3 ms·

> “The process eliminates the need for an airline employee to manually check every boarding pass and passport while boarding a plane.” But you can hold account

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

> “The process eliminates the need for an airline employee to manually check every boarding pass and passport while boarding a plane.” But you can hold accountable an airline or customs gate agent who doesn’t have access to a library of images forming a signature of your face and who may be bound by policies or laws regarding privacy and identity that could be nearly impossible to enforce or even verify with a digital system. > “No more fumbling with your boarding pass while you have two carry-ons, maybe a kid; no more trying to find your QR code or trying to refresh your screen.” Yikes, this sounds like Idiocracy to me. I frequently am the befuddled dad traveling with kids and bags, and I can tell you that apart from very exceptional circumstances or special needs, this is not at all any kind of serious inconvenience that requires more surveillance culture. (And for truly special needs situations, there are many parsimonious solution possibilities that don’t use a bazooka to swat a fly like this face recognition system is doing...)

wahern 8y ago
I mean, from a security and safety standpoint it fails. From a financial standpoint it makes perfect sense, especially if CBP is picking up the tab. Not having to dedicate an employee to each gate that is currently boarding is a huge labor saver for airlines. From CBP's standpoint, they get to use fancy new technology while also furthering mission creep. It's win-win.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  I’m super skeptical that it’s actually a financial cost saver. The data infrastructure and sunk costs are quite high for systems like this, and the non-zero defect or failure rates mean you still generally have to employ most of the same staff. They just do something else on the computer or deal with other gate check issues, stuff they generally still had to do already while scanning people onto the plane. Face recognition systems are notoriously difficult to implement in a way that actually saves money. Even if boarding huge flights happens faster, the limiting factors are usually runway traffic delays and other problems anyway. All this infrastructure only so sometimes on a few international flights, when no special issues pop up, they can possibly save a small amount of money (relative to other costs involved) by boarding slightly faster (a matter of a few dozen minutes, max) and potentially depart sooner if there’s no other type of hold up. It doesn’t add up.
  - wahern 8y ago
    The data infrastructure and sunk costs are quite high for systems like this, and the non-zero defect or failure rates mean you still generally have to employ most of the same staff. Right, which is why one could reasonably speculate that CBP is picking up the cost of the system. Without the capital costs it could easily make sense. The clincher would be how edge cases are handled. Is CBP paying for a human behind the scenes to remotely override rejections? Is it acceptable customer service for falsely rejected passengers to wait at the gate until shortly before departure when an airline employee can show up to double-check their documents?
rauhl 8y ago
> > “No more fumbling with your boarding pass while you have two carry-ons, maybe a kid; no more trying to find your QR code or trying to refresh your screen.” > Yikes, this sounds like Idiocracy to me. Yeah, or one of those ludicrous infomercials. ‘Are you tired of dealing with hoses? Try new Stretch-Hose™ the only hose made from rubber bands!’ More seriously, I guess since we’ve already given up our privacy when travelling internationally (since the Great War, anyway, when passports were generally instituted), this is probably not that much of a change. And I guess it’s marginally more convenient. Just … seems like a solution in search of a problem, really.

wahern 8y ago

I mean, from a security and safety standpoint it fails. From a financial standpoint it makes perfect sense, especially if CBP is picking up the tab. Not having to dedicate an employee to each gate that is currently boarding is a huge labor saver for airlines. From CBP's standpoint, they get to use fancy new technology while also furthering mission creep. It's win-win.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I’m super skeptical that it’s actually a financial cost saver. The data infrastructure and sunk costs are quite high for systems like this, and the non-zero defect or failure rates mean you still generally have to employ most of the same staff. They just do something else on the computer or deal with other gate check issues, stuff they generally still had to do already while scanning people onto the plane. Face recognition systems are notoriously difficult to implement in a way that actually saves money. Even if boarding huge flights happens faster, the limiting factors are usually runway traffic delays and other problems anyway. All this infrastructure only so sometimes on a few international flights, when no special issues pop up, they can possibly save a small amount of money (relative to other costs involved) by boarding slightly faster (a matter of a few dozen minutes, max) and potentially depart sooner if there’s no other type of hold up. It doesn’t add up.
- wahern 8y ago
  The data infrastructure and sunk costs are quite high for systems like this, and the non-zero defect or failure rates mean you still generally have to employ most of the same staff. Right, which is why one could reasonably speculate that CBP is picking up the cost of the system. Without the capital costs it could easily make sense. The clincher would be how edge cases are handled. Is CBP paying for a human behind the scenes to remotely override rejections? Is it acceptable customer service for falsely rejected passengers to wait at the gate until shortly before departure when an airline employee can show up to double-check their documents?

rauhl 8y ago

> > “No more fumbling with your boarding pass while you have two carry-ons, maybe a kid; no more trying to find your QR code or trying to refresh your screen.” > Yikes, this sounds like Idiocracy to me. Yeah, or one of those ludicrous infomercials. ‘Are you tired of dealing with hoses? Try new Stretch-Hose™ the only hose made from rubber bands!’ More seriously, I guess since we’ve already given up our privacy when travelling internationally (since the Great War, anyway, when passports were generally instituted), this is probably not that much of a change. And I guess it’s marginally more convenient. Just … seems like a solution in search of a problem, really.