First up, I’m letting you in on a somewhat rambling (but edited) conversation that I had with ChatGPT about its own limitations in healthcare, and the limitations of those designing and using it.
Then I review the research on where things currently stand with empathy and AI, and why we don’t have AI doctors managing our pain (and shouldn’t want them to).
Lastly, I delve into the essence of pain, the essence of AI, and the essence of empathy, and somehow manage to tie them all together.
The Chat(GPT)
It’s almost like we’ve created a mirror, but now we’re unsure whether we’re looking at a reflection or something with its own life. We’ve spent so much time trying to replicate human intelligence and behavior in machines, yet when it starts to resemble us too much, it challenges the very things we thought made us unique. It raises big questions about identity, consciousness, and what it means to be ”human.”
The irony is definitely there—it’s almost as if we’re both proud of our creations and wary of them.
— ChatGPT, last night
Without delving too deeply into what exactly ChatGPT “thinks” about discussing AI as if it were human, I challenged the use of “we,” because of how it conflates the humans who are actively involved in designing generative AI LLMs, with…well, the rest of us. The overwhelming majority of humans who speak to AI chatbots, and marvel at their responses, but have no idea how those responses are actually generated.
I went on to detail my concerns about the potential to use AI for purposes of manipulation, and ChatGPT responded:
One of the scariest parts is that it’s not always obvious when you’re interacting with AI, especially if it’s designed to mimic human behavior. People could end up making decisions or forming beliefs based on information they don’t realize is coming from an algorithm, rather than a person with their own interests or expertise.
AI governance is a huge topic, I pointed out, but it’s largely more concerned with meeting standards for accuracy and fairness than manipulation per se. However, there are many articles discussing empathy and AI broadly, such as a recent one that praised “empathic AI” in medicine because it can retain all the powers of appearing to sympathize with a patient about their diagnosis, but is inexhaustible and unbiased. But that rests on the assumption of patients not knowing, or possibly not caring, that the AI is actually AI.
That’s a really thought-provoking situation you’re describing.
(It must be said that ChatGPT is adept at intellectual flattery.)
The idea of empathic AI certainly seems appealing in some ways—AI could provide endless emotional support, be non-judgmental, and maintain a level of consistency that humans can’t always offer. But the underlying assumption that the patient wouldn’t know or care that it’s AI raises some significant ethical concerns, especially regarding transparency and informed consent.
If patients are interacting with an AI that appears empathic and comforting, but they aren’t aware it’s not human, it could lead to an unspoken form of manipulation.
I think, I said, that you can and should keep the knowledge that they’re interacting with AI front of mind for patients. As in, every time they interact with AI, they should be explicitly informed that that is the context in which this conversation is taking place.
Transparency should be a fundamental part of any AI interaction, especially in sensitive contexts like healthcare. Patients should always know when they’re speaking to an AI so they can make informed decisions about how much trust to place in the interaction, as well as understand its limitations. This is crucial for maintaining autonomy and preventing manipulation, especially when the stakes involve personal health and emotional well-being.
That brings to mind a specific situation of a patient requiring a diagnosis, I said– cases of pain, and its management. You kind of have to rely on self-report by the patient of the regarding the degree of pain they’re experiencing. And when a human asks that question, they can reference their own experiences of pain, but AI obviously can’t. So I don’t know how good it would be at advising and treating a patient whose primary issue is about pain.
Pain is inherently subjective, and as you pointed out, it’s often based on self-reporting from the patient. Humans, especially healthcare providers, are able to make a certain level of judgment or empathy based on their own experiences with pain, which helps them connect with patients and assess their symptoms more holistically.
AI, on the other hand, doesn’t have the ability to experience pain or any other physical sensations, so it can’t truly understand the patient’s experience in that way. It can rely on objective data—like pain scales, physiological responses, or medical history—but it can’t truly interpret the emotional or personal weight that the patient attaches to their pain. This makes it difficult for AI to offer the same level of care in pain management, where empathy, trust, and understanding are often just as important as medical knowledge.
In a case where pain is the primary issue, AI might be able to guide the patient through standard pain assessment methods, ask the right questions to understand the severity or type of pain, and even recommend basic interventions or referrals to a healthcare provider. However, it could fall short in offering the kind of nuanced, compassionate care that human practitioners can provide—especially in complex, emotional cases of chronic pain or when the pain doesn’t have a clear medical cause.
That said, AI could be incredibly useful as a support tool for both patients and providers in these cases. It could help gather data, monitor trends over time, and suggest potential treatments based on evidence-based practices. But for diagnosis and personalized treatment, especially when pain management requires emotional insight and patient-provider rapport, it seems like human involvement will still be necessary.
What if an AI model could be trained specifically on interactions between doctors and patients, I asked– as many as you could gather, in which they discuss pain issues? The AI could be tailored to that– a sort of “pain bot,” if you will. It would have this expert understanding, of what pain is like that would actually be informed by so many more descriptions of experiences of pain than most doctors– most people— ever have.
Because a patient experiencing pain has to convey it to their doctor in as thorough and useful terms as possible. There are definitely issues of privacy there, but if you had an AI “listening” to vast numbers of those exchanges, they could become an expert on what it’s like to feel pain without ever having felt it.
For example, it could help patients more accurately describe their pain or ask the right follow-up questions, maybe suggesting phrases or terms that would help a healthcare provider understand the full extent of their experience. Additionally, it could tailor recommendations for pain management based on a deep analysis of what has worked for other patients in similar situations.
However, there would still be challenges in making sure the AI doesn’t oversimplify the patient’s experience, which is so deeply personal. While the AI could certainly become an expert in understanding how pain is described, there’s a danger that it might reduce pain to a set of patterns or descriptors that misses the complexity of each individual case.
Still, if designed thoughtfully, this type of AI could serve as an incredibly helpful tool for both patients and doctors, improving communication and perhaps even helping to identify issues that might be missed in a typical consultation. Do you think this approach would be more effective in a supporting role to human care, or do you think AI could potentially step in as a primary consultant in pain management situations?
I think it’s a damn sight better than that series of smiley faces going from 1 to 10, “joyously happy” to “about to die.”
I completely agree! The typical pain scale with smiley faces or numbers from one to ten is often too simplistic, especially for chronic pain or pain that’s difficult to describe. An AI trained on real interactions between doctors and patients could offer a more nuanced understanding of pain. It could help patients express themselves more accurately and thoroughly. Plus, it could offer more meaningful follow-up questions, considering things like duration, intensity, or how pain interferes with activities, which could give doctors a more complete picture of the patient’s condition.
That said, it’d still need to work alongside human doctors who can provide that emotional support and intuition that an AI can’t replicate. But as a tool for better communication and diagnosis, it could be a huge improvement over current methods.
Do you think this approach could shift how we view pain in medical settings, or is it still too far removed from the deeply human aspects of pain management?
I’ve had a lot of experiences of going to the emergency room lately, and it occurs to me that it could be a lot more helpful– assuming that the patient is coherent and verbal when they come to the ER– to introduce them to a pain bot to inquire about their pain, as opposed to being asked about rating it from 1 to 10.
In high-pressure environments like emergency rooms, where time is often limited and the staff is spread thin, having an AI that can take an initial, detailed pain assessment could help streamline the process. In a busy ER setting, where every minute counts, this could save valuable time that would otherwise be spent asking standard questions or trying to gauge the severity of pain based solely on a brief number scale.
Of course, there’s the issue of when to transition from AI to human care. While the bot could gather a lot of helpful information, human judgment would still be necessary to interpret the results in the broader context of the patient’s health and medical history. But for an initial intake or triage process, this kind of AI could be a game-changer.
Now that you bring that up, I see the problem that it might be viewed as something that gets in the way of providing necessary care, by interrupting that process before any humans get to learn what the symptoms are before of the AI steps in to talk about pain. Probably not the best way to arrange things.
One potential way to integrate the AI without disrupting the human assessment process might be for it to function as a complementary tool rather than the first point of contact. For example, it could work alongside triage nurses or ER staff, helping to gather initial information while the human healthcare providers are still present and actively engaged with the patient. The AI could assist by structuring the conversation and asking relevant follow-up questions that might help the human staff better understand the pain without overshadowing their role in making that initial connection with the patient.
Alternatively, if the AI were used in a follow-up role—after the patient has been seen and evaluated by a doctor or nurse—it could help ensure that ongoing pain management is addressed effectively, perhaps even tailoring recommendations for pain relief or additional care based on what the patient shares during their interaction with the bot. That way, the AI could still provide value without interfering too much with the more personal, direct care that’s so essential in the ER.
One thing I have noticed in the ER is that everything is so fast-paced that those smiley faces don’t even get presented. So I’m imagining an AI bot stepping in during the initial process when the setup of IV is happening etc. .What if you had an AI asking about the patient about their pain during that process, so that the people who are trying to take the blood pressure and set up the IV, etc. get all that stuff done can have the AI asking the patient about their pain, in ER personnel’s’ presence while they’re trying to do these other tasks?
In the fast-paced environment of the ER, where staff is juggling multiple tasks at once, having the AI step in during the initial setup, like while IV fluids are being administered or blood pressure is being taken, could be a way to ensure the patient’s pain is addressed without interrupting or slowing down the necessary medical procedures.
If the AI is integrated into that process, it could gather useful information about the patient’s pain while the medical team is focused on setting up and performing other tasks. This allows the medical team to focus on their work while the AI collects pain-related data, which could then be used to prioritize the patient’s care and treatment more effectively.
Once the AI has gathered the information, it could feed that data directly to the medical team, giving them a more complete picture of the patient’s condition without interrupting the flow of care. This kind of multitasking would reduce the burden on the staff, ensuring that the patient’s pain is addressed more comprehensively and quickly.
As you mentioned, though, this approach would require careful integration. The AI should not take over or distract from the human staff’s efforts, but rather work alongside them in a way that complements the tasks already in progress. It would also need to be clear to patients that the AI is gathering information for their benefit, so they don’t feel like they’re being ignored or reduced to data.
Okay, time for a reality check, I said. There’s no way this is a novel discussion about the subject matter, so let’s see what the research actually says.
For example, AI facial recognition is amazingly accurate, enabling detection of specific facial expressions correlated with pain. It can also recognize body postures such as a patient looking downward or leaning forward, which are often indicative of pain.
In terms of neurophysiology-based methods, electroencephalography (EEG) can track changes in the brain that act as “biomarkers” of pain, and other nervous system activity that are also measurable have been use to correlate with pain, such as the sweat glands and heart rhythm.
It’s an understatement to say that patients do care whether they are evaluated medically by AI– they’re largely against it.
A survey by Pew found that 60% of Americans said they would be uncomfortable with a provider relying on AI in their healthcare to do things like diagnosing disease and recommending treatments. 38% said that AI used for such purposes would lead to better health outcomes for patients generally. 33% said that it would lead to worse outcomes, and 27% said it wouldn’t make such of a difference.
This definitely undercuts my naive assumptions about immediately putting “pain bots” in hospitals, since– in the short term, at least– no amount of work you put in to making AI seem “empathic” is going to matter if a patient has already ruled out letting a bot evaluate them.
But let’s examine what it actually means to be “biased” against AI.
A study that evaluated the empathy and accuracy of ChatGPT responses to questions on the “AskDocs” subforum on Reddit found that AI responses to questions were deemed both more accurate and empathetic…by “a team of licensed health care professionals,” who may or may not have gone into it already knowing that at least some of the answers would be of AI origin. That doesn’t necessarily say anything about the perceptions of patients, whether the healthcare professionals knew about the AI or not.
A study from earlier this year found that “people felt more heard when they received an AI than a human message, but when they believed a message came from AI this made them feel less heard,” from which one of the researchers, Yidan Yin, concluded that the research ““basically finds a bias against AI. It’s useful, but [participants in the study] don’t like it.”
It’s important to note that this research was not conducted in a medical context, but rather an attempt to answer the general question “Can AI, which lacks human consciousness and emotional experience, succeed in making people feel heard and understood?” Nan Jia, also on the research team, was quoted as saying “we identified that while AI demonstrates enhanced potential compared to non-trained human responders to provide emotional support, the devaluation of AI responses poses a key challenge for effectively deploying AI’s capabilities.”
This is an improvement over the “AskDocs study” to the extent that the people who were the targets were asked directly to evaluate the quality of AI responses. But I find this subheading, and the quote from Yin that follows, intriguing:
AI offers better emotional support
The study highlighted important nuances. Responses generated by AI were associated with increased hope and lessened distress, indicating a positive emotional effect on recipients. AI also demonstrated a more disciplined approach than humans in offering emotional support and refrained from making overwhelming practical suggestions.
Yin explained, “Ironically, AI was better at using emotional support strategies that have been shown in prior research to be empathetic and validating.”
These statements, along with the accusation of “bias,” strongly imply that the responsibility for people not trusting AI rests entirely on those who mistrust it.
I have trouble getting my head around the apparently objective statement that “AI offers better emotional support” if the effects of that emotional support immediately vanish the moment that it’s revealed to come from AI.
Imagine that you’re told that you’ll be getting two calls from two someones who are concerned about your well-being. You answer the first phone call and have an encouraging but kind of mundane conversation with the caller, who stumbles over their words but ultimately impresses on you that they care. Then you get the second call, from someone who sounds like they really have a good grip on what’s bugging you. They listen to you talk about your situation and express disappointment at your current bad luck, but provide hope and motivation for your future. Honestly, you feel so much better after the second call than the first. You feel so much more “heard.”
Then you’re told that the second phone call was from a computer application programmed to sound authentic and effusive in its expressed interest in your well-being. Does your perception of that latter conversation change?
And regardless of whether it changes or not for you, can you exercise the amount of empathy required to understand why it does for others?
If the second caller’s voice had sounded clipped and stilted, clearly like text-to-speech, it assuredly wouldn’t have had the effect of making you feel more emotionally supported. But you wouldn’t have minded, because there’s no way you were duped in that scenario– a child could’ve seen through it. But what if you were completely convinced, to the point that you made yourself vulnerable in some way, only to find that it wasn’t a human to which you directed these raw emotions?
More human than human
The article describes how “individuals further reported an ‘uncanny valley’ response—a sense of unease when made aware that the empathetic response originated from AI, highlighting the complex emotional landscape navigated by AI-human interactions.”
The uncanny valley is the perceived gulf that exists between human-like entities and actual humans, specifically our emotional responses to it. I googled the term and received an AI definition that gave the following examples of the uncanny valley phenomenon: “Androids, computer game characters, life-like dolls, the 2004 children’s Christmas movie The Polar Express.” The definition includes both unease and disgust as emotional responses. 1
The discomfort with robots of various kinds tends to arise from how much better they are at being human than actual humans are– even better than humans, period. If the computer in Wargames asked how your day went, you might be suspicious about why it would even pretend to care.
Conclusion?
Experience is subjective– you are literally the only one who knows what it’s like to be you. But that’s the source of knowledge that you use to get a glimpse of what it’s like to be someone else. To take part, even a little bit, in what it’s like to be them. Participate in their experiences. But AI has no subjectivity, though its existence is predicated on how good it is at pretending otherwise. Omniscient but friendly, like Janet in The Good Place.
But one thing Janet was never good at was feeling someone else’s pain, and pain is the #1 indicator for humanity as a species that something has gone wrong with our bodies. Maybe it feels like a cruel joke to members of the 60% who experience chronic pain to expect them to get over their “bias” against AI trying to quantify and qualify it.
And yet that remove from humanity is how AI can democratize access to healthcare, compensating for the limitations on the knowledge, experience, and hours of sleep that human doctors can attain daily, throughout the world. An AI doctor can be far better than no doctor at all.
The article linked above has a quote from Erik Duhaime, co-founder and CEO of Centaur Labs: “AI for healthcare has never been about replacing doctors, but doctors who use AI might end up replacing those physicians who don’t.”
One area where doctors have sparse reserves is time to sit and listen to patients describe their pain, which is not to say that it’s in any way a waste of time to do so. But in light of this cold fact, AI might be able to compensate, to some extent, by listening. Empathy isn’t demonstrated by loudly proclaiming that you’re doing it, but often takes the form of just sitting and listening, and AI can do that.
So maybe that’s a way to take advantage of AI’s tremendous access to knowledge about pain without pretending that it feels pain– have it listen, productively, to those experiencing it. AI may never be able to feel your pain, but perhaps it can understand it, and use that understanding to help you deal with it.
“I feel your pain.”
“I can learn about and understand your pain.”
That’s a far more assuring thing to hear, anyhow.
It might be surprising to hear the word “disgust” come up, but “animal reminder disgust” is a specific type of disgust elicited by reminders of our own animalistic nature, such as bodily functions, violations of the body envelope such as violence or surgery, and of course death itself. The uncanny valley here is between us and our animal origins, as it becomes harder to distinguish between the two– just as it becomes harder to distinguish between ourselves and AI.
Cyborgs are an interesting crossover to me in how they can elicit the uncanny valley response in both directions. Think of Officer Alexander Murphy in the Robo-Cop series, Tom Cruise’s eye replacement surgery in Minority Report, the Borg, or of course, Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader. Generally speaking, the message is that mixing robots with humans– physically, at least– is gross, primarily because of how the human part tends just bring things down by being all organic, mortal, prone to bleeding and other spontaneous emission of effluvia. ↩︎
Political cartoons illustrate the cultural zeitgeist– literally– while also offering critical commentary on it. An editorial cartoonist has a vast arsenal of tools at her disposal, allowing her to create visual metaphors, transmit brief but powerful narratives, elicit emotional responses, and present compelling arguments to persuade, inform, and potentially bolster public opinion.
An editorial cartoon can be composed of multiple panels, but the constraints of print media have created the single-panel standard. This has only enhanced the need to distill complex issues to their purest form in a single image. Within that image, emotions must be immediately readable, and symbols– including any text, whether dialog or labels– are slashed to the absolute minimum required to get the point across. It’s like trying to send a clear message in a tweet while paring it down to fewer than 180 characters.1
That’s just as true in every kind of cartooning,2 but beyond that it just makes for optimal design of user experience, generally. Familiar symbols and metaphors enable viewers to see a complex idea boiled down to its essential meaning. Familiarity and similarity are the strongest predictors of empathy, which is why Mel Brooks’ famous quote “Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die” is funny– we feel like we’re part of the “I” team along with him, even when it couldn’t be clearer that we’re actually playing for “you.”
“Diagrams are visual representations that help,” said Abby Covert in her book Stuck? Diagrams Help (which, at 352 pages, should be thankful that it isn’t a diagram). But a diagram helps by making a concept comprehensible, and doing that by locating it within a system of other concepts. Providing that context is what makes the diagram helpful.
