- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- Travelers can opt out of facial recognition at US airports by requesting manual ID verification, though resistance or intimidation may occur.
- Facial recognition poses privacy risks, including potential data breaches, misidentification, and normalization of surveillance.
- The Algorithmic Justice League’s “Freedom Flyers” campaign aims to raise awareness of these issues and encourage passengers to exercise their right to opt out.
You must log in or # to comment.
If you already have a passport and opt out of facial recognition, you’re only deluding yourself into a false sense of privacy. In fact, if you enter the screening area at all in an airport, you are kidding yourself if you think you can maintain some semblance of privacy. The government knows what you look like. Calm down and move on with your life.
I went vacationing in another country and it was kinda uncomfortable being scanned by cameras, then scanning my passport, then moving across country lines and getting cameras and another scanning of my passport.
Fuck calming down. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. People are to complacent with privacy. Anyone that thinks this attitude won’t lead to terrible things is a fool.
You’re never going to live in a world where you’re allowed to fly without photo id amigo.
That’s a strawman, who said otherwise? Showing ID is one thing, storing your ID and tracking your trips is another.
You really don’t think your trip can’t be tracked?
Is that what I said? No. Of course it can be and is tracked. But I’m not going to Hand over my biometrics and make it easier for them.
Exactly. If they need it, they can issue a lawful order, and that has certain prerequisites here in the US. I’m guessing international airports have special rules, but I’m only going to hand over what I’m legally obligated to and force them to dance around my 4th amendment rights or face a lawsuit.
Yes, but Cinnabon doesn’t need to scan my face while I’m there. Every little bit helps.
You’re never going to live in a world where you’re allowed to fly without photo id amigo
Move to a different country.
Eg in Australia I can book a domestic ticket and have two interactions after that:
- x-ray/security where they scan my carry on
- boarding at the gate where they scan my pass.
No photo ID - or any ID really - needed. Now there’s enough dribs and drabs of information when I book the ticket and etc etc that they can identify me, but there’s nothing stopping someone from booking a ticket for someone else under their name.
Wait are you really arguing Australia as a privacy and security IMPROVEMENT on three rest of western countries?
It sounds like it is an improvement for domestic flights. I don’t see anything that invalidates that argument…
I don’t know but have you ever taken a domestic flight? Or even a Schengen one? Open border policy woks wonders for data security and also quality of life in general
That’s not what the other user is saying - we have to fight to keep what rights we have, and maybe one day gain some of the ones we lost
Their message is correct but they’re mad at that “calm down” part and addressed it poorly
User 1: if you fly using a passport, the government knows what you look like, whether or not you opt out of facial recognition, being a Karen at the airport won’t help with you
User 2: Fuck that, if we are complacent, more privacy will be taken away from us
User 3: You can’t fly without a photo id
Seems to me the user you responded to knows what they are saying, and you’re both right. You don’t have a right to fly on an airplane without a legal verification of who you are. We should have a right to verify our identity without facial recognition software. But that happens with laws, not making scenes at airports
Honestly, we should have a right to fly w/o providing ID as well. I don’t need it to ride the bus or local train, and I don’t think I need it for a greyhound bus (if I pay w/ cash). I’ve heard you can maybe get away w/o ID on Amtrak, but their official policy says it’s required.
So why are airplanes so different? Fatalities per mile on airplanes are among the lowest of any form of transportation, so I highly doubt terrorism is a significant, statistically relevant factor here. I think they do it because they can, not because it actually helps reduce risk in any meaningful way. I don’t see any basis for needing an ID for any form of mass transit, you should only need it for driving to prove that you have the privilege to do so.
I really don’t understand why law enforcement is so infatuated with checking my ID…
The reality is that the ship for that kind of privacy has shipped a long time ago. Like a hundred years ago. The reality is that the authorities know details about every single person that passes through an airport. You can’t get in or out without a passport/identification.
There is virtually no expectation to privacy at an airport. It’s a public place that is heavily monitored for good reason. And that fact isn’t hidden in the slightest. You are legally required to freely and honestly identify yourself to the authorities.
If this was at your local bus stop, then you’d have a point. But not at airports.
Also, the serious discussion about privacy should have started with the introduction of the smartphone. That’s when the conversation would have mattered and made a difference. But that ship has sailed.
For hundreds of years women couldn’t vote and minorities were categorically segregated. Things aren’t perfect for those groups now either but those ships had sailed and it was only because some people were vocal and outraged about it. If you’re not pissed off and making a little bit of a scene about what’s happening to human rights including privacy rights you’re part of the problem. If you see somebody protesting their picture in an airport security line, don’t be one of the sheep in the line saying hurry up buddy, you’re slowing us down. Tell the people around you he’s got every right to be upset about this. A bit of awareness and resistance is a good thing.
