11 ms·

Why TSA's Implementation of Facial Recognition Is More Dangerous Than You Think

261 points by underseacables 3y ago

JCharante 3y ago
It’s funny to see so much controversy when anybody who has traveled a decent amount has already had their eyeballs, fingerprint, and face recorded at immigration checkpoints around the world.
nati0n 3y ago
These questions come up and I always wonder about the edge cases. I'm an identical twin. My twin can get get past my faceID consistently, from first release until today. What happens when twins with bad blood start abusing facial recognition?
- browningstreet 3y ago
  My son can, too.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  What kind of abuse are you imagining? Presumably with this system, the TSA agent's query is like: "Does this person's photo match the photo for the identity they are claiming to be?", and not do something like compare your face to every other person's face and return the most likely identity for your face. So, in that instance, your evil twin could steal your ID and travel as you, but they could do that before this system was in place anyway.
  - phantom784 3y ago
    The article mentions a "one to many" system which is exactly this - it compares you to every face in the database and decides who you are, eliminating the need to show physical ID. Unless both twins are flying on the same day, you could solve this by rejecting matches of people who don't hold a boarding pass for that airport. Or you could just require a physical ID as backup if the system can't return a match (due to identical twins or otherwise).
    - landemva 3y ago
      > you could just require a physical ID It's actually not necessary to have an ID to get through TSA, so please don't encourage it.
      - phantom784 3y ago
        True - I suppose the "backup" would be either a physical ID or whatever they do to verify your identity when you don't have an ID.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Other signal will be fused in. Otherwise, you’re counting on the possession of your government credentials as the control. You could just as easily swap IDs. Leakage is expected, leading to iteration on edge cases. Some leakage will always be inevitable, no system is perfect. The legal system is the final recourse mechanism if malicious activity (identity fraud) is detected.
  - cmiles74 3y ago
    I don't see how that's the case with the TSA's program. It really sounds like you present your ID and a boarding pass and that's it.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Present state. They are moving towards facial recognition with no need for ID presentation or boarding pass. No need for the ID when they have your photo on file (this is how Global Entry re-entry kiosk works), and your identity is tied to airline PNR. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-record https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-recor... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnxfsZrnPv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnxfsZrnPv0 (enrolled in the CBP program 1:many program mentioned)
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Currently you need to look kind of close and have the other person's ID. With the 1:many pilot it would just check your face against a database of ID photos of PreCheck enrolled travelers, so you only have to be at the right place at the right time, and look very close. Not a huge concern in general, but for an evil twin it's much easier to get past TSA if they know which plane their twin will take.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    > The legal system is the final recourse mechanism if malicious activity (identity fraud) is detected. We're screwed, then.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Fingerprints are more unique than faceID.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 3y ago
  Would a combo touch+faceID be sufficient for distinguishing twins?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Touch ID alone should suffice, identical twins have different fingerprints. Similar, but not identical. There's some amount of entropy captured in the womb which affects their development. [1] > Fingerprints aren’t included in these genetic similarities. That’s because the formation of fingerprints is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors in the womb. > The chances of identical fingerprints in identical twins is slim-to-none. While anecdotal articles online often discuss the possibility of a chance that the science could be wrong, no research has found that identical twins can have the same fingerprints. > [...] As a result, identical twins may have similarities in the ridges, whorls, and loops in their fingerprints. But upon closer examination, you’ll notice differences in some of the smaller details, including spaces between ridges and divisions between branch markings. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/do-identical-twins-have-the-same-fingerprints https://www.healthline.com/health/do-identical-twins-have-th...
    - interloxia 3y ago
      To my anecdotal surprise my toddler occasionally unlocks my wife's various iPhone and Android touch sensors. It lowered my confidence in the security of these devices somewhat.
- taneq 3y ago
  Even if someone totally unrelated who looks a lot like you is caught in the act by facial recognition, it can be really bad. “Here are videos of the defendant caught on the act of three separate crimes!” can be pretty convincing when you’ve been dredged up as the closest match.
- closeparen 3y ago
  Then your twin might be able to enter an airport terminal without first spending a couple hundred dollars on a ticket.
brookst 3y ago
tl;dr: slippery slope > This statement by TSA Administrator Pekoske highlights one of the main risks of TSA using facial recognition in any capacity—there is no guarantee that how TSA initially uses facial recognition will not change or expand beyond the current stated purpose. Which, if you think about it, would be an equally valid statement about the risks of NOT using facial recognition: that approach would also provide no guarantee that TSA would not use facial recognition in bad ways in the future. In fact, it is very hard to guarantee that something won't happen. I'm a biometric skeptic, but this is not a super compelling article. There are better arguments: biometrics can be fooled, biometric measurements are essentially an immutable password which can be leaked/abused, they can be unfair to people with physical differences, etc. Just saying X can lead to Y so X is bad is just so... lazy.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  One way to guarantee that a mass database of biometric data isn't leaked or abused is to not gather it in the first place. So, yes, it is easy to guarantee that a mass database of biometric data isn't abused if you can prevent it from being gathered. We're making no efforts in that direction, so we're running every day towards a future in which the holder of such a database can deepfake anyone doing anything.
