[HN Gopher] Senators say TSA's facial recognition program is out...
___________________________________________________________________
Senators say TSA's facial recognition program is out of control
Author : pseudolus
Score : 120 points
Date : 2024-11-24 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I was shocked to see this program arrive in my local airport. I
| opt out every time, but the horrifying thing is that almost
| everyone simply complies with whatever is asked of them. The TSA
| agents use phrasing that make it seem like you are supposed to go
| through the facial recognition process and don't have a choice.
| Yes, there are tiny signs scattered around that say you can opt
| out. But when the officer says "step in front of the camera",
| most people comply with what seems like orders from a legal
| authority.
| bananapub wrote:
| _Americans_ can opt out.
| kareemm wrote:
| Nope - Canadian here, opted out in Austin.
| monksy wrote:
| You're talking about the border exit. We're talking about
| security after checkin.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| People just want to get through an incredibly annoying
| experience as fast as possible, and they know the people behind
| them want this too. Doesn't excuse the bullshit, but it's much
| less of a dramatic "sheep bowing to authority" than made out to
| be here.
| BadHumans wrote:
| This is it. I don't think I've opted out of it. I know I can
| but I know the agent is going to make a big deal of it and
| the line is already long for everyone behind me so whatever
| lets just get through it.
| jkestner wrote:
| Nah. In my experience when you opt out, they say "Okay,"
| scan your ID the same way they've been doing for 20 years,
| and you get through in the same time.
|
| If they want to entice us with convenience, the facial
| recognition should allow you to just stroll through without
| talking to anyone.
| BadHumans wrote:
| I'll do it next time I'm flying to see what happens.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Generally speaking you present ID to pass through security.
|
| The facial recognition is based on the biometric data collected
| when you got your ID, the ID you presented to pass through
| security. The ID with your name, address, date of birth, and
| uniquely identifying number on it. The ID which is associated
| with your boarding pass. The ID they scan (or they scan the
| boarding pass which is associated with your ID) prior to
| letting you through security.
|
| Using facial recognition changes nothing, absolutely nothing,
| except that it reduces the amount of time spent at the
| checkpoint.
|
| It does not grant anyone access to any information they do not
| already have.
|
| It does not impede the traveler in any way.
|
| It does not change, at all, any aspect of one's privacy
| whatsoever.
|
| "But I don't wanna..." doesn't seem like a defensible position.
| goalieca wrote:
| Maybe I'm old school but I despise the idea of the government
| tracking me as I travel. Time and time again they are caught
| violating privacy laws and abusing power.
| ipython wrote:
| Given that you already need government issued ID that
| matches the name printed on your ticket to travel on an
| airplane, wouldn't the government already have the ability
| to track you, regardless of facial recognition?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Indeed, the government doesn't even need the ID, they
| ingest a data feed of Passenger Name Records (PNRs) from
| all airlines. This is why when TSA performs the automated
| identity proofing, comparing a photo of you to your ID,
| they don't require that you provide a boarding pass.
|
| Comparing an ephemeral photo taken of you to your
| government credential at the TSA checkpoint is a
| temporary formality. At some point, the government
| credential presentation will be unnecessary.
|
| https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-
| recor... (Control-F "What information is collected?")
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The US government has access to all of your location
| history via Verizon/ATT/TMobile.
| grecy wrote:
| > _the biometric data collected when you got your ID_
|
| When I got my license, which I can use to board a flight in
| my country I did not give fingerprints or an eye scan. They
| have my photo, DOB, name - not more.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| It could be used to "update" the record.
| sneak wrote:
| It is more recent, multi angle, high res data. It allows
| their training data to be much better.
|
| This "it changes nothing" attitude is unproductive.
| monksy wrote:
| I was with you until "doesn't grant them info that they don't
| already have." It gives them the opportunity to update their
| face model of you in a confirmed and consistent manner.
|
| It also doesn't improve anything:
|
| An agent comparison of you vs the id is still considered to
| be the gold standard. When this system fails, you have to
| default to the agent's comparison. This is a slow down
| compared to the previous scenario.
|
| The time for an id comparison isn't the bottleneck in
| security. It's the physical actions used to go through the
| TSA and the built in inconsistency to prevent people from
| speedrunning the screening.