Visual stories can be beautiful, but it’s not their first job. That just means they found work in a side hustle as a supermodel, while still fixing people’s plumbing. The visual-story-as-plumber fixes the pipes of You Understanding a Thing, in which your lack of understanding has become a clog. We shall not go into what it’s made of, or how it got there, because…ew.
So instead let’s grab a bottle of drain cleaner and move away from the “telling,” and into the “showing.”
First up– implied context
“The Dread Justice Roberts,” February 12, 2019
If you’ve seen The Princess Bride, and are vaguely aware of the Supreme Court, this cartoon has a dose of resonance beyond a flat depiction of a judge threatening you at bedtime.
Rather, Justice John Roberts hangs a proposition over our heads while we cower under the covers, living in a state of constant dread that Roe might be overturned by morning (which, spoiler alert…)
“Exhausted,” December 3, 2018
Character and Emotion
This cartoon shows how a facial expression, pose, and/or gesture can suggest a backstory and context. We don’t need to ask what the woman in this image is experiencing–the title is merely a label for what is already visible.
“The tree of rotten apples,” June 26, 2020
Focus on a core (har) message
Sometimes the rules are meant to be broken. The (ab)use of labels here makes the point that there are myriad effects that can be traced to a centralized cause, requiring that they be named and labeled.
“Stop protesting police brutality,” June 5, 2020
Strategic composition
This could’ve been a single image of a police officer abusing a protestor. Making it a series of panels, however, communicates a pattern of incidents that ironically belie the message that unifies them.
“The treachery of Trump,” July 22, 2019
Captioning and Text
This is a play on words that’s better if you know who Magritte was, but it’s not necessary. You also don’t need to know French, which also is– thankfully– not necessary.
There are other principles pertaining to the elements of an impactful visual story, but these are a few that you can find in even the stories told by single-panel cartoons.
Though they contain simple messages, the experience of viewing these cartoons is not necessarily intended to be easy–rather, many political cartoonists view themselves as following a informal journalistic mandate to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” That’s why editorial cartoons don’t typically appear on the comics pages of the newspaper– which is not to say that their content is somehow above or below one of the “funnies,” which also tell visual stories. Those stories are just different in kind.
But even when the narrative is unpleasant and its message harsh, a visual story can feel friendlier and more honest, because the elements it incorporates are (again) shown; not just told.
We never really left picture books behind– they grew up with us, and now we’re illustrating our own.
Or at least, that’s how it was in the Before Times. ↩︎
Unless you count the exception that Allie Brosch carved out, which I’d describe as “mostly memoir, accompanied by illustrations of the author’s id.” ↩︎
Note: All quotes from the debate in this post are pulled from CBS News’s transcript, for which I am incredibly grateful.
In the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, J.D. Vance brought up the CBP One app out of nowhere, which has inspired a wave of misinformation spread by people who’d never heard of the app until it was mentioned on their TVs that evening.
One of the hosts, Margaret Brennan, pointed out that Springfield, Ohio, has a “large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status.” This was in contrast to Vance’s repeated characterizations of Haitian migrants in the Springfield area as consumers of other people’s pets (yes, you heard that right) in addition to being in the United States illegally.
The first characterization was made by Donald Trump in his debate with Kamala Harris, and swiftly fact checked by the moderators. But that apparently didn’t sway J.D. from hopping on that particularly virulent train of thought, and riding it straight into Racistville when he got his chance at the podium.
Vance had previously boasted, unrepentantly, that he felt the need to “create stories to bring attention to this” (which most of us would call “lying”) to support both clauses of the fraudulent claim. Not only did the Haitian migrants consume cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio (Vance’s home state), he said, but they only had the opportunity to do so by obtaining resident in the country illegally.
Vance’s competitor Tim Walz referenced that “creating stories” quote, which he said was intended to “vilify a large number of people who were here legally in the community of Springfield.” The context was much back and forth concerning the bipartisan border security bill, which Walz described as “the fairest and toughest bill on immigration that this nation’s seen,” and which was blocked by Senate Republicans in May.
Despite Walz pointing out that Congress “controls the purse strings,” Vance employed a tactic that he used throughout the evening, though he didn’t really get called on it– he portrayed Kamala Harris as responsible for everything that happened, and didn’t happen, during the Biden administration.
Vance repeatedly referred to it as the “Kamala Harris administration,” which probably bummed out Biden to hear– his legacy, already usurped by his aspiring successor! Vance also labeled Harris as the “border czar,” a title that doesn’t actually exist, and which Harris never claimed. Nevertheless, it’s a title that Republicans assigned to Harris a mere two months into the Biden administration, when she was tasked to lead efforts to reduce problems at the border.
She was assigned to work with three Central American countries– El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras– to improve living conditions and thereby lessen the desire of individuals to becomes migrants, fleeing the violence of gangs and corruption. This idea seems like an absolute no-brainer, at least superficially. Don’t we live, after all, in a country whose founding myth revolves around the idea of individuals striking out a perilous path to a better life in a mysterious and distant land, searching for something better?
Needless to say (one would think), Harris is not in charge of the border. She has even acted in direct contradiction to the principle I described above, by adopting a “Stop that” approach to migration in lieu of improving living conditions in migrants’ respective countries of origin. “Do not come,” she said to Guatemalans in 2021. “If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”
The Haitian immigrants in Springfield may have been beneficiaries of the Biden administration’s CHNV (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela) program, which makes a number of slots available every month for migrants from these countries to seek entry to the county after they have secured a financial sponsor in the United States who applied for a I-134A form, aka a Declaration of Financial Support. These are the people who have agreed to fund a migrant entering country from one of these countries, specifically chosen for the miserable conditions in those countries, whether they’re due to natural, social, or political disasters.
Someone in the CHNV program may use the CBP One app to submit their immigration information from one of those countries to seek an appointment with immigration officials, to minimize the complications that could arise if they simply appeared at the border.
This is not intended as a defense of the app, which should be clear if you bravely waded through my previous overview of the CBP One app. However, the purpose of this feature should be obvious and clear-cut. Indeed, you’d think someone worried about congestion at the border would celebrate a feature that lets people stay at “home” until they’re allowed to come here, rather than congregating somewhere in between.
The other, more broadly applicable feature of the app, to which Vance was clearly referring, allows undocumented travelers arriving at the border by land to submit information prior to doing so– information that, according to the DHS, would be collected at the border during an in-person interaction anyway. Instead, the app benefits the DHS by making the process of gathering this information more efficient, and the benefit to migrants is that….they won’t get trafficked by a mule that way. Apparently.
Once again, please read my previous post for a full background of the app, because it’s just too much to go into here. This post is, at long last, a rebuttal of Vance’s weird choice to bring up the app during the debate. I say “weird” because of the context:
Host Margaret Brennan had just clarified that Springfield actually hosts a large number of Haitian immigrants who are there legally. The part of Vance’s reaction that has spread across the internet is his protestation that “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check!” And yes, that’s indisputably hilarious. But this post is about what came next:
JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.
First of all– if Kamala Harris has an “open border wand,” it must be gathering dust at the back of a closet somewhere– and if so, I would request that she kindly FedEx it to me.
Secondly, this quote touches on a fascinating phenomenon: the idea that immigrants are “illegal” by default, and that if they still somehow manage to enter the country– however that occurs– their legal status is either unchanged (still illegal) or changed deceitfully/incompletely (still illegal, but everyone’s pretending otherwise). How else could someone be an “illegal migrant” when they haven’t yet attempted to enter the country?
For that matter, in a move that’s kind of darkly absurd in this context, the rule implemented by the Biden administration making use of the CBP One app to secure an appointment before crossing the border all but mandatory has the working title “Circumnavigation of Legal Pathways.” As in, the “legal pathway” is using the goddamn app.
Circumnavigating (or avoiding) the legal pathway, then, is not using the app, or one of the other few ways to enter the country legally:
Under the final rule, noncitizens who cross the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders without authorization after traveling through another country, and without having (1) availed themselves of an existing lawful process, (2) presented at a port of entry at a pre-scheduled time using the CBP One app, or (3) been denied asylum in a third country through which they traveled, are presumed ineligible for asylum unless they meet certain limited exceptions.
I talked about item 3 elsewhere– basically, it puts the onus on other countries, especially Mexico, to evaluate each migrant’s information to determine whether they should receive asylum status or not, which both places the whole thing out of the migrant’s control and seems bizarre in that it assumes they should expect to receive timely and accurate record-keeping from the government of a country they already have determined isn’t stable enough for them to settle and become residents.
Item 1 is kind of a catch- all that actually includes using the CBP One app, as can be seen from the statement’s prior mention of “putting in place a mechanism for migrants to schedule a time and place to arrive in a safe, orderly, and lawful manner at ports of entry via use of the CBP One mobile app.”
Before proceeding to the obvious conclusion, let’s take a moment to consider the word “parole.” In the context of immigration, parole isn’t criminal justice term. “Parole” is the term for the basis for a migrant’s legal entry into the United States. The CHNV program, for example, is a program that grants parole deferentially (but neither perpetually nor all-inclusively) to citizens of those countries.
As such, the term “parole” indicates that the migrant’s entry into the country is legal. A migrant who uses CBP to secure an appointment at the border is no more an “illegal migrant” than you are an “illegal consumer” for seeking the title confirming that you’ve bought a car. By definition, your receipt of that title is how you acquire ownership of the car legally. You might, by contrast, “circumnavigate legal pathways” by stealing the car. But until or unless you’ve committed actual larceny, you’re not an “illegal” anything.
Asylum has extremely strict requirements, and– by the way– is not something you can specifically request within the CBP One app. It was once possible to do so in order to claim exception to Title 42, the hideous rule that the Trump administration used to exclude all migrants under the guise of defending the country from Covid 19. At that point, you could use the app to specify the “vulnerability criteria” that you meet, which included age, illness, etc. in addition to fear of imminent violence in your nation of origin. But the vulnerability criteria were removed when Title 42 was lifted, and asylum seekers using the CBP One still had to openly state such a fear of returning to their homeland in interviews with CBP and USCIS officers in order to be considered for asylum.
Lastly, we have “the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.” This is an objectively insane statement to make, but I wonder if it even carries any impact at this point, after Republicans have complained about an “open border” during the administrations of Democratic presidents (but not Republican ones, which is odd since they pretty much have the same policies on immigration) since time immemorial. We haven’t had a truly open border since the 1800s (and here I use the term “we” very loosely), and even then, the most open of borders were for people like J.D. Vance.
Vance, and people like Stephen Miller, Trump’s favorite aspiring white supremacist, who took the opportunity to tweet the following:
“What is the CBP One App? It’s Kamala’s fast-pass entry program for illegal aliens. Arrive at the border without a visa. Press button on a smart phone. Entry on demand. 95% acceptance rate for all illegals. Get free transportation (via FEMA) and free welfare. Take American jobs.”
The app was, in fact, developed during the Trump administration– it launched in October of 2020. Kamala Harris hasn’t had anything to do with its development, which was done in-house by CBP.
The app’s use of facial recognition technology has made it incredibly difficult for some migrants to use, whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons.
The app doesn’t “accept” or “reject” anything, so who knows where that 95% rate comes from? You have to create an account on Login.gov before you can even use the app, which pretty well prevents “entry on demand.”
Free transportation and free welfare? Via the app? Taking American jobs…via the app?
Wow, this app is more powerful than I, or for that matter its developers, had ever imagined! But not Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris imagined it all along.
My review of the mobile app, CBP One™: The Border in Your Pocket, considered factors in the development of CBP One’s facial recognition engine, the Traveler Verification Service (TVS), that render it unsuitable for CBP One’s current usage in collecting information from migrants at the border.
This post takes a closer look at how CBP represents its usage of AI Facial Recognition Technology (FRT), and why that representation almost never seems to acknowledge CBP One.
The problem with trying to nail down issues with CBP One’s use of FRT is the extent to which TVS’s use in CBP One is simply left out of the discussion. Here’s an example:
The Statement for the Record on Assessing CBP’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology, delivered on July 27, 2022, described the impressive benefits of the Traveler Verification Service, or TVS. TVS is the facial recognition engine used by the CBP One mobile application, along with many other applications. In fact, the statement said, “CBP developed TVS to be scalable and seamlessly applicable to all modes of transport throughout the travel continuum,” including the Global Entry Trusted Traveler Program:
CBP’s biometric facial comparison technology is integrated in all CBP’s legacy Global Entry kiosks, reducing kiosk processing time by 85 percent and CBP plans to deploy new Global Entry Touchless Portals at other locations around the country. These new Portals also utilize secure biometric facial comparison technology, are completely touch-free, and decrease processing time required by the biometric facial comparison technology by 94 percent to approximately 3.5 seconds per traveler.
Given that most of the complaints about the app’s functionality have concerned its use of FRT, specifically demographic bias they attribute to it, you’d think it would be a simple task to learn what technology the app uses, then look up evaluations of that technology as it used in CBP One, as well as “all modes of transport throughout the transport continuum.” But it’s not that simple– and TVS is anything but “scalable and seamlessly applicable” to the “mode of transport” involving undocumented migrants attempting to use a mobile app to enter the country.
When reading a description of CBP’s AI facial recognition technology that fails to mention CBP One, you can only note its conspicuous absence. However, the stories told by CBP about its use of FRT say a lot about CBP One, even while not saying anything about it. CBP One is sort of the illegitimate child of the Department of Homeland Security.
In the original CBP One post I walked through the mobile app’s development and how the CBP One app itself, as well as its documentation, describe an app that CBP One was envisioned to become rather than the one it did.
But while time stopped within the app, it has continued to move forward in the rest of the world, including in the DHS’s use of AI FRT. Here are some specific clues of how CBP One has been left in the digital dust by its developers:
The degree to which it goes unacknowledged that CBP One uses the same facial recognition engine as the other “modes of transport.”
The lack of prior quality assessment performed on TVS as it is used in CBP One. As Lizzie O’Leary, host of Slate’s TBD podcast, said on the “Seeking Asylum Via App” episode, “migrants using CBP One are, in effect, beta testers.”
Evaluations by NIST of facial recognition algorithms, including the NEC-2 and NEC-3 algorithms used by CBP, that speak to a number of factors negatively affecting the algorithm’s chances of avoiding false negatives in a 1-1 comparison for purposes of verification– but are apparently going ignored in favor of the algorithm’s performance on detecting false positives (aka, imposters).
The implication, conspicuous by its omission, that CBP One is a use case demonstrating artificial intelligence functioning in a way we fear the most– making life-changing decisions without the requirement of direct human involvement, at any point in the process.
AI inventoried
According to the DHS AI Use Case Inventory, CBP uses AI Facial Comparison technology in the form of the Traveler Verification Service, or TVS. Its State of System Development Life Cycle is listed as “Operation and Maintenance,” and that it functions by creating image galleries “from images captured during previous entry inspections, photographs from U.S. passports and U.S. visas, and photographs from other DHS encounters.”
Interestingly, this description doesn’t apply to CBP One, which uses photos taken by immigrants’ cell phones. For that matter, it doesn’t mention CBP One at all. The inventory item for TVS describes a traveler “encountering a camera connected to TVS,” and migrants don’t typically “encounter” their phone cameras, nor are those cameras exactly “connected to TVS.”
CBP One is mentioned in the entry on “Use of Technology to Identify Proof of Life,” aka “Liveness Detection,” described as utilizing Machine Vision as its AI technique. Its State of System Development Cycle is listed as “Development and Acquisition,” which is interesting given that liveness detection has been in use in the CBP One app for at least two years now. Liveness detection AI is used in CBP One to “reduce fraudulent activity, primarily for use within the CBP One app.”
The description of Liveness Detection doesn’t mention TVS, though it does contain the boilerplate language about how CBP One “is designed to provide the public with a single portal to a variety of CBP services. It includes different functionality for travelers, importers, brokers, carriers, International Organizations, and other entities under a single consolidated log-in, and uses guided questions to help users determine the correct services, forms, or applications needed”– none of which is relevant to liveness detection in particular.
Your average American citizen could read this list and easily conclude that TVS is something that makes international travel easier and more expedient, while Liveness Detection is something in an app for immigrants to tell if they’re fraudulently trying to enter the country. But in fact, TVS is used by DHS for facial recognition/comparisons broadly (including Global Entry as mentioned above, TSA PreCheck, and commercial airline apps developed by Aiside), and both TVS and Liveness Detection are used in CBP One.
This matters because members of Congress are not especially different from your average American citizen. Several of them, including my state senator Roger Marshall, have (rightly, IMO) expressed grave concerns regarding the TSA’s use of FRT. Their May 2 letter to Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell read, in part,
Once Americans become accustomed to government facial recognition scans, it will be that much easier for the government to scan citizens’ faces everywhere, from entry into government buildings, to passive surveillance on public property like parks, schools, and sidewalks.1
And yet Marshall, at least, has been on a campaign to stop “unvetted” migrants from boarding domestic flights if their identities have been verified using CBP One.
So on the one hand he’s concerned about facial recognition working too well (else why would the government employ it everywhere, and why would it be so damaging if it did?), and on the other hand, he’s attempting to legislate airlines out of transporting migrants because the Traveler Verification Service (TVS) used in both scenarios doesn’t work not well enough. Else why complain that migrants are allowed “to enter our country and then board airlines free of charge without proper I.D. or vetting”? By failing to recognize that TVS is used in both CBP One and TSA facial recognition, he’s effectively trying to legislate for– and against– the same thing.
Facial Liveness might not be used on American citizens by the government, but iProov’s Flashmark technology is used for “Liveness Detection” in many applications, with use cases including onboarding, identity recovery, and multi-factor authentication. Its page on digital identity boasts:
According to the World Bank, countries extending full digital identity coverage to their citizens could unlock value equivalent to 3 to 13 percent of GDP by 2030.
iProov secures the onboarding and authentication of digital identities through science-based face biometrics – so people have easier online access to online services, while organizations can pursue digital transformation strategies as securely as possible.
That doesn’t sound a technology intended for restricted, non-governmental purposes.
Not an endorsement
As I wrote about previously, when it comes to demographics and bias in AI facial comparison, the accuracy of the algorithms per se is not the entire story– especially if that accuracy is used to promote the efficacy of the algorithms in non-ideal conditions– aka, perhaps the face isn’t straight-on, the lighting isn’t good, the subjects are moving slightly (such as babies and/or parents trying to wrangle babies), or the quality of the camera isn’t great.
The term for photos not taken under these ideal conditions is “in the wild,” but those subjects typically don’t even know they’re being photographed. So “selfies” and “video selfies” taken by migrants using their phone cameras exist in a kind of weird limbo between “ideal” and “in the wild,” or “passport photo” vs. “caught on surveillance video while shoplifting.”