  - jjjjmoney 3y ago
    I wonder if when these things leak and become ever-more damaging, biometrics will basically become worthless and we will pivot to hardware tokens or something else. There seems to be little resistance to this in the USA, and we’re also okay with abysmally bad forms of identification (SSN, birth certificates).
  - brookst 3y ago
    Agreed, and that seems like a good argument. Which is why it's so strange to say that one of the greatest risks of the TSA's program is that they could do a totally different program in the future. It's literally like saying that going to the gym is risky because you might get into BASE jumping. There are better arguments. Hence, this piece is weak.
therobot24 3y ago
whenever biometrics pops up on HN i always have to post the reminder that a biometric is _both_ a username & password bundled as one login credential. People like to compare biometrics to passwords, but that's a bad analogy because passwords can be changed whereas no one in tech likes to admit that a username should be changeable too.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > a biometric is _both_ a username & password It's just a username. As implemented the systems only require a username. It's also not even that, it's a temporal identifier, as faces change, sometimes in ways that we all expect and sometimes, not. To the extent that we've even performed facial transplants in response to some of these cases. If biometrics were going to work, we'd be using fingerprints already. For all the same reasons we don't use fingerprints, we won't be able to use facial identification.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    And not even a unique user name. Twins and other relatives can pass for each other.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      And with facial recognition, two people don't even have to be related. I knew a guy who looked so much like me that he grew a mustache purely so that our own friends could tell us apart (which is how I know I look terrible with a mustache). There's zero chance that facial recognition could distinguish us. He and I weren't even remotely related.
      - spullara 3y ago
        there was also zero chance a TSA agent could distinguish between you either though
        3y ago
awinter-py 3y ago
still not clear to me why ID matters if they're going to x-ray me
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Control.
- pwg 3y ago
  To remove, for the airlines, the old grey market of resold "non-refundable" tickets that which the original purchaser can no longer utilize that existed before the ID requirement. There is more profit in being able to sell an unoccupied seat twice (once for the unused non-refundable ticket, a second time when the original ticket does not show up at the gate) than in allowing tickets to be resold on the grey market.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Why do they care, though, if their margins are going to remain at X% anyway, because of market forces? They're just adding extra steps to the whole thing so a random passenger can benefit from my lost ticket money, rather than someone I explicitly choose.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Because if a ticket is sold privately to another rather than going unused, the airline only gets paid once. If the airline can resell the seat, they get paid for it twice.
      - ezfe 3y ago
        Nearly all US airlines except budget airlines allow fee-free credits up until day-of flight...
        JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't know what this means. When I buy tickets, they are nonrefundable. If I don't use the ticket, I don't get my money back (or credits). You can buy tickets that are refundable, but they cost more.
withinboredom 3y ago
As someone who flies into and out of the US fairly regularly-ish ... the way I'm treated by Homeland Security when I fly with my wife & son vs. alone, is a bit shocking. Alone: I'm asked what I am doing there (despite having a US passport; so it shouldn't matter), why I live in a foreign country instead of the US, what I do for a living, why I have a backpack on instead of suitcase, etc. While they sit there holding my passport hostage, scrolling through who knows what data... sometimes I even "randomly" get sent to a back room to have all my stuff dumped out and my phone confiscated. It's like they want to make _really_ sure I never come visit my parents. With my family: welcome home! Have fun! If you want to sneak into the US, just go with a wife and kids. /s
- objclxt 3y ago
  > While they sit there holding my passport hostage, scrolling through who knows what data Legally it's their passport, not yours. A passport is the property of the US government at all times.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Yeah, that doesn’t make it any less terrifying…
- alliao 3y ago
  I did go with a wife and kids but no US passport, got pulled into a small room and questioned till we missed our connection flight, US customs is so obnoxious is the number 1 reason why I avoid travelling to the US...
  - eszed 3y ago
    Yeah, I (well, she) had this experience entering the US with a non-American girlfriend, 10+ years ago. She was pulled aside, grilled, treated terribly, and emerged in tears 30+ minutes later. It really made me angry, because it's not as effective _security_-wise as what we were used to flying the other way. Immigration agents at Heathrow were generally so polite and accommodating (eg, let me go through the EU citizens path, when we were traveling together), that I typically revealed more about my travel plans than I probably _had_ to, and / or may have been wise. It's dumb and self-defeating, and should be a source of shame for all USA-ians.
gustavus 3y ago
I think this is doubleplus good, we need to stop the double negative bad people of eastasia who want to use violence and terror to take away our way of life. Thus by ensuring that the government is tracking every person that goes through an air port at all times we can ensure we stop the bad people of eurasia for hurting our people and this is doubleplus good. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the state is willing to go to such great lengths to stop bad things like an older sibling watching over my shoulder. Of course we all know that the TSA is a vital component of national security given all the times they successfully done...... anything?
epwr 3y ago