| mdorazio wrote:
| What do you think opting out does exactly? For the system to
| work they must already have your photo associated with your
| name and ID. And even if you opt out they're still tracking
| your movement. It seems like an impotent protest so I don't
| bother.
| eesmith wrote:
| They make it opt out so they don't need to demonstrate the
| cost/benefits of making it required.
|
| They make it opt out because there are always a few people
| who object[1], so this is a safety valve.
|
| If everyone opted out ("I am Spartacus") then it would stop
| and they would have to switch to less efficient means. (If it
| weren't less efficient then they wouldn't need this one.)
|
| As John Gilmore points out at http://new.toad.com/gnu/ :
|
| "If you politely decline to show ID whenever someone asks (or
| demands) it, and continue politely declining regardless of
| how they escalate, you will discover what your rights are.
| You'll be surprised. You'll get away with it. Most of the
| people who were asking for it have no right to demand it.
| They've been relying on your voluntary cooperation. They
| forgot to tell you that part; but you just found it out for
| yourself. Sometimes you may discover that you didn't have the
| right to live, move around, or do business in your own
| country without government-issued documents. That's very
| interesting knowledge to acquire first-hand too. If you
| haven't recently tried exercising your right to exist and
| live without government permission, are you sure you still
| have that right?"
|
| [1] In one of the author Robert Heinlein's biographical
| accounts he walks out of a hotel because they demand to see
| id at registration. He went to another hotel which did not.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| What are you opting out of?
|
| Every state id picture is run through facial recognition, and
| that data is processed to detect duplicate people and other
| issues. Every passport has a picture which is digitized for
| facial recognition.
|
| This is a good thing, as it potentially disarms the stupid
| RealID fiasco with respect to ID and airports.
|
| There is no privacy benefit to document validation.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| TSA will punish you for opting out of anything. If you're
| lucky, the least they will do is hold you up a long time so you
| have a good chance of missing your flight. I've also had them
| sexually harass me, and confiscate (e.g. steal) legal items in
| retaliation for opting out of things I had the legal right to
| opt out of. They know people are in a hurry and won't do
| anything about being treated unethically or illegally, because
| calling them out would require missing your flight.
|
| When I opted out of the scanner once, I had to wait about 20
| minutes, and then the TSA agent comes over to do a "pat down"
| instead, but is going inappropriately slow and squeezing my
| body, and saying things like "I'd bet you opted out because you
| like this." I regret not immediately calling them out and
| filing charges.
| davisr wrote:
| I always opt out of the scanner (even have a special shirt
| [1]), and without fail they always stand me by the intake
| (radio-leaky-end) of the baggage x-ray machine for 5+
| minutes.
|
| [1]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/art/tsashirt.jpg
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| That shirt is really something else... you should get one
| that says "proudly an illegal immigrant" also
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| lol
|
| I had a phase where I would always wear this "cease your
| investigators" shirt, never had any comments but yea stood
| by the machine for 5 minutes or so, never considered the
| machine would be radiating outward as well as inward, but
| yeah, mostly did it as a small protest, thought it worth
| demonstrating you don't have to comply.
|
| https://neongrizzly.com/products/cease-your-
| investigations-i...
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Just saw this one- love the guy's eye contact also. He
| knows how to stand up to fascist jerks.
|
| https://preview.redd.it/travel-safe-for-
| thanksgiving-v0-i3ja...
| financetechbro wrote:
| Opting out of the face scanner is a totally different
| experience than opting out of the body scanner lol
| akira2501 wrote:
| The last I was in San Francisco International the TSA staff
| came barreling out of their door and the first agent out
| yelled into the terminal, "MAN! I really hope someone opts
| out today! I can't wait to give that guy a serious patdown."
|
| They're trained to operate in an unethical way.
| monksy wrote:
| They're all threats until I walk up to them and actively
| volunteer. Then it's all "i swear i'm not gay i'm required
| to touch you near your groin."
|
| The amount of agents who act like that and then start to
| get shy when you smile and go through with a patdown is
| pretty comical.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| SFO doesn't use TSA
|
| https://www.flysfo.com/about/airport-operations/safety-
| secur...
| khuey wrote:
| To a person not familiar with the minutiae of government
| structure "TSA" is a job position as much as an
| organization, and CAS does have the former.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Other than a nearly identical uniform that says CAS in
| place of TSA there is no apparent difference. Which is
| why I probably didn't even realize. In any case my return
| leg was delayed so I rented a car to drive back and have
| never returned to commercial flights since.