For hundreds of years women couldn’t vote and minorities were categorically segregated.
That’s a strawman analogy. We’re not talking about privacy as a whole. The discussion here is about the supposed right to privacy at, what amounts to, a government controlled entrance point into the country. You have to identify yourself no matter which technology is being used. There’s no anonymity at an airport (from the government). Whether it’s technology or a piece of paper, you are legally required to identify yourself.
I keep saying this over and over, but if you want to talk about digital privacy, focus your energy on smartphones and the internet. The impact for privacy violation and the impact for regaining privacy rights is the most effective there.
Only a subset of any population has any interaction with an airport and the privacy implications there are next to nothing (because there is no right to anonymity there).
The more you let a government stick high resolution 3d cameras in your face and shrug it off because you’ve already lost privacy the stronger their database becomes, the more complacent you become, the more willing you become to let them do it at the train station, the post office, the crosswalk, etc. The more willing you become to put your palm on their palm reader and retina in their retina scanner when they deploy that technology. I’m not dismissing better avenues to focus efforts, I’m acknowledging the increase in surveillance and potential for abuse in the absence of any proven benefit to the people that are allegedly protected by these changes.
The game was lost for me when I started getting fingerprinted at certain airports. This privilege used to be reserved for suspected criminals. Now we’re are all suspected criminals on a default setting.
I find stupid to give away my biometric data to everyone asking for it just because I give it away once in exchange of my passport, but I guess that’s just me.
I figure that by being in the airport there’s enough footage of my face from security cameras that I didn’t consent to (other than by being in public) that the scan of my face while boarding is moot.
Opting out of this face scan in particular is like using Chrome to browse the web, but searching with DuckDuckGo “for privacy reasons”
There’s probably a huge difference in resolution.
Sure, but what’s stopping them from just adding whatever high res cameras they want in their terminals and jet bridges anyway? How can we be sure they aren’t already doing that? The only thing the face scan does that those cameras can’t is require you to lower your mask.
As the article points out, TSA is using this tech to improve efficiency. Every request for manual verification breaks their flow, requires an agent to come address you, and eats more time. At the very least, you ought not to scan in the hopes that TSA metrics look poor enough they decide this tech isn’t practical to use.
Sure, but what’s stopping them from just adding whatever high res cameras they want in their terminals and jet bridges anyway?
Budget probably.
Yeah, because just adding high-res cameras is not good enough.
They will need a good quality data transfer network with it and also have to use higher powered computers for data processing, to get whatever they want out of those videos.They might even have to pay *shriek* C++ devs to rewrite their Python prototype into a more efficient production code (and considering how hard it is to find devs that actually know what they are doing…).
There is a reason I wear a large hat and a mask when walking through the airport and generally keep my head tilted down. I also wear large sunglasses, but that’s as much because every airport has at least one giant wall that is nothing but glass and inevitably I will walk around a corner and get face fucked by the sun. The privacy is just a bonus 😅
Like I get it, it’s scary and I don’t want them to have my data, but my picture is being taken ALL the time basically everywhere I go. Is putting my foot down for this specific type really making a difference?
I have global entry, so they already have my biometric data. I’d love to not here scanned, but this point it wouldn’t be anything they didn’t already have.
Put your foot down everywhere then – it’s a fallacy to think that it’s not worth it to resist data harvesting because it already gets collected “everywhere” anyway, take one step at a time to make it harder and harder. Opting out of this is just one step.
It’s the only real way to push back that other folks will notice if enough of us do it.
Last time I went through DC a few weeks ago they were using these. I saw a sign saying you’re welcome to opt out. Nobody even questioned what they were doing and were just going along. When it was my turn I politely said I’d rather not do the scan. Dude just glanced at my ID and waved me through. The next few folks behind me blinked and said they didn’t want the scan either. If enough people push back it can at least maybe slow down the normalization of constant surveillance.
Opt out. If we don’t exercise our rights, we lose them.
"What if they retaliate and make life difficult for me? "
That’s both illegal and against policy. If someone delays your right to travel for this specific reason, delay their job by asking for their supervisor and their name and employee number. Then file a complaint. That will dissuade that public servant (and their leadership) from exhibiting such behavior and encouraging it respectively.
“But they are capturing your image in 10 skillion other public locations.”
- Sure, and you have the option to create your own privacy in public.