This statement seems pretty poorly thought out. I think the argument that's being made is actually that there should be comprehensive privacy legislation, not that the TSA's use of facial recognition is bad/dangerous. I see three risks being pointed out: 1. "the potential privacy and bias risks" -> however it doesn't expand or explain these risks. I'm on team privacy in general, so I definitely worry about this, but I think it's almost comical that any description of this risk is absent. 2. While facial ID is currently optional, "there is no guarantee that will remain the case" -> this is a textbook slippery slope argument, which means they're arguing not that the current practice is bad but that someday they might start doing something bad. 3. "the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID" -> another slippery slope argument that has even less to do with the TSA. This would require a major effort by the rest of government, so this is more a "watch out for that big cliff over there" argument than a slippery slope argument. After all that, I think the topic sentence of this statement should be" > This is [bad] because the United States lacks an overarching law to regulate the use of facial recognition to ensure the necessary transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect our privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  EPIC hasn't been the same since they kicked out Marc Rotenberg. Sad to say.
- sailfast 3y ago
  They are piloting this at an airport near me. When I asked if I could opt out the employee said “no”. It was only later I was told that I could (upon returning home and looking it up) FaceID as government ID is not a good idea, and it’s fine to start somewhere in my opinion though of course I would prefer outlawing biometrics entirely as identifiers.
  - cmiles74 3y ago
    Every article I've read about the TSA's program included the journalist either being denied an alternative to the facial recognition process or being pressured to do it. In an environment where being late for a plane could cost people their travel plans, coercion is pretty easy.
powera 3y ago
Yeah, I don't see any argument here. There is just an assumption that "an effective person identification system is bad", and a bunch of words distracting from the fact that they are begging the question.
alliao 3y ago
just because technology exists doesn't mean we have to use them is a lesson I fear will take the world a long ass time to realise and internalise.
ifeja 3y ago
clickbait headline
robocat 3y ago
New Zealand has been using facial recognition (& iris I believe) at airport border control for over a decade. New Zealand is probably still a bit sensitive over France bombing Greenpeace here last century. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/rainbow-warrior https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/... I don't like it, but it is where the world is going. The USA has been taking fingerprints of international travelers for a long time!
whodidntante 3y ago
This reads as something ChatGPT 3 generated: wordy,repetitive,and simply states again and again that is bad, very bad, without providing any actual or imagined scenarios.
bozhark 3y ago
Time for the ICP face paint while traveling
ggm 3y ago
I flew through HKG last week. Biometric scan to transit from incoming to outgoing space, then at gate, I only had to be scanned by my eyeballs and face, I didn't even have to present my boarding pass. This was unexpected.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  Yeah. I transited Beijing only once, and it was enough to scare me away forever. Sooooo many cameras.
- telesilla 3y ago
  Also at JFK, flying out international recently. Was weird and I hope I don't get used to it.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Returning to Canada on my Canadian passport now no longer involves talking to a human at all. Scan passport, then facial scan, quick touch-screen questionnaire, and that's that. Fast and convenient, but disturbing. I'm used to the humiliating invasions of privacy and overtones of fascism etc when traveling to the US where it can be "excused" because I'm a foreigner there. But I don't particularly feel great about the biometric stuff in my own country. I kind of miss the "welcome back, I hope you didn't smuggle anything in" routine TBH.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    > I kind of miss the "welcome back, I hope you didn't smuggle anything in" routine TBH. I mean, you're not actually required to use the kiosks. You're allowed to go to the regular stand with an immigration official and get processed the normal way. Given that the vast majority of countries don't support this system, I don't see this option going away any time soon.
crote 3y ago
What a confusingly-written article. The 1:1 case is not too unreasonable, if you ask me. Store a cryptographically signed photo on a chip in the ID card, and the machine can compare that to the real-life human presented. There are obviously drawbacks with biases in the comparison algorithm, but that's not really any worse than a human doing the same. From a privacy perspective it's not too bad - provided they delete their copy of the photo after the card is issued. This isn't any different from having the photo printed on the ID card, if you ask me. The 1:many case, on the other hand, is a bit of a problem. This requires the creation of a mass database with everyone's pictures in it. The privacy implications are obviously enormous, as it would also enable the identification of previously-anonymous people "in the wild". And then there's obviously the issue that it simply cannot possibly work on a larger scale: with a 1:1 comparison you have to look for a close-enough match of a single picture pair, but with a 1:many comparison you have to identify one person out of millions of possible matches. There needs to be some lenience in the matching (people use makeup and get rhinoplasties) but people's faces already look quite similar - once you get to the million-people scale, there are pretty much guaranteed to be some false positive matches in there!
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  ... then they came for my doppelganger and there was no one to implicate me.
- chkaloon 3y ago
  TSA presumably can narrow down the search space to the people with tickets at that airport for that day
  - dietr1ch 3y ago
    My concerns here are not about the search cost, but about holding everyone's data.
    - chkaloon 3y ago
      "And then there's obviously the issue that it simply cannot possibly work on a larger scale: with a 1:1 comparison you have to look for a close-enough match of a single picture pair, but with a 1:many comparison you have to identify one person out of millions of possible matches. "