| monksy wrote:
| This isn't a casual mistaken. Taking from the newly implemented
| border exit control that we've gotten. (If you think we don't
| have one, re-read that) :
|
| The GAO found that the ability for people to understand that
| Americans are not required to go through the biometric exit was
| non-existant and the experience of opting out was very poor.
|
| What this means is signage was not posted that indicating for
| Americans this is an optional process and people forming the
| "requirement" were not educated that it is optional for
| citizens.
|
| Yet, the experience is that people forcefully push people into
| to posing for the camera with markings on the floor, the lack
| of opting in/consenting to it, and prevent people from being
| aware of what's going on. (Yes: You can opt out .. walk up to
| the board area with your passport open to your photo page)
| MarkMarine wrote:
| For this to work they must have already done facial recognition
| on everyone's ID photos, so I fail to see what opting out even
| does for me from a privacy perspective. Seems like shutting the
| barn door after the horse is already out.
| bjtitus wrote:
| Yeah, it seems pretty useless. Nothing stops them from simply
| doing this on publicly available data online as well.
|
| We've known for over a decade that DHS, FBI, CBP, and local
| police buy location data.
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/no-warrant-no-problem-how...
| mingus88 wrote:
| Indeed, not to mention the availability of public social media
| photos. To think that every intelligence agency on earth hasn't
| already trained FR across their databases of IDs and material
| voluntarily uploaded by themselves and their family/friends...
|
| One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn't like
| getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone would
| get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you have a
| friend who don't value your privacy, there is nothing you can
| do about it.
|
| Add to this any public event, where they are well within their
| rights to take your picture and match it against known threat
| actors and the only way to not play this game is to be a hermit
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| > One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn't like
| getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone
| would get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you
| have a friend who don't value your privacy, there is nothing
| you can do about it.
|
| I hated this too, but there was an option to disable it. I
| know because I used it for that very reason. I don't know if
| they removed it; I left Facebook probably around a decade ago
| and it was there when I left.
| joezydeco wrote:
| The current program in limited beta test is called "TSA
| PreCheck Touchless".
|
| So you need to be in TSA PreCheck, and you gave them your photo
| and fingerprints when you voluntarily enrolled in that program.
| They are probably using your passport biometrics if those are
| available as well.
|
| https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-...
| sneak wrote:
| Resolution, recency, additional training data to up accuracy.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| It's a question of normalization, not data.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42230738
|
| 2. If people stand up for decency, they might get it.
| orev wrote:
| Making it a requirement sounds like some project manager has a
| KPI to hit to justify the expense of the hardware rollout. Maybe
| a stretch since I doubt most people opted out anyway.
|
| Either that or they took a page out of the big tech playbook
| where the plan was to boil the frog all along.
| davisr wrote:
| Did you even read the article?
|
| _And the senators' letter quotes a talk given by TSA
| Administrator David Pekoske in 2023 in which he said "we will
| get to the point where we require biometrics across the
| board."_
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| As opposed to hoping the TSA agent doesn't properly proof you
| to your government credential you hand them? The data is
| already there, in state motor vehicle databases, and various
| federal databases. If you have Global Entry or PreCheck, your
| biometrics are already on file. The Dept of State has your
| photo associated with your passport, as does the DoD Common
| Access Card system.
|
| Sibling comment covers this well:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42228984
| modzu wrote:
| the entire tsa is out of control. blow it away elon
| ipython wrote:
| Elon's technology first approach would be... to eliminate
| facial recognition?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Nah. I suspect his first target will be the NLRB.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Elon doesn't blow much of anything other than hot air. His joke
| DOGE will amount to nothing other than another failed ego trip
| for him and Ramaswamy.
| Zanni wrote:
| Serious question: why is this bad? Is it just the 3% false
| negative rate? I don't see the negative privacy implications of
| face recognition when the alternative is to present your face
| (via photo ID) anyway.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| (American here) A quick search shows Pew Research, National
| Academies Press (associated with the Library Of Congress),
| AmericaUnderWatch dot com, Politico and Georgetown Law .. all
| with varying responses to this question. In the case of social
| structure and law, there are many layers, interwoven, and
| difficult or impossible to fit into chat-level responses.
