A San Francisco International Airport contract for facial recognition technology that sends data to Customs and Border Protection violates local sanctuary city policies, advocates said at an Airport Commission meeting Tuesday.
Edward Hasbrouck, a consultant to the Identity Project, a human rights organization focused on freedom of movement, said documents he obtained through a public-records request show SFO agreed to pay $2 million a year starting in late 2024 to operate a facial recognition system. The manufacturer, SITA Information Networking Computing USA Inc., exports the data it collects to federal immigration authorities assisting in detention and deportation of immigrants, according to the contract.
The document details the capabilities of the company’s Facepod device, stationed at departure gates in terminals 1 and 2, and International Terminal B. Hasbrouck underscored that data shared with Customs and Border Protection can trigger alerts to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Douglas Yakel, an airport spokesperson, said in an interview that the airport itself does not collect or share passenger information, adding, “We don’t own facial recognition technology.” Asked in an email to clarify whether contractors themselves owned the devices, Yakel did not reply in time for publication.
Criticism of the airport’s practices come at a time when rules governing surveillance technology use across city government have come under scrutiny and regulations are being rolled back. An ordinance proposed and passed last month by the Board of Supervisors reduced oversight of several departments, including the airport.
Information about passengers’ identities and itineraries are routinely shared with the government through private companies. For instance, federal law requires airlines to submit traveler data to the Transportation Security Administration. “Airports don’t have the authority to decide what type of federal agency activity occurs within our airport,” Yakel said.
The airport signed the contract with SITA on Dec. 3, 2024, and it is currently in force through June 2029. On June 11, 2026, the commission voted to extend the contract, increasing the company’s compensation to about $9.8 million over three years. The contract requires the company to provide “technology to perform facial image capture and facilitate transmission to the CBP.”
More than 45 people organized by activist group Indivisible San Francisco submitted live or written public comment to the commission.
First to the podium was Edward Hasbrouck. He urged the commission to be more transparent about its cooperation with federal authorities and explain publicly how it complies with San Francisco’s Sanctuary City Ordinance, a local law prohibiting the use of city funds to assist in immigration enforcement. At a minimum, he said, the agency should post signs alerting travelers about sharing information with ICE.
Hasbrouck argued that the city should more aggressively push back on the Department of Homeland Security, whose legal authority over airports has not clearly been determined.
“It’s a gray area because no airport operator has chosen to push back and challenge it in court and find out what the courts would say,” he said. “We’re saying San Francisco should be willing, especially if nobody else is going to do it, to be the one to take the DHS to court and say, we want to control where you can go, and not allow them to run wild in the domestic terminal.”
In anticipation of criticism in public comment, airport leadership preempted the statements of Hasbrouck and others, specifically acknowledging their ability to display signs warning travelers of data sharing with ICE and possible enforcement actions that might result. Airport director Mike Nakornkhet said the commission was considering options to provide people with travel privacy information.