pseudosavant 3y ago
I've worked with a lot of very good facial recognition technology. They all have demonstrated biases for white males. Even in the ideal scenario they are far too inaccurate (<97%) to be used for identification, unless your false reject rate is extremely high (>30%). And if it is a less ideal scenario (elderly Latina, Asian woman, etc) you'll be lucky to get 80% accuracy without high false reject rates. When it comes down to it, accurate facial recognition is at best 99% accurate. But being wrong 1 in 100 times is a horrible number for an authentication system. Anything else you ever use for authentication (password, iOS face scanning, PIN, etc) would be considered a complete joke if it only got to 99% accuracy.
- mjbeswick 3y ago
  People often cite bias in facial recognition systems, but I would argue that the average human is worse. Many people struggle to distinguish between people of ethnicities that are different from those they are most familiar with. The real problem with people interpret the data from those systems, assuming the confidence levels of matches are displayed as they should be.
ibejoeb 3y ago
I'm not exactly sure of the connection, but I just got a message that I must enroll in the new, mandatory CLEAR program which appears to use facial recognition. Is this one of the two pilot programs they're talking about here?
- quantified 3y ago
  Can you elaborate? Where is CLEAR mandatory?
  - ibejoeb 3y ago
    It's mandatory in order to continue using clear, not for travelers in general. They're being a little dodgy about what it all entails. > Members will need to upgrade to CLEAR’s NextGen Identity+. This will power CLEAR’s Lane of the Future rolling out over 2024. > NextGen Identity+ will unlock the CLEAR Lane of the Future. The CLEAR Lane of the Future, which will be rolling out over 2024, will deliver an even faster, more predictable airport experience for our Members. It will allow CLEAR Plus Members to verify their identity with their face (instead of iris or fingerprints) and eliminate the need for Members to stop at a CLEAR pod. https://www.clearme.com/support/what-is-nextgen-identity-and-how-does-it-work https://www.clearme.com/support/what-is-nextgen-identity-and...
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      This is because CLEAR screwed up for years and wasn't properly verifying identity. The TSA smacked them for it earlier this year when a significant fraction of the CLEAR user base turned out to be effectively unverifiable. It's mostly unrelated to the article.
wly_cdgr 3y ago
A federal government agency implementing and using facial recognition technology can't possibly be any more dangerous than I think
Vicinity9635 3y ago
The TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day and has a 95% failure rate at its job simultaneously. Read it for yourself and ask if searching every single person trying to fly is "reasonable" or if they have a warrant: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I think a metal detector search of the person and X-ray of bags is reasonable in terms of an invasiveness of search which is no greater than required for the legitimate safety concern and proportionate to the risk. I think the AIT machines are not reasonable (by nature of being more invasive than required), which is why I opt-out 100% of the time, much to the frustration of my wife when we’re traveling together, but I don’t care. I think the TSA agrees the AIT is likely enough to be unreasonable to not want it tested in court, hence they allow opt-out.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    Does the "opt-out" still involve a groping by a minimum wage fake LEO whose abuse is protected both by a union and federal law? I'm not concerned for myself, I'm concerned for _my kids_. As long as TSA agents are allowed to molest kids under the color of authority, then the "opt-out" is as much or more of a threat as the naked pictures they take in the AIT machines.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Yes for adults, but no on the kids. Kids (along with one parent per kid) are already directed through the metal detector line. I know that's not a great answer and I'm frustrated that AITs exist as a convenience and throughput increasing device, but it's also not "TSA is molesting kids who opt-out."
Racing0461 3y ago
I don't see facial recognition going away anytime soon since (other than fingerprints) is being rolled out to answer "this document is a legit document, but is the holder of this document the person on the document". Anyone's guess why facial recognition is being used in favor of fingerprints is anyone's guess since fingerprints are way more accurate.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  I would guess (really, just a guess) that 1. government IDs have photos but not all contain fingerprint data. 2. facial recognition can be done at a distance. In the future, you could be verified walking the building. 3. (tin foil hat) People associate giving fingerprints to the govt with criminals moreso than they do pictures.
injeolmi_love 3y ago
When will the temporary post 9-11 policies end? They aren’t really needed anymore, if they ever were.
avazhi 3y ago
Can somebody explain to me, succinctly and without the slippery slope nonsense immanent in this link, why facial recognition is seen by some reasonable people to be a problem? I’m not interested in why anarcho-fascists or tinfoil hat libertarians or Luddites think it’s a bad idea - I’d like to know why your average reasonable man would have a problem with this. As somebody with both a law and a science degree, I just can’t understand the outrage. We already have to take our photos for passports and our IDs - how the fuck is this substantively different? I get the sense this a situation that proves that rule that somebody, somewhere will always find a way to be outraged about everything in 2023.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  Because it gives the government a direct up to date photo of you, while it's already tracking where you are going. It's just that much easier to decide you have committed a crime. And find you. However, the slippery slope holds true when you complain about previous actions. I.e. the government knowing where you go when you fly, and searching your private belongings without a warrant. This isn't the first thing on the slope. With just those two examples this is the 3rd. I'll believe the slope isn't slippery when they repeal the patriot act. Edit: finished first thought.
- rebeccaskinner 3y ago