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| The leviathan is often arbitrary and capricious.
| perihelions wrote:
| I mean, it was living memory for many HN'ers that you could
| travel freely in the United States with doing either. It's a
| post-9/11 thing that an airline ticket is associated with a
| unique person, and requires a matching photo ID.
|
| There was a time when America's security forces did not
| routinely surveil its own peoples' movements.
| eesmith wrote:
| When I was a kid there were classified ads like "Pan Am NYC
| Dec 20-28, E. Smith, $200 o.b.o" for people who wanted to
| resell their ticket because they couldn't make the trip.
| There were no id checks then.
|
| In the 1990s the airplanes jumped at the opportunity to have
| required id checks so they could take control of the
| secondary market.
|
| It was still possible to buy a ticket like "E. Smith", but
| that option was cut off a few years later.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I enjoy traveling to Berlin for vacation, as it's a totally
| different atmosphere around privacy. Default payment is cash,
| your entry and exit from train stations is not tracked
| (surveilled perhaps, but you do not tap-in/tap-out or god
| forbid tap your credit card every time you step on a train like
| SF or NYC), and it's against the law to publish photographs of
| someone without their consent.
|
| Ask IBM what becomes of databases full of people's names
| associated with their movements.
| Zanni wrote:
| I appreciate the response, but it seems that database can be
| constructed with or without facial recognition because photo
| ID is already required. So, I ask again, why is _this_ bad?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Showing ID to pass a gate is somewhat different than having
| a timestamped record of the fact that you passed a gate,
| but I agree that given it's already surveilled it's not a
| big difference. Still, small differences add up.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I think this is silly given how much Germany is actively
| helping a country where the PM of that country has an arrest
| warrant out for him through the ICC.
|
| Germany is still facilitating an alleged genocide. The only
| thing that has changed is the profile of the victims. The
| situation now is even worse, given that practically everyone
| in the world knows what's happening but life is going on as
| normal.
| sneak wrote:
| It is not against the law to publish photographs of someone
| without their consent. People post me to Instagram without my
| consent in Berlin all of the time.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| It _is_ against the law: https://www.lhr-
| law.de/en/thema/media-law/the-right-to-your-...
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| There are some carve outs for including you in a picture of
| something else, but there is, at least, social backpressure
| to swinging a camera around.
| netsharc wrote:
| When entering China, they take your fingerprints, iris, and I
| guess face too... I was there in 2019, at one point I was at an
| airport, and a screen was bragging, "Stand where the camera can
| see your face, and we'll tell you which way to your gate.". It
| worked too, the screen displayed my name, flight number and
| direction to my gate. And implicitly, "We can identify you
| wherever you are.".
| mu53 wrote:
| Facial recognition systems like this are used everywhere in
| china. Its common for gates in apartment buildings.
|
| Its just how things work there. It feel more malicious to
| pretend its not happening
| casenmgreen wrote:
| The problem is that by this it becomes ever more difficult to
| get rid of an oppressive, dictatorial, unelected and violent
| Government.
| bayindirh wrote:
| For an insider's perspective about "The Social Credit
| System", and the biometrics which underpin it, you can
| watch
| https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system
|
| It's a long, but interesting talk.
| tehjoker wrote:
| tbqh, first if the insinuation is that China is not
| democratic, that is only true in the sense it is not a
| liberal democracy with a conservative wing represented (a
| good thing), but it is still a democracy with elections.
|
| secondly, if people surviving a literal genocide in
| Palestine can resist the most technologically
| sophisticated, surveilled, and completely enclosed death
| camp ever constructed by the U.S. and Israel, you can
| figure out how to deal with cameras.
| thisisnotauser wrote:
| There's a famous saying about Mussolini making the trains run
| on time. The joke was that anyone who complained about the
| trains running late, which was an endemic issue emblematic of
| the financial failures of fascism (his government system),
| was killed.
|
| But if you didn't complain about the trains, maybe because
| you didn't take them, you didn't get killed. It was fine.
|
| Maybe things are actually kinda bad, but you're just not
| willing to admit it to yourself because you aren't
| complaining about the trains.
|
| In the US, we complain about the trains. And if the gov't is
| spying on us with facial recognition, we're going to stop
| them.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| I was there and they didn't do an iris scan.
|
| Taking a photo and fingerprint is pretty standard everywhere.
| xyst wrote:
| The selfie normalized public photography.
|
| Travel by plane/DMV applications normalized fingerprinting.
