16 ms·

I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy

338 points by lnguyen 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago
I don't understand the problem here. How does the facial recognition system work? I'm thinking that biometric passports contain the necessary data and that the airline has already got then by scanning the passport at some point so that it quick and easy to use facial recognition at boarding time. If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really. In any case, there is no anonymity in air travel (this is really more about anonymity than privacy). You are identified and tracked from the moment you buy your ticket until you leave the airport. Facial recognition is a new technology that people need to adapt and be confident with. It will take some time then no-one will pay attention anymore.
- resonanttoe 7y ago
  The point this article misses entirely is that the Facial recognition system is now at the gate which is ostensibly Delta’s territory. It isn’t US Boarder Control running the facial control system, its Delta, Southwest, or anyone else, which has implications about the privacy of the biometric data, that up until this point hasn’t been collected by Airlines, only Boarder entities. That said, in order to boot strap this system, Delta et., al. would have had to either; 1. Build their own database of biometric and facial data that they believe was reliable (unlikely) 2. Get a full and continually updated copy from CBP (Probably noisy) 3. Use an API made available by CBP that acts as a Biometric/Facial oracle. I’ve heard rumblings that it’s 3, but I can’t cite anything to back that claim up, so grains of salt.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    My understanding is that biometric data are contained in your passport, which is already scanned by airlines when you check in and/or board planes. Here they are using this information to automatically check that it is in fact you instead of having a staff member look at you and check against your passport's photo.
    - resonanttoe 7y ago
      I’m not certain of the particular setup here (per airport thing) but I’ve never had them scan my passport at the gate in a US Airport, only at Immigration checkpoints for international travel and TSA. This is especially true for domestic travel as well.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        But were you facially scanned?
        resonanttoe 7y ago
        At Immigration: Scanned, no, Photographed, yes. (So depending on your definition) At TSA, They scan the first page of passport (or local ID) and usually Full body scan. So in the strict sense of facially scanned no. At the gate (until now), neither. They would scan the boarding pass and eyeball the passport if international. Again the point here is that in the first two instances these are Government agencies doing the scanning. At the third, the Government no longer has anything to do with it. The question with this stuff is how and where are Airlines (private companies) getting a database of biometric data and what are they doing with it?
        morpheuskafka 7y ago
        They submit the data to the CBP database and get a result back. It will help to validate exit reporting and ensure that the right people are being reported as leaving the country on their I-94s
        resonanttoe 7y ago
        Yes I suspect this, but the consumer has no way of verifying this. Similarly it also means that the airlines have access to a Face Oracle and can build their own database with confidence based on that result. Neither of which are good.
      - 7y ago
  - mti27 7y ago
    > Delta’s territory This feels like the opposite of the GDPR stories from a few months ago. Instead of all the "It's coming" hype and opt in agreements, the company just gets the info without a fuss...
- tastroder 7y ago
  So, what you're saying is... there's no problem because people have already given up anyway? At the very least opting out gives them a data point that their theatric procedures aren't readily accepted by everybody.
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    There's no 'given up'. There was no privacy to begin with. I don't see why crossing borders should be anonymous, as long as borders exist. Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash?
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      >Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash? Let me tell you about flying before 1996, kid. It was great. No ID presented, you just needed a paper ticket. You could actually buy and sell paper tickets on usenet (and people did), and you could wave to your family when you get on the airplane as you didn't need a ticket to be in the boarding area. I thought it was a disaster when they started implementing the dystopia we have today, and remember premonitions of disaster listening to some douchbag I brought to the airport babbling about the government "keeping us safe."
      - simond_d 7y ago
        Nothing you've said here would make me want to go back to 1996 and take a flight, granddad.
        scottlocklin 7y ago
        I guess animals often grow to enjoy their cages; had a pal who kinda freaked out when he got out of the pokey too. Oh yeah: no body cavity searches getting past the gate, we had legroom, free food on the plane, free baggage, and they didn't blare CNN in the airports like some Orwell dystopia, or ads for the airline on the airplane telescreen. The planes were better too; 747 was super common and comfy (now you need to fly the Luftwaffe or British Airways, and the seats aint what they used to be), and if you were loaded, you could take the Concorde across the pond for a price which seems comically cheap these days.
- fuzzyset 7y ago
  I think most are looking at this backwards. This system is most likely the reCaptcha of facial recognition. The same way Google already knows you're not a robot, and they just use you to improve their image recognition algos. The facial recognition at the airport is one of the few ways to get multiple pictures of people while knowing with near 100% certainty the face matches the name. The system is building out their data set. Running facial recognition in other scenarios (e.g. security footage after a crime) off a single passport photo is hard. Running facial recognition off of a data set with many different photos is much better.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  A classic passport photo is considerably different than a 3d/hd scan of your face with facial recognition algorithms copied everywhere.
chucka9 7y ago