  > I’m not interested in why anarcho-fascists or tinfoil hat libertarians or Luddites think it’s a bad idea - I’d like to know why your average reasonable man would have a problem with this. I think this is an overly adversarial view of people trying to take a long and systems based view of this, but even if we do focus on the immediate practicalities, there are a couple of obvious ones. First, and foremost, I don't trust TSA to get it right. Facial recognition is one of many technologies that works well enough most of the time that it might be fine for non-critical infrastructure, but there are enough issues with it that at the scale of imposing it on all passengers we should anticipate a lot of negative impact. This can include both the possibility of bad actors being allowed to travel because they can find effective ways to defeat the system, and innocent people being negatively impacted through no fault of their own. Early on the system may be opt-in, and in the medium term there may be reasonable paths to opt out, but once the system is mandatory- or a significant default, people will be punished with a significantly degraded experience because the technology doesn't work well for them. There's also the infosec angle. I don't trust TSA to get security right any more than I trust them to get facial recognition working right. We've already seen leaks of images from millimeter wave scanners. Although a photo of your face may not be as private as the images leaked from those scanners, there are a lot of potential negative outcomes from someone getting a hold of a corpus of facial recognition data, especially if it contains more than just a raw photo and includes information that could help someone to impersonate you.
onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
_8j50 3y ago
Story time! They probably had different reasons but I had funny encounters with the TSA involving hoodies. One time I missed a flight in Miami and the next flight was 6-8hrs later. I decided to hang around the airport. Eventually I became sleepy, put my bags next to me, sat down where there are no passengers, put headphones and covered myself with a large hoodie to keep it dark enough for a nap. A couple of hours later I take off my hoodie for a peek and this uniformed TSA guy is sitting in front of me and staring at me, I stared back for a few seconds, checked the time and went back to sleep. A while later I am rested so I get up, now there are 2-3 people around me but the TSA guy is still staring at me. We had a staring contest for like 5-10min the I got bored and started wasting time on my phone. A little later, I was hungry and my departure time was within 1h so I ignored the guy and went to my gate area and ate an expensive tuna sandwich before leaving miami. Second story, same hoodie I think, I was similarly taking a nap (forgot the airport), I hear a small commotion and look up there are TSA people standing around one is trying to make it look like they are not trying to look at me, then another TSA worker brought a k-9 dog straight to me without saying a single word and had the dog take its time sniffing me and all my stuff. I didn't mind tbh. Then they had the dog sniff around a couple of nearby seats and took it away. Not a big deal, I just couldn't figure out what they were thinking? Did they think I was a terrorist but needed a nap before my attack? Also, I don't know if facial recognition flags people but I can tell by their body language when I am standing line if they will do a chemical test, to the point I prepare my hands and volunteer them before the guy even asks (they comment on how I am too used to it lol). People complain about this stuff but personally I care more about all the surveillance they buy that then gets paired with your facial/biometrics and sticks with you for life. Also, had a rookie TSA agent follow procedure one time and tell me I can request a private pat-down if I so wish. I told him "sure" just to see what they do, they knew I was fooling around so they didn't pat me down properly but they took me to a private room for the pat down. Worth mentioning because it sounded like they are supposed to inform you of that for each pat down and if you are legitimately a person sensitive about being touched and fondled in public you have that option (they even leave the cash on the dresser before they leave /s ). I say all this but I do understand that the TSA workers on the ground are well meaning folks keeping everyone safe. I have much respect for them even if I don't always agree with TSA/DHS policy, which ulitimately is a product of the american voter's will.
et-al 3y ago
Do most privacy-oriented here who fly a lot just not bother with Global Entry then?
gdsdfe 3y ago
Isn't it ironic that they're doing what they blamed the Chinese for doing?!
monkeydust 3y ago
I was at JFK recently and was shocked how fast the Global Entry facial recognition system was compared to say UK one. I literally had barley registered on the camera before it gave me a green tick.
Moto7451 3y ago
> Another risk that is set in motion by TSA’s use of face verification is the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID and creates a de facto national ID controlled by the government. For one, why are people afraid of a national ID? I remember this argument being used to delay RealID changes in some states. Other countries have a national ID and it hasn’t lead been billed as a privacy nightmare. Second, we have a national ID already called a passport. That’s valid ID in the US and issued by the Federal government. I have one and so far the Feds haven’t come for me while I’ve slept or thrown me into whatever lies at the bottom of this slippery slope argument. Am I missing something? Third, what makes the Feds worse than my State government? What stops Florida or New Mexico from turning State ID databases into a surveillance tool? Is it possible we really have 50 slippery slopes to deal with? Again, I don’t understand where the fear is.
- ShrimpHawk 3y ago
  Some state governments already perform facial recognition when issuing drivers licenses. There have been stories of twins being unable to obtain an ID because it was flagged as fraud due to matching facial features.
- saq7 3y ago
  1. People don’t trust the government and are wary of giving it more power 2. You’re missing that your face is different than a piece of paper. You can choose to refuse to show ID in some cases. You could keep your face covered, but that has ramifications you might not desire 3. The Feds are worse because they are already much more powerful than any state government. It’s really not hard to see where the fear is. This might be one of the most obtuse comments I have seen on here
  - kanbara 3y ago
    identity “verification” by ssn is stupid; almost every other democracy has national id systems and residential verification and it works better and is easier to get benefits or prove yourself than real id and any other absurd american invention.