|
| What's next? Semen and blood samples as well?
|
| The terrorists have won. Fear has ruled the major powers of
| the world. And the current major power of the free world is a
| puppet and an all around idiot.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Too late, I already gave the US government my DNA/reference
| via blood sample. The military has been doing that since
| the early 90's.
| Yeul wrote:
| A new Chinese export market: surveillance technology. I think
| Israel will be very interested... And the West will follow in
| time.
| paulluuk wrote:
| I was in China a few years ago, didn't take fingerprints, iris,
| or face recognition. Just a routine passport check and that's
| it. I flew from Europe to Beijing, might be different if you
| fly from the US.
| jpcom wrote:
| Must be the Amazon benefits for being a US citizen
| netsharc wrote:
| I was travelling by train from Mongolia/crossed the border by
| bus because it was cheaper, and when I mean by bus, the bus
| collects you at the station before the border and drives you
| to the big border checkpoint building where you cross the
| border by foot/where they have booths and guards that do the
| passport and visa checks, just like at an airport.
|
| Maybe I'm misremembering the iris scan. If it did happen, it
| could be because there were loads of Mongolian students about
| to embark on their next semester of studies in China.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It changes every month it seems, port of entry is also
| probably significant.
| X-Istence wrote:
| When entering the United States they also take fingerprints and
| a picture of your face.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Pictures are also taken on entry in Canada, at least at
| Vancouver airport [1]. And obviously getting the visa requires
| submitting your fingerprints.
|
| [1] https://www.yvr.ca/en/passengers/navigate-yvr/customs-and-
| im...
| quotemstr wrote:
| I'll take facial recognition over long TSA lines any day. I can't
| wait until we have full-throughput non-blocking walk-through
| security.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| "For any amount convenience, it's okay to discriminate against
| people based on any collection of facts, including ones you can
| see on their face like their heritage, so long as none of those
| facts are mine."
| bediger4000 wrote:
| That will never happen. The long lines and inconveniences are
| the point, not a side effect.
|
| How many shoe bombers does the TSA catch in a day? 0. In a
| month? 0. Since the only shoe bomber? 0. We still take off our
| shoes. Same with underwear bombs. 0. We still partially undress
| and do the nude-a-tron.
|
| The point is, we could already ditch the lines, we don't want
| to.
| jkestner wrote:
| This anti-tiger rock only costs $10 billion!
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Now try the bomb detector wands
| 0x457 wrote:
| I mean it's like saying what's the point of a security
| feature if thing that feature prevents from happening isn't
| happening after implementing that feature.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| Sure, there's some truth to that, but shoe bombs,
| underpants bombs and the two liquids bombs have never been
| tried again. If they did, they would set off their shoes
| and underpants in the "cattle maze", where there are
| several planesfull of people, and nobody has been ID'ed, or
| x-rayed or swabbed.
|
| There's nothing magical about setting off a bomb on a plane
| as far as terrorizing a populace goes. Bombs in the mazes
| before "security" would be effective, as we learned at the
| Boston Marathon.
| tokai wrote:
| Just remove TSA. Airport security provides nothing.
| aaomidi wrote:
| So I've heard this a lot, but how can we actually test this?
| The only realistic test I can imagine here is that the TSA
| shuts down for a decade and we see what happens?
| sneak wrote:
| They test the TSA with weapons and most get through. This
| means people don't wish to use weapons to hijack planes, or
| it would happen way more often and it doesn't.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| There's never been a bomb in the maze/lines before
| security. Why not?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Because other forms of mass travel such as trains and
| buses, which barely have any security checks, rarely get
| blown up by bombs smuggled on to them, or hijacked by guns
| smuggled onto them.
| EasyMark wrote:
| That's a risk I'm willing to take. I hate the TSA. I'll
| take my chances in a world without them if given the
| opportunity.
| paxys wrote:
| What makes you think this will make lines move any faster? The
| bottleneck has always been body/luggage scanning, and that
| isn't changing.
| xenospn wrote:
| Already exists when entering the US using global entry. No need
| to show your passport anymore, just walk right through.
| EasyMark wrote:
| That won't happen since they will always want to go through
| your bags either by X-ray or by hand, that won't change ever.
| beej71 wrote:
| I also can't see the tracking difference between a human
| verifying your identity and entering that into a database and a
| computer verifying your identity and entering that into a
| database.