Peripherally related. I needed a new passport, and applied online for one. The online application kept rejecting my photo which I had taken by a pharmacy specifically approved for taking passport photos. It said that my eyes were too shaded or had too much shadow. I tried everything with levels and contrast. I gave up and started messing with the application software. I cut the eyes out a different photo in the Mac Preview.app application. I lined up the eyes and thought they looked pretty good, then uploaded the photo. The application doesn't give a pass/fail, it just submits and its off. I have traveled quite extensively on this passport, including going to some countries that are pretty uptight about security. I'm sure I behave like a drug dealer going through security.
- tantalor 7y ago
  Yeah, that probably invalidates your passport. "Photos must not be digitally enhanced or altered to change your appearance in any way" https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/photos/digital-image-requirements.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
qwerty456127 7y ago
> I began to wonder: Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out? No. No ordinary people would care even when there will be no choice to opt out.
ricardobeat 7y ago
Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects privacy? Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Definitely possible if standards are defined, but that is not the problem. The real one is that we now have a security industry that needs to apply tech to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the environment anyway.
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >...to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I don't believe that this is true. For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire world witnessed). Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil" for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger - certainly - ins't new, right?
kowdermeister 7y ago
> Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out? yes :/ Many commenters say that your data / picture is in the system already, which is fine, but your passport photo can be 10 - 15 years old and these systems record how you look now. That's the question if you are comfortable providing it. What you can't do anything about is CCTV and I think it's a safe bet that they are already equipped with facial recognition and other ML tracking technologies. It's just a question of which database you can avoid being registered in.
- ttsda 7y ago
  Gatwick airport had a ton of facial recognition cameras last time I was there. They had a ring of leds around the lens that lights up in a rotating pattern, it really is difficult not to look directly into the lens due to that.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Wear an eyepatch?
  - t1o5 7y ago
    I had to get my retina scanned at Abudhabi airport the last time I was there for a project. I had to look into a scanner and try to see a picture of the house inside that. For some reason I couldn't see a house inside that. The officers were very unprofessional. They shouted at me for not being able to see the house and it probably have to do with my passport from a not so desirable elite country.
- Vrondi 7y ago
  Your only way to avoid being scanned for facial recognition is to never enter public spaces like airports. Perhaps to never leave your home.
buboard 7y ago
For me it was easy. My strabismus seems to confuse the system
carlob 7y ago
At Rome's FCO airport there is a facial recognition passport control for flights outside of the EU. Last time I left the EU, my aging passport's chip refused to work and a person made me retry 5 times before letting me go to the human passport control. It must be said that the non-European, non-biometric passport control can easily take 30 minutes longer. I have to say that I've never thought about this in terms of databases, I somewhat assumed that they were only matching against the local copy in my passport, but maybe someone can elucidate for me on how this works on EU passports.
kbos87 7y ago
“Until we have evidence that facial recognition is accurate and reliable—as opposed to simply convenient—travelers should avoid the technology where they can.” No, no, no! The possibility that this technology may occasionally be wrong pales in comparison to the world we’re marching toward. By far the biggest risk facing society is that having your every move tracked by governments will soon be next to impossible. Also just imagine what our world will look like as facial recognition data slowly leaks out into the hands of non governments (or they find ways to collect it.) It isn’t hard to imagine a world where everyone knows everyone else’s whereabouts at all times. Facial recognition feels like the biggest looming step toward a dystopian world. The fact that they throw out the possibility of this technology occasionally being wrong sidesteps the real risks in favor of something that’s just easier to explain.
- samirm 7y ago
  This is a very confusing comment. You seem to disagree with the premise of the article, but then go on to agree with it, but also make a bizarre statement about the impossibility of governments being able to track you?
  - larrik 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure there's a typo in there somewhere.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
>Research shows that it is particularly unreliable for gender and racial minorities: one study, for example, found a 99 percent accuracy rate for white men, while the error rate for women who have darker skin reached up to 35 percent. This suggests that, for women and people of color, facial recognition could actually cause an increase in the likelihood to be unfairly targeted for additional screening measures. So this should also be a very good reason to reject this tech for this use. Darker skinned people and women get misclassified even more, and subject to further interrogation. I may be a white guy (works 99/100)... But I can't just defend my own rights, or all of our rights degrade.
maxheadroom 7y ago
>Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric information? The problem is that you've already handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0]. At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that. So, to make an appeal on the argument of privacy of data is being woefully ignorant of the fact that this encroachment has been happening for years and it didn't seem to matter very much then. [0] - https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-real-id-requirements/ https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-rea...
- bighi 7y ago
  And they probably scanned his face one way or another anyway.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  The "real" max headroom (edison carter) would never lay down for govt/corporate overreach.
