Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The quote (and its source) is often disputed (see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century). But it is clear that modern privacy advocates see this quote as a proof text for the shortsightedness of exchanging your privacy for your security. Indeed, I too have used this quote as a rallying cry. But in candor, my use of this quote is more of an “appeal to authority” rhetorical argument rather than a reasoned defense of unfettered freedom.
 
But how should we respond to HART (the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology project)? DHS is building a massive repository of identity information. This is, ostensibly, for ensuring our security. From the Electronic Freedom Foundation (at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/hart-homeland-securitys-massive-new-database-will-include-face-recognition-dna-and),
 

DHS’s plans for future data collection and use should make us all very worried. For example, despite pushback from EFFGeorgetownACLU, and others, DHS believes it’s legally authorized to collect and retain face data from millions of U.S. citizens traveling internationally. However, as Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology notes, Congress has never authorized face scans of American citizens.
 
Despite this, DHS plans to roll out its face recognition program to every international flight in the country within the next four years. DHS has stated “the only way for an individual to ensure he or she is not subject to collection of biometric information when traveling internationally is to refrain from traveling.”

On its face, this is repulsive. And for most Americans, this kind of assault on our freedom and our right to privacy is unthinkable. But the federal government apparently hoped that this effort would gain little public attention.

But while we chafe over such obvious governmental incursions, why do we embrace the same incursions when they come from a private company? Most Apple users applauded the availability of facial recognition as part of the new Face ID feature. And I daresay that Android users would welcome the very same technology, if they knew that it already existed on their phones.

So what’s the problem with a company doing this?

There is little problem if you trust the company and if you read your grant of license. I daresay that miwe do trust companies and we don’t read license agreements. Of course, it should be the other way around. If we read the grant of license, then we would realize that most companies will use whatever they can leverage to increase profits for their owners/shareholders. And if we give away our rights (as well as personally identifiable information), then we are worse than those who gave away freedom for security. We’re doing it to save a few seconds of login time.