7 ms·

Opting out of facial recognition at an American airport

52 points by f38zf5vdt 4y ago

imiric 4y ago
I applaud the effort to do this, but I think it's ultimately futile. Facial and body recognition will be done to you in many places, even inside the airport, whether you consent to it or not. Insisting to opt out will make everyone else's job more difficult, and could possibly get you on the "troublesome" list, attracting even more attention to you. I'm surprised opting out is even allowed at the US border. I wouldn't recommend doing this in China or in other surveillance states. Unfortunately, it's the direction we're heading in. If you want to be part of modern society, you have to accept this as another price to pay. It's a defeatist mentality, but biometric recognition will only get more sophisticated and widespread.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > Insisting to opt out will make everyone else's job more difficult Good! Acquiescing to a system based on concern for other individuals affected by that system (whether they're employed by or just another subject of it) is exactly what the people creating/administering a system want you to do, so their agenda can continue unquestioned. Rather, you should be friendly and polite to the individuals but firm in your insistence. > could possibly get you on the "troublesome" list If one doesn't want our society to continue sliding into technological totalitarianism, then one needs to not treat it like a foregone conclusion.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  "Just go along with the system"... "It's the price you pay to live in a modern society". It sounds exactly like something out of a government PR handbook. We've heard the same song and dance from organizations like the NSA when they were illegally spying on people. We don't "live" in society, we "are" the society. Law enforcement are our public servants and have a responsibility to the people they serve. Every time you refuse an invasive search, or protest something the government is doing illegally, you give other people the courage to stand up too. At some point you reach a critical mass and things change.
  - imiric 4y ago
    I wish I shared your optimism. Look, I sympathize with your point of view. I just prefer to not make my life anymore stressful by fighting for things I realistically can't change. I choose my battles carefully by weighing my chances of success over the amount of discomfort it would cause, and in this case, I think waging a personal fight against governments is ultimately futile. The government already has my biometric data and they can use any number of surveillance methods to track me without my explicit consent. I take this for granted by being part of modern society. How do you propose a regular citizen could fight against programs like PRISM, or whatever other shady tech we have no knowledge of? We're not all willing to become Snowden, and live in a cave somewhere. Getting politicians elected to wage this fight for me is also relatively useless. The best I can do is make this slightly more difficult by choosing to use technology that—to the best of my knowledge—protects my privacy. Most people won't even make this sacrifice. So I think my time is better spent educating others into doing the same, rather than advocating for a fight with Goliath, which even less people will be on board with.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
"As a genderqueer queer Korean I have always experienced violence going through security. So this is an added factor I am always aware of whenever I do anything against the current. Sometimes I have to weigh the violence of my data being harvested from me against the violence of harassment (physical, verbal, and mental)." I've never seen such a liberal definition of violence.
- quinnjh 4y ago
  Im sympathetic to the authors experience of feeling scrutinized due to gender, but it strikes me as odd that opting out of what tiktok and instagram do to others constantly is a hill they feel is worth dying on. If data collection is violence, then walking 30 feet in any major city of USA or S Korea must be ... debilitating.. for me that requires that i calibrate my definitions of violence to allow me to peacefully continue forward in our brave new world. The alternative they suggest where we all "resist" as much as possible seems difficult to get buy in on. Its like a prisoners dilemma where most people will opt for "dont resist/ get through customs quicker"
  - BenFranklin100 4y ago
    Stretching the meaning of words or phrases for pejorative effect is a common rhetorical tactic of activists and politicians. See Lee Atwater’s infamous 1981 interview where he described how ‘school busing’ became a stand-in for a common 1960s racial slur, or more recently, how the term ‘racist’ has became so diluted it can now be applied to nearly anything.
- xen2xen1 4y ago
  The left has learned well that changing definitions that make everything look and sound worse is a very good ploy, and works very well.
  - feet 4y ago
    >intentional use of physical force or power, threatened[2] or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
quinnjh 4y ago
now im curious what its like to opt out of Korea's SES biometrics system.
sokoloff 4y ago
I opt out of the AIT scanners every time. What’s surprising to me is that, in years of doing it, I’ve only ever seen one other person do that (leaving Re-invent in Vegas). It gets eye rolls from my family and sometimes from colleagues I’m traveling with, but this small measure of resistance against more-invasive-than-required search is worth the few minutes of delay to me.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I don't really see why you would opt-out of AIT scanners to be honest. The images they generate are extremely generic and don't really reveal much of anything about a person.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It’s a more invasive scan than that which is strictly needed for the valid purpose of security, making it an unreasonable search IMO.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      That doesn't really explain anything; what is the concrete harm or downside? They're essentially just upgraded metal detectors.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I believe that security is entitled to gather the least amount of information that is required to perform the security task they have to do. A metal detector complies with that. Millimeter wave scanning gathers more information (and is thus more invasive) than is needed to accomplish their intended task.
diebeforei485 4y ago
If you want the slow way, that's fine, but you don't get to make everyone else wait behind you. Wait until the rest of the plane has boarded/deboarded and then they'll process you.