- shostack 7y ago
  But are the systems all interconnected? Or is there still value in minimizing your biometric footprint spreading across multiple systems?
hazz99 7y ago
I've recently traveled outside Australia and used the facial recognition "smart" system. It was completely non-obvious that we could opt-out - it was only implied by the text. After going through security, I asked an official if I could've opted out. They said yes, and said I could flag someone down. When I returned, I tried to do so - but there was no-one around! Its an automated system, and almost impossible to opt out of. Airport security is full of dark patterns when it comes to privacy.
- mb_72 7y ago
  What airport is this? At Adelaide airport arrivals I always choose to go through the manual processing queue, i.e. the one non-Australian citizens have to use. Half the time it's faster than the smart-gate system queue, and even if it's not an extra 10 minutes after 26hrs + of traveling isn't going to kill me. As for departures, it wasn't obvious to me - like with you - that I could opt-out. I'll give it a shot next time and see what happens. Am expecting some annoyed and suspicious glances! :)
  - jen729w 7y ago
    I use the ‘smart’ gates at Melbourne regularly. You insert your passport, stand in front of a camera, and one assumes that your current photograph is compared to that of your passport. If they’re the same, you pass. I fail to see the privacy implications. I’m already giving someone my passport details – I must do that to enter or exit the country. That passport already contains my photograph. What privacy am I losing by having my photograph taken at the airport? I say this as a very privacy-conscious individual. I block ads, don’t use Facebook, etc. I fail to see the further loss of privacy in this case, over and above the mandatory scanning of my passport.
    - tty2300 7y ago
      This may be true but the end game for governments is to have facial recognition everywhere. They start at the airport because "it doesn't matter, you are already giving your info out" and then we become OK with the idea so they start rolling it out for public transport and "it doesn't matter, you already do this every time you fly" It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of facial recognition entirely in any situation.
pelario 7y ago
Very click-baity. Below the only part that actually relates to the title: The announcement came as we began to board. Last month, I was at Detroit’s Metro Airport for a connecting flight to Southeast Asia. I listened as a Delta Air Lines staff member informed passengers that the boarding process would use facial recognition instead of passport scanners. As a privacy-conscious person, I was uncomfortable boarding this way. I also knew I could opt out. Presumably, most of my fellow fliers did not: I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners. To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board. The rest of the article is a (not very novel) discussion about the risks and problems of facial recognition.
- aurbano 7y ago
  Agreed. What is the privacy concern of allowing face recognition if you are letting them scan your passport?
  - kowdermeister 7y ago
    Maybe you don't want new data points on your face in a database.
    - chii 7y ago
      Not sure if this happens in smaller airports, but if the passport scanner is automated, they already take a picture of you.
      - rickycook 7y ago
        they have a copy of a static image that they likely already have access to. very different to a high res alternate image, from a different angle, with a different expression, in different lighting
        7y ago
fractallyte 7y ago
I was at London's Gatwick Airport last week, where facial recognition was being trialed at the boarding gate for my flight. On the way, multiple, large signs announced the trial. At the gate itself, there was a prominent notice addressing travelers' privacy (and other) concerns - several paragraphs of large text. It was clearly mentioned that, for people who were reluctant to use the new technology, there would be attendants available to process them in the usual way. I was quite impressed. However, the trial was cancelled, and the machines still retained their plastic wrapping. Oh well.
- socksy 7y ago
  Sounds like GDPR having its desired effect
arshbot 7y ago
Recently traveled internationally. I cannot agree with the claims of this clickbaity article. In the security line there were numerous signs telling passengers they could opt out of having their photo taken. As I approached the kiosk, I mentioned that I preferred to not have my photo taken, and was nearly cut off by the lady asking for my passport. I'd argue that getting my passport scanned was quicker than waiting for the machine go take your picture.
quickthrower2 7y ago
When you scan your passport a picture of your face is in the system anyway
oceanman888 7y ago
Airport is about the only places that I have no problem with being Facial Recognition as long as the data is correctly handled because it contributes to the safety of so many parties.
- simion314 7y ago
  What is your limit? What about handing over all your social accounts? fingerprints, DNA , it seems that gradually if a thing can be done it will be done. 2
  - OrgNet 7y ago
    Can you wear a mask while they do the passport scan? They need know how you look like so they can match the picture with the passport... using a computer or a human.
    - simion314 7y ago
      That is fine if it would be the same, but your biometric data is stored in a database, I would be fine with scan the passport , scan the person, check if it matches, if all is fine delete the biometric data and not put it in a database. If there is a good reason to keep this data in a database let me know.
      - OrgNet 7y ago
        How can they compare your appearance to a picture if they don't keep your picture on-file?
        simion314 7y ago
        The passport is in your hand, you place it on the table where it can be scanned and compared with your face. If they have your face in the database can you travel without a physical passport?
benbristow 7y ago
Even if you opt out of the boarding pass/passport scanner facial recognition etc. you're still not technically opting out. There's quite a few CCTV cameras in airports. They've most likely (definitely) got some sort of facial recognition software connected to them.
corodra 7y ago