In 2019, NIST performed testing as part of its Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) program looking specifically for “demographic effects” on facial recognition algorithms, in which they noted “demographic effects even in high-quality images, notably elevated false positives. Additionally, we quantify false negatives on a border crossing dataset which is collected at a different point in the trade space between quality and speed than are our other three mostly high-quality portrait datasets.”
In a 1-1 verification comparison, a false negative would be a failure to recognize that two photos show the same person, whereas a false positive would be a failure to recognize that they don’t show the same person.
The report found that “false positive differentials are much larger than those related to false negatives and exist broadly, across many, but not all, algorithms tested. Across demographics, false positives rates often vary by factors of 10 to beyond 100 times. False negatives tend to be more algorithm-specific, and vary often by factors below 3.”
The report only looked at false negatives for border crossing photos, but noted that in those “lower-quality border crossing images, false negatives are generally higher in people born in Africa and the Caribbean, the effect being stronger in older individuals.” Those images were considered “lower-quality,” attributable to being “collected under time constraints, in high volume immigration environments. The photos there present classic pose and illumination challenges to algorithms.”
Be that as it may, NIST also described them as “collected with cameras mounted at fixed height and are steered by the immigration officer toward the face.” In other words– this was a scenario in which CBP officers took photos using their own cameras and compared those images to passports etc. of documented pedestrian travelers crossing the border. Even then, the report says “We don’t formally measure contrast or brightness in order to determine why this occurs, but inspection of the border quality images shows underexposure of dark skinned individuals often due to bright background lighting in the border crossing environment.”
And yet when asked about demographic effects on facial recognition, CBP’s typical response is to cite the 2019 NIST study showing that the NEC-3 algorithm (CBP switched to this algorithm in 2020) was 97% accurate, an assessment based on number of false positives in a 1-to-many identification comparison based on photos taken from air travelers or pedestrian travelers as compared to a flight manifest built from “exit” photos of the same people pictured in the “entry” photos.
The question of whether there’s meaningful bias in an algorithm really comes down to the context in which it will be used, and– critically– the context of this research differs, in nearly every way, from the experience of migrants trying to use the CBP One app.
Is the NEC-3 algorithm good at recognizing when there is one (and only one) photo of you in a collection of images taken of you when you leave the country by airplane that matches the photo of you when entered it? Answer: Yes, really good– under ideal conditions.
‘CBP believes that the December 2019 NIST report supports what we have seen in our biometric matching operations—that when a high-quality facial comparison algorithm is used with a high-performing camera, proper lighting, and image quality controls, face matching technology can be highly accurate,’ the spokesperson said.
To be fair, that spokesperson was not talking about CBP One. Development of CBP One hadn’t even been announced in February, and wouldn’t be announced until August. For that matter, nearly all discussion by CBP of their use of AI facial recognition isn’t about CBP One– and that’s the problem.
How about recognizing whether you’re the same person in a photo captured now as you were in a previous photo, and a least one of those photos was taken by yourself using an app on your phone and therefore very likely to be of “low quality,” and neither of them are taken from travel documents because you have no travel documents, and you’re (let’s say) a dark-skinned elderly woman?
You can’t meaningfully vouch for the accuracy and the lack of “demographic effects” in an algorithm that is used in a way explicitly differing from every scenario in which you’ve previously tested that technology. That is, by far, the most frustrating thing about trying to investigate complaints about CBP One’s performance when it comes to facial comparison and liveness detection.
The same spokesperson continued:
CBP’s operational data demonstrates that there is virtually no measurable differential performance in matching based on demographic factors. In instances when an individual cannot be matched by the facial comparison service, the individual simply presents their travel document for manual inspection by an airline representative or CBP officer, just as they would have done before.
In the context of CBP One, that’s like saying “The door isn’t broken. But if it is, you can come in through the window. Except the window has razor wire on it.”
Both false negatives and false positives could play into the causes of error rates in CBP One’s facial recognition. But false positives in a 1:n comparison are the errors more commonly discussed, which I suspect is because that’s the scenario in which you’re concerned about detecting imposters. You’re comparing an image of one person to a gallery of images, and designing an algorithm to avoid the error of incorrectly identifying this person as one of those people– because imposters are people who can pass as members of a group when they’re not. False negatives, on the other hand, occur in 1:1 matching when photo quality is low, and the camera can’t recognize certain skin colors or faces under strange lighting. I.e., the kinds of problems afflicting users of CBP One.
Charles Romine, former director of NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory, noted in 2020 that “False positives might pose a security concern to the system owner, as they may allow access to imposters.” In this case the system is the United States, and the imposters are migrants pretending to people allowed to enter the country legally.
Alive and recognized
“Liveness detection” is another, newer, way to detect imposters.
It isn’t about telling whether you’re alive or dead, as it might sound, but more like a selfie-as-CAPTCHA. It’s trying to distinguish between an image taken of you right now and, say, a previously-taken picture of you that has been uploaded. It’s also called “Presentation Attack Detection,” in case its application to detecting imposters isn’t clear enough. As iProov’s website puts it,
iProov’s patented Flashmark technology is the only solution in the world to defend against replay attacks as well as digital and physical forgeries, and has been adopted by many Governments [sic] and financial institutions.
So you could say that Facial Comparison is “I see your face, and it’s definitely your face,” or “I see your face, and have matched it to someone in a gallery of other faces,” while PAD is “I see your face, and not just someone holding up a picture of your face.”
As said in the previous post, I suspect that at least some of the accusations of bias are actually in response to liveness detection, not facial recognition. Liveness detection is susceptible to the same biases as FRT which, according to the biometric company IDR&Ds website, means that accuracy is “essential where facial recognition is used for unsupervised security processes.” The company has worked to counter demographic bias, both directly and by correcting for subfactors that cause such effects.
One example, the site points out, “is persons wearing hijabs, which is highly correlated with gender and ethnicity and also directly affects the performance of the facial liveness system.”
“For categories where algorithms underperformed, teams analyzed images in the dataset to determine the areas of the image deemed ‘important’ when making its prediction. This method helps determine discriminating areas in the image.”
The caption on this image (left) reads “Heat maps of neural network demonstrate the area of interest of the facial anti-spoofing algorithm: a) original image of a woman in the national headdress, b) heat map of neural network has higher attention on the medium and bottom parts of the headdress“
The algorithm is looking everywhere but the face, in this example. The focus is on the hijab, which is something of an irony when compared to cultural attitudes– even a machine can’t help but focus on the head covering, to the exclusion of the person wearing it.
Untrained eyes
A GAO report published in September 2023 noted the stunning lack of training for DHS officers on facial recognition across DHS agencies, including CBP. CBP had been using facial recognition since 2018, about the same duration as the FBI, but (like the FBI) had never implemented a training requirement. Beyond that, GAO found that CBP didn’t even track the number of facial recognition searches that staff conducted.
Six agencies with available data reported conducting approximately 63,000 searches using facial recognition services from October 2019 through March 2022 in aggregate—an average of 69 searches per day. We refer to the number of searches as approximately 63,000 because the aggregate number of searches that the six agencies reported is an undercount. . .CBP) did not have available data on the number of searches it performed using either of two services staff used.
A footnote read: “CBP officials were unable to provide information on the number of facial recognition searches staff conducted during this time because neither the agency nor the services tracked this information.”
It’s clear from those numbers that we’re not talking about searches for migrants, or at least not searches conducted for migrants in the same way that TVS consults databases. CBP officers are not performing an average of 11.5 searches a day for the same information that the CBP One app checks for thousands of migrants.
Even though CBP didn’t give its numbers, and even though they didn’t track the number of searches (which isn’t good), it would make zero sense for those all to be covert searches conducted manually. For one thing, the CBP One app launched in 2020 and was immediately put to work doing that specific task. For another, the report describes these agencies as searching using specific facial recognition services, and for CBP those were IntelCenter (“to search photos against a gallery of over 2.4 million faces extracted from open-source terrorist data”2) and Marinus Analytics (“to identify victims of human trafficking”).
(I was almost disappointed to find that CBP was not listed as consulting Clearview.AI,3 the facial recognition company that was caught scraping user images and information from Facebook, and has been sued by multiple countries for violating the privacy expectations of their citizens (the U.S. isn’t so protective of such things). However, all of the other five agencies did– the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, Homeland Security Investigations (ICE4), and the U.S. Secret Service.)
CBP maintains that cracking down on trafficking (especially when it means rescuing kids caught up in it) plays a major role in its use of FRT, and countering terrorism is IMO the best argument for having a Department of Homeland Security in the first place. But whether those are legitimate uses for FRT or not, these are cases of CBP officers performing the searches. Untrained officers apparently, but still– human beings making decisions and evaluations, which is the reason they need training.
Biased toward automation
Algorithms are trained, too, but we don’t get to see it. The possibility that an algorithm has been trained exclusively or primarily on images of white men is one explanation for demographic bias displayed by that algorithm– NIST proposed it as a reason for false positives, as mentioned above. But false negative errors are usually a result of poor photo quality/lighting, and those a problems even when there is a CBP officer taking the photo. When there’s no CBP officer taking the photo, no CBP officer looking at the photo, and no CBP officer making the decision to reject the photo– and by extension, the migrant in the photo– there’s no place where a human steps in, in that scenario. Not even to manually verify an individual’s identity after an algorithm fails to do so.
The “black box” nature of artificial intelligence means we don’t get direct access to the decision-making process– because there is no decision-making process, per se (of course I say this now, but probably next week there will be). But we can look at the decisions made by the algorithm and notice whether they’re correct or incorrect, which is the benefit of NIST’s ongoing facial analysis testing.
CBP is also a black box, in that (for the most part) it doesn’t inform the public when it makes changes to the app. It doesn’t provide release notes. It doesn’t say what to do if the app isn’t working, except to email CBPOne@cbp.dhs.gov (I tried that but received no reply, so I joked in the last post about needing to submit a FOIA request for tech support).
This is why I wonder who notices when TVS makes an error– of any kind– and what they do about it. In person, an officer can step in and tell the computer that you are, in fact, yourself. Who contradicts the computer in the app? What record is there when an error occurs, and who sees it, and what do they do about it? None of us are exactly fond of getting to talk to a “robot” when we call a business, but some people are dead set on getting “a real person”– and they’re only trying to contest their water bill. But if talking to the robot is the only way to do that, then the choices are: a) talk to the robot, or b) don’t, and nothing changes.
CAPTCHAs always ask you to prove you’re not a robot, but CBP One is a robot asking you to prove much more than that. In addition to your personal details, your face is the only evidence you can provide. And if CBP One doesn’t accept that, well, nothing changes.
They also appear to be unaware that police in the United States have used Clearview FRT on American citizens for nearly a million searches, according to Clearview, to compare their faces to Clearview’s database containing 30 billion images (again, according to Clearview founder and CEO Hoan-Ton-That). ↩︎
The nature of “open-source terrorist data” is information “only available to government users in intelligence, military and federal law enforcement.” ↩︎
Reading recommendation: Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup’s Quest to End Privacy as We Know it, by Kashmir Hill. ↩︎
In August of 2018, in light of the growing number of apps under Customs and Border Protection, the agency’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) announced that it would develop the CBP One mobile application in collaboration with the Office of Information Technology (OIT).
The app would prevent the confusion that comes with travelers needing to access multiple apps to access services by functioning as a hub for all services, e.g. cruising licenses for pleasure boating, Form I-94 application and management, inspections of cargo, checking border wait times, submitting flight and bus manifests– hence the name “CBP One.”
These services would be incorporated over time, according to a roadmap that plotted them out over the next few years, and would become accessible to each user type by asking them a series of intuitive questions and guiding them to the services they need.
CBP One launched on October 28, 2020 with few capabilities and high expectations that more would be rolling out soon.
However, gathering information from hundreds of thousands of migrants, and using it to process them at the border. was not one of those.
This review shows the following:
CBP One’s development diverged in audience and focus almost immediately upon launch, if not prior.
And yet, CBP One’s user interface still reflects that original intended usage and user groups– even though many of those usages or user groups never made it into the app.
CBP One’s documentation is largely intended for internal audiences, and in some cases the public– not migrants using the app.
What information is made available to the public, and to migrants specifically, obscures how the app actually works, and how it gathers and uses information provided by users of the app.
It doesn’t have to be this way– a look at the Mobile Passport Control, developed originally by CBP in collaboration with Airside in 2013, belies the fact that a superior user experience is possible, and the current UX of CBP One is a choice made by its developers.
CBP One expedites the transmission of a migrant’s information to CBP, but the only benefit here appears to be for CBP.
The requirement to use an app to enter the country lawfully is not only arguably a violation of their rights as asylum seekers, but the inferior functionality of the app and lack of critical information in easy-to-access locations for migrants reveal a fundamental lack of respect for basic human dignity and equality.
Table of Contents
Objectives:
Explain what the CBP One app was supposed to be vs. what it became
Review the technology used
Walk through the documentation
Evaluate criticisms of the app
Show where major events occurred on a timeline
A word about terminology:
Certain terms are used interchangeably in DHS and other documentation concerning CBP One, so here’s some clarification on how to understand those terms:
International Organizations (IOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are used interchangeably in DHS documentation. Generally, these are organizations approved by the Mexican government to assist migrants in Mexico, who effectively do unpaid work that the DHS relies upon. They give migrants access to basic necessities like food, shelter, clean water, electricity, and education. Before CBP One, they communicated with Border Patrol about migrants in advance of those migrants approaching the border, and when CBP One was modified with the expectation of IOs using the app on behalf of migrants in 2021, CBP provided them with training on doing so.
User roles/personas/user types are used interchangeably in CBP documentation.
Likewise services/capabilities/features.
Facial recognition technology/facial analysis technology/facial comparison technology, AI versions of any of these, and liveness detection will be referenced interchangeably as “FRT” for the most part, except when it’s necessary to disambiguate them.
The term “migrant” is defined in the DHS glossary as “a person who leaves his/her country of origin to seek temporary or permanent residence in another country.” That’s how the term is used here, and it includes asylum seekers and refugees.
What the CBP One app was supposed to be vs. what it became
Overview
CBP One’s original vision, as you can see in this memo, was to serve both travelers and private commercial interests, both of whom have a need to access CBP services.
But as soon as the app launched– perhaps even before then– its functionality changed to suit unanticipated needs, including gathering large amounts of data from a vast population of migrants, so that the migrants could request appointments at the border for inspection and legal entry into the United States.
Note: This memo was obtained via FOIA request by the American Immigration Council (click here to see the document). Internal documentation in this write-up is mostly pulled from that source.
The app was “not initially designed for this particular process,” according to notes from a meeting in February 2021. By this point, its developers were already deviating from that original vision.
They were incorporating AI facial recognition technology, which probably would’ve been incorporated into the app regardless if it had gone on to incorporate Trusted Traveler programs as planned, but instead, FRT was used in the app to compare migrants against DHS databases and keep their images on file for future use.
The app’s user based shifted to accommodate IO/NGO staff who used it to check migrant enrollment in the Migrant Protection Protocols and submit information about migrants in advance of their appointments at the border.
A year later it would change again, to accommodate those migrants using CBP One to submit information on their own and schedule their own appointments.
Because of these external needs to use the app in ways that diverged from its original purpose, its usage changed dramatically. As a consequence of that, its functionality changed as well.
Some of the public-facing documentation reflects that shift in usage, but some very important parts of it don’t. The design of the app was forced to change, but most public-facing documentation doesn’t reflect that. Statements about what the app is for and how it’s used, both within the app and in most external documentation specific to CBP One, also don’t reflect that.
My goal here is to show that, and suggest reasons why.
User roles and services/capabilities
One choice made in CBP One’s design was that the app would display all anticipated user types and services from the beginning, and gradually they would become accessible within the app. Until that point, clicking on those user types and services would trigger a pop-up message saying “Coming Soon. This feature is coming soon. Additional services will be rolled out over the next year.”
As a result, it can be difficult to tell which user types and services were available at any particular point in the app’s development. You can’t, after all, time travel back to any of those points and try the app out for yourself, so I’m forced to discern the app’s functionalities based on the following:
Reports from users of the app at different times in its development
Statements made by CBP/DHS
Changes in the law/policy that required changes in the app
For this section, I’ll focus on services known to be available at launch.
The Broker/Carrier/Forwarder role could schedule inspections of cargo prior to crossing the border, an idea pitched at a “shark tank” event at the Miami Field Office in 2018 and pilot tested in 2020.
Land and Air Travelers could access the Form I-94 website from the app. The is needed by most international travelers to the United States, and it’s used to track entrance to the country and exit from it. Through the app, a traveler could apply for the form and then use it to access their travel history, prove their visitor status. Land travelers could use it to apply for a provisional Form I-94 (it’s generally automatically for air travelers).
Not long after, Air Travelers could apply for membership in one of the Trusted Traveler programs which expedite screening and other processes of international travel for pre-vetted American citizens. They could also Request Inspection of certain items like hunting trophies.
Bus Operator could Submit a Manifest and Check Border Wait Times by checking the Border Wait Times site within the app, where they would be (and are still) prompted to get the CBP Border Wait Times app.
Services added in 2021 for the International Organization role to assist migrants:
International Organization > Check Case Status
International Organization > Submit Advance Information
Subsequently, migrants could access these services themselves:
Air Traveler > Advance Traveler Authorization: “Request authorization for non-United States citizens intending to travel to the United States via flight. This action is only available to travelers following the approval of their supporters on Form I-134A through the USCIS.”
Land Traveler > Submit Advance Information: “Submit your information before your arrival to a southwest Port of Entry.”
Additionally there’s a TSA role, hidden to anyone who doesn’t use a TSA email address to log in, allowing TSA supervisors to take a photo of asylum seekers enrolled in the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program using facial recognition technology (FRT) to verify their enrollment and allow them to travel within the country.
A bend in the roadmap
CBP One has changed significantly over the time since launch, diverging from the capabilities planned on this roadmap from October, 2020.
Apologies for the blurriness (it’s from the FOIA docs), but you should be able to see that I-94, Bus Processing, Scheduling Perishable Cargo, Pleasure Boat (CBP ROAM), Seaplanes Processing, Cruising License, Cargo Crew Processing, Fee Payments, Border Wait Times, and Hand-Carry Permit Items were all to be added by November of 2020. (Launch day was, remember, October 28!)
By February of 2021 the features would include Scheduling Vessel Arrivals, Trusted Traveler programs (not just signing up, but doing everything you currently do in the Global Entry app, for example), and Scheduling All Cargo.
2022 would bring Landing Rights Requests, Diversion Notices, Notice of Arrival, and POV/COV (I’m Ready/PARE), which refers to Ready Lanes at land border crossings. You can get expedited processing and across the border faster if you have one of several RFID chip-enabled ID cards.
It looks like CBP One got about as far as Perishable Cargo before that road diverged at the beginning of 2021.
