6 ms·

>It's also always been pretty normal to have your photo taken by countries when passing through passport control. No not always, only recently. > I don't rea

by ssss11 8y ago

>It's also always been pretty normal to have your photo taken by countries when passing through passport control. No not always, only recently. > I don't really see what the problem would be here? You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. Sounds like you either benefit from mass surveillance or have been conditioned to it.

sushisource 8y ago
I think being conditioned to it is inevitable to some degree. I think the only reasonable choice is to focus on punishment for misuse, not prevention. This reeks to me of another situation where we're trying to put the cat back in the bag, and that has basically never worked (except maybe nuclear disarmament, and even then... barely, and largely because the capital costs are so extreme). Surveillance tech is cheap and widely available and will only continue to move in that direction. Attempting to make sure no one has a photo of you without your consent seems hilariously impossible to me. Focus on the outcomes instead.
- mentat 8y ago
  Make it symmetric, use it to watch the watchers, then we might be talking about something socially viable. Without that, it's about control.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    There is a fundamental trade-off between transparency and privacy, but also a very real risk that we will end up with neither.
    - lapinot 8y ago
      Privacy is not hiding, it's about controlling visibility. Most of the data we wish would be treated differently are not strictly private, we just don't assume they would be easily accessible (specifically by a private company). We are currently transparent to big actors but cannot see through the window ourselves.
- Retric 8y ago
  Effective surveillance is extremely expensive. But, it’s an easy way for contractors and suppliers to make money so many industries lobby for it. For example road side license plate readers sound cheap, but unless a cop is next to it it’s really hard to catch the car that tripped one.
Waterluvian 8y ago
In my opinion it's a really bad idea to foster an attitude of, "if you're not with us then you're against us." Some people don't mind these kinds of surveillance. You might staunchly disagree but you have to accept that it's a valid position.
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  Why do you think that?
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  I think I agree with you but I can't help asking "valid in what sense?"
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    Valid in the sense of considering the tradeoff of privacy and airline security worth it.
- inetknght 8y ago
  > you have to accept that it's a valid position. What if I don't accept it?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- yelloweyes 8y ago
  Children don't like getting vaccines either. But guess what? You have to protect stupid people from themselves.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
    No, children don't like shots in general. Vaccines are generally delivered via needle, which means that they don't like those. I don't know of anyone who likes sticking needles in themselves (aside from addicts, but that's another story), only those who understand the value of what's in them (I suppose that addicts would fall into that category, too.) I distinctly remember my mom explaining why I was about to get stabbed with needles when I was four. I didn't mind.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 8y ago
Exactly we keep hearing about privacy violations from Google and Facebook. Time and time again. Except those ... never seem to have any victims. There's just a bit of outrage. But the London cops have been caught falsely accusing, arresting and holding people for weeks based on facial recognition (based on both wrongly made identifications, and wrong input pictures). People have had their own medical files used against them in court by youth services and mental health services departments of their own governments. People have been convicted based on factually incorrect information entered into police databases, then corrected in one place, but not the other. The government keeps getting caught using privacy laws in ways not intended: for instance, to hide the identity of cops that beat up someone for racist reasons, preventing them from getting sued. IRS has access to almost all databases. From medical files to bank statements. What they use it for ... We all know WHO needs to be prevented from merging databases to increase people's safety. And it's not Facebook, it's the police, health and government departments. We need a right to delete any information about yourself AND ALL LINKED AND COPIED VERSIONS in all government database, and all information sharing needs to be "default deny". No government department has any business whatsoever in your medical files. All information provided by the government in court needs to be subject to invalidation by counter-experts. And it should be default practice to have all government information and copies of it that involves any person directly or indirectly "time-out". And to prevent government abuse of privacy laws, anyone working for government needs to be identified on request in any record that involves that person acting in any official capacity.
crazygringo 8y ago
> You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. No, not kidding. There's a legitimate government interest in identifying people entering and leaving a country. This isn't Facebook, or even cameras on street corners -- this is a government responsible for enforcing legitimate immigration policies at a legitimate location (the border) for a wide variety of reasons (safety, economic, etc.), which absolutely requires knowing who is who. I don't know any serious thinkers who claim otherwise. And I don't see a particularly big difference between getting my photo taken for official ID's every few years (passport, driver's license, visas, etc.) and having it taken when I need to prove my identity with one of those. The government already has photos of me. They already know my flight. How could it possibly affect my privacy that they also have a photo of me when I get on the plane? I'm just not seeing it. (Unless you're opposed to the whole concept of passports and photo ID's in general, but that would be a pretty radical position.)
- m463 8y ago
  Was this an international flight?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Yes, according to the first tweet.
- mLuby 8y ago
  You're correct—it is reasonable for governments to require a photo of yourself to associate with your passport. But it is not necessary to take a new photo every time you interact with the government. That's overreach, or at minimum wasting taxpayer money on unneeded photo storage. And I'd wager the reason they're doing this is because while a human can make a decent determination of whether the photo matches the person in front of them, computers need a larger sample to get the error rate low enough for broad use. That's great for CBP and airlines that can employ fewer personnel, and great for travelers who can breeze throughª boarding and customs. But imagine how it will go when you are one of those 0.1% errors and the system refuses to let you in. ªassuming companies/govts decide to increase throughput instead of decreasing cost, or that it's such an improvement that it can do both.