A bit weak of an article. I absolutely hate how facial rec is going to be the norm in a lot of things outside security. 1. The infamous they, already have a picture of your face. Your id/passport. It's kind of too late to be anonymous when boarding a plane, for multiple reasons. 2. One agency has it, thus its easy for them to share it with others. HA! You, have never dealt with fed agencies. You want to meet the grownup versions of those toddlers that never learned to share their toys? Any fed agency. Doesn't matter how important the info is and how timely, "it's our data, our jurisdiction, we'll handle it". Just two points that stood out to me. Again, I agree that privacy now seems like a dream we had in the distant past due to tech companies and the results of a post-911 world. But this article is the equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating said cake.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Wait, are you seriously insinuating that it's okay for the government to do this? Airline security worked fine before 9/11, and it hasn't measurably improved with all of the bull crap the TSA is now doing. From what I can tell, we haven't been attacked in the same way because: - passengers are more vigilant - terrorist attacks are hard to plan and execute as it is - airlines installed locking doors for the cockpit All of the rest of the stuff the TSA does is overreach. It's not equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating cake, it's closer to only being offered sugary cake while in prison without being told there's a healthier option available.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Did I say it was acceptable? Did I use those words? Did I not say that I do not like where its going? At the same time, can I blame anyone for going security overboard when multiple buildings are destroyed by kamikaze hijacked airplanes? A first responder from that just recently died. So yea, still a bit of a sore wound for people. This isn't like talking about Rome getting sacked. Some of us still remember when the towers stood. Passengers are vigilant. Ha! The one thing your average civilian is not is vigilant. The internet is rife with bad folks doing bad things in crowds. And most people do nothing. Plus, look up the millennium plot. The news doesn't make a stink when things go well. Lots of people have been stopped at airports and even before being able to start. You only hear about the failures, because it makes for better news. Fact is, pandora's box was opened. We are in a new age where people get their fame from doing big, nasty things. The Rolling Stone put the Boston bomber's face on the cover for fuck's sake. Where rock star faces have been. I like that on imgur, some people bucked that trend by periodically showing the faces and sharing the stories of those that fought back. But guess what, someone has to actively protect too. Yea, lots of issues with the TSA. They knee jerked hard towards some super fucked up practices those first few years. You think traveling with a really slavic last name was fun? I was always randomly put in the special search line. Three times I got backroom questioned over my recent travels. I still show up 3 hours early to fly out of habit. But I also chose to roadtrip more often instead. Which was more fun anyways. Maybe if the public could actually police themselves and evil was eradicated, then we can do away with security in general. Until then, it's a response to a problem where no one is offering a better one other than hugs and unicorns that fart rainbows.
Merrill 7y ago
Maybe we'll get to McLuhan's global electronic village after all. Having come from a rural area, in a village it is just like in Cheers - "Everybody knows your name". They also know a lot about you, your family, friends and enemies. Much of what they know is true, but some of it is wrong (gossip). Privacy and anonymity is of recent origin, starting with industrial development and large cities. It's a "security by obscurity" strategy for the more powerless segments of society. Powerful people are in the Social Register.
pintxo 7y ago
I am usually opting-out of body scanners (in the EU its still optional). But at some airports the security people seem to not know that it's optional. By now I always carry a letter from the federal police (responsible for border + airport security) explaining that it's optional. At Berlins airports they usually ask for a reason why I opt-out of body scanners, which is ridiculous, as one needs no reason to NOT do something that's legally optional to do.
t1o5 7y ago
> Once this sort of data is made insecure, there is no hope of getting it back. One cannot simply alter their face like they can their phone number or email address. This is the single most thing that we all should be concerned about. I take it that we cannot do much about stopping government surveillance in the name of security. It's coming anyway whether we like it or not. A large number of population is already under this tech already.
geggam 7y ago
Your concerns about privacy at this level are nice and warranted. They are also a day late and a dollar short.
kyberias 7y ago
I would like to opt-out as well, but it seems it actually was quite easy. All she had to do was say that she wants the passport to be scanned. Good to know.
kkotak 7y ago
I see the issue with false positive, but I don't get the privacy argument here. Scanning your face vs your passport is not any different from privacy perspective.
- ConcernedCoder 7y ago
  Imagine this: "Years from now, the party/person in power goes completely nuts, and starts rounding people up in train cars to ship off to a final solution facility... would you prefer to try to sneak out of the country when: A. only your passport/papers identify you, or B. your face can be recognized from any video camera in the country..."
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Just a few weeks ago there was a thread on this site discussing how IBM census taking machines made it all possible to identify the undesirables. Now it's trivial.
morpheuskafka 7y ago
Airports hve got to be 100% covered with cameras that CBP could easily get access to—why is taking a single still photo—to be matched to the passport photo they already have—such a big deal?
aj7 7y ago
You opted into a list of people who opted out of facial recognition.
Skunkleton 7y ago
Of all of the problematic uses of facial recognition, this isn't one. You are already in a context where your identification must be verified. Who cares if they establish that identity with a precanned passport image? It isn't like there is any new data available here.
doctorRetro 7y ago
"I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy" "I had to ... speak with a Delta representative at their information desk ... then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board." That sounds relatively easy, actually.
hereme888 7y ago
"99% accuracy for male faces, but 35% error rate for women..." The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.