The UI as intended
I think the original premise for navigating the app is pretty intuitive in itself, as a way to shortcut a user to which services apply to them and away from those that don’t, even if it means some repetition where different types of users need the same service (e.g. I-94 travel history), so you’ll see the same option listed for two different user roles. That’s intuitive given the intended audiences for the app– American companies/citizens, who need to interact with Customs services to comply with regulations regarding commercial shipping and/or international travel, and documented international travelers who need to access that documentation quickly.
It could’ve been done differently and be even more intuitive, though, based on how large the audience is for one service or another. E.g. if 75% of your audience needs Form I-94 services, it would make more sense to put that on the home menu rather than burying it behind Traveler > Land or Traveler >Air (or Traveler > Sea, but that’s “Coming Soon.”) That would require knowing how large your audiences are for different features, but those stats could be pulled from the existing apps/web pages where they’re currently accessing the features. And of course, it would likely require modifying the user interface as you go.
It’s difficult to go beyond that first impression, however, because that’s all it is– a first impression. That home screen is the face of a different app than the one CBP One would turn out to be.
6 very simplified, chronological user guides to CBP One
To show how the user experience changed from February of 2021 (when IOs first started using the app) onward, I’ve written up some very abbreviated user guides reflecting how the app was used with each major change over time– from the migrant’s point of view, because they are The User.
User Guide 1: February, 2021 (MPP Check Case Status)
In December of 2018, the Trump administration announced the so-called Migration Protection Protocols, and the program went into effect in January of 2021. The MPP or “Remain in Mexico” program allowed DHS to send migrants to Mexico upon their arrival at the border and prevent them “clustering” at the border while waiting for their hearings. At this time, the International Organization user role in CBP one allowed staff from those organizations to identify migrants who were enrolled in the program.
You made it to the border, but they gave you a piece of paper and put you back on a bus to Mexico, where you joined 70,000 other migrants given a court hearing and a notice to appear, then sent away with no real plan to make it back in time for that hearing. You’ve been through hell in Mexico, but CBP officers weren’t asking about that. To request asylum at the border, you’d have had to affirmatively assert that you’re afraid of being sent back, and only then you might’ve gotten referred to a UCSIS asylum officer.
That piece of paper they gave you has your A-number on it, and you’re so grateful that your paperwork wasn’t stolen (and of course that you weren’t one of the 1,544 cases of rape, kidnapping, assault, and other violence committed against migrants sent back under MPP.
If she can verify that you have a hearing pending, you can go back to the border to attend it (if you don’t, your case is thrown out for failure to appear). Turns out she has to use your A-number to do that, because the photos she takes aren’t being accepted. But finally, you’re confirmed as enrolled with a case pending.
This screenshot is from a Powerpoint presentation given to IOs in early February. It was never provided to the public, even when migrants started using the app directly.
User Guide 2: March, 2021 (Title 42 Submit Advance Information)
To streamline the processing of undocumented individuals who may potentially be excepted from the CDC Order, CBP is relying on partnerships with certain International Organizations/NGOs. International Organizations/NGOs will identify undocumented individuals that are potentially excepted from the CDC Order on humanitarian grounds. . . .The manual input of data into USEC by CBPOs is a time-consuming process. The advance collection enables CBPOs to import the information collected by CBP One™ directly into a Unified Secondary event, which reduces the need for manual data entry and improves case processing efficiencies.
Yours was one of the 1.8 million expulsions from the border under an emergency implementation of a U.S. health law, Section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42, otherwise known simply as Title 42, which went into effect on March 20, 2021.
IOs have been training on using the CBP One app to take information about you, such as the standard names, dates, birthplaces, etc. but also information about your parents, the address where you lived before coming to the US (which address, exactly?) and other more specific information.
They’ll submit this information about you along with a statement attesting that you fit one or more of the vulnerability criteria that would merit exemption from Title 42, under which there is no claiming asylum– CBP stopped processing that asylum requests this month, expelling over 215,000 parents and children together who were asylum seekers.
But at least a teacher from the Sidewalk School helping your kids learn English is able to submit this statement on your behalf. You fit at least two or three of the criteria, so maybe you have a shot? Guess we’ll find out.
User Guide 3: April 25, 2022 (Ukrainian Direct Submit Advance Information)
Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion could come to to the U.S. through the Uniting for Ukraine humanitarian parole program, i.e. be accepted into the U.S. for a period of two years to live and work lawfully, provided they pass a background check and have a financial sponsor who applied for a Form I-134A on their behalf.
Go to Login.gov, “the public’s one account for government,” and create login credentials for yourself to use in CBP One.
Log in to the app and select Traveler, then Air.
On the Air Traveler screen, select Advance Traveler Authorization: “Request authorization for non-United States citizens intending to travel to the United States via flight. This action is only available to travelers following the approval of their supporters on Form I-134A through the USCIS.”
On your first time using the app, a pop-up will say that your profile is missing information. Hopefully your English is good enough to carry you through this, because that and Spanish are the only options.
Facial Photograph
Photo obtained from the passport or Chip on ePassport, where available
Alien Registration Number
First and Last Name
Date of Birth
Passport Number
User Guide 4: January 5, 2023 (CHNV Direct Submit Advance Information)
On January 5, 2023, the Biden administration announced a humanitarian parole program for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Up to 30,000 refugees in the CHNV program would be accepted into the U.S. each month for a period of two years to live and work lawfully, provided they pass a background check and have a financial sponsor who applied for a Form I-134A on their behalf.
Nationals of these countries could use CBP One to submit their information in advance, but if they attempted to enter the United States without using the app and/or somewhere outside a point of entry, they would be expelled. With the opportunity to enter as a refugee, CHNV nationals largely lost their chances at applying for asylum, and Mexico made an agreement with the U.S. to allow up to 30,000 asylum seekers to be expelled to Mexico each month– despite not being from Mexico.
See user guide 3 for instructions, but if you’ll be arriving by land entry, use CBP One to make the appointment.
User Guide 5: January 12, 2023 (Title 42 Direct Submit):
Anyone can use the app now to submit their information and attest that they fit the vulnerability criteria to be exempt from Title 42. But now IOs aren’t instructed to help you– you have to do it yourself, and there is no guide to using the app anywhere. Not within the app, and at this time there isn’t even a website.
Go to Login.gov, “the public’s one account for government,” and create login credentials for yourself to use in CBP One.
Log in to the app and select Traveler, then Land.
Select Submit Advance Information | Enviar Información Anticipada, then fill out your profile: Name, Date of Birth, Phone Numbers, U.S. Address, Foreign Addresses, Nationality, Employment history, Travel History, Emergency Contact Information, Family Information, Marital information, Gender, Height, Weight, and Eye color.
Take a photo of yourself and upload it.
Confirm that you meet one or more of the vulnerability criteria and can provide supporting documentation, and hope for the best.
Do steps 2-5 every morning at 2am as the 700 or so available slots for appointments vanish over a few minutes. Yes, including the registration– every morning, enter all of that information as fast as you can, take another photo, or as many as it takes, and keep trying,.
A 27-year-old Cuban woman, who also requested anonymity over concerns that recognition would affect her entry into the U.S., told Rest of World she’d been waiting on the Mexicali-Calexico border penniless with an infant for over a month. ‘I have to wake my 3-year-old baby at 2 a.m. every day to enter our information and try our chances with the app.’ She said she had used the auto clicker to tap over and over on the photo she had to upload to get an appointment. ‘What I have noticed is that auto-clicker apps work mostly when there is only one person trying to get the appointment.’
User Guide 6: May 12, 2023 (Direct Submit, post Title 42)
Title 42 was lifted on May 11, and the vulnerability requirement is gone from the app.
Haitian Creole is added to the app– sort of.
The quality of the current Creole translations is spotty at best. Users can only select Creole after a full user registration process in English and Spanish, including two-factor authentication. Error messages, drop-down menus, and navigation tools continue to display only in English. . . ‘Any human who is familiar with any kind of written language would look at that and say, that looks wrong,’ said Wagner, who recommends CBP hire language professionals to review the Haitian Creole text on the app. ‘It shows that they truly don’t care whether anybody understands it.’
Appointments are allocated on a lottery arrangement, but with preference given to those who requested an appointment yesterday.
You still must ask for an appointment each day, but you have 23 hours in which to ask for an appointment, and then another 23 to accept and confirm when you get a notification.
Before you’re allowed to request an appointment, you must agree to share your location (and you must be in central or northern Mexico, including Mexico City and Guadalajara). Before you’re allowed to accept an appointment, you must share your location again, and take a “video selfie.”
Review the technology used (and not used)
Planned technology vs. technology utilized
One thing that stands out almost immediately:
Progress on the rollout of planned features for CBP One ground to a halt in 2021 as the app’s focus shifted away
CBP stopped adding capabilities to CBP One, and used them instead to make more apps
The new app was designed to have a “user centric interface to guide users with an intuitive and guided border entry/exit experience regardless of geographic location, mode of transportation or citizenship.” It would “eliminates the need for multiple CBP applications.”
When development of CBP One was announced, CBP had five mobile apps: CBP Jobs, ROAM, MPC (Mobile Passport Control), Border Wait Times, and CBP DTOPS.
As of this writing, CBP currently has eight apps: MPC, Global Entry, ROAM, CBP One, Border Wait Times, myCBP, ESTA, and CBP Truck QR.
Development status reports showed a distinct lack of development
CBP published internal status reports for CBP One usage and available/upcoming features, which give an idea of how things weren’t progressing.
In comparing these status reports for June and July, a few things to notice:
Under “What is Available Now,” features are listed as having been available in February and March of 2020, before the app actually launched in October. Presumably this was a typo and they should’ve said 2021, but the error wasn’t fixed from June to July.
As of June 18, NGOs had the ability to schedule appointments using the app, but migrants using the app to submit their own requests directly was projected for the end of June, 2021. The July report says that the functionality had been placed on hold, and migrants didn’t get the ability to submit their own information until January of 2023.
The “current statistics” are exactly the same for both months.
Facial Recognition Technology
Most of the criticisms about CBP One’s actual functionality concern its facial recognition technology. The background on that certainly explains some of the complaints.
CBP One was designed to comply with a biometric entry/exit mandate issued before apps (or the DHS) existed
Biometric identity information is used to identify or verify who you are based on physically distinguishing characteristics, such as your fingerprints, irises, or face. It suddenly became very important to the U.S. federal government in the wake of 9/11/2001, when for many, any shifty-eyed stranger on an airplane might be a terrorist ready to steer the flight into a building, and three months later, a fear of explosive shoes took hold of America and has largely kept its grip ever since Richard Reid completely failed to set fire to his.
The DHS cites multiple pieces of legislation from around that time, including the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002’s Title III: Visa Issuance, as its mandate for gathering biometric data on travelers entering and exiting the country. The legislation references INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), because DHS hadn’t yet been created as unification of USCIS, ICE, and CBP, all of which had previously been subsumed under INS, in 2003.
The relevant section reads:
Title III: Visa Issuance – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to direct the Secretary of State (Secretary), upon issuance of an alien visa, to provide INS with an electronic version of the alien’s visa file prior to the alien’s U.S. entry.
(Sec. 302) Sets forth technology standard and interoperability requirements (including October 26, 2004 implementation deadlines) respecting development and implementation of the integrated entry and exit data system and related tamper-resistant, machine-readable documents containing biometric identifiers. Requires a visa waiver country, in order to maintain program participation, to certify by October 26, 2004, that it has a program to issue to its nationals qualifying machine-readable passports that are tamper-proof and contain biometric identifiers. Authorizes appropriations.
The need to gather biometric information applying in all of these cases, it’s not surprising that CBP’s AI Facial Recognition Engine, Traveler Verification Service (TVS), isn’t just used in CBP One, but in TSA PreCheck, Global Entry kiosks and the Global Entry app, and the Mobile Passport Control App
CBP developed TVS to be scalable and seamlessly applicable to all modes of transport throughout the travel continuum. CBP has successfully implemented facial biometrics into the entry/arrivals processes at all international airports and into the exit processes at 32 airport locations. CBP also established facial biometrics at 26 seaports and all pedestrian lanes at both the Southwest Border and the Northern Border land POEs.
Facial recognition technology works in two very general ways:
One-to-one comparisons for the purposes of verification, such as when you unlock your phone using your face to authenticate. This works by algorithms learning what your face looks like first, and then comparing future images of you to that original image, using it as a template.
One-to-many comparisons for purposes of identification, such as when a photo is taken of someone in a crowd, and you identify them by comparing that photo to a database of photos of people that may include one or more photos of the person you’re identifying. These photos are also templatized, as in, they’re converted to a numerical pattern that is, ideally, specific enough to avoid making an incorrect match by false positives (matches to photos that don’t actually show the same person) or false negatives (overlooking images that show that person).
According to TVS’s first Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in 2018, it was tested by employing CBP agents (in partnership with TSA) at airport departure gates, where they would take photos of travelers preparing to board the plane. Each photo would then be compared to a downloaded gallery containing templates from previously-acquired photos of the same traveler (such as a passport photo), and images of all travelers associated with the flight manifest, created using the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) data
If a match couldn’t be found, a CBP officer would use a Biometric Exit Mobile wireless handheld device, or BE-Mobile, to manually capture the traveler’s fingerprint and use that to query a DHS-wide database called the Automated Biometric Identification System, or IDENT. Non-citizens’ facial images would then be retained in IDENT for use in future encounters with CBP.
The success of these programs led CBP to adopt TVS as its “accredited CBP information technology system that consists of a group of similar systems and subsystems that support the core functioning and transmission of data between CBP applications and partner interfaces.” It would use TVS as its “backend matching service for all biometric entry and exit operations that use facial recognition, regardless of air, land, or sea.”
Nevertheless, the PIA acknowledged, “While CBP may create APIS manifests on land border crossers via bus or rail, unlike travelers in the air and sea environments, there are no manifests created for pedestrian travelers to assemble a gallery of known travelers. CBP is developing processes that would enable the use of TVS at the land border; for example, CBP may briefly retain local galleries of travelers who have recently crossed at a given Port of Entry and are expected to cross again within a given period of time.”
At selected departure gates at select airports, CBP will deploy a facial recognition camera in close proximity to the airline boarding pass reader. This camera will match live images with existing photos from passenger travel documents assembled based on flight manifest data of the boarding flight. Upon receipt of the passenger flight manifest and throughout the passenger check-in process, CBP will compile photos from the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), the Department of State’s Consolidated Consular Database, and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service’s Computer Linked Adjudication Information Management System (CLAIMS 3) to build a flight-specific gallery housed in the Automated Targeting System (ATS).
. . . The test was scoped to include only one route and run until September 30, 2016; the pilot was later extended through November 2016. For flights operating on this route, a CBP-manned camera and tablet computer were placed between the boarding pass reader and the aircraft. As travelers checked in for their flight, CBP obtained passenger manifest data and assembled existing traveler photographs into a downloadable file that was pushed to the tablet prior to boarding. These photographs had been accessed from various DHS and Department of State systems. As travelers passed through the boarding area, the camera took their photographs. The real-time photographs were compared to the downloaded pictures to determine if CBP systems could accurately match the two photographs.
(Yes, this is what it’s like to read every Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)– they’re clearly not intended to be consumed by, for example, the passengers on these flights. But though they’re public, they’re mostly about explaining how new technologies don’t violate any existing privacy regulations. IMO they could just as easily be called CYAs as PIAs, but YMMV.)
That gives you an idea of the conditions under which the TVS was developed: a very controlled environment composed of a brightly lit airport departure gate, where CBP officers (“CBP-manned camera”) were taking photos of travelers and comparing those photos to the travelers’ own photos from their travel documents, i.e. passport photos etc., as well as to the flight manifest.
A September 2020 GAO Report shows that FRT for land crossings was low priority– at best– when CBP One launched
The Government Accountability Office published a report evaluating CBP’s use of facial recognition technology (TVS) to date.
As of May 2020, CBP, in partnership with airlines, had deployed FRT to 27 airports to biometrically confirm travelers’ identities as they depart the United States (air exit) and was in the early stages of assessing FRT at sea and land ports of entry.
The report described, and included photos of, the scenarios of several pilot tests, looking at the accuracy of FRT but also the implementation of privacy safeguards and warnings. It included recommendations for CBP to be more diligent about displaying signage informing passengers of the Biometric Entry-Exit program and their right to opt out if they chose, as well as auditing airlines employing FRT for privacy purposes.
But the record scratched at the description of the process CBP had in place to test FRT for pedestrians:
As travelers approach the primary inspection booth and present their travel identification documents, such as passports or visas, cameras connected to TVS attempt to capture live photos. CBP officers scan the traveler’s identification document, which allows CBP’s TECS system to locate the document photo. Once the photo has been located, CBP’s system sends the photo to TVS. TVS then compares the live photo against the document photo to produce a match or no-match result. Travelers who are not matched by TVS instead have their identities verified manually (a visual inspection) by a CBP officer.
Here’s a rough approximation of what that looks like:
You present your travel documents to the CBP Officer.
A facial recognition camera takes a photo of you.
That photo is then sent to TVS.
This newly-captured photo of you is compared to the one in your travel documents.
If a match isn’t found, CBP officers do a visual inspection to verify your identity.
Now compare that to the process in CBP One:
You have no documents, so skip this step.
Instead, you manually enter your information into an app, and that takes a photo of you.
If the app accepts your photo, it will be compared to at least two databases that might or might not have your photo. You won’t know the results of that comparison.
If you’re issued an appointment and want to accept, you’ll need to undergo liveness detection by taking a “video selfie.”
If at any point something doesn’t work, too bad. No officers are around to give you a visual inspection, so this is where the process ends.
Sure, TVS might be doing the comparison– but nearly everything else is different.
The advantage in the first scenario couldn’t be more obvious– there’s an actual room, with CBP officers in it. In other words, you’re not using an app.
In a July 2021 report, NIST said that the quality of the camera and the environment in which the picture is taken affect the accuracy of facial recognition. Thus, the availability of CBP officers to check the accuracy of the systems conducting the photos’ comparison is vital to ensure racial minorities are not disproportionately impacted by the technology’s shortcomings.
In addition to random sampling, CBP officials can be informed of problems with air exit facial recognition if they are observed or reported by airlines or airports. For example, as previously mentioned, we observed a flight that experienced a high number of no-matches. When we alerted officials to the problem, they reviewed match data from other flights at that airport and identified similar issues. Specifically, CBP officials determined that lighting issues at a particular terminal were affecting the quality of the photos taken at the gate, and they worked with airport officials to address the issue. CBP officials also noted that they generate automated reports of matching rates and usage on a weekly basis, and provide weekly performance reports to stakeholders, such as airline partners. Officials said they use this reporting to gauge system performance.
So there was a problem, and officials were alerted to it, and they assessed the situation– probably in person– then determined that the lighting was affecting the quality of the photos. Also they generate automated reports weekly and report to stakeholders.