It’s funny to see so much controversy when anybody who has traveled a decent amount has already had their eyeballs, fingerprint, and face recorded at immigration checkpoints around the world.

nati0n 3y ago

These questions come up and I always wonder about the edge cases. I'm an identical twin. My twin can get get past my faceID consistently, from first release until today. What happens when twins with bad blood start abusing facial recognition?

browningstreet 3y ago
My son can, too.
oh_sigh 3y ago
What kind of abuse are you imagining? Presumably with this system, the TSA agent's query is like: "Does this person's photo match the photo for the identity they are claiming to be?", and not do something like compare your face to every other person's face and return the most likely identity for your face. So, in that instance, your evil twin could steal your ID and travel as you, but they could do that before this system was in place anyway.
- phantom784 3y ago
  The article mentions a "one to many" system which is exactly this - it compares you to every face in the database and decides who you are, eliminating the need to show physical ID. Unless both twins are flying on the same day, you could solve this by rejecting matches of people who don't hold a boarding pass for that airport. Or you could just require a physical ID as backup if the system can't return a match (due to identical twins or otherwise).
  - landemva 3y ago
    > you could just require a physical ID It's actually not necessary to have an ID to get through TSA, so please don't encourage it.
    - phantom784 3y ago
      True - I suppose the "backup" would be either a physical ID or whatever they do to verify your identity when you don't have an ID.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Other signal will be fused in. Otherwise, you’re counting on the possession of your government credentials as the control. You could just as easily swap IDs. Leakage is expected, leading to iteration on edge cases. Some leakage will always be inevitable, no system is perfect. The legal system is the final recourse mechanism if malicious activity (identity fraud) is detected.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  I don't see how that's the case with the TSA's program. It really sounds like you present your ID and a boarding pass and that's it.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Present state. They are moving towards facial recognition with no need for ID presentation or boarding pass. No need for the ID when they have your photo on file (this is how Global Entry re-entry kiosk works), and your identity is tied to airline PNR. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-record https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-recor... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnxfsZrnPv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnxfsZrnPv0 (enrolled in the CBP program 1:many program mentioned)
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Currently you need to look kind of close and have the other person's ID. With the 1:many pilot it would just check your face against a database of ID photos of PreCheck enrolled travelers, so you only have to be at the right place at the right time, and look very close. Not a huge concern in general, but for an evil twin it's much easier to get past TSA if they know which plane their twin will take.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  > The legal system is the final recourse mechanism if malicious activity (identity fraud) is detected. We're screwed, then.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Fingerprints are more unique than faceID.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 3y ago
Would a combo touch+faceID be sufficient for distinguishing twins?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Touch ID alone should suffice, identical twins have different fingerprints. Similar, but not identical. There's some amount of entropy captured in the womb which affects their development. [1] > Fingerprints aren’t included in these genetic similarities. That’s because the formation of fingerprints is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors in the womb. > The chances of identical fingerprints in identical twins is slim-to-none. While anecdotal articles online often discuss the possibility of a chance that the science could be wrong, no research has found that identical twins can have the same fingerprints. > [...] As a result, identical twins may have similarities in the ridges, whorls, and loops in their fingerprints. But upon closer examination, you’ll notice differences in some of the smaller details, including spaces between ridges and divisions between branch markings. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/do-identical-twins-have-the-same-fingerprints https://www.healthline.com/health/do-identical-twins-have-th...
  - interloxia 3y ago
    To my anecdotal surprise my toddler occasionally unlocks my wife's various iPhone and Android touch sensors. It lowered my confidence in the security of these devices somewhat.
taneq 3y ago
Even if someone totally unrelated who looks a lot like you is caught in the act by facial recognition, it can be really bad. “Here are videos of the defendant caught on the act of three separate crimes!” can be pretty convincing when you’ve been dredged up as the closest match.
closeparen 3y ago
Then your twin might be able to enter an airport terminal without first spending a couple hundred dollars on a ticket.

brookst 3y ago

tl;dr: slippery slope > This statement by TSA Administrator Pekoske highlights one of the main risks of TSA using facial recognition in any capacity—there is no guarantee that how TSA initially uses facial recognition will not change or expand beyond the current stated purpose. Which, if you think about it, would be an equally valid statement about the risks of NOT using facial recognition: that approach would also provide no guarantee that TSA would not use facial recognition in bad ways in the future. In fact, it is very hard to guarantee that something won't happen. I'm a biometric skeptic, but this is not a super compelling article. There are better arguments: biometrics can be fooled, biometric measurements are essentially an immutable password which can be leaked/abused, they can be unfair to people with physical differences, etc. Just saying X can lead to Y so X is bad is just so... lazy.

jvanderbot 3y ago
One way to guarantee that a mass database of biometric data isn't leaked or abused is to not gather it in the first place. So, yes, it is easy to guarantee that a mass database of biometric data isn't abused if you can prevent it from being gathered. We're making no efforts in that direction, so we're running every day towards a future in which the holder of such a database can deepfake anyone doing anything.
- jjjjmoney 3y ago
  I wonder if when these things leak and become ever-more damaging, biometrics will basically become worthless and we will pivot to hardware tokens or something else. There seems to be little resistance to this in the USA, and we’re also okay with abysmally bad forms of identification (SSN, birth certificates).
- brookst 3y ago
  Agreed, and that seems like a good argument. Which is why it's so strange to say that one of the greatest risks of the TSA's program is that they could do a totally different program in the future. It's literally like saying that going to the gym is risky because you might get into BASE jumping. There are better arguments. Hence, this piece is weak.