338 points by lnguyen 7y ago

I don't understand the problem here. How does the facial recognition system work? I'm thinking that biometric passports contain the necessary data and that the airline has already got then by scanning the passport at some point so that it quick and easy to use facial recognition at boarding time. If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really. In any case, there is no anonymity in air travel (this is really more about anonymity than privacy). You are identified and tracked from the moment you buy your ticket until you leave the airport. Facial recognition is a new technology that people need to adapt and be confident with. It will take some time then no-one will pay attention anymore.

resonanttoe 7y ago
The point this article misses entirely is that the Facial recognition system is now at the gate which is ostensibly Delta’s territory. It isn’t US Boarder Control running the facial control system, its Delta, Southwest, or anyone else, which has implications about the privacy of the biometric data, that up until this point hasn’t been collected by Airlines, only Boarder entities. That said, in order to boot strap this system, Delta et., al. would have had to either; 1. Build their own database of biometric and facial data that they believe was reliable (unlikely) 2. Get a full and continually updated copy from CBP (Probably noisy) 3. Use an API made available by CBP that acts as a Biometric/Facial oracle. I’ve heard rumblings that it’s 3, but I can’t cite anything to back that claim up, so grains of salt.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  My understanding is that biometric data are contained in your passport, which is already scanned by airlines when you check in and/or board planes. Here they are using this information to automatically check that it is in fact you instead of having a staff member look at you and check against your passport's photo.
  - resonanttoe 7y ago
    I’m not certain of the particular setup here (per airport thing) but I’ve never had them scan my passport at the gate in a US Airport, only at Immigration checkpoints for international travel and TSA. This is especially true for domestic travel as well.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      But were you facially scanned?
      - resonanttoe 7y ago
        At Immigration: Scanned, no, Photographed, yes. (So depending on your definition) At TSA, They scan the first page of passport (or local ID) and usually Full body scan. So in the strict sense of facially scanned no. At the gate (until now), neither. They would scan the boarding pass and eyeball the passport if international. Again the point here is that in the first two instances these are Government agencies doing the scanning. At the third, the Government no longer has anything to do with it. The question with this stuff is how and where are Airlines (private companies) getting a database of biometric data and what are they doing with it?
        morpheuskafka 7y ago
        They submit the data to the CBP database and get a result back. It will help to validate exit reporting and ensure that the right people are being reported as leaving the country on their I-94s
        resonanttoe 7y ago
        Yes I suspect this, but the consumer has no way of verifying this. Similarly it also means that the airlines have access to a Face Oracle and can build their own database with confidence based on that result. Neither of which are good.
    - 7y ago
- mti27 7y ago
  > Delta’s territory This feels like the opposite of the GDPR stories from a few months ago. Instead of all the "It's coming" hype and opt in agreements, the company just gets the info without a fuss...
tastroder 7y ago
So, what you're saying is... there's no problem because people have already given up anyway? At the very least opting out gives them a data point that their theatric procedures aren't readily accepted by everybody.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  There's no 'given up'. There was no privacy to begin with. I don't see why crossing borders should be anonymous, as long as borders exist. Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash?
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    >Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash? Let me tell you about flying before 1996, kid. It was great. No ID presented, you just needed a paper ticket. You could actually buy and sell paper tickets on usenet (and people did), and you could wave to your family when you get on the airplane as you didn't need a ticket to be in the boarding area. I thought it was a disaster when they started implementing the dystopia we have today, and remember premonitions of disaster listening to some douchbag I brought to the airport babbling about the government "keeping us safe."
    - simond_d 7y ago
      Nothing you've said here would make me want to go back to 1996 and take a flight, granddad.
      - scottlocklin 7y ago
        I guess animals often grow to enjoy their cages; had a pal who kinda freaked out when he got out of the pokey too. Oh yeah: no body cavity searches getting past the gate, we had legroom, free food on the plane, free baggage, and they didn't blare CNN in the airports like some Orwell dystopia, or ads for the airline on the airplane telescreen. The planes were better too; 747 was super common and comfy (now you need to fly the Luftwaffe or British Airways, and the seats aint what they used to be), and if you were loaded, you could take the Concorde across the pond for a price which seems comically cheap these days.
fuzzyset 7y ago
I think most are looking at this backwards. This system is most likely the reCaptcha of facial recognition. The same way Google already knows you're not a robot, and they just use you to improve their image recognition algos. The facial recognition at the airport is one of the few ways to get multiple pictures of people while knowing with near 100% certainty the face matches the name. The system is building out their data set. Running facial recognition in other scenarios (e.g. security footage after a crime) off a single passport photo is hard. Running facial recognition off of a data set with many different photos is much better.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
A classic passport photo is considerably different than a 3d/hd scan of your face with facial recognition algorithms copied everywhere.

