4 ms·
> Delta passengers can opt in to the experience by scanning their boarding pass once they are through the security checkpoint in Concourse A of DTW’s McNamara T
by cmroanirgo 4y ago
> Delta passengers can opt in to the experience by scanning their boarding pass once they are through the security checkpoint in Concourse A of DTW’s McNamara Terminal. Customers enrolled in Delta’s biometric digital identity program need only show their faces to a camera at the kiosk.
At this point, despite the apparent good use case in this instance, we technologists should be exceedingly mindful of the dystopian future we're giving our overlords. I know many here on HN are aware of the great social responsibility, but all too many of us are willing to implement this stuff for the lolz or the money alone.
Do I want cameras recording me and going through an increasingly disproportionate number if ML systems? What about the data? Where does it go? Who is in control of any one singular ML system running these things? What happens when that company starts failing? My data, my biometrics... all sold to the highest bidder.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- riedel 4y agoFor a research prototype we just used a mobile phones acceleration sensors to couple a phone (who uses printed boarding passes) with the tracker. No biometrics needed. Tracking does not survive the camera context. Considering that there are alternatives you really wonder why they care about biometrics. You could probably also generate other types of markers that are stable without needing sth you have to stick with for the rest of your life...
- dylan604 4y ago>we technologists should be exceedingly mindful of the dystopian future we're giving our overlords Look, at this point, you know it is inevitable that this dystopian future you speak of is going to happen. Why not just embrace it now and live worry free since you will no longer need to be concerned about it happening. You're less productive to the overloards when you're stressed. /s
- matt123456789 4y agoSounds like wasted effort. When’s the last time you heard about a technology not being invented because developers decided it shouldn’t be invented? As long as there’s a legal business case, you’ll find someone who can and will build it for you. But I agree with the sentiment. I think that the right place to concentrate your efforts if you don’t like a technology is through the legal system. Regulations and laws.
- plorkyeran 4y agoWhy would you expect to ever hear about it even if it was happening? The result would be a company failing to build a working product due to struggling with hiring, which is an incredibly normal thing. Interviewing with a company, deciding you don't want to work on the thing they're building and then later hearing that they failed isn't exactly unusual, but no one involved is going to know that it failed specifically because developers were morally opposed to it rather than some other reason.
- dredmorbius 4y agoPaul Baran was one of the co-inventors of packet-based switching whilst at RAND in the 1960s. He wrote an interesting set of monographs while there, among them: "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy" (1968) https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html His complete works were made freely available to the public following a request I'd made a few years back.
- renewiltord 4y agoI'll be dead-honest with you: I think most of the security-posters and privacy-posters on this site are doing so by ostentatiously cargo-culting. So none of the concerns any of you espouse about this stuff bothers me. I literally don't believe you guys believe this and if you do, I don't trust your competence in arriving at that conclusion logically. So, no, I'm willing to implement lots of stuff because I want it to exist.