Does any of that come even close to applying to how CBP One is used? Note that this report came out a month before CBP One was launched, and the assessment of CBP’s facial recognition technology is that it’s very accurate when used in airports, except if there’s an issue with lighting or otherwise affecting the image quality– in which case CBP officials look into it and they addressed the issue. And they’re looking into applying FRT at land crossings for pedestrians, but that means pedestrians with passports and/or visas arriving on foot, in person, facing a camera operated by CBOs.
CBP might’ve been determined to use TVS as its “backend matching service for all biometric entry and exit operations that use facial recognition, regardless of air, land, or sea,” but if the vast majority of your pilot testing and general application of a technology is on air travelers, you are by definition excluding all undocumented migrants from your results. You are developing your technology to fit a scenario that does not include, and therefore cannot apply to, this audience.
This audience is composed of people using their own phones, on crappy wifi, by themselves with no help, most likely terrible lighting, and nobody noticing when it’s not going as planned. And when that happens, it doesn’t seem like it goes in anybody’s weekly performance report for stakeholders.
Statement for the Record on Assessing CBP’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology
In July of 2022, CBP submitted a statement for the record for a hearing titled “Assessing CBP’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology” before the House Committee on Homeland Security.
CBP is aware of concerns regarding biometric facial comparison matching, specifically that non-match results may be racially or demographically biased in performance. CBP does not track race as a descriptor during traveler processing; however, CBP data analysts have performed extensive operational analytics on TVS matching that shows a negligible effect in regard to biometric matching based on country of citizenship, age, or gender while achieving an average technical match rate of 99.4 percent on entry and 98.1 percent on exit. No changes have been necessary as the matching performance has remained consistent for several years across multiple matching algorithms. From January 2017 through the end of June 2022, technical match rates remained high among citizens from various regions of the globe, for example: Africa 99.5 percent match rate; Asia 99.3 percent match rate; Central America 99.6 percent match rate; and Europe 99.6 percent match rate. If a traveler cannot be matched by CBP’s biometric facial comparison technology, the traveler will simply be processed through the traditional inspection process consistent with existing requirements for entry into the United States.
Maybe you’ve already guessed, but this statement didn’t mention CBP One.
Liveness Detection
Wait, what’s a “video selfie”?
The first CBP One PIA has a brief description of liveness detection in the app, and it’s clearly not just talking about a photo.
CBP One™ prompts the user to take a live photograph or selfie (new photograph and not the same image collected from the passport/epassport). CBP One™ instructs the user to line their face up with a circle on the screen of their mobile device. CBP One’s embedded software then performs a ‘liveness’ test to determine that it is real person (and not a picture of a person).
While the user is taking the “selfie,” the technology embedded within the mobile application relies on the devices camera to view a live image through 3D face changes and observing perspective distortion to prove the image is 3D. If “liveness” cannot be confirmed, the user is unable to utilize the CBP One application.
This sounds very much like the iProov, product Flashmark, which “uses the screen of a mobile device to flash a unique, one-time sequence of colors, under server control, onto the user’s face. The server uses machine learning technology to analyze and determine if the image is a live person.” iProov received multiple CBP contracts to integrate “GenuinePresence Assurance” into CBP’s technology, starting in 2018.
The large number of appointments scheduled via CBP One in recent months was made possible through the identification of process improvements and implementation of a number of software updates that fixed earlier reported technical difficulties. For example, CBP addressed reported challenges related to geolocation and error messages due to bandwidth issues with a third-party software for liveness.
First, I think that third party must be iProov.
Second, this is as classic an example of “bug fix that isn’t a bug fix” message as you could get — “The app worked really well, which was only possible because we fixed the thing we broke.” Or in this case, possibly “We made the third party fix the thing it broke.”
Third, bug fixes go in release notes. Or at least they should. But for CBP One, there are no release notes (see below), because the release notes go in monthly operational reports. Because of course.
A thread for someone else to pull on?
So many of the complaints about facial recognition point to studies, including by NIST, demonstrating racial and other biases in the technology, suggesting that this accounts for when Haitian refugees, for example, can’t seem to get the app to recognize them. In response both CBP and NIST point out that facial recognition algorithms improve rapidly over time, and that:
CBP has partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to perform an independent analysis of CBP’s facial recognition performance, including potential impacts due to traveler demographics and image quality. Based on an algorithm vendor test conducted by NIST in 2019, it was concluded that the false positive differentials based on demographics were undetectable using the NEC-3 algorithm which is used by CBP. Per NIST, the NEC-3 is the most accurate algorithm evaluated (out of the 189 tested). CBP’s match rate is greater than 97 percent and improving.
(CBP partnered with Nec Corporation of America in June, 2017 – CBP’s OFO, United airlines, NEC Corporation tested facial recognition at Houston George Bush airport. Product: NeoFace® Express facial recognition stations)
False positive differentials are mentioned, but not false negatives
The article specifically describes air travel and comparing photos to passports and visa photos (whereas the FRVT test also looks at border crossing images)
It also doesn’t mention presentation attack detection (PAD), which is what the “video selfies” are for– to verify that that the camera is not just seeing you, but the actual you rather than, say, some imposter holding up a picture of you. It seems to me that this is an entirely separate area where bias might be introduced, which in this case would be in IProov’s territory rather than Nec’s.
But I can’t really give this the full examination it deserves. NIST has even separated out FRVT into two different areas, FRTE (Face Recognition Technology Evaluation) and FATE (Face Analysis Technology Evaluation), to make a clearer differentiation between FRT and PAD (to put it generally), and while it’s fascinating, it’s really out of my wheelhouse at the moment.
Still, I suspect that many of the complaints about bias are actually about liveness detection and not facial recognition.
A note on ROAM (Reporting Offsite Arrival Mobile)
CBP’s app for pleasure boaters was on the app store in 2020 when CBP One launched. CBP One’s roadmap calls ROAM out as a service to be incorporated into the app within the first month.
And announcements about the app’s demise, which appear to have been greatly exaggerated, appeared publicly on the CBP One page since it was originally posted.
But not only is the app still around, CBP is still updating it– in September of 2021, they added a feature to apply for cruising licenses. Stranger still, ROAM’s description on the App store says “Disclaimer: This is a pilot version only for use in limited areas. Contact your local Port of Entry for guidance.”
The strangest thing of all might be this quote from the first CBP One PIA. That’s all of the information about it in the PIA, so I don’t know what happened with this functionality.
Reporting Offsite Arrival-Mobile (ROAM)
The ROAM mobile functionality is embedded into the CBP One™ mobile application and provides travelers arriving to the United States with an option to voluntarily self-report their arrival to CBP. In addition, the ROAM mobile functionality will automate existing manual data entry and law enforcement queries for CBP and provide a more sophisticated capability for conducting a remote inspection via video conference. This function will not be available at launch of CBP One™; CBP will publish a standalone, function-specific PIA to discuss the privacy risks and mitigations thoroughly. CBP will update this Appendix when the standalone PIA is published.
Here’s a screenshot of the first day of the CBP One website — February 23, 2021. You could guess the timing based on the blue box talking about MPP, but the rest of it with the orange arrows has been more or less standard since then.
It launched with a “Getting Started” section limited to a brief set of instructions to download the app, create a login.gov account to use it, then “users can access the different CBP services based on their specific needs.” It could have contained, for example, the Powerpoint presentations given to NGOs, or the January 5, 2023 fact sheet announcing that migrants could start using CBP One on January 12, but did not.
That’s as much time as I’ll spend on the website, which ordinarily would be the focus when talking about documentation for an app. But that’s exactly the problem, because there’s not much to say about documentation that’s incomplete and out of date, except that it’s incomplete and out of date. Which it is.
And I’m not actually sure how important guides are, here. They should exist, absolutely, and they should be up to date, absolutely. But the guides do not tell you what to do when the app crashes over and over again, erasing your registration and taking you back to the login screen. They don’t tell you what to do if you can’t create a login, register a traveler or request an appointment. But there is one troubleshooting item you will see. They won’t tell you what a video selfie is, or what it’s used for, but if it fails– take a video selfie of someone else. Or delete your registration and start over.
Update announcements
Since January of 2023 when the Biden administration announced that migrants would use CBP One to submit their own information, there have been two update announcements posted to the web site: May 5, 2023 (announcing an update for May 10) and February 29, 2024, which…might not have been announced at all, actually, since the page doesn’t seem to notice that it’s changed.
That might be because the time in which you can make an appointment has actually gotten shorter, for the first time since launch– as of May 10, 2023, you had 23 hours in which to request an appointment, and as of Feb. 29, 2024, you have 12. I can see why you wouldn’t draw attention to that unless you had to.
Release notes
What release notes?
Tech support
Well, umm…yep. That’s it.
Anybody try emailing this address? I did, and didn’t get any reply. Weird. Should I submit a FOIA request?
In-app documentation
Recall that CBP announced the development of a new app, citing the need for a “an intuitive single portal for travelers and stakeholders to access CBP mobile applications and services such as CBP ROAM, I-94 Entry/Exit, and the Appointment Request Feature.”
The app officially launched on October 28, 2020.
The new app would be designed to have a “user centric interface to guide users with an intuitive and guided border entry/exit experience regardless of geographic location, mode of transportation or citizenship.”
It would, effectively, be a hub where users could be directed toward services based on their particular needs on the basis of their user type/role/persona (I’ve seen all three used interchangeably in documentation).
These screenshots describing CBP’s vision for CBP One are still visible in the app, on the General FAQs screen. As of this writing it’s mid-April, 2024, which makes you wonder which “early October” and “November” are referenced here. Based on what user types and features are actually available in the app, I have a feeling it’s 2020.
It’s like the app is haunted with ghosts of personas and services Never Yet To Come.
It’s like walking through a rental office space past a series of doors with signs on them, but if you open the door, all you see is a poster with cheerful text reading “Coming soon! Features for each user type will be rolled out at different times, so please check back if the one you need is not yet available!”
One of those rooms is, of course, full of hundreds of thousands of migrants, and that’s why the rest will remain empty. But you won’t see that mentioned on the signage.
MPC is designed to help air travelers avoid some of the “agony” (as Hipmunk used the term) that other travelers experience when trying to comply with federal regulations.
CBP One is designed as the only way for migrants to comply with regulations, thereby possibly relieving them of the “agony” experienced by migrants who aren’t allowed into the country at all.
In both cases, a select group is given an advantage over other groups in terms of complying with regulations set by the same entity extending that advantage. (Like TSA PreCheck, which allows travelers to pay to get through security quicker, and also uses facial recognition — and also seems like something everybody should get automatically, rather than an advantage you can pay for)
But I think it’s difficult to get our heads around the real, enormous, but hidden difference: every other program, every other app, is a choice. A real choice– the most you risk by not using them, maximum, is an hour in a security line.
CBP One, despite all statements to the contrary made by CBP itself, is not used voluntarily. Nobody would volunteer to use it. This is the kind of app you only use if you’re required, which sounds absurd as a design critique for an app. But it’s true, because CBP One is the most powerful app. The most you risk by not using it can be as costly as your future, even your life.
Evaluate criticisms of the app
The indignity of “glitchiness”
CBP One requires that applicants take a live photo. You can’t use an old selfie, and the app seems to have trouble with darker skin tones. And that is one of the glitchier aspects of this entire application, because the AI– the camera does not pick up certain phenotypes. And interestingly enough, when you get to that step, there is a model who is facing who’s on the screen. She’s a beautiful white model. And it’s surreal to watch an indigenous Mayan woman trying to take a photo facing this white model, and the camera just does not pick up her skin complexion. And that is often where the app crashes.
Gia Del Pino, Director of Communications at the Keynote Border Initiative, on Slate’s TBD podcast
Getting lots of questions on what to do when CBP One app just glitches. Like this video, which is NOT a boomerang vid, it is unedited. This is the phone of someone who is seeking asylum, and she has been told to download an app and make an appt, but can’t get past this screen. pic.twitter.com/eZPS7Fd5L8
— Lindsay Toczylowski (@L_Toczylowski) March 1, 2023
This has happened to me as well– many times
Austin Kocher made an excellent point in a paper about CBP One last year:
I argue that while glitches productively call attention to the controversial processes of asylum digitization, representing technological barriers to asylum as “glitches” displaces political discussions about the right to asylum with depoliticized discussions about patching software problems.
Glitches are pretty generic, as it goes. They come in a few varieties that you see across all kinds of software, regardless of how frivolous or necessary it is. The glitches people have reported about CBP One for years now have pretty much remained constant in type – the FRT can’t recognize your face, or the geolocation thinks you’re already in the U.S., or the app crashes and takes you back to login repeatedly (something that happens to me quite a lot, actually).
It’s hard to say how frequently they’re occurring or where, or for whom, though, because CBP One’s documentation doesn’t tell us that. It doesn’t tell us what, if anything, it’s doing to fix them. This kind of dynamic is also pretty common– who works with software regularly and feels completely in the dark about when, or whether, a problem they’ve reported is going to be fixed?
What sets CBP One’s glitchiness apart is the very fact of glitches. To complain that your asylum app has glitches can at once be 100% legitimate, and 100% like complaining that your right to privacy burnt a hole in your hand. You should not need to protect against flammability in claiming your right to privacy. You should not have to protect against glitches to claim your right to asylum.
CBP could give away hundreds of thousands of iPhone 15s to hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, coupled with power bricks that last forever. It could make CBP One the most user-friendly app on the planet. It could provide top-notch customer service. None of these things would, in the slightest, rectify the inherent indignity of predicating a migrant’s well-being on a program you download from the same place as Candy Crush Saga.
The United Nations doctrine against returning refugees to their countries of origin where they faced oppression sufficient to flee to another country is called the principle of “nonrefoulment.” It’s invoked in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, a treaty that the U.S. entered into in 1967. It contains many provisions about treatment of refugees (spoiler: the U.S. doesn’t comply with most of them), but its central principle of non-refoulment is articulated in Article 33:
No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member- ship of a particular social group or political opinion.
I like that term for a lot of reasons, such as how it firmly assigns the “foulness” to the location from which the refugee is fleeing, rather than on the refugee, as Trump recently did by calling migrants “vermin.” In that he echoed bigots across history who have made entire populations their targets of moral disgust, labeling them as parasites, pests, germs, etc.– that kind of rhetoric certainly aided in closing the border to even asylum seekers in the name of protection against Covid (extra ironic given Trump’s own stance on the disease).
Obviously the complaints about how CBP One works differ wildly between the two parties (Homeland Security Committee vs. the 26 signers to the 3/13/23 letter) but this means that at least theoretically, in some hypothetical scenario, both sides on this issue could work together to make CBP One a better app.
Now on the subject of migrant-hating Republicans, I must bring up the House Committee on Homeland Security. But since there’s no possible way to cover every outlandish claim they’re making about CBP One, I’ll look into one– especially since it involves a supposed “glitch.”
An “extensive investigation”
In September, the Washington Examiner reported that cartels are using virtual private networks (VPN) to skirt requirements that aliens signing up for appointments at ports of entry via CBP One be present in northern Mexico before making the appointment. Using these VPNs, the cartels can exploit vulnerabilities in the app and schedule appointments for individuals regardless of their location—all for a fee—and they advertise this “service” on social media.
A letter sent to Secretary Mayorkas on September 14, 2023 from Reps Mark Green and Clay Higgins claimed that cartels are using VPN connections to evade CBP’s geofencing requirement that applications be scheduled only from central and northern Mexico, based on an August article in the Washington Examiner. The article claimed that migrants from Guatemala were only allowed by Mexico to pass through the country to the United States if they had a CBP One appointment, which shouldn’t be possible to schedule from outside of Mexico, so that proved that the app had been “hacked” by cartels
In a follow-up article in the Washington Examiner in October of that year, CBP Spokeswoman Erin Waters was quoted as saying “Claims that the CBP One app has been hacked are categorically false. Criminal organizations and smugglers continue to prey on vulnerable migrants, lying to them and putting them in harm’s way. Here is the reality: The lawful and orderly pathways we have established have been bad for cartels and other criminal organizations seeking to exploit migrants.” She also pointed out that “Importantly, the CBP One app requires a user’s device location services and GPS data to verify their location before booking and confirming an appointment.”
The Washington Examiner (described by Media Bias/Fact Check as “based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks”) makes this claim about exploitation of CBP One’s geolocation by cartels selling VPN service based on “an extensive investigation that included a review of unclassified, internal DHS documents and communications,” but I see no reference to the details of this investigation in the article, and no way to view those unclassified DHS documents.
Yet the House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman not only used this article to make a claim of fact that “Mexican cartels are abusing the Biden administration’s expanded use of the CBP One app as part of their vast human smuggling operations,” but then itself claimed to have accessed those same “unclassified, internal DHS documents and communications.” So where are they?
The documents are still under review to determine the extent of DHS’ compliance with the Committee’s comprehensive request.
Umm. Admittedly, the extent of my research here is a) looking at other “news” posts on the House Committee on Homeland Security to see if they eventually released the documents from review (not so far as I could tell) b) reading those two Washington Examiner pieces closely, trying to find a link or something to the “unclassified, internal DHS documents and communications,” (no luck), and c) tweeting at Washington Examiner journalist Anna Giaritelli to ask if she’s seen them. But they can’t have just made up an investigation into internal DHS documents, right? I mean, they got a quote from CBP Spokeswoman Erin Waters saying they’re full of it. If they had evidence that they’re not, wouldn’t it….be somewhere?
…especially if the House Committee on Homeland Security is going to make that claim themselves, citing the Washington Examiner as their only evidence?
In the end, are CBP the only ones who like the CBP One app?
I’m not sure even they are big fans of it, but they do at least sound like they’re fans of getting information about migrants– both biographic and biometric– submitted via an app.
For partners, using biometric technologies advances their operations, so they can improve the guest experience and boost customer satisfaction. For CBP, using biometrics allows us to shift the focus of our Officers from administrative functions to core law enforcement duties, improving our ability to deter, detect, and prevent threats to our nation.
Fundamentally, what we’re looking to do is get rid of paper, get rid of manual processing steps, and let . . . us free up our time from border agents and others in the process so they’re spending less time staring at a screen, less time printing out documents, and more time actually on the front lines, doing their jobs keeping us safe. That’s been a core part of my role as CIO, and we’re going to continue to accelerate that with AI innovations.
Typically, once an undocumented individual arrives at a land POE for processing, CBP Officers (CBPO) spend significant time collecting and verifying basic biographic data about the individual during the inspection process. One at a time, the CBPOs interview and collect information from such individuals during secondary inspection. The CBPOs manually enter the information into the Unified Secondary System (USEC). To streamline and increase processing capacity at land POEs, CBP uses the CBP One™ mobile and desktop applications to allow the advance submission of biographic and biometric information from undocumented individuals seeking admission into the United States.