by ssss11 8y ago

sushisource 8y ago

I think being conditioned to it is inevitable to some degree. I think the only reasonable choice is to focus on punishment for misuse, not prevention. This reeks to me of another situation where we're trying to put the cat back in the bag, and that has basically never worked (except maybe nuclear disarmament, and even then... barely, and largely because the capital costs are so extreme). Surveillance tech is cheap and widely available and will only continue to move in that direction. Attempting to make sure no one has a photo of you without your consent seems hilariously impossible to me. Focus on the outcomes instead.

mentat 8y ago
Make it symmetric, use it to watch the watchers, then we might be talking about something socially viable. Without that, it's about control.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  There is a fundamental trade-off between transparency and privacy, but also a very real risk that we will end up with neither.
  - lapinot 8y ago
    Privacy is not hiding, it's about controlling visibility. Most of the data we wish would be treated differently are not strictly private, we just don't assume they would be easily accessible (specifically by a private company). We are currently transparent to big actors but cannot see through the window ourselves.
Retric 8y ago
Effective surveillance is extremely expensive. But, it’s an easy way for contractors and suppliers to make money so many industries lobby for it. For example road side license plate readers sound cheap, but unless a cop is next to it it’s really hard to catch the car that tripped one.

Waterluvian 8y ago

In my opinion it's a really bad idea to foster an attitude of, "if you're not with us then you're against us." Some people don't mind these kinds of surveillance. You might staunchly disagree but you have to accept that it's a valid position.

rmrfrmrf 8y ago
Why do you think that?
staticautomatic 8y ago
I think I agree with you but I can't help asking "valid in what sense?"
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Valid in the sense of considering the tradeoff of privacy and airline security worth it.
inetknght 8y ago
> you have to accept that it's a valid position. What if I don't accept it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
yelloweyes 8y ago
Children don't like getting vaccines either. But guess what? You have to protect stupid people from themselves.
- HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
  No, children don't like shots in general. Vaccines are generally delivered via needle, which means that they don't like those. I don't know of anyone who likes sticking needles in themselves (aside from addicts, but that's another story), only those who understand the value of what's in them (I suppose that addicts would fall into that category, too.) I distinctly remember my mom explaining why I was about to get stabbed with needles when I was four. I didn't mind.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

candiodari 8y ago

Exactly we keep hearing about privacy violations from Google and Facebook. Time and time again. Except those ... never seem to have any victims. There's just a bit of outrage. But the London cops have been caught falsely accusing, arresting and holding people for weeks based on facial recognition (based on both wrongly made identifications, and wrong input pictures). People have had their own medical files used against them in court by youth services and mental health services departments of their own governments. People have been convicted based on factually incorrect information entered into police databases, then corrected in one place, but not the other. The government keeps getting caught using privacy laws in ways not intended: for instance, to hide the identity of cops that beat up someone for racist reasons, preventing them from getting sued. IRS has access to almost all databases. From medical files to bank statements. What they use it for ... We all know WHO needs to be prevented from merging databases to increase people's safety. And it's not Facebook, it's the police, health and government departments. We need a right to delete any information about yourself AND ALL LINKED AND COPIED VERSIONS in all government database, and all information sharing needs to be "default deny". No government department has any business whatsoever in your medical files. All information provided by the government in court needs to be subject to invalidation by counter-experts. And it should be default practice to have all government information and copies of it that involves any person directly or indirectly "time-out". And to prevent government abuse of privacy laws, anyone working for government needs to be identified on request in any record that involves that person acting in any official capacity.

crazygringo 8y ago

> You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. No, not kidding. There's a legitimate government interest in identifying people entering and leaving a country. This isn't Facebook, or even cameras on street corners -- this is a government responsible for enforcing legitimate immigration policies at a legitimate location (the border) for a wide variety of reasons (safety, economic, etc.), which absolutely requires knowing who is who. I don't know any serious thinkers who claim otherwise. And I don't see a particularly big difference between getting my photo taken for official ID's every few years (passport, driver's license, visas, etc.) and having it taken when I need to prove my identity with one of those. The government already has photos of me. They already know my flight. How could it possibly affect my privacy that they also have a photo of me when I get on the plane? I'm just not seeing it. (Unless you're opposed to the whole concept of passports and photo ID's in general, but that would be a pretty radical position.)

m463 8y ago
Was this an international flight?
- icebraining 8y ago
  Yes, according to the first tweet.
mLuby 8y ago
You're correct—it is reasonable for governments to require a photo of yourself to associate with your passport. But it is not necessary to take a new photo every time you interact with the government. That's overreach, or at minimum wasting taxpayer money on unneeded photo storage. And I'd wager the reason they're doing this is because while a human can make a decent determination of whether the photo matches the person in front of them, computers need a larger sample to get the error rate low enough for broad use. That's great for CBP and airlines that can employ fewer personnel, and great for travelers who can breeze throughª boarding and customs. But imagine how it will go when you are one of those 0.1% errors and the system refuses to let you in. ªassuming companies/govts decide to increase throughput instead of decreasing cost, or that it's such an improvement that it can do both.