- Further, what’s the real purpose of the scanner at the TSA check if they already have that detailed image of your retina, your facial pore patterns and whatever the fsck else they store? They don’t have that level of detail yet on CCTV.
If you don’t care, then that’s fine. Some people don’t mind the slow encroachments on 4th Amendment protections. Cool. Others do. Cool also. That’s why we can opt out.
There should exist a law that orders privacy by default forcing all this intrusive stuff to bi opt-in instead of opt-out. With data, it is often to late if it is only opt-out…
Agreed. This was rolled out without any regard whatsoever for people’s interest in data privacy. That kind of entitled behavior from any government agency is just plain gross.
The last time I flew they did this, but there was a huge sign that said photos are immediately deleted after verification…is this not true?
It’s discussed in the article. We can’t really be sure if they do, but they already store the measurements of your face along with other bits of metadata. They could reconstruct your face with it even without the photo. It’s a deceptive claim, because even if they throw away the camera video they still have your face for all intents and purposes.
Just for example, that’s an easy way to save just the biometric signature and have very few people question it.
Also, bureaucratic lies can be technically true. They copy the photo from the original device to a database, then delete the photo on the device. So it’s technically true the photo was immediately deleted, it’s just also copied and persisted forever. And a bureaucrat will proudly stand in front of you all day and tell you they deleted the photo, and they will sleep well that night with not any concern
Judge would declare that unlawful on the spot but without malicious intent whoever did it would have qualified immunity since a judge hasn’t already ruled on that specific case so it’s a wash.
isn’t politics and bureaucracy great.
Simply stand away from the camera or keep your face covered with a mask, present your ID, and say, “I opt out of biometrics. I want the standard verification process.”
This sounds like a great way for a SovCit to get a full ass inspection from a sausage-fingered security guard.
The best you’re going to get is redirected to a very long queue of people who’s passports don’t have biometrics.
Actually no, they look at your face and your ID, make sure the information matches, and move you along. No secondary inspection, no difference except you didn’t get scanned with facial recognition. It’s the same process as before facial recognition was implemented.
Why even write that comment?
Because to get to the guy in the kiosk you have to queue up and that is likely to be long. That is what was stated.
I’ve been in and out of DFW, BOS, and JFK since these facial recognition scanners went in and I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that there’s no additional wait time, or queue, or anything else if you opt out. There’s a TSA agent right next to the scanner who collects your ID whether you get scanned or not. That’s the same person who otherwise just checks it if you opt out. What are you even on about? Maybe its different at some airports, but I’ve been opting out every time I fly and it’s no big deal.
I never said it was a big deal at all, it isnt.
But there is an increased likelihood of a queue when opting for the non automated route. It is the reason automation is implemented.
I too have been throuhh airports, it has never bothered me but if you dont go through the automated queue you might face a longer queue because a lot of previously manual customs real estate is given over to automation now.
¯\(ツ)/¯ maybe, but as long as I have the option and it’s not tedious to do so (which is the case), I’m gonna opt out and encourage others to do so. Fair enough if your perspective is you want to accept whatever new security theater data collection is implemented in exchange for some perceived convenience. Making your case here with me in this conversation has taken more effort on your part than opting out of facial recognition at the security checkpoint in an airport would have, and I find that fact amusingly ironic.
I also I never said I prefer the convenience over the privacy. Here is a tip, just because you hold a viewpoint does not mean it is infallible. There ae trade offs. While personally I am scurity and privacy conscious, I was pointing out the barrier for people to opt out, that is all. There is no two ways about it, unless there are a ratoo of 1:1 staff to passengers who opt out there will be a queue. The machines were put in in massive volume far exceeding the number of staff that would ever be checking people through in order to speed up the experience and due to them costing less to run.
I agree with you. You can still be objective and recognise the situation for what it is. A barrier to opting out is the likelihood that the manual check through takes more time. It doesnt have to be significantly more time.
“Normies” avoiding scanning their face is useless because the vast majority of them still use Instagram and other social media services full of surveillance
I’ve never posted any pictures of my face online. But I’m sure many data brokers have them. And some family members many years ago I’m sure posted some.
Reflectacles are a really good idea if you’re going this route. They can ID you with just an eye scan, and this interferes with that.
They have you take your sunglasses off.
Get clear ones. Most (all?) of those security cameras use IR illumination to ID you, so you can have lenses that allow visible light through, but mess up IR scanning. I think you can get them w/ prescription lenses if you email the creator, so you can legitimately tell them you need your glasses to see (if you need a prescription, that is).
If the scan fails, they’ll just ask you to take them off.