|
| But it's still a valid concern as to whether or not this new
| system is at least as secure and privacy-respecting as the old
| one.
| mistercheph wrote:
| Automation and scale? You can't imagine how technology that
| allows a small number of people to automatically surveil
| billions of people can enable horrors that would be more
| difficult if you needed to use a labor force of hundreds of
| thousands of humans?
| 0x457 wrote:
| What that has to do with TSA Checkpoint at the airport? How
| many people go to through that checkpoint isn't dictated by
| how automated it is - it's dictated by how many people are
| flying.
|
| All this thing does it speeds up process of you getting
| through TSA.
| EasyMark wrote:
| No faster than having a human hold up your id and compare
| it, plus now you don't have yet another digital copy of
| your face floating around for the police state.
| beej71 wrote:
| I don't disagree, but installing face scanners at the same
| location humans do face scanning and using them the same as
| they used the humans is not the same as mass surveillance.
| xyst wrote:
| Abolish the TSA completely. Get back the billions in funds that
| are allocated for this security theatre. Unfortunately this will
| never happen
| pdonis wrote:
| It will happen if enough voters make it clear to their elected
| representatives that they want them to repeal the laws passed
| after 9/11 that mandate the security screening that TSA does. I
| agree that's highly unlikely, but it was voters who clamored
| for those laws in the first place after 9/11, so it's voters
| that need to push for getting them repealed.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Not to mention that COVID revealed it all a farce. We have
| shown that we don't really care about millions dying.
| paxys wrote:
| Unless you are implying having no security at airports
| whatsoever (which will never happen), abolishing TSA simply
| means replacing one central agency with hundreds/thousands of
| private security agencies and companies in every state and
| city, which will only _increase_ costs.
| eesmith wrote:
| You should let SFO and the handful of other airports with
| private security know they can decrease costs by switching to
| TSA.
|
| Except, quoting https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/11/pros-
| and-cons-privati...
|
| > Contractors provide a more flexible workforce for his
| airport, and on top of that, it's easier to show people the
| door, he said.
|
| > "If employees are not performing, they can be dealt with
| appropriately, better or more effectively on a contract side
| than a government side," Sprenger said.
|
| > Labor unions say the real reason airports want to go with
| contractors is simple: to cut costs. James Mudrock is the
| president of AFGE Local 1230, the union representing TSA
| workers in Sacramento, California.
| brians wrote:
| There is only one sort of person who signs up to check internal
| passports and search innocent people, and I don't care what color
| shirt they're wearing these days.
| justinclift wrote:
| > There is only one sort of person who signs up to check
| internal passports and search innocent people
|
| People needing a job?
| jmward01 wrote:
| Yet again we accept the premise that we need 'more' security so
| it is OK to do these types of things. This implies without
| evidence that there is a problem and then jumps right to the,
| again, unfounded conclusion that this type of thing will solve
| that hypothetical issue. The discussion shouldn't be about how to
| do this 'responsibly', implicitly admitting that there is some
| sort of need, and instead it should be about how to dismantle
| things like this completely and how to stop new things like this
| from ever happening again.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| I don't like TSA or the US security state, but I really find it
| hard to see why this has attracted so much attention. When you
| enter the airport, you're surrounded by cameras from numerous
| government and commercial entities, no doubt performing facial
| recognition. When you get to your destination, your photo will be
| taken by the destination country plus countless other
| surveillance cameras along the way. And unless you like long
| lines, you've already submitted fingerprints and yet another
| photo to TSA or CBP for precheck. Even if you didn't, all REAL
| IDs (except a foreign passport) require digital storage of the ID
| photo--that's what they are matching your face to at the
| checkpoint.
|
| (During the pandemic, I had a job that let me--I mean, a friend
| of my choice--do my own e-verify/I-9 form. When you enter your
| passport number, the e-Verify system spits out a digital copy of
| the photo you sent it to prevent counterfeit or altered photos.)
|
| I just don't understand how one more potato quality still capture
| of your face, that by definition is very similar to those they
| already have, changes the equation much.
| eesmith wrote:
| Where is the line where you say "stop"?
|
| People started complaining about cameras, and airport id
| checks, and facial recognition, and REAL ID, and incentives
| like PreCheck to support mass fingerprinting for a decade or
| three.