chucka9 7y ago

Peripherally related. I needed a new passport, and applied online for one. The online application kept rejecting my photo which I had taken by a pharmacy specifically approved for taking passport photos. It said that my eyes were too shaded or had too much shadow. I tried everything with levels and contrast. I gave up and started messing with the application software. I cut the eyes out a different photo in the Mac Preview.app application. I lined up the eyes and thought they looked pretty good, then uploaded the photo. The application doesn't give a pass/fail, it just submits and its off. I have traveled quite extensively on this passport, including going to some countries that are pretty uptight about security. I'm sure I behave like a drug dealer going through security.

tantalor 7y ago
Yeah, that probably invalidates your passport. "Photos must not be digitally enhanced or altered to change your appearance in any way" https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/photos/digital-image-requirements.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

qwerty456127 7y ago

> I began to wonder: Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out? No. No ordinary people would care even when there will be no choice to opt out.

ricardobeat 7y ago

Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects privacy? Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.

raxxorrax 7y ago
Definitely possible if standards are defined, but that is not the problem. The real one is that we now have a security industry that needs to apply tech to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the environment anyway.
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  >...to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I don't believe that this is true. For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire world witnessed). Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil" for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger - certainly - ins't new, right?

kowdermeister 7y ago

> Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out? yes :/ Many commenters say that your data / picture is in the system already, which is fine, but your passport photo can be 10 - 15 years old and these systems record how you look now. That's the question if you are comfortable providing it. What you can't do anything about is CCTV and I think it's a safe bet that they are already equipped with facial recognition and other ML tracking technologies. It's just a question of which database you can avoid being registered in.

ttsda 7y ago
Gatwick airport had a ton of facial recognition cameras last time I was there. They had a ring of leds around the lens that lights up in a rotating pattern, it really is difficult not to look directly into the lens due to that.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Wear an eyepatch?
- t1o5 7y ago
  I had to get my retina scanned at Abudhabi airport the last time I was there for a project. I had to look into a scanner and try to see a picture of the house inside that. For some reason I couldn't see a house inside that. The officers were very unprofessional. They shouted at me for not being able to see the house and it probably have to do with my passport from a not so desirable elite country.
Vrondi 7y ago
Your only way to avoid being scanned for facial recognition is to never enter public spaces like airports. Perhaps to never leave your home.

buboard 7y ago

For me it was easy. My strabismus seems to confuse the system

carlob 7y ago

At Rome's FCO airport there is a facial recognition passport control for flights outside of the EU. Last time I left the EU, my aging passport's chip refused to work and a person made me retry 5 times before letting me go to the human passport control. It must be said that the non-European, non-biometric passport control can easily take 30 minutes longer. I have to say that I've never thought about this in terms of databases, I somewhat assumed that they were only matching against the local copy in my passport, but maybe someone can elucidate for me on how this works on EU passports.

kbos87 7y ago

“Until we have evidence that facial recognition is accurate and reliable—as opposed to simply convenient—travelers should avoid the technology where they can.” No, no, no! The possibility that this technology may occasionally be wrong pales in comparison to the world we’re marching toward. By far the biggest risk facing society is that having your every move tracked by governments will soon be next to impossible. Also just imagine what our world will look like as facial recognition data slowly leaks out into the hands of non governments (or they find ways to collect it.) It isn’t hard to imagine a world where everyone knows everyone else’s whereabouts at all times. Facial recognition feels like the biggest looming step toward a dystopian world. The fact that they throw out the possibility of this technology occasionally being wrong sidesteps the real risks in favor of something that’s just easier to explain.

samirm 7y ago
This is a very confusing comment. You seem to disagree with the premise of the article, but then go on to agree with it, but also make a bizarre statement about the impossibility of governments being able to track you?
- larrik 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure there's a typo in there somewhere.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

>Research shows that it is particularly unreliable for gender and racial minorities: one study, for example, found a 99 percent accuracy rate for white men, while the error rate for women who have darker skin reached up to 35 percent. This suggests that, for women and people of color, facial recognition could actually cause an increase in the likelihood to be unfairly targeted for additional screening measures. So this should also be a very good reason to reject this tech for this use. Darker skinned people and women get misclassified even more, and subject to further interrogation. I may be a white guy (works 99/100)... But I can't just defend my own rights, or all of our rights degrade.

maxheadroom 7y ago

>Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric information? The problem is that you've already handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0]. At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that. So, to make an appeal on the argument of privacy of data is being woefully ignorant of the fact that this encroachment has been happening for years and it didn't seem to matter very much then. [0] - https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-real-id-requirements/ https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-rea...

bighi 7y ago
And they probably scanned his face one way or another anyway.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
The "real" max headroom (edison carter) would never lay down for govt/corporate overreach.
shostack 7y ago
But are the systems all interconnected? Or is there still value in minimizing your biometric footprint spreading across multiple systems?

hazz99 7y ago

I've recently traveled outside Australia and used the facial recognition "smart" system. It was completely non-obvious that we could opt-out - it was only implied by the text. After going through security, I asked an official if I could've opted out. They said yes, and said I could flag someone down. When I returned, I tried to do so - but there was no-one around! Its an automated system, and almost impossible to opt out of. Airport security is full of dark patterns when it comes to privacy.