therobot24 3y ago

whenever biometrics pops up on HN i always have to post the reminder that a biometric is _both_ a username & password bundled as one login credential. People like to compare biometrics to passwords, but that's a bad analogy because passwords can be changed whereas no one in tech likes to admit that a username should be changeable too.

akira2501 3y ago
> a biometric is _both_ a username & password It's just a username. As implemented the systems only require a username. It's also not even that, it's a temporal identifier, as faces change, sometimes in ways that we all expect and sometimes, not. To the extent that we've even performed facial transplants in response to some of these cases. If biometrics were going to work, we'd be using fingerprints already. For all the same reasons we don't use fingerprints, we won't be able to use facial identification.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  And not even a unique user name. Twins and other relatives can pass for each other.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    And with facial recognition, two people don't even have to be related. I knew a guy who looked so much like me that he grew a mustache purely so that our own friends could tell us apart (which is how I know I look terrible with a mustache). There's zero chance that facial recognition could distinguish us. He and I weren't even remotely related.
    - spullara 3y ago
      there was also zero chance a TSA agent could distinguish between you either though
      - 3y ago

awinter-py 3y ago

still not clear to me why ID matters if they're going to x-ray me

alistairSH 3y ago
Control.
pwg 3y ago
To remove, for the airlines, the old grey market of resold "non-refundable" tickets that which the original purchaser can no longer utilize that existed before the ID requirement. There is more profit in being able to sell an unoccupied seat twice (once for the unused non-refundable ticket, a second time when the original ticket does not show up at the gate) than in allowing tickets to be resold on the grey market.
- stavros 3y ago
  Why do they care, though, if their margins are going to remain at X% anyway, because of market forces? They're just adding extra steps to the whole thing so a random passenger can benefit from my lost ticket money, rather than someone I explicitly choose.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Because if a ticket is sold privately to another rather than going unused, the airline only gets paid once. If the airline can resell the seat, they get paid for it twice.
    - ezfe 3y ago
      Nearly all US airlines except budget airlines allow fee-free credits up until day-of flight...
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't know what this means. When I buy tickets, they are nonrefundable. If I don't use the ticket, I don't get my money back (or credits). You can buy tickets that are refundable, but they cost more.

withinboredom 3y ago

As someone who flies into and out of the US fairly regularly-ish ... the way I'm treated by Homeland Security when I fly with my wife & son vs. alone, is a bit shocking. Alone: I'm asked what I am doing there (despite having a US passport; so it shouldn't matter), why I live in a foreign country instead of the US, what I do for a living, why I have a backpack on instead of suitcase, etc. While they sit there holding my passport hostage, scrolling through who knows what data... sometimes I even "randomly" get sent to a back room to have all my stuff dumped out and my phone confiscated. It's like they want to make _really_ sure I never come visit my parents. With my family: welcome home! Have fun! If you want to sneak into the US, just go with a wife and kids. /s

objclxt 3y ago
> While they sit there holding my passport hostage, scrolling through who knows what data Legally it's their passport, not yours. A passport is the property of the US government at all times.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Yeah, that doesn’t make it any less terrifying…
alliao 3y ago
I did go with a wife and kids but no US passport, got pulled into a small room and questioned till we missed our connection flight, US customs is so obnoxious is the number 1 reason why I avoid travelling to the US...
- eszed 3y ago
  Yeah, I (well, she) had this experience entering the US with a non-American girlfriend, 10+ years ago. She was pulled aside, grilled, treated terribly, and emerged in tears 30+ minutes later. It really made me angry, because it's not as effective _security_-wise as what we were used to flying the other way. Immigration agents at Heathrow were generally so polite and accommodating (eg, let me go through the EU citizens path, when we were traveling together), that I typically revealed more about my travel plans than I probably _had_ to, and / or may have been wise. It's dumb and self-defeating, and should be a source of shame for all USA-ians.

gustavus 3y ago

I think this is doubleplus good, we need to stop the double negative bad people of eastasia who want to use violence and terror to take away our way of life. Thus by ensuring that the government is tracking every person that goes through an air port at all times we can ensure we stop the bad people of eurasia for hurting our people and this is doubleplus good. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the state is willing to go to such great lengths to stop bad things like an older sibling watching over my shoulder. Of course we all know that the TSA is a vital component of national security given all the times they successfully done...... anything?

epwr 3y ago

This statement seems pretty poorly thought out. I think the argument that's being made is actually that there should be comprehensive privacy legislation, not that the TSA's use of facial recognition is bad/dangerous. I see three risks being pointed out: 1. "the potential privacy and bias risks" -> however it doesn't expand or explain these risks. I'm on team privacy in general, so I definitely worry about this, but I think it's almost comical that any description of this risk is absent. 2. While facial ID is currently optional, "there is no guarantee that will remain the case" -> this is a textbook slippery slope argument, which means they're arguing not that the current practice is bad but that someday they might start doing something bad. 3. "the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID" -> another slippery slope argument that has even less to do with the TSA. This would require a major effort by the rest of government, so this is more a "watch out for that big cliff over there" argument than a slippery slope argument. After all that, I think the topic sentence of this statement should be" > This is [bad] because the United States lacks an overarching law to regulate the use of facial recognition to ensure the necessary transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect our privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.