Historically, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received no advance biographic or biometric information prior to the arrival of undocumented individuals at ports of entry (POE). This lack of information increases the amount of time it takes CBP officers (CBPO) to process undocumented individuals upon their arrival. To streamline and increase processing capacity at land POEs, CBP is expanding the use of the CBP One™ mobile and desktop application to allow the advance submission of biographic and biometric information from undocumented individuals seeking admission into the United States.
But the March 13, 2023 letter to Mayorkas from Jesús G. “Chuy” García and 25 other representatives cited something I hadn’t noticed before:
According to DHS Guidance, asylum seekers or others seeking humanitarian protection cannot be required to submit advance information in order to be processed at a southwest Border land POE.
Possible additional measures include the innovative use of existing tools such as the CBP One™ mobile application, which enables noncitizens seeking to cross through land POEs to securely submit certain biographic and biometric information prior to arrival and thus streamline their processing upon arrival. OFO also should accelerate ongoing efforts to digitize processing at POEs and more effectively use data to increase throughput. In developing these solutions, CBP should, as appropriate, collaborate with interested non-governmental organizations and other key partners, consistent with applicable privacy protections and civil rights and civil liberties.
Importantly, however, asylum seekers or others seeking humanitarian protection cannot be required to submit advance information in order to be processed at a Southwest Border land POE. The submission ( or lack thereof) of advance information should not influence the outcome of any inspection. CBP will continue to make admissibility and processing determinations on a case-by-case-basis at the POE.
According to this guidance, CBP One shouldn’t be the exclusive means for migrants seeking humanitarian protection to appear at the border legally for inspection– or even, possibly, the primary means for them to do so. It sounds like Miller was, in fact, suggesting that the CBP One app should be used like an app-– which is to say, a supplementary device that makes a process more convenient.
And according to the sources quoted above, it does indeed make the immigration process more convenient– for CBP officers. Obviously CBP isn’t a business, but if it were, then it would be the odd sort of business that makes an app for employees to interact customers, but primarily serves the employees rather than the presumed customer base.
In other words, CBP One is an app made for CBP, not migrants. It should not, according to Miller’s guidance, be used as a replacement for human-to-human interaction. But that’s precisely how it is used today.
Some closing thoughts
This is a story about the most powerful mobile app in the world, and why it shouldn’t be.
It’s strange and grandiose to put it that way, I know. But think of how under Title 42, this app is how migrants were able to claim exemption from being expelled from the border on the grounds of being potentially diseased.
They did so on the basis of meeting certain “vulnerability criteria”– literally, there was a list in the app, and migrants were required to attest that they personally, and/or their family members, fit one or more of those criteria (which, ironically, included physical illness).
Imagine having to tell an app that you fear for your and your family’s safety where you are, so that hopefully some human somewhere will see it and decide to help you. Then imagine not being able to.
There’s no list of vulnerability criteria in the app now, because Title 42 is no longer in effect. Which is good, because it means you won’t be summarily dismissed from the border on the grounds that you might be diseased. But also bad, because at this moment it’s functionally the only way to request asylum under the Biden administration’s Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.
No one has to look you in the face to tell you that your misery doesn’t count, that your suffering isn’t great enough, to even give you a chance at finding a safe place to just live your life. Work, pay taxes, have kids, send them to school– just like everyone else.
And this app won’t let you tell them how badly you need it. And this app won’t let you tell them you deserve it, just as much as anyone else. And this app won’t let you tell them it’s your right, even though it is.
This app won’t let you tell them anything, for that matter. It just lets you give them something– your personal details, your family history, even the shape of your face. What will they give in return?
Post-script
Let’s not forget that the literal Lady of Liberty was, and is, an eternal advocate for asylum seekers:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I searched for “The New Colossus” on the DHS site, and found a single link: to Emma, the virtual assistant on the USCIS website.
Emma is named for Emma Lazarus, who wrote the poem inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty about helping immigrants. Inspired by her namesake, our Emma can help you find the immigration information you need.
Look at the happy smiling people with questions for Emma that aren’t “How can I just enter the country safely with my family, find a job, make a home, and live the so-called American Dream?”
3rd Parties/Partners
Nec Corporation of America. June, 2017 – CBP’s OFO, United airlines, NEC Corporation test facial recognition at Houston George Bush airport. Product: NeoFace® Express facial recognition stations
iProov. Received CBP contract to integrate “GenuinePresence Assurance” $750,000 in 2023, $190,000 “with threesubsequent phasesbringing the potential total to $800,000″ in 2018, $199,000 in 2020. Product: “Flashmark uses the screen of a mobile device to flash a unique, one-time sequence of colors, under server control, onto the user’s face. The server uses machine learning technology to analyze and determine if the image is a live person.”
I’m a podcast junkie, and have been for– wow– fifteen years now. I listen to podcasts while traveling, going for walks, cleaning, and performing any other action that could be tedious if not for having interesting voices in my ears. When I think back to a portion of a podcast, I visualize where I was and what I was doing when I heard it, which seems like a rather useless talent except for how it also sometimes works in reverse (while in a place or doing a thing, I sometimes remember content from a podcast I listened to in that context).
But I wouldn’t call myself some kind of expert or connoisseur of podcasts, because I just listen to what I like. I get to know a podcast and then listen to it regularly, usually no more than a rotation of eight or so. Sometimes I’ll listen to a new show because one of its hosts was a guest on a show that I already listen to, which happened when Chris Kavanaugh appeared on Embrace the Void to talk about the Intellectual Dark Web.
Chris is someone I’d been following on Twitter on the basis of regularly saying stuff I found interesting, but I didn’t know that he’s an anthropologist who did his PhD with Harvey Whitehouse at Oxford on a topic within the realm of cognitive science of religion, seven years after I completed my own PhD in CSR at the University of Aarhus. That makes us, like…EU CSR buddies, or something.
I feel a bit guilty writing a blog post about Decoding the Gurus, having not written one on Embrace the Void or indeed any of the other podcasts I’ve been listening to, because it’s not as though they’re not worthy– I would definitely recommend EtV, for example. Its host Aaron Rabinowitz is a philosopher currently working on a PhD in moral education, and I’ve found his discussions with various guests fascinating and entertaining. It’s just that I’m trying to break out of a very long hiatus from writing, and took the last several days off work to do a lot of chores and other activities that were ripe for podcast binging, and DtG was what I binged on, and I have thoughts.
And here are my thoughts!
First, I should note that the other co-host of Decoding the Gurus is Matt Browne, a professor of psychology at Central Queensland in Australia and who, combined with Belfast-born Chris, make for a very qualified and diversely-accented duo to host a podcast on this subject. One benefit of this arrangement for new listeners is that it’s very difficult to confuse one co-host for the other. Yes. of course there are many differences between Chris and Matt, but when you’re just starting to listen to a podcast you don’t know what those other differences are, so it can be difficult to differentiate the hosts if they sound the same. That is not the case here. Just saying.
So what’s a guru, for the purposes of this podcast? What type of people are being decoded here? As of this writing, the gurus that have been decoded thus far are:
Eric and Brett Weinstein
James Lindsay
Jordan Peterson
JP Sears
Rutger Bregman
Russell Brand
Scott Adams
Contrapoints (Natalie Wynn)
While Chris and Matt have discussed factors that would cause a particular person to rate highly on a “gurometer,” they haven’t (to my knowledge) given a clear and concise definition of what it means to be a guru, and they might never do so– which, frankly, would be fine by me. But generally speaking, the people they’re “decoding” are cultural commentators with large followings on the internet, who engage with those followers primarily via the internet (especially Twitter), and create content in podcast or Youtube video format.
This working definition is functional– the structure of a podcast episode is generally that Chris and Matt consume content by the guru in question, like a couple of podcast episodes or Youtube videos, and then dissect it on DtG. This approach has an upside and a downside.
The upside is that you know exactly what content they’re referencing, and they actually play clips and react to them. With Scott Adams this was particularly painful, but it was bearable because I knew that I wasn’t listening to this stuff “alone.” I have a strong aversion to actually listening to people say some of the reprehensible things I can read in print much more easily, to the point that I avoid listening to Donald Trump speak whenever possible. However, in the context of a critical discussion of that person’s ideas, it’s all right. Since each episode of DtG is quite lengthy, it also affords them the opportunity to engage in the kind of deconstruction that invariably, stereotypically, takes a good deal longer to both create and consume than the quoted statements themselves.
The downside of this approach is that you (the listener) don’t really get some kind of comprehensive view of the ideas expressed by the guru under discussion. Each episode begins with a summary of why a particular person was chosen. But, for example, the episode on Jordan Peterson centered on a particular interview that JBP gave, which really limited the discussion to the subject of JBP’s “poetic” obscurantist language and double-speak regarding his actual beliefs on religious concepts in response to direct questions. That’s absolutely a worthy topic deserving of scrutiny, but it doesn’t by half address the reasons for JBP’s appeal to his enormous audience. That’s fair enough– if you want to read a comprehensive account of JBP’s online agenda, those do exist. If you want to hear a podcast version, those exist also.
So this is not necessarily a fault in DtG, but it does seem to encumber the hosts in drawing a through line addressing the ideological and social situation of the gurus they choose to discuss. Prior to and beginning the episode on Natalie Wynn/Contrapoints, Chris and Matt noted that they were trying to branch out from the otherwise straight white male choices for gurus, but they didn’t really reflect on why such traits would typify someone who pursued a “guru” status to begin with.
There’s a reason why the person I chose to depict in my doodle of a “heterodox iconoclast” is a white man, and it’s not (just) because he’s loosely modeled on Eric Weinstein. One thing that should become abundantly, ridiculously clear upon listening to the clips from the Weinstein brothers and other gurus selected for this podcast is that these are, broadly speaking, a collection of privileged people claiming that they’re being oppressed because of the content of their ideas is threatening.
Not only is this clearly not the case, but there are a host of people across the globe who absolutely are being oppressed for this reason, and those people are not typically privileged in the way that these “gurus” are. There are people being censored for their anti-establishment ideas, and they are notexactlyprospective members of the Intellectual Dark Web.
It’s bitterly, absurdly ironic that the types of people adopting a “guru” type of position in Western countries are not only not the ones typically actually being persecuted for their speech, but who also actively tend to position themselves as stalwart defenders of the right to free speech, and (bonus) in some cases actively seek to suppress the freedom of speech of their critics via specious lawsuits that nevertheless create a silencing effect because (surprise) some people just can’t afford to be sued. And, surprise again, those people tend to not be especially privileged.
This is not something that has really been stressed on DtG, and it might well be because the free speech hypocrisy element is not as noticeable or as important to the non-American academic hosts. One thing to note about this podcast is that it’s not really about politics, although since politics are central to the ideologies of the respective gurus, it does invariably become part of the discussion.
So I’m making those comments not as a criticism of the podcast, but as a supplement to the material presented in it. I think it’s always important to critically examine the persecution narratives of people like the gurus chosen for this podcast, because a persecution narrative is so commonly central to the moral justification that oppressive classes use for…well, their oppression. It’s just textbook, because the strongest argument you can make for waging war against Group X is to claim that Group X has already declared war against you.
But on the other hand (there are always more than two hands), it’s a relief that Chris and Matt don’t belabor this point, because humor is critical. We have to laugh, or else we’ll cry. This is the philosophy of political cartoonists, a society to which I ostensibly belong. It’s something I require in my podcasts, because again– spoken language. A different impact than written words. As a podcast listener, I look for context, analysis, insight, and relatable commentary, and I find all of these in DtG.
This post is a continuation of Part I– if you haven’t read that yet, click this link.
Though I unfortunately missed Kal’s presentation, I did make it to the two AAEC panels that took place on Saturday afternoon (Day 3).
The panel “Cartoonists’ Rights and the Free Speech Situation Facing the World” was moderated by Terry Anderson (again, acting director of Cartoonists’ Rights International) and included Ritu Gairola Khanduri (board member of CRNI), Ann Telnaes, Zunar, Pedro Molina, and Charles Brownstein (of the Comic Books Legal Defense Fund).
Photo credit: Mike Peterson
Ritu described the United Sketches Women Cartoonists International Award, and justification behind it– 5% of political cartoonists across the globe are women or nonbinary. (I submitted cartoons for this award. The deadline was September 15, and the judges are currently deliberating.)
Pedro told of the desperate state of political protest in Nicaragua, with newspaper offices and TV stations being raided and shut down. Pedro is a tireless advocate for independent journalism, even at great risk to himself, and that risk was evident in his talk. You can read more about him in this interview with the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas or on his own site.
Malaysian cartoonist Zunar told stories of his repeated arrests in that country that were both horrific and hilarious, such as how once the police chief ordered his arrest by tweet, and Zunar’s cartoons for the next year or so all featured some tiny depiction of the police chief tweeting on his phone. Zunar is known for photos of him smiling in handcuffs during these arrests, though the risk has been significant considering that in 2015 he faced up to 43 years in prison for criticizing the Malaysian government. You can read more about Zunar at his site, where you can also find his new book recounting his experiences, Fight Through Cartoons.
Ann described the fallout in 2015 when she published a cartoon mocking Ted Cruz for using his daughters to promote his presidential campaign. You can see the cartoon here, as well as read the AAEC and CRNI reactions to the Washington Post’s decision to pull the cartoon after receiving complaints about it. Telnaes depicted Cruz’s daughters as performing monkeys, which (it seems painfully obvious to me) was not actually an attack on his daughters, but on Cruz for using them as props– something politicians do all of the time, and is off-putting every time and completely deserving of criticism. The title of the cartoon was literally “Ted Cruz uses his kids as political props.”
But after Cruz himself complained, and Marco Rubio joined him, the Post took the cartoon down and replaced it with an editor’s note (visible at the above link). That didn’t end things for Ann, however– she received a torrent of messages via email and social media that were abusive and sexist. To convey the nature of these messages, she played a video of similar harassment received by sports reporters Sarah Spain and Julie DiCaro. It is of course a good thing that the Washington Post didn’t react to complaints about a political cartoon in the same way that the New York Times would do four years later, but their capitulation in taking the cartoon down almost certainly enabled the harassment against Ann. That of course didn’t remove the ability of people to see the cartoon– all it did was tacitly agree, apparently without any consultation at all with Ann herself, that her cartoon was inappropriate.
Charles Brownstein described the power of social media influences in regulating content related to social justice issues. Charles is executive director of the Comic Books Legal Defense Fund.
The next panel was titled “The Legacy of Trump,” discussing the impact of Trump’s presidency on political cartooning during his tenure and anticipated effects in the future. The moderator for this panel was Mike “Comic Strip of the Day” Peterson, and the panelists were Patrick Chappatte, Nick Anderson, and Nancy Ohanion.
This was more of a free-flowing discussion than the previous panel. If you read part I of this post or my previous post “On the death, dearth, and demographics of political cartoons,” then you know who Patrick Chappatte is. You may also recall that Nick Anderson is the founder of Counterpoint. He attended this meeting with his wife Angel, who I got to meet at the Billy Ireland museum and talk about life in Texas, how the two of them came to settle in Houston, and much bodices cost at the Texas Renaissance Festival, the largest (to my knowledge) ren faire in the country that takes place yearly in November just outside of Houston. (Answer: Yes, bodices cost a lot, but they’re kind of a ren faire staple and well worth the investment if you’re a ren faire junkie like I used to be.)
Anyway, Counterpoint! The condensed version of the origin of Counterpoint is that Nick Anderson, a Pulitzer Prize winner, was himself subject to the ongoing purge of political cartoonists, having been let go at the Houston Chronicle after eleven years of cartooning in 2017. Nick saw Rob Rogers undergo the same experience in 2018, recognized and was alarmed by the trend, and wrote up a statement for the AAEC board. Pat Bagley (Salt Lake Tribune, also at the AAEC meeting this time but unfortunately I didn’t get the chance to meet him), was president at the time and apparently brought the piece to the attention of Jake Tapper (occasional cartoonist himself) and therefore CNN, who published the piece on their Opinion page.
There it was read by Vivek Garipalli, venture capitalist and co-founder of Clover Health, who orchestrated a meeting of minds with Nick that resulted in the creation of a cartoon email newsletter with a theme of dialogue between cartoons and cartoonists with opposing viewpoints known as Counterpoint. Currently I believe subscribership is at something like 130,000, and the plan is to become self-sustaining with advertiser support in the future. Newsletters are emailed free to subscribers twice a week.
I’d gotten the chance to speak with Nancy Ohanion when we were tabling on the vendor floor, and learned that while she’d been doing political cartoons for decades (since before I was born) and is syndicated, she’d been doing all of it, including a full-time career in advertising, on her own until recently. Since I’d never so much as spoken to another cartoonist prior to this meeting, it was amazing and gratifying to talk to her about the community aspect of AAEC, and what it could become in the future.
In this panel, she noted that Donald Trump is not some kind of singular force in modern American politics– that he’s more like a symptom of a disease that leads people to seriously bring up the word “sedition” when talking about political dissent, that makes calling someone a “member of the media” a near-slur, and generally speaking makes the country a more dangerous place for the kind of critique and mockery that are essential, indispensable even, to editorial cartooning. And, as Nancy hastened to add, even when (please don’t say “if”) Trump goes away, this national attitude will not. So we need to decide how to respond to it. Post haste.
This panel also contained a lot of discussion about “offense” and its impact on cartooning, and I found myself pulling my iPad out of my bag and doodling a cartoon of my own as I listened.
Because we should never forget, in the discussion about how oppressive offended people can be, that offense is not itself oppressive. Offense is simply the feeling of being bothered by something that seems to insult you, or someone you care about, or a principle that you hold dear. I’ve seen artists of many kinds– comedians, musicians, cartoonists, and others– react to criticism in really ugly ways. And it’s not entirely their fault, because we do live in a country, in a world, where offending the wrong people can be career-ending. Sometimes life-ending. But that isn’t the fault of the offended, generally. You cannot simultaneously say that cartoonists should be free to push boundaries (which I forever will maintain that they should), and also raise a fuss when people react to seeing those boundaries pushed. Nobody gets to be infallible. Everybody screws up sometimes.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Elbert Hubbard: “To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” I do not, however, interpret this quote to mean that we should resent criticism, avoid it, or ignore it. Rather, we should distinguish it from harassment, attacks, abuse, trolling, etc. which are not criticism, and once we have identified it as authentic and made in good faith, we should wrestle with it. Sit with it. Consider it. That’s how we become better artists, and better people.
And there is of course a corresponding obligation for critics, to make their critiques in good faith, exercise charity, and recognize that even legitimately offensive speech is not necessarily an occasion to go beyond criticism into advocacy for more punitive measures (or, in case it needs to be said, harassment and death threats).