mb_72 7y ago
What airport is this? At Adelaide airport arrivals I always choose to go through the manual processing queue, i.e. the one non-Australian citizens have to use. Half the time it's faster than the smart-gate system queue, and even if it's not an extra 10 minutes after 26hrs + of traveling isn't going to kill me. As for departures, it wasn't obvious to me - like with you - that I could opt-out. I'll give it a shot next time and see what happens. Am expecting some annoyed and suspicious glances! :)
- jen729w 7y ago
  I use the ‘smart’ gates at Melbourne regularly. You insert your passport, stand in front of a camera, and one assumes that your current photograph is compared to that of your passport. If they’re the same, you pass. I fail to see the privacy implications. I’m already giving someone my passport details – I must do that to enter or exit the country. That passport already contains my photograph. What privacy am I losing by having my photograph taken at the airport? I say this as a very privacy-conscious individual. I block ads, don’t use Facebook, etc. I fail to see the further loss of privacy in this case, over and above the mandatory scanning of my passport.
  - tty2300 7y ago
    This may be true but the end game for governments is to have facial recognition everywhere. They start at the airport because "it doesn't matter, you are already giving your info out" and then we become OK with the idea so they start rolling it out for public transport and "it doesn't matter, you already do this every time you fly" It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of facial recognition entirely in any situation.

pelario 7y ago

Very click-baity. Below the only part that actually relates to the title: The announcement came as we began to board. Last month, I was at Detroit’s Metro Airport for a connecting flight to Southeast Asia. I listened as a Delta Air Lines staff member informed passengers that the boarding process would use facial recognition instead of passport scanners. As a privacy-conscious person, I was uncomfortable boarding this way. I also knew I could opt out. Presumably, most of my fellow fliers did not: I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners. To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board. The rest of the article is a (not very novel) discussion about the risks and problems of facial recognition.

aurbano 7y ago
Agreed. What is the privacy concern of allowing face recognition if you are letting them scan your passport?
- kowdermeister 7y ago
  Maybe you don't want new data points on your face in a database.
  - chii 7y ago
    Not sure if this happens in smaller airports, but if the passport scanner is automated, they already take a picture of you.
    - rickycook 7y ago
      they have a copy of a static image that they likely already have access to. very different to a high res alternate image, from a different angle, with a different expression, in different lighting
      - 7y ago

fractallyte 7y ago

I was at London's Gatwick Airport last week, where facial recognition was being trialed at the boarding gate for my flight. On the way, multiple, large signs announced the trial. At the gate itself, there was a prominent notice addressing travelers' privacy (and other) concerns - several paragraphs of large text. It was clearly mentioned that, for people who were reluctant to use the new technology, there would be attendants available to process them in the usual way. I was quite impressed. However, the trial was cancelled, and the machines still retained their plastic wrapping. Oh well.

socksy 7y ago
Sounds like GDPR having its desired effect

arshbot 7y ago

Recently traveled internationally. I cannot agree with the claims of this clickbaity article. In the security line there were numerous signs telling passengers they could opt out of having their photo taken. As I approached the kiosk, I mentioned that I preferred to not have my photo taken, and was nearly cut off by the lady asking for my passport. I'd argue that getting my passport scanned was quicker than waiting for the machine go take your picture.

quickthrower2 7y ago

When you scan your passport a picture of your face is in the system anyway

oceanman888 7y ago

Airport is about the only places that I have no problem with being Facial Recognition as long as the data is correctly handled because it contributes to the safety of so many parties.

simion314 7y ago
What is your limit? What about handing over all your social accounts? fingerprints, DNA , it seems that gradually if a thing can be done it will be done. 2
- OrgNet 7y ago
  Can you wear a mask while they do the passport scan? They need know how you look like so they can match the picture with the passport... using a computer or a human.
  - simion314 7y ago
    That is fine if it would be the same, but your biometric data is stored in a database, I would be fine with scan the passport , scan the person, check if it matches, if all is fine delete the biometric data and not put it in a database. If there is a good reason to keep this data in a database let me know.
    - OrgNet 7y ago
      How can they compare your appearance to a picture if they don't keep your picture on-file?
      - simion314 7y ago
        The passport is in your hand, you place it on the table where it can be scanned and compared with your face. If they have your face in the database can you travel without a physical passport?

benbristow 7y ago

Even if you opt out of the boarding pass/passport scanner facial recognition etc. you're still not technically opting out. There's quite a few CCTV cameras in airports. They've most likely (definitely) got some sort of facial recognition software connected to them.

corodra 7y ago

A bit weak of an article. I absolutely hate how facial rec is going to be the norm in a lot of things outside security. 1. The infamous they, already have a picture of your face. Your id/passport. It's kind of too late to be anonymous when boarding a plane, for multiple reasons. 2. One agency has it, thus its easy for them to share it with others. HA! You, have never dealt with fed agencies. You want to meet the grownup versions of those toddlers that never learned to share their toys? Any fed agency. Doesn't matter how important the info is and how timely, "it's our data, our jurisdiction, we'll handle it". Just two points that stood out to me. Again, I agree that privacy now seems like a dream we had in the distant past due to tech companies and the results of a post-911 world. But this article is the equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating said cake.

