Summary of One Thing: Does ICE Know Who You Are?

Overview of One Thing: Does ICE Know Who You Are?

This episode of CNN’s One Thing (hosted by David Rind) examines claims that U.S. immigration agents are increasingly using facial recognition and other biometric tools in public to identify people — including U.S. citizens — and explores the privacy, legal, and policy implications. The episode centers on a firsthand account from a Minneapolis-area “ICE watcher,” reporting by CNN, and analysis from national security expert Juliette Kayyem.

Episode highlights / narrative summary

• Nicole Cleland, a legal observer in Richfield, Minnesota, describes being stopped by a Border Patrol agent who told her he was using facial recognition and that he knew her name. He warned her not to “follow” agents and threatened arrest if he saw her again.
• Days later Nicole received a notice that her Global Entry/PreCheck status had been revoked without explanation. She believes the revocation was linked to the encounter.
• Nicole changed how she uses technology (removing biometric unlocks, using PINs, changing names on encrypted messaging apps, tightening social media settings) and expresses fear and vulnerability about being tracked.
• CNN asked DHS/CBP about the incident; CBP said body-worn cameras are not equipped with facial comparison technology. DHS defended lawful use of biometric tools and cited privacy oversight, but provided limited detail.
• CNN interviewed Juliette Kayyem (former DHS assistant secretary). She explained the scope and evolution of biometric tech, raised concerns about mass deployment without public notice, highlighted accuracy issues and racial bias, and pointed to the merging of government and private-sector datasets.
• The episode connects the technology debate to broader congressional fights over ICE reforms (a package of proposed changes includes warrants for certain actions, body-camera standards, prohibition on databases targeting First Amendment activity, agent identification, limits on masking, and use-of-force standards).
• The show closes by noting ongoing public and legal pushback and asking whether reforms will address sweeping biometric use.

Key takeaways

• ICE and related agencies are reportedly using mobile facial-recognition/biometric tools in the field to identify people, not just in airports or other venues where people expect surveillance.
• This use appears to be expanding in scope because of larger datasets, AI capabilities, and data sharing across agencies and private-sector vendors.
• There is limited transparency about what tools are being used, what privacy rules apply, how long data are retained, and with whom data are shared.
• Biometric technology still produces false positives, disproportionately affecting some groups (notably people with darker skin tones).
• Individuals targeted or identified may face real consequences (e.g., revoked travel benefits, detention), but legal remedies are limited unless a clear, erroneous detention or other harm occurs.
• Proposed congressional reforms overlap with common police reform measures, but lawmakers must also consider data collection, storage, and use.

Technology explained (what the episode covers)

• Biometrics by picture: facial recognition compares a captured image to databases to identify individuals; this complements other biometrics like fingerprints.
• Mobile apps: reporting highlights a tool (described in reporting as “Mobile Fortify”) documented by 404 Media that can pull biographical information from multiple sources and run comparisons on individuals regardless of citizenship.
• Deployment methods: identification can be performed by direct scans (more accurate) or by technologies that capture images at a distance (e.g., drone-based systems), though accuracy drops with indirect data.
• Data fusion: concerns focus on the blending of government databases with private-sector collections and international data-sharing, creating expansive profiles.

Notable quotes

• From the chief federal judge in Minnesota: “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
• Nicole Cleland: “I feel extremely vulnerable…there is this aspect of like, just how deep can they go? How broad is their ability to, like, just mess with you?”
• Juliette Kayyem: “What’s new is the scope… and the use of this technology in a sweeping way without notice to the population.”

Legal, policy, and oversight issues raised

• Transparency and consent: Many people have not consented to being biometrically scanned in public the way they implicitly consent when entering stadiums or airports.
• Privacy protections: DHS claims legal authorities and privacy oversight govern use, but those rules aren’t publicly detailed in the episode and critics question how well they protect data.
• Data sharing and vendors: Private companies may hold or aggregate data that government agencies consume; inadequate rules could lead to resale, foreign access, or misuse.
• Remedies and standards: Current legal recourse is limited; meaningful change likely requires clearer rules of engagement, judicial standards, independent oversight, and/or Congressional action.

Proposed/ongoing reforms discussed

Democratic demands in Congress (summarized in the episode) include:

• Judicial warrants for certain biometrics-based actions
• Body camera standards that prohibit building databases of people exercising First Amendment activities
• Requiring ICE agents to be identified
• Restricting mask-wearing for agents (with limited exceptions)
• Strengthening use-of-force limits The episode suggests these reforms would be broadly common-sense in policing, but oversight and enforcement remain central concerns.

Practical advice offered in the episode (what people did)

• Remove face or fingerprint unlocks; use strong PINs.
• Tighten privacy settings on phones and social media.
• Limit use of real names or identifying handles in public encrypted forums.
• Be aware that even seemingly private or encrypted apps may not protect against biometric identification tied to public photos or databases.

Questions the episode leaves open / what to watch next

• What specific privacy rules and retention limits govern ICE’s biometric tools, and will DHS make them public?
• Will Congress include biometric use and data-sharing restrictions in any DHS/ICE funding or reform bill?
• How will courts rule on cases alleging unlawful biometric surveillance or improper detentions?
• Will agencies adopt standardized oversight, third-party audits, or limitations on vendor data access?

Bottom line

The episode frames a growing concern: biometric identification is moving out of expected contexts (airports, ticketed venues) into everyday public spaces with limited transparency. That creates real privacy risks and potential civil-liberty harms. The controversy centers less on whether the technology exists and more on how broadly it’s being deployed, who’s accountable, and what rules will protect everyday people from mistaken identification or punitive consequences.