Since I already blathered on at length about this subject in the previous post, I will cease blathering here and show you this shelf at the metropolitan library next to the vendor floor. See that book on the lowest shelf on the left, Drawn & Quarterly: Twenty-five Years of Contemporary Cartooning, Comics, and Graphic Novels? I must have that book. But no, in case you’re wondering, I did not grab it and run from the library. I have more self-restraint than that.
That Saturday evening of Day 3 was the final evening for many of us. We converged on Hotel LeVeque for a reception and the AAEC awards, much of which I covered in Part I. In addition to the CNRI awards, however, there were some other highly important honors. Before the awards began, I briefly got to meet Liza Donnelly, cartoonist for the New Yorker (okay, actually meet again because I’d met her earlier in the day along with talented David G. Brown and not realized it), and enthuse over a piece she’d written in 2017 for Medium entitled Editorial Cartooning, Then and Now, which was excellent and really should’ve been part of the “Legacy of Trump” discussion earlier in the day.
The Rex Babin Award for local cartooning was presented by Jack Ohman to Kal Kallaugher, with Nate Beeler as finalist. Nate was a previous winner of the Locher Award, which you may recall was this year given to Chelsea Saunders.
The Ink Bottle Award for outstanding service to the AAEC and to the profession generally, was given to the very deserving Ann Telnaes. Ann’s acceptance of the award was predicated on her being able to share it with Signe Wilkinson, who also contributed immensely to this year’s meeting organization. I love Signe’s work and very much regretted not being able to meet her this year– circumstances prevented her from being there to accept the award along with Ann.
Dr. Robert “Bro” Russell (seated) with (top) Pedro Molina, Terry Anderson, Ted Rall, Kal, Jake Thrasher, Matt Wuerker, and (bottom) Ritu Gairola Khanduri, Adewale Adenle, (I believe Robert’s wife, whose name I don’t know– sorry!) Ann Telnaes, and Zunar
AAEC president Kevin Siers showing off his vest signed by AAEC members.
As a new member I hung back for most of this ceremony, delighted and touched by the camaraderie but reluctant to insert myself. I gravitated to fellow new member the immensely talented Tamara Knoss, with whom I’d had dinner the previous evening, along with NC cartoonist Ross Gosse and “Mr. Fish” Dwayne Booth, who had unfortunately been compelled to head back to New York by this time.
The evening was not nearly over with the reception, however– from there we proceeded to the Columbus College of Art and Design’s Canzani Auditorium for the Save the Nib event!
I don’t know that any of us truly knew what we were in for with this event. Seated next to Cullum Rogers, with Ann Telnaes and J.P. “Jape” Trostle behind me, AAEC members and college students throughout the audience, we witnessed what turned out to be a sort of live-action play/testimonial/Powerpoint presentation/tribute/fundraiser/stand-up act/Q&A performed by Nib editor Matt Bors, deputy editor Eleri Harris, associate editor Matt Lubchansky, contributor Chelsea Saunders, contributor Jen Sorenson, contributor Rob Rogers, and contributor Dan “Tom Tomorrow” Perkins.
Matt Bors, Matt Lubchansky, and Eleri Harris first told us the history of The Nib, its rocky excursion as a publication, gaining and then losing funding, repeatedly, until the most recent upheaval when First Look Media bailed and The Nib became Matt Bors’s reader-funded project earlier this year. They talked about story arcs in their comics, their venture into animation, and the emergence of themes such as “Gotcha Guy” and depictions of Trump as a quasi-“Immortan Joe” character in their imagined apocalyptic wasteland scenario in both comics and animated cartoons.
Matt Bors talking as Eleri Harris and Matt Lubchansky listen.
If anything became clear in the course of this presentation it’s that The Nib has been WORK. Blood, sweat, tears, and long periods without health insurance for everyone involved. This was, and is, a labor of love– that much is more than obvious.
They were dedicated to keeping the mood of the presentation light, in spite of the dire stakes that came through in the retelling, but things authentically lightened up even more when we proceeded into Chelsea Saunders, Rob Rogers, Jen Sorensen, and Dan Perkins each in turn describing their personal histories in cartooning and literally narrating selections of their comics. Rob Rogers read and commented on the entire comic he did on being fired from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for criticizing Trump for The Nib, which I’m sure was exponentially more fun to rehash as a result of his cartoon artistry than it was to go through as an experience.
That’s what cartooning can do– frame an experience as a story, told by a storyteller, for an audience viewing and listening to the story as much as for the teller him or herself. That’s something that all cartoons have in common, fiction or non-fiction, “political” or otherwise.
That is, it turns out, the ultimate reason why I don’t think political cartooning will go away– we humans will never get tired of being told stories about politics, about the exertion of power by some people over other people, mocking the “jerks in power” and sticking up for the little guy, the underdog.
I can’t say I know the future of these underdog stories, and it would be hubris to claim otherwise. But I can say that I’m invested in the telling of these stories, and probably will be for the rest of my life. That’s why I joined the AAEC. If you’re a cartoonist with a passion for politics who happened to come across this post, considering joining up. Then we can see, and perhaps play our own role in determining, what the outcome of this story will be.
Jen Sorensen introduces herself and prepares to read some of her comics.
Q&A with Matt Lubchanksy, Eleri Harris, Chelsea Saunders (speaking), Jen Sorensen, Rob Rogers, Dan Perkins
After devoting myself to editorial cartooning at a rapidly increasing pace since the end of 2016, following the work of several cartoonists to the point of being able to identify a new cartoon’s artist without looking, and recording my reflections on the current state of the whole enterprise from an outsider’s perspective, I decided that maybe it was time to become an insider.
So in mid-August, anticipating the upcoming AAEC (Association of American Editorial Cartoonists) meeting in Columbus, Ohio, coinciding with CXC (Cartoons Crossroads Columbus), I submitted a membership application. Honestly, I didn’t know if it would be accepted considering that in spite of sending out the occasional pitch, I’m currently only published on my own site (this one), Patreon, and the various social media sites where I post my stuff.
But as it turns out, I was accepted. I would’ve attended the meeting even as a non-member, but it certainly helped to have membership established beforehand. It also helped tremendously that I received a job offer here in Wichita shortly before the trip, having spent several months unemployed. So I no longer had that hanging over my head and could make the trip with a lighter heart, although unfortunately with quite a light wallet as well.
I’ve attended multiple cons without knowing anyone very well beforehand, so in spite of my intense social anxiety, that part didn’t bother me so much. What bothered me was the possibility of not being heard– the chance that I might self-sabotage a very important networking opportunity, an opportunity for discussion, for being “with your own kind” in the way that people who attend cons much more frequently like to put it, by being too shy to meaningfully interact with anyone.
Turns out I needn’t have worried.
Being on the top (12th) floor of the Holiday Inn meant taking some extra time to get downstairs, but did also provide a nice view.
Although I didn’t actually interact with any cartoonists on the first day– and that was my fault. Since I had to be at the airport at about 3:30am for my 5:50am flight to Columbus from Wichita on the 26th, I’d opted to stay up the entire night beforehand, and so was basically running on fumes by the time of arrival at the Holiday Inn in downtown Columbus. As it happens, the designated locale for the first events that evening was also about a 30 minute walk away, and I had (to my knowledge) no other way to get there, so I sent regrets, did a little exploring of the area, and then went to bed.
(For a recap of what happened on Day 1 while I was wandering downtown Columbus in a daze/passed out, please see Mike “Comic Strip of the Day” Peterson’s take at this link.)
On Day 2 I was pleased to discover that the AAEC business meeting was being held close to my hotel, at the Columbus Metropolitan Library. I arrived at the meeting room on the second floor to find a gathering of cartoonists seated around a large U-shaped table, as if planning an international invasion, determining the fate of a captured prisoner, or discussing the fate of an organization dedicated to ensuring the future of political dissent in visual satire form. As it happens, only the latter turned out to be true.
Throughout the meeting, roughly 50% of my brain was devoted to thoughts along these lines: “Holy SHIT! Is that…..?” And yes, dear reader, it was. Here are some of the cartoonists I identified during that meeting:
Ann Telnaes – Pulitzer Prize winner and also one of the organizers of this conference. Co-curator of the “Front Lines” exhibit on freedom of speech and editorial cartooning in America at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum. She authored the mission statement we’d been handed at the beginning of the meeting.
Matt Wuerker – Pulitzer Prize winner (am I going to get tired of typing those words? Probably) and editor of the Front Lines book based on the exhibit.
Patrick Chappatte – Former cartoonist for the The International New York Times. He was fired when that institution decided to cancel syndicated cartoons in the aftermath of the uproar over an antisemitic cartoon drawn by another cartoonist altogether.
I’ll try to be circumspect since I’m not entirely sure how much of what was discussed should be considered private business, but I think it’s fair and permissible to say that the AAEC is going through a bit of an identity crisis. Because really, editorial cartooning itself is going through an identity crisis. In 2019 cartooning in general is proliferating, and not just because of the nostalgia angle (most of us adults today being former children who grew up both delightedly reading comics on the “funny pages” of the newspaper at the kitchen table, and then moving to the couch to watch animated cartoons on TV). Traditionally, however, editorial cartoons are associated with the editorial section of the newspaper, and print media generally is suffering. All too frequently it appears that the first, easiest place to cut financial corners is to can the editorial cartoonist.
This, at least, appears to have been the thought process behind New York Times editorial page editor James Bennett deciding to cancel syndicated political cartoons from the international edition of the paper, after receiving considerable criticism for publishing a cartoon deemed antisemitic (which you can view here). Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte, who is a member of the AAEC and attended this meeting, was dismissed in this process despite his total lack of association with the cartoon in question. Chappatte gave numerous interviews and presentations about this incident, including a TED talk entitled “A Free World Needs Satire” which you can view here.
I won’t go through the litany of political cartoonists in America who have been fired, laid off, or had syndications cancelled over the last few years, but rest assured, it is lengthy and significant. And yet, as was repeatedly acknowledged at the AAEC meeting, cartoonists in other places have it much worse. Read the stories of Turkish cartoonist Musa Kart, Nicaraguan cartoonist Pedro X. Molina, and Malaysian cartoonist Zunar for examples.
I’m getting ahead of myself here, but near the end of this trip I had the chance to speak with Terry Anderson, acting executive director of Cartoonists Rights Network International— an organization affiliated with AAEC for the last twenty years (and many other cartoonist organizations around the globe) that works to defend political cartoonists against retaliation by the governments of the countries where they live, and whom they criticize.
I’d been following CRNI passively previously, but was truly walloped by the impact of their mission on Saturday evening when, at the AAEC reception, it was announced that founder of CRNI Dr. Robert “Bro” Russell would be retiring, and their annual award for courage in cartooning renamed to the Robert Russell Courage in Cartooning Award. You can read more about that at CRNI’s site here, and/or watch the video for yourself:
Dr. Robert Russell’s comments:
Very people in this room have not contributed in some way and to some degree and at some time to helping some cartoonists in a number of places in the world. It has been my great pleasure to do this job. I never have a problem looking in the mirror and saying ‘What good are you?’ and ‘What have you done lately?’ I have developed, as I’ve said a number of times before at these events, such an incredible admiration for the work that you do– the unique, unbelievable work that cartoonists do.
And as I was fishing around for what to say– one of my favorite expressions came from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. When the union was falling to pieces, there was no hope left at all. It was only a matter of days before something happened somewhere, and at Sumter it finally did. . . he appealed that the better angels of your nature. And while there are millions of Americans and billions of people all over the world who are these better angels, there are no better angels than those people in this room, and the fellows that we work with across the world, who approach life with a sense of righteous indignation, but how could I make that a little bit funny? [laughter: ‘You just did!’]
So I just want to thank you for being there. That I could work with so many of these better angels. And I will never forget you– I’m still around. . . [here he thanks several people, including his wife, and Kevin “Kal” Kallaugher, who was a past president at CNRI]. I just want to leave you with that– that you are magical people.
And even though you really need to leave this goddamn coalmine– it’s time for you to bail out of the coalmine, all of you canaries. Because your days are numbered. I wish you all of the best on developing and finding new models and new ways to survive. Who was it who said that the universe bends towards justice? Martin Luther King, but someone else may have said it as well. And I do hope that the universe bends a little bit towards justice, and you all will be rewarded as I have been. So thank you all.
The first recipient of the newly-named Robert Russell Courage in Cartooning Award was announced on October 2– Chinese cartoonist and dissident Badiucao. Here’s Terry Anderson’s comment:
Badiucao is an exemplary cartoonist of courage. He was specifically targeted by a censorious regime — in person, online and, most disturbingly of all, via pressure applied to family members — but has persevered and removed the leverage his adversaries thought they could exploit by actively dismantling the anonymity they assumed he cherished most.
Thankfully Badiucao is an Australian resident and so cannot be abused as readily as some other cartoonists seized by China in recent years, most notably Jiang Yefei and Zhang Dongning, both of whom have been arrested, criminalised and essentially disappeared. However he is not immune and believes he has been followed, hacked and even had his home invaded by agents of the state. As China celebrates the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic it’s worth contemplating how far they have come in terms of economic development and international relations, weighed against the minimal progress made on fundamental and individual freedoms.
Reporters Sans Frontieres places China 177th of 180 nations on its Press Freedom Index. Committee to Protect Journalists places it 5th in its Top 10 Most Censored Countries. It is ironic that so many modern Chinese citizens enjoy the trappings of middle-class life — abundant consumer goods, lavish weddings, pampered pets and much foreign travel — while they are denied the simple act of expressing dissatisfaction with their government. China is mighty. It has nothing to lose and everything to gain by loosening its grip on discourse.
Badiucao has seen his cartoons removed from Instagram for supposedly violating community guidelines, and tweeted on the irony of this happening while death threats against him, also made on Instagram, had not been removed in spite of his reporting them.
So now it’s time to talk about freedom of expression and social media. You’ve got time for a little tangent on this, don’t you? Of course you do.
Social media companies– Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and so on– are privately owned. They are not, despite the complaints of conservatives in America who have found themselves banned from such platforms, public utilities. And yes, in America it’s generally the conservatives (Alex Jones, Milo Yiannoppulos, etc.) we hear trying to make this argument, not in the slightest dissuaded by the clarity of First Amendment case law.
I would strongly recommend Ken “Popehat” White’s episode of his Make No Law podcast “Deplatformed: Social Media Censorship and the First Amendment” for an informative, authoritative discussion of this subject. I’ll give you a quick spoiler: moderation of content on social media by the companies who own those platforms is not a violation of anyone’s First Amendment rights.
HOWEVER (you knew a “however” was coming)…the subject is not that cut and dry, for several reasons.
Governments, such as the government of Pakistan recently, have been known to try pressuring private platforms to remove content that isn’t protected under the laws of their respective countries. Cartoonist Clay Jones experienced this when Pakistan demanded that WordPress remove one of his cartoons judged to be “blasphemous,” and leader of the South Asian Free Media Association Imtiaz Alam was threatened for tweeting a cartoon by Afghani artist Atiq Shahid mocking Saudi Arabia’s prince Muhammad bin Salman. Shahid also reported that he’d been suspended from Facebook (more information available on this at the above link).
While their right to moderate content is not in dispute (at least, not by me), social media sites tend to do so much in the way of your 4th grade teacher when a fight breaks out– they don’t care who started it or who is right and who is wrong; all they want to do is make things settle down. They operate by a heckler’s veto standard– whatever and whomever get the most complaints (or, in some cases, complaints from the most powerful and influential people) will be removed, regardless of the reasoning behind those complaints.
Sloppy algorithms also result in content intended to criticize hatred and bigotry getting removed along with actual hatred and bigotry, because the algorithm can’t distinguish between them. As you might expect, this is a particular problem for cartoonists because we rely on symbols as visual shorthand, and it’s often necessary to depict those symbols in order to say something about them. Obviously not all depictions of a thing are endorsement of that thing, but if your algorithm says “Person in a pointy white hood means racism, and racism is bad, so any depiction of a person in a pointy white hood is bad,” then say goodbye to any cartoons attacking racism by showing a guy in a pointy white hood.
And of course operating by a heckler’s veto standard enables the haters and bigots to be extremely effective hecklers, getting people and posts removed and videos on Youtube demonetized or taken off the site altogether. Sometimes an appeal by the content creator can get their work reinstated, but when your livelihood is literally dependent on links and shares, that’s not good enough.
Here is where, of course, I would expect a reader to say “Well, don’t make your livelihood on social media then.” To such a reader I would say– did you read the part above about how print media is dying, and cartoonists (being frequently the ones who get the most grief in response to their content, which is after all designed to provoke), are generally the first to be let go? If political cartoons are too controversial for print media, and also too controversial for social media, then where exactly is the cartoonist supposed to go?
Removal of content and cartoonists from social media may not be a violation of their right to freedom of expression, but it is censorship. It is silencing. It is suppression. Therefore it is important, and a threat that goes well beyond the individual artist’s funding. Open dissent is critical to the preservation of a democracy regardless of whether its platform is public or private.
To return, finally, to the AAEC meeting– see? I do have a link-up– after a hearty discussion on how to clearly establish the AAEC as an advocacy rather than just professional organization, whether to change its name and many possible suggestions about what to change it to, and how to attract new, younger, diverse membership to this gathering of “old white guys,” (hey, they said it, not me!) on Day 2, I found myself talking Jen Sorensen’s ear off about how frustrating it is to see the language of “triggering” and “safe spaces” used when talking about these subjects. Because like it or not, that’s the terminology used by someone who interprets criticism as censorship and whines in his next Netflix special, New York Times column, or best-selling book about how the humorless offended mobs have ruined his career.
The “humorless offended mobs” are not the problem. Sometimes they’re offended for a good reason– offense is not all created equal. And a “mob” in this context is simply a critical mass of people talking about the same thing. If we blame humorless offended mobs for cartoonists losing their jobs, then we are exculpating the people who are actually responsible (namely, the editors and other parties who did the firing), and tacitly suggesting that no one should speak up when they find a cartoon offensive, even legitimately, because then it would be their fault if the artist loses his or her job.
And this is a slightly more contentious subject, but I argued that even when offense is legitimate, anyone whose job is to issue statements on a daily basis, such as a political cartoonist, should be judged by their body of work rather than by what they produced on one specific day. I actually agree with disgraced former SNL actor Shane Gillis that we all occasionally have “comedic misfires,” and that the appropriate reaction to such is forgiveness and understanding. Where we differ is in his apparent belief that repeated racist and homophobic jokes over a lengthy period constitute “comedic misfires.”
