7 ms·
Senators blast DHS facial scanning at airports
- stablemap 9y agoThe referenced study: https://www.airportfacescans.com/ https://www.airportfacescans.com/
- f2n 9y agoInvasive facial recognition in physical places seems to be the future. A nightclub I walk by on my way to work has a sign up outside stating that they're operating facial recognition cameras. At least they disclose it, I suspect many more places aren't. We need legal recourse against this sort of invasive spying by both private and public parties.
- wlesieutre 9y agoAnyone want to guess what percent of these places keep their facial tracking database in an incorrectly configured public AWS bucket? I bet it's not 0.
- beedogs 9y agoWho on earth is downvoting these comments?
- wlesieutre 9y agoRealistically, I think the even bigger problem will be whatever private company provides this facial recognition service probably aggregating their data from thousands of sites and selling it to advertisers/stalkers/etc. Maybe securing it poorly on top of that. Or if the places using it are in control of their own data, they'll be reselling it to data brokers because hey, free money. Doesn't cost them anything, just their customers' privacy.
- pasbesoin 9y agoIt's trite and flippant, but one response I have to public officials doing this is, "you first". When I can know where my Congresscritters are at every moment, every time they cross a camera's path. Who visits them, in public and in private. What shows they watch -- and their children and grandchildren. Same goes for our tech lords. You first.
- origami777 9y agoThat’d be cool if citizens just did this to make a point. Could the cameras be small or discrete enough to install in several places in DC, so that even politicians walk by a website is updated? There has to be enough video training footage for them in the public. What’s the legality of this?
- mulmen 9y agoRegardless of legality have fun explaining it to the Secret Service.
- origami777 9y agoYeah I wonder what they could do, if anything. Especially if it was on private property with owners consent. It’ll never happen but fun to think about.
- mLuby 9y agoAssuming congress doesn't have special laws for themselves (quite likely –_–) there's still stalking to contend with. http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/criminal-stalking-laws-by-state/district-of-columbia http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-cen... Even if individuals just posted footage from their properties and some DAO actually did the aggregation, image processing, and posting, I bet any individuals connected to the effort would still get harassed by law enforcement.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoThe facial recognition camera they use is an ID checking machine. They're basically used to prevent liability for underage drinkers, and to keep track of banned patrons. They're not actively scanning your face in the club, and I question how good the facial recognition actually is. Regardless, it's a private establishment, you don't have to go there and get your face scanned if you don't want to. You do have legal recourse, you can choose not to patronise that establishment.
- shostack 9y agoIs that really all they are used for? I'd be shocked if they weren't also used to identify VIPs and big spenders to do things that would generate additional revenue. Or do things like track the gender and age ratios to let the bouncer's know how many people of which types to let in.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoBouncers usually have a pretty good idea of the age and gender ratios in the club and who to let in.
- f2n 9y agoSure, but there's no legal requirement for them to notify me that such behavior is occurring. And in the case of this article, it's not exactly something you have the option not to participate in. I guess my point is that is should be be seen an an acceptable or reasonable or non-invasive thing.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoIt's quite obvious it's happening, they take your ID, and put it in a fairly conspicuous machine. I think it's fair to assume that anywhere that is recording video is running facial scanning, as they have the capability to. If it's not a legal requirement where you live for businesses (and government) to put signage where security cameras are in operation, that's a concern.
- 9y ago
- mikestew 9y agoAt least they disclose it, I suspect many more places aren't. Last time I was in a Vegas casino, I don't recall any signs (granted, it's been a few years). I do know that there are cameras everywhere, and casinos have been using facial recognition for a while.
- madamelic 9y agoI hate the fact that US citizens are increasingly treated as enemy combatants. I have a citizenship for a reason. You know who I am. I shouldn't not be subjected to unreasonable search, I should be treated to an express lane where they can simply scan my ID, see I am not a threat and let me go on my way.
- ahakki 9y agoI have a suspicion that the TSAs unreasonable behaviour (unreasonable adherance to protocol) is due to them being subject to random performance tests where they actually do send through enlderly women in wheelchairs with contraband straped to their butt and automatically flag them for extra search. Failing to detect the contraband in this case is probably punished in some way so the agents are forced to throw all common sense out the window when handling people[0] that have been flagged for additional screening. [0] People like me. I get flagged every single time I enter the United States.
- madamelic 9y agoSorry everyone. Explaining this person's comment, this comment was on-topic but I deleted a huge personal story about going through security and seeing an elderly woman in a wheelchair getting flagged. My post got downvoted since the story was a bit rambly so I removed it. :)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tnorthcutt 9y agoThey do conduct undercover tests, and the TSA consistently fails them: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-o...
- bogomipz 9y agoIndeed things like guns go unnoticed in these tests but at least Americans are safe from the hazards regular sized containers of shampoo and toothpaste.
- saas_co_de 9y agoUsing facial recognition tech is just common sense. Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law? Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face?
- mulmen 9y agoIf the camera is doing the same thing as a human then use humans. Call it a jobs program. If the camera does something else then your argument is invalid. Since they are using the cameras and not more people when I think it is clear we are not talking about the same thing.
- aestetix 9y agoYes. A machine can record that data, and others can look at it later. The issue is not what we can readily see, but storing recordings and and information gleaned from those recordings. This is the same issue when you replace a person with a surveillance camera that records video.
- beedogs 9y ago> Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face? Seriously? Yes, of course it does, by a gigantic amount; this should be maddeningly self-evident. Human beings do not, for instance, have instant recall of hundreds of millions of names and faces.
- refurb 9y agoCan you explain? I don't see it as any more invasive than taking a photo of a person.
- mulmen 9y agoAnd you don't have a problem with everyone at an airport being photographed for an undisclosed purpose? Also, the photo is being analyzed. As in, the photo doesn't just exist, your identity is tied to it. It's not just the same thing as taking a photo.
- mLuby 9y agoArticle says this program is opt-in. Does that mean you can decline? If so, I wonder how one does that. I wrote to the CBP years ago when they instituted kiosks that took your picture to "expedite customs" asking how to opt out. My question was lost 3 times, and finally the response was "there is no way to opt out."