52 points by f38zf5vdt 4y ago

I applaud the effort to do this, but I think it's ultimately futile. Facial and body recognition will be done to you in many places, even inside the airport, whether you consent to it or not. Insisting to opt out will make everyone else's job more difficult, and could possibly get you on the "troublesome" list, attracting even more attention to you. I'm surprised opting out is even allowed at the US border. I wouldn't recommend doing this in China or in other surveillance states. Unfortunately, it's the direction we're heading in. If you want to be part of modern society, you have to accept this as another price to pay. It's a defeatist mentality, but biometric recognition will only get more sophisticated and widespread.

mindslight 4y ago
> Insisting to opt out will make everyone else's job more difficult Good! Acquiescing to a system based on concern for other individuals affected by that system (whether they're employed by or just another subject of it) is exactly what the people creating/administering a system want you to do, so their agenda can continue unquestioned. Rather, you should be friendly and polite to the individuals but firm in your insistence. > could possibly get you on the "troublesome" list If one doesn't want our society to continue sliding into technological totalitarianism, then one needs to not treat it like a foregone conclusion.
oceanplexian 4y ago
"Just go along with the system"... "It's the price you pay to live in a modern society". It sounds exactly like something out of a government PR handbook. We've heard the same song and dance from organizations like the NSA when they were illegally spying on people. We don't "live" in society, we "are" the society. Law enforcement are our public servants and have a responsibility to the people they serve. Every time you refuse an invasive search, or protest something the government is doing illegally, you give other people the courage to stand up too. At some point you reach a critical mass and things change.
- imiric 4y ago
  I wish I shared your optimism. Look, I sympathize with your point of view. I just prefer to not make my life anymore stressful by fighting for things I realistically can't change. I choose my battles carefully by weighing my chances of success over the amount of discomfort it would cause, and in this case, I think waging a personal fight against governments is ultimately futile. The government already has my biometric data and they can use any number of surveillance methods to track me without my explicit consent. I take this for granted by being part of modern society. How do you propose a regular citizen could fight against programs like PRISM, or whatever other shady tech we have no knowledge of? We're not all willing to become Snowden, and live in a cave somewhere. Getting politicians elected to wage this fight for me is also relatively useless. The best I can do is make this slightly more difficult by choosing to use technology that—to the best of my knowledge—protects my privacy. Most people won't even make this sacrifice. So I think my time is better spent educating others into doing the same, rather than advocating for a fight with Goliath, which even less people will be on board with.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago

"As a genderqueer queer Korean I have always experienced violence going through security. So this is an added factor I am always aware of whenever I do anything against the current. Sometimes I have to weigh the violence of my data being harvested from me against the violence of harassment (physical, verbal, and mental)." I've never seen such a liberal definition of violence.

quinnjh 4y ago
Im sympathetic to the authors experience of feeling scrutinized due to gender, but it strikes me as odd that opting out of what tiktok and instagram do to others constantly is a hill they feel is worth dying on. If data collection is violence, then walking 30 feet in any major city of USA or S Korea must be ... debilitating.. for me that requires that i calibrate my definitions of violence to allow me to peacefully continue forward in our brave new world. The alternative they suggest where we all "resist" as much as possible seems difficult to get buy in on. Its like a prisoners dilemma where most people will opt for "dont resist/ get through customs quicker"
- BenFranklin100 4y ago
  Stretching the meaning of words or phrases for pejorative effect is a common rhetorical tactic of activists and politicians. See Lee Atwater’s infamous 1981 interview where he described how ‘school busing’ became a stand-in for a common 1960s racial slur, or more recently, how the term ‘racist’ has became so diluted it can now be applied to nearly anything.
xen2xen1 4y ago
The left has learned well that changing definitions that make everything look and sound worse is a very good ploy, and works very well.
- feet 4y ago
  >intentional use of physical force or power, threatened[2] or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

quinnjh 4y ago

now im curious what its like to opt out of Korea's SES biometrics system.

sokoloff 4y ago

I opt out of the AIT scanners every time. What’s surprising to me is that, in years of doing it, I’ve only ever seen one other person do that (leaving Re-invent in Vegas). It gets eye rolls from my family and sometimes from colleagues I’m traveling with, but this small measure of resistance against more-invasive-than-required search is worth the few minutes of delay to me.

Beltalowda 4y ago
I don't really see why you would opt-out of AIT scanners to be honest. The images they generate are extremely generic and don't really reveal much of anything about a person.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It’s a more invasive scan than that which is strictly needed for the valid purpose of security, making it an unreasonable search IMO.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    That doesn't really explain anything; what is the concrete harm or downside? They're essentially just upgraded metal detectors.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I believe that security is entitled to gather the least amount of information that is required to perform the security task they have to do. A metal detector complies with that. Millimeter wave scanning gathers more information (and is thus more invasive) than is needed to accomplish their intended task.

diebeforei485 4y ago

If you want the slow way, that's fine, but you don't get to make everyone else wait behind you. Wait until the rest of the plane has boarded/deboarded and then they'll process you.