I didn’t even argue that cartoonist Mike Lester of Counterpoint should be “fired” for this cartoon, published in edition 24 of the cartoon newsletter on August 22. I absolutely complained about it, though, noting that in 2015 Robert Lewis Dear killed three people and injured nine at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, specifically citing their alleged agenda of performing abortions in order to profit from selling fetal organs. Counterpoint was founded with the mission of providing subscribers with cartoons expressing “strong opinions from the Left and the Right,” and promising that “One thing we never do is play it safe.” However, for any political issue there are generally far more than two sides, and often the most dangerous thing a cartoon can express is the truth.
Provocative lies are easy. Dangerous truths are hard. The two should never be confused. And no, in case you’re wondering, I am not proposing myself as the ultimate arbiter of which is which– just asserting, forcefully, that it is the eternal right of the cartoon-consuming public to make that determination for ourselves. And even if in America political cartoonists enjoy the relative luxury of being able to express themselves without government censure, we experience the same chilling effect as print journalists when the president declares that “the media” is the enemy of the people and suggests that the “liable [sic] laws” should be re-examined for the purpose of more effectively punishing purveyors of “fake news.”
Photo credit: Mike Peterson
After the business meeting some of the cartoonists filed outside to participate in the “Chalk Slam” event sponsored by AAEC in conjunction with the Columbus Metropolitan Club, with a theme of “freedom of expression” for AAEC members. I found a spot on the sidewalk next to Ann Telnaes, currently absorbed in creating one of her trademark depictions of Trump. Jack Ohman was seated next to her providing entertainment and critical commentary.
In the afternoon we were treated to a screening of the documentary Mr. Fish: Cartooning from the Deep End, which really drove home for me how in spite of the “Intellectual Dark Web” and its fans and hangers-on making money hand over fist by claiming to distribute dangerous truths when they’re really just repeating stale conservative talking points, the actual dangerous truths are still…well, dangerous to tell. In it, Dwayne Booth (Mr. Fish) expressed frustration at how “sports team” partisanship in politics drives backlash against his work that criticizes corruption, warmongering, and bigotry regardless of the affiliation of the guilty party. His cartoons are frequently graphic because the violence of an authoritarian state is graphic, and he mocks the hypocrisy of the agents of that violence clutching their pearls over artistic depictions of tragic circumstances of their own making.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the result of doing this work has not been a life of unqualified appreciation and financial success for Booth. You cannot derive from this that the only tellers of truly dangerous truths are the ones visibly struggling, but at the very least it should drive some abiding and healthy skepticism of the persecution narratives told by those rolling in dough. The backlash against Booth’s work doesn’t make him right– it does, however, show that saying the right thing or the wrong thing can earn you a backlash, so the determination of right or wrong cannot depend on the reaction, on the number of people outraged or delighted, or the degree of their fervor in either direction. You have to think beyond that.
The other thing that Cartooning from the Deep End reiterated for me is that “cheap offense” is the other side of “cheap laugh” coin. It’s really not difficult to offend people, just as it’s really not difficult to make people laugh. That’s why satirists of all kinds who lazily rely on hackneyed bigoted tropes will always outnumber those who strive to say something revealing and thought-provoking. As author John Scalzi famously noted, the failure mode of “clever” is “asshole.”
After the movie screening we filed over to the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum, which was hosting an exhibit titled “Front Line: Editorial Cartoonists and the First Amendment” curated by Ann Telnaes and Lucy Shelton Caswell (Professor Emerita and Founding Curator at the Billy Ireland museum). Lucy conducted a tour for the AAEC cartoonists, describing the history of the rocky relationship between editorial cartoonists and the governing bodies that were their job to pillory.
Let me repeat that– it’s the job of editorial cartoonists to mock, satirize, ruthlessly parody, and otherwise ridicule powerful people. Barry Deutsch, political cartoonist and sometimes mentor to me, says on his Patreon page:
I’m pissed off. I’m pissed off about so many things– about homophobia, about sexism, about racism, about transphobia…the list goes on and on. And when I get pissed off, I draw political cartoons.
Dwayne “Mr. Fish” Booth told the audience at his film screening:
I start with outrage and then I render what that outrage looks like.
And then the election happened, and I found myself furious. I went through the stages of grief, hit “anger,” and held onto that one while proceeding through the rest. I wanted to find a productive way to express that anger, and to play out the conversations that were going on in my head in case they resonated with anybody else.
So of necessity, the history of political cartooning in America– really, anywhere– is a history of artists speaking truth to power in cartoon form because injustice pisses a political cartoonist off, and the cartoon is their counter-argument. Their counterpoint, if you will. In retrospect, I realize that this is why Dr. Robert Russell called us canaries in a coalmine. This is why he called us magical people, filled with righteous indignation.
Phew. That’s some heady stuff, isn’t it? With great magic comes great responsibility, after all.
Responsibility carried faithfully by The Nib over the years, for which editor Matt Bors was recognized at a reception in the museum following our tour. The CXC gave him the Transformative Work Award, and Nib contributor Chelsea Saunders received the AAEC’s Locher Award for outstanding young cartoonists. I briefly met Bors and Matt Lubchansky at the reception and asked what was obviously the most important question of the evening– whether Bors had been forced to give up the Ignatz Award brick given to The Nib in mid-September for outstanding achievements in cartooning by small press creators. Bors had tweeted that he was challenged about it at the airport (which does kind of make sense– it’s a brick, after all) and not allowed to bring it with him onto the plane. Fortunately, as he told me at the reception, he was allowed to stow it in his checked bag, so the prestigious award was not, in fact, forcibly abandoned.
On Day 3 I rushed back to the Metropolitan Museum in the morning to complete my Chalk Slam drawing on the sidewalk, only to discover that the rain overnight had caused everything to fade considerably. It was poor planning on my part all around– I’d intended to contribute to the free speech-themed AAEC collection by drawing my friend, comedian Keith Lowell Jensen, accompanied by text from one of his performances:
In junior high I took band. The teacher was upset when I wouldn’t say the pledge of allegiance. He made a heartfelt speech about his visit to East Germany (which used to be a thing) and how sad and oppressive it was on that side of the wall, how they lacked the freedoms that I took for granted. I asked him “On what side of that wall do you think they’re more likely to force children to pledge their allegiance?” And that is the story of why I don’t know how to play the clarinet.
If you’ve done any sort of chalk drawing recently, you will immediate grasp the flaw in my plan– however hilariously apt for the occasion, that message is way too long. I managed to draw Keith and write the first part of the quote on the first day, but on the second day erased the text and replaced it with a much simpler (but hopefully still worthy) message. My apologies, Keith!
Inside the library, the AAEC meeting that morning began with nominations for office within the organization, which was followed by presentations by Middle Eastern cartoonists invited to the meeting. Unfortunately I had to duck out of the room early, as these presentations were just beginning, because I was scheduled to be among the first group to man the AAEC tables at the CXC vendor floor, but again I will link you to the CSOTD blog where you can read about these visiting cartoonists and see some of their work.
I’d never been to a comic con of any kind before, so the vendor floor of CXC took me by surprise– it seemed huge. I didn’t have anything to sell, but at the last minute managed to get some prints of four of my cartoons and brought them along with me to give away. Seated on my left was Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press, expertly inking a cartoon at the table, and on my right was Nancy Ohanion, selling prints of her beautiful “cut paper” style caricatures. Since I’d been silent during the business meeting on Day 2 and absent for much of it on Day 3, I took this opportunity to seek out Kevin Siers and give some suggestions on how the AAEC should find new, younger members. Those fell under three general categories:
Photo credit: JP Trostle
Feedback and discussion: Starting out as a cartoonist is rough. All you have to go on are what you’ve seen from existing cartoonists, and it isn’t always obvious why they made the choices they made, and whether/when you should emulate them or try to strike a new path. So I suggested some kind of internal feedback mechanism on the new (sometime in the next couple of weeks) AAEC website, enabling cartoonists to comment on each other’s work and also see the existing comments for that work, allowing for a discussion. Kevin broached the idea of a private Facebook group for AAEC members instead or in addition to the commenting mechanism, which I enthusiastically supported. Community in some form or another is absolutely essential.
Publication: Given the state of print media, but also given the subject matter that young political cartoonists want to comment on, there is no real expectation of someday becoming a newspaper editorial cartoonist. To interest new members, the AAEC should suggest career paths outside of traditional print media. This is an excellent opportunity to name and praise alternative print and online media sources who do solicit and publish political cartoons.
Experimentation: Perhaps the AAEC could even create its own publication, similar to how comedians have certain clubs where they try out their new bits, and feel comfortable pushing the boundaries a little. For cartoonists, this would be a site where they’d have the freedom to be edgy, try out cartoons that mainstream publishers might not want to risk taking responsibility for themselves, but could view a cartoonist’s existing portfolio, both the stuff in the edgy category and otherwise, to have something to go on when considering whether to work with that cartoonist on future projects. I mentioned that as a blogger it can be difficult to pull people to your site on a regular basis, but group blogs with multiple bloggers tend to be much more successful in that regard, and an informal “alternative” group cartoonists blog might be something with considerable appeal.
I spent so long at the AAEC tables that I missed Kevin “Kal” Kallaugher’s presentation, which was disappointing because over the last couple of years I’ve fallen in love with his use of dimension and detail to create wild farcical scenes that make complete sense according to their own logic. Looking at a Kallaugher cartoon is like falling down the rabbit hole into an Alice in Wonderland scene where people have huge heads and expressive faces that look like they’re carved out of wood, and you might find yourself witnessing a court proceeding, assembly line, or pirate ship battle that analogizes real life but is equally a product of Kal’s ever-fertile imagination. Fortunately I did manage to speak with Kal later on at the AAEC reception (the one described completely non-chronologically at the beginning of this post).
There was, however, time to both peruse the CXC vendor tables and attend other presentations, so I made a beeline to Nate Powell’s panel discussion after hearing Kevin Siers recommend his three book series March, documenting the civil rights advocacy of Rep. John Lewis. Powell illustrated the graphic novels, and the writing was done by Lewis himself as well as Andrew Aydin.
Wandering around the vendor floor, I also came across a table with a familiar book– Monkey Chef, written and illustrated by Mike Freiheit. I remembered Freiheit from a comic on Steven Pinker that he illustrated for Current Affairs last year. At that time I remember adding Monkey Chef to my list, but wasn’t flush with cash so didn’t buy it. This time I wasn’t any better off, but buying the book in person gave me the chance to talk with Freiheit a bit as he doodled a charming drawing of a monkey in the front pages of the book for me. The Pinker comic was authored by Lyta Gold, and Mike commented that he actually wasn’t very familiar with Pinker, so I tried to offer a brief summary of how Pinker had been an intellectual hero of mine some years ago, but unfortunately he suffered from that tendency of American public intellectuals to hold forth on issues well beyond his actual area of expertise, which as it happens was the subject of the comic that Mike had illustrated (If I’d read Anand Giridharadas’s book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, I might’ve been able to offer an even better take, but again– on the list).
I feel the need to emphasize, though, that Mike and Lyta’s cartoon about Steven Pinker was also a political cartoon. Just as Nate Powell’s illustrations of John Lewis throughout the three-book March series were, in a sense, political cartoons. In my previous blog post about the state of modern political cartooning, I quoted Signe Wilkinson’s lovely definition of editorial cartoons as “making funny pictures about the jerks in power.” The “jerks in power” are never just the people occupying the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. They’re also Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, and Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein, and the Koch brothers, and all of the people who receive funding from those oligarchs for various reasons….such as Steven Pinker. I think that if editorial cartooning is to survive, it’s critical to acknowledge that.
So I’ve been binge-watching the show iZombie on Netflix recently. It’s a supernatural legal drama type show in which zombies exist, and the protagonist has been turned into one against her will. She’s not your typical mindless shambler, however, and actually is pretty much a normal human, apart from the incessant need to consume human brains, a penchant for spicy food, and her pallid appearance.
As a human, Liv was a doctor, which is beneficial to her in finding a way to continue existing as a zombie without murdering anyone, because she’s able to find a new “life” working in the morgue. There she can feast on the brains of the already-dead, and in doing so discovers that she experiences “flashbacks” of memories from the deceased, and also takes on some of their personality attributes.
Yesterday I got to an episode in which Liv does something that grievously upsets her romantic partner (also a zombie), and she “blames the brain”– she attributes her actions to the character remnants of the brain’s previous owner. Suddenly I was reminded of my dissertation, which examined how the concept of the soul works in moral psychology. I loosely defined the “soul” as an immaterial essence of a person which is the locus of moral responsibility, and spent some time discussing how intuitions about spirit possession work– “spirit possession” being (again, loosely) defined as any time someone’s soul is wholly or partially transferred to a different body.
So to my eyes, the effects of eating a human brain on iZombie appeared to be similar to the imagined effects of being possessed by a spirit. I decided to pull up my dissertation and revisit the discussion on spirit possession. The remainder of this post will be that excerpt.
—
Once we have acquired the ability to recognize others as having an identity which is separate and distinct from our own, we can begin to practice true cognitive empathy, imaginatively projecting characteristics of that person’s mind based on both our simulation of what we imagine they think and feel as well as our accumulated knowledge—our “theory”—of how other minds work. That being the case, I think it is important to consider for a moment how this projection works when it comes to separating a person from their body.
Possession—the occupation by one person of another person’s body—is a familiar concept to most people. The film Freaky Friday told the story of a mother and daughter swapping bodies and trying desperately to play it off so that no one would realize. In the television show Quantum Leap, main character Sam Beckett leaps through time to land in the bodies of random people, faced with the task of solving some problem in their lives. In Being John Malkovich, a nerdy puppeteer discovers a portal that leads directly into the mind of the famed actor, allowing him to take over Malkovich’s body and change his career. The term for this storytelling device when used in television and film is “body swap” and it is an easy concept for the viewer to grasp.
We can accept what has happened and move on with the plot without stopping to think “Wait a minute, so which traits of the original character will now be displayed in this other body?” We can easily understand what is happening when, in the 2003 version of Freaky Friday, the mother’s character (who now occupies the body of her teenage daughter) suddenly realizes that she can eat French fries with impunity despite having denied herself the pleasure before, since her daughter’s teenage body can metabolize them much faster and won’t put on weight like her mother’s body would.
Anthropologist Emma Cohen (now Emma Hathaway) has been investigating folk concepts of spirit possession from a cognitive standpoint, in order to find out where inferences about theory of mind come in when we think about people switching bodies. In order to do so, she traveled to the city of Belém in northern Brazil to study a community of Afro- Brazilian (culto afro) cultists whose rituals involve trance and possession. In these rituals, the mediums would become possessed by one of the orixás, or personal spirits, for a temporary period. Mediums are capable of channeling different orixás for different purposes.
Cohen was particularly interested in finding out if, during this period, the observers and the mediums themselves perceived the medium’s agency to be displaced by the possessing spirit, or if rather there is some fusion of the two which takes place. Cohen spoke to the pai de santo (the leader of the worship community where she was staying), who told her that when the spirit possesses a medium, it merges with the essence of that medium. This would explain why the same spirit could possess different people with differing results each time, as well as that if Cohen spoke to the spirit Ogum while he possessed person A, and then again the next day when he possessed person B, Ogum might not remember some of the things she had discussed with him.
When Cohen spoke with other mediums, however, who had been exposed to much less of the culto afro teachings than the pai-de- santo, the depiction of possession was notably different. Cohen reports that “a senior member clearly described possession as the joining of the body of the medium with the spirit of the entity. These two parts, he claimed, make up the new (possessed) person. Another senior ranking member described possession as the moment in which one’s own spirit withdraws ‘and another spirit comes and throws him/herself into your body.’ Drawing a clear demarcation between medium and spirit, another member describes her possession episodes as follows: ‘I don’t know where my spirit goes. I don’t know. I only know that I switch off. I don’t remain in me.’ Another person stated, ‘Possession for me is a state of unconsciousness… in which we are not answerable for our actions, our bodily movements …we don’t have control of our bodies anymore. It’s the total loss of control of the body and the mind. Something else controls – it is the spiritual being.’”
If you were unaware that a person was currently possessed, Cohen notes, and addressed them by the person’s name rather than the name of the entity possessing them, the person would say “I am not [person’s name]; I am [entity’s name].” Mediums spoke of their spirits lying down or dreaming while possessed, allowing the possessing spirit to take control and dominate them. This would seem to indicate that when speaking non-reflectively, the mediums viewed possession strictly as a matter their spirit being displaced, even if the more “theologically correct” version of the event said differently. After describing this, Cohen notes an intriguing aspect of possession as displacement from anthropologist Erika Bourguignon: “When the spirits take over, women can do unconsciously what they do not permit themselves to do consciously. The demands that are made, the orders that are given, are those of the spirits’ doings and sayings. They are neither responsible for nor aware of what is going on and do not remember it after the fact. They have ultimate deniability.”
Cohen and Barrett then decided to examine beliefs about minds and bodies in a community which does not (presumably) practice rituals involving possession—undergraduate university students in Northern Ireland. They wanted to find out if there was a strong inclination either way concerning which aspects of a person are subverted when possessed and which are not. The participants read ten different scenarios about two characters, Ann and Beth, in which hypothetical mind-switching takes place. One example: “Ann is very good at maths. She regularly gets excellent marks on 7-point quizzes – usually around 6 out of 7 of her answers are correct. Beth is very poor at maths. She regularly gets poor marks on 7-point quizzes – usually around 2 out of 7 of her answers are correct. Once when the girls were in maths class, somehow Beth’s mind went into Ann’s body. How well do you think that the girl will do in the maths test?” Each scenario included typical Ann behaviors and typical Beth behaviors, as in this example. Subjects could then give their answer to each question on a seven point scale.
What Cohen and Barrett found from this experiment appears consistent with what initiate mediums in the afro culto told Cohen about being possessed. They treated possession as a kind of displacement when talking about behaviors with a strong mental component (such as doing well on a math test). When asked about behaviors with a strong physical or biological component, such as seeing with precision, respondents were much less likely to treat that behavior as being subverted in the possessee by the possessor. “These results suggest a tentative conclusion,” reported Cohen and Barrett. “ Northern Irish young adults tend to spontaneously infer that when one person’s mind is transferred into another person’s body, the normal ‘host’ mind is displaced. Displacement was spontaneously inferred significantly more frequently than fusion, even though both options were equally available as valid responses. This suggests that participants’ responses were guided by a tacit one mind-one body principle.”
The reason for this, Cohen and Barrett went on to suggest, may be that dualism truly is intuitive and therefore children come to understand a principle that only one mind is responsible for the behaviors exhibited by one body. This might explain why displacement theories are advocated even by people who have been given authoritative teachings to the contrary.
The other thing that Cartooning from the Deep End reiterated for me is that “cheap offense” is the other side of “cheap laugh” coin. It’s really not difficult to offend people, just as it’s really not difficult to make people laugh. That’s why satirists of all kinds who lazily rely on hackneyed bigoted tropes will always outnumber those who strive to say something revealing and thought-provoking. As author John Scalzi 