|
| At some point the rubber band breaks, or at least one of the
| ropes snap.
| monksy wrote:
| God I hate this argument and this blunt misunderstanding of
| computer vision. (I've dealt with it so many times on reddit)
| Frequently I'm met with these arguments with some imaginative
| justification for this technology. At this point it's hard to
| be convinced that the arguements aren't an AstroTurf by
| security vendors. (Yes dang, I realize this is bad to make this
| accusation to say but I'm speaking generically and over a large
| group of people)
|
| Additionally you threw in a false equivalency: But a ton of
| things are going on..you're useless in fighting it. On top of
| that you threw in an accusation that "if you don't then face
| longer lines".
|
| The cameras that are above aren't good enough to do a confident
| identification of an individual. They're great for tracking
| where unique blobs go.
|
| The picture they are doing a comparison against is a profile
| picture and consistent lighting. Additionally the old picture
| that is on your license is a much older photo. The thread here
| is that the people who are taking your image now are updating
| their models and maintaining the models of what you look like.
| With that they are able to retroactively and perform future
| lookups on different visual datasources about what you did.
| (Gas stations, stores, weed shop, adult toy store, walking down
| the red light district, being on a train, etc)
| akira2501 wrote:
| You've precisely described the reason I will not fly commercial
| anymore. All of this surveillance has a chilling effect. On
| citizens, on business, on international trade.
|
| Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know
| they're not serious about security but about control of the
| masses.
|
| Also, the thing you're ignoring, and perhaps why you fail to
| understand the problem, is you haven't bothered to ask what the
| false positive rate is. Would you enjoy being stopped and
| arrested by very cocksure police simply because a computer made
| a mistake and they refuse to believe that?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you
| know they're not serious about security but about control of
| the masses.
|
| In Germany, there is no way you'll get on a commercial
| airfield without going through security, and if you're not a
| passenger but an employee or a pilot, you'll need a
| comprehensive background check.
|
| Only exemption for now is ultralight aircraft because these
| are about as dangerous as a car (or if you just compare
| kinetic energy, even less dangerous because they're barely
| half a ton in weight.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > a commercial airfield
|
| Your "commercial airfield" may actually be two airfields in
| one. This is not uncommon. There is a "commercial" side
| which is where public carriers usually work and there is a
| "private" side which is where individuals and often cargo
| works.
|
| Aside from this there are plenty of private airfields in
| Germany.
|
| > ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous
| as a car
|
| The cool things about vehicles is you can put things in
| them. Things like explosives. The incredibly low tech
| version of this is currently in use in some parts of the
| world, and that is where you attach a mortar to a drone,
| then go drop it on a target.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Because they are using more than just a 2d photo, these things
| are taking almost microscopic details in. I just pay the devil
| and ask for the personal treatment and skip these things. These
| are not potato quality and the government isn't as backward at
| tech as you think. Remember when you're dealing with cops there
| is nothing you can say or do that will be to your advantage in
| court , the same goes in real life. Skip all of these types of
| security theater as it's possible. While I did not want to see
| the new regime change in Washington because of the high chance
| of economic and challenges to democracy, one of the things they
| might cut back on is stuff like this; a Harris admin certainly
| was not going to be.
| Animats wrote:
| Senators should not be complaining about this. Congress required
| the TSA to check identity, and soon, REAL ID will be required to
| fly in the US, even domestically. So what's their problem with
| doing it effectively?
| paxys wrote:
| So a bipartisan group of Senators can write a letter to the TSA
| speaking out against a policy but not get themselves to bring it
| to the floor and vote against it? Which is, you know, their
| actual job?
|
| Hard to think of their intentions as anything more than theater
| for their voter base.
| akira2501 wrote:
| You write a letter and hopefully that solves it.
|
| You then hold a committee meeting and hopefully that solves it.
|
| You finally change federal law and usually that solves it.
|
| If it doesn't you have to start arresting people to foment
| change.
|
| This is not a gentle tool.
| K0HAX wrote:
| Being subtle never works.
| to-too-two wrote:
| I can't believe it has gone this far. I was flying out of Logan
| airport (Boston) and had to have my face scanned right boarded
| the plane. There was nothing about opting out. It seemed like I
| didn't comply, I wasn't flying.
|
| I hate this. Feels so wrong and dystopian. They need to abolish
| this. It's so unnecessary.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-24 23:01 UTC)