beatgammit 7y ago
Wait, are you seriously insinuating that it's okay for the government to do this? Airline security worked fine before 9/11, and it hasn't measurably improved with all of the bull crap the TSA is now doing. From what I can tell, we haven't been attacked in the same way because: - passengers are more vigilant - terrorist attacks are hard to plan and execute as it is - airlines installed locking doors for the cockpit All of the rest of the stuff the TSA does is overreach. It's not equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating cake, it's closer to only being offered sugary cake while in prison without being told there's a healthier option available.
- corodra 7y ago
  Did I say it was acceptable? Did I use those words? Did I not say that I do not like where its going? At the same time, can I blame anyone for going security overboard when multiple buildings are destroyed by kamikaze hijacked airplanes? A first responder from that just recently died. So yea, still a bit of a sore wound for people. This isn't like talking about Rome getting sacked. Some of us still remember when the towers stood. Passengers are vigilant. Ha! The one thing your average civilian is not is vigilant. The internet is rife with bad folks doing bad things in crowds. And most people do nothing. Plus, look up the millennium plot. The news doesn't make a stink when things go well. Lots of people have been stopped at airports and even before being able to start. You only hear about the failures, because it makes for better news. Fact is, pandora's box was opened. We are in a new age where people get their fame from doing big, nasty things. The Rolling Stone put the Boston bomber's face on the cover for fuck's sake. Where rock star faces have been. I like that on imgur, some people bucked that trend by periodically showing the faces and sharing the stories of those that fought back. But guess what, someone has to actively protect too. Yea, lots of issues with the TSA. They knee jerked hard towards some super fucked up practices those first few years. You think traveling with a really slavic last name was fun? I was always randomly put in the special search line. Three times I got backroom questioned over my recent travels. I still show up 3 hours early to fly out of habit. But I also chose to roadtrip more often instead. Which was more fun anyways. Maybe if the public could actually police themselves and evil was eradicated, then we can do away with security in general. Until then, it's a response to a problem where no one is offering a better one other than hugs and unicorns that fart rainbows.

Merrill 7y ago

Maybe we'll get to McLuhan's global electronic village after all. Having come from a rural area, in a village it is just like in Cheers - "Everybody knows your name". They also know a lot about you, your family, friends and enemies. Much of what they know is true, but some of it is wrong (gossip). Privacy and anonymity is of recent origin, starting with industrial development and large cities. It's a "security by obscurity" strategy for the more powerless segments of society. Powerful people are in the Social Register.

pintxo 7y ago

I am usually opting-out of body scanners (in the EU its still optional). But at some airports the security people seem to not know that it's optional. By now I always carry a letter from the federal police (responsible for border + airport security) explaining that it's optional. At Berlins airports they usually ask for a reason why I opt-out of body scanners, which is ridiculous, as one needs no reason to NOT do something that's legally optional to do.

t1o5 7y ago

> Once this sort of data is made insecure, there is no hope of getting it back. One cannot simply alter their face like they can their phone number or email address. This is the single most thing that we all should be concerned about. I take it that we cannot do much about stopping government surveillance in the name of security. It's coming anyway whether we like it or not. A large number of population is already under this tech already.

geggam 7y ago

Your concerns about privacy at this level are nice and warranted. They are also a day late and a dollar short.

kyberias 7y ago

I would like to opt-out as well, but it seems it actually was quite easy. All she had to do was say that she wants the passport to be scanned. Good to know.

kkotak 7y ago

I see the issue with false positive, but I don't get the privacy argument here. Scanning your face vs your passport is not any different from privacy perspective.

ConcernedCoder 7y ago
Imagine this: "Years from now, the party/person in power goes completely nuts, and starts rounding people up in train cars to ship off to a final solution facility... would you prefer to try to sneak out of the country when: A. only your passport/papers identify you, or B. your face can be recognized from any video camera in the country..."
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Just a few weeks ago there was a thread on this site discussing how IBM census taking machines made it all possible to identify the undesirables. Now it's trivial.

morpheuskafka 7y ago

Airports hve got to be 100% covered with cameras that CBP could easily get access to—why is taking a single still photo—to be matched to the passport photo they already have—such a big deal?

aj7 7y ago

You opted into a list of people who opted out of facial recognition.

Skunkleton 7y ago

Of all of the problematic uses of facial recognition, this isn't one. You are already in a context where your identification must be verified. Who cares if they establish that identity with a precanned passport image? It isn't like there is any new data available here.

doctorRetro 7y ago

"I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy" "I had to ... speak with a Delta representative at their information desk ... then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board." That sounds relatively easy, actually.

hereme888 7y ago

"99% accuracy for male faces, but 35% error rate for women..." The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.