Sure, and I’ll say I don’t consent to take them off, so they’ll need to verify me another way.
Then just ask to not be facial scanned. Last airport I went to had signs saying you could opt out.
Then you don’t need weird glasses either.
It’s about normalizing survellience, and the article also says this as an opinion further down in the text.
Everyone can see that we are going towards the society in black mirror, with social scores, and people being punished for not complying with rules of any kind. I’m glad I’m kind of old because the future will suck.
You’re already on hundreds of cameras by walking into any airport in the world. Do they need your consent to run facial recognition software on the security footage?
I used to work for a company that did various kinds of biometric recognition. I unfortunately was paraded past these cameras many times for testing purposes, so my face was compromised many moons ago.
We had two kinds of products we installed in airports. When looking at large crowds most airports wanted cameras that would monitor the flow of traffic, determining if there were any bottlenecks causing people to arrive at their gate (or baggage claim) after their luggage.
The other product was facial recognition for identification purposes. These are the machines you have to stand right next to. There are various legal reasons airports did not want to use any crowd-level cameras for identification. They hadn’t obtained consent, but also, the low resolution per face would lead to many more false positives. It was also too costly.
But we did have high def cameras installed in strategic locations at large music halls. These private companies were less concerned with privacy and more concerned with keeping banned individuals out of their property. In those cases, we registered faces of people who were kicked out for various reasons and ignored all other faces.
My point I guess is twofold: first, you might not be facially tracked in as many places as you think you are. Second, eventually you will be and there’s not a whole lot we can do to stop it. For many years, Target has identified people with their payment card, used facial recognition to detect when they return to the store, and used crowd tracking to see where in the store you go (and sometimes they have even changed ad displays based on the demographics of people standing nearby).
Mostly, you will be identified and tracked when there is financial incentive to do so.
I’m going to assume they can you the moment you walk into the airport.
I used to be extra during the TSA body scan BS. And honestly, I felt like they won.
They’ll always win because they can just prevent you from flying.
They pulled me in a private room when I refused to body scan and my bag was suspicious.
It was an extra 25 minutes. Enough to be inconvenient as they tried to find two available TSA agents willing to body check me then check every single item in my suitcase.
That’s the fun part about the war for privacy. We have already lost and if you make a big deal about it they’re just going to make your life hell!
It’s not such a binary thing as winning or losing, it’s a constantly shifting process. The only way to actually lose is by giving up – instead, consider it making it as hard as possible for your privacy to be infringed upon. Sometimes it’s more inconvenient, but what makes us such a farmable populace is our reluctance to be inconvenienced. Be good at being uncomfortable.
And we lost it under W and the patriot act.
I still opt out of those scans to this day. Why stop?
I tried to refuse the face scan and they looked at me like I just grew eye stalks. After a long pause, I said never mind I need to catch this flight, let’s do it.
It’s not a hill I’m willing to die on, even though I’m disappointed with the practice.
I refused, it went fine. I had to repeat myself because it was unexpected and dudebro wasn’t prepared, and they had to turn on the other machine and wait for it to start up, but it only delayed me like 2 minutes. The more people ask, the easier it gets.
I went thru naturalization process. They have everything already. Including DNA, retina scan, etc. So I opted for Clear. Global Entry as well. They have it all already. May as well fast track going thru customs.
Clear is run by a 3rd party company. TSA pre-check is run by the government. TSA pre-check comes free with Global Entry, you just need to sign up for it.
For international flights, US citizens can opt out but foreign nationals have to participate in face scanning, with some exceptions.
Which exceptions?
Canada is one, last I heard.
I’ll bet one of the exceptions is having a bunch of money.
I remember when travelling in the US (Im a foreigner) there was a vip pass thingy to skip lines and enter without even talking to a migration officer (I think). Really seemed like a rich person pass
Yeah, there are two different programs. One is for domestic flights and one is for domestic and international.
I did the domestic flight one once because it was free with my credit card.
But I had to fill out some forms and interview in person.
I only got to use it once because they vip lanes were always closed.
It’s only worth it if you need to travel a lot.
Additionally, I’ve never really suffered long lines through airport security.
The long lines are typically at immigrations and you can’t skip those outside of being a diplomat or private jet rich.
They can skip it yeah, that’s the whole point of the international one
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-entry
And you can also skip them if an employee gives you TCC pass when your connecting flight will leave soon so you need to get there fast (had that happen to me once)
I’m Canadian and I used to have a pass like that. It was $50 at the time and valid for 5 years.
Hey everyone, this guy’s loaded!