xhkkffbf 3y ago
EPIC hasn't been the same since they kicked out Marc Rotenberg. Sad to say.
sailfast 3y ago
They are piloting this at an airport near me. When I asked if I could opt out the employee said “no”. It was only later I was told that I could (upon returning home and looking it up) FaceID as government ID is not a good idea, and it’s fine to start somewhere in my opinion though of course I would prefer outlawing biometrics entirely as identifiers.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  Every article I've read about the TSA's program included the journalist either being denied an alternative to the facial recognition process or being pressured to do it. In an environment where being late for a plane could cost people their travel plans, coercion is pretty easy.

powera 3y ago

Yeah, I don't see any argument here. There is just an assumption that "an effective person identification system is bad", and a bunch of words distracting from the fact that they are begging the question.

alliao 3y ago

just because technology exists doesn't mean we have to use them is a lesson I fear will take the world a long ass time to realise and internalise.

ifeja 3y ago

clickbait headline

robocat 3y ago

New Zealand has been using facial recognition (& iris I believe) at airport border control for over a decade. New Zealand is probably still a bit sensitive over France bombing Greenpeace here last century. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/rainbow-warrior https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/... I don't like it, but it is where the world is going. The USA has been taking fingerprints of international travelers for a long time!

whodidntante 3y ago

This reads as something ChatGPT 3 generated: wordy,repetitive,and simply states again and again that is bad, very bad, without providing any actual or imagined scenarios.

bozhark 3y ago

Time for the ICP face paint while traveling

ggm 3y ago

I flew through HKG last week. Biometric scan to transit from incoming to outgoing space, then at gate, I only had to be scanned by my eyeballs and face, I didn't even have to present my boarding pass. This was unexpected.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
Yeah. I transited Beijing only once, and it was enough to scare me away forever. Sooooo many cameras.
telesilla 3y ago
Also at JFK, flying out international recently. Was weird and I hope I don't get used to it.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Returning to Canada on my Canadian passport now no longer involves talking to a human at all. Scan passport, then facial scan, quick touch-screen questionnaire, and that's that. Fast and convenient, but disturbing. I'm used to the humiliating invasions of privacy and overtones of fascism etc when traveling to the US where it can be "excused" because I'm a foreigner there. But I don't particularly feel great about the biometric stuff in my own country. I kind of miss the "welcome back, I hope you didn't smuggle anything in" routine TBH.
- tavavex 3y ago
  > I kind of miss the "welcome back, I hope you didn't smuggle anything in" routine TBH. I mean, you're not actually required to use the kiosks. You're allowed to go to the regular stand with an immigration official and get processed the normal way. Given that the vast majority of countries don't support this system, I don't see this option going away any time soon.

crote 3y ago

What a confusingly-written article. The 1:1 case is not too unreasonable, if you ask me. Store a cryptographically signed photo on a chip in the ID card, and the machine can compare that to the real-life human presented. There are obviously drawbacks with biases in the comparison algorithm, but that's not really any worse than a human doing the same. From a privacy perspective it's not too bad - provided they delete their copy of the photo after the card is issued. This isn't any different from having the photo printed on the ID card, if you ask me. The 1:many case, on the other hand, is a bit of a problem. This requires the creation of a mass database with everyone's pictures in it. The privacy implications are obviously enormous, as it would also enable the identification of previously-anonymous people "in the wild". And then there's obviously the issue that it simply cannot possibly work on a larger scale: with a 1:1 comparison you have to look for a close-enough match of a single picture pair, but with a 1:many comparison you have to identify one person out of millions of possible matches. There needs to be some lenience in the matching (people use makeup and get rhinoplasties) but people's faces already look quite similar - once you get to the million-people scale, there are pretty much guaranteed to be some false positive matches in there!

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
... then they came for my doppelganger and there was no one to implicate me.
chkaloon 3y ago
TSA presumably can narrow down the search space to the people with tickets at that airport for that day
- dietr1ch 3y ago
  My concerns here are not about the search cost, but about holding everyone's data.
  - chkaloon 3y ago
    "And then there's obviously the issue that it simply cannot possibly work on a larger scale: with a 1:1 comparison you have to look for a close-enough match of a single picture pair, but with a 1:many comparison you have to identify one person out of millions of possible matches. "

pseudosavant 3y ago

I've worked with a lot of very good facial recognition technology. They all have demonstrated biases for white males. Even in the ideal scenario they are far too inaccurate (<97%) to be used for identification, unless your false reject rate is extremely high (>30%). And if it is a less ideal scenario (elderly Latina, Asian woman, etc) you'll be lucky to get 80% accuracy without high false reject rates. When it comes down to it, accurate facial recognition is at best 99% accurate. But being wrong 1 in 100 times is a horrible number for an authentication system. Anything else you ever use for authentication (password, iOS face scanning, PIN, etc) would be considered a complete joke if it only got to 99% accuracy.

mjbeswick 3y ago
People often cite bias in facial recognition systems, but I would argue that the average human is worse. Many people struggle to distinguish between people of ethnicities that are different from those they are most familiar with. The real problem with people interpret the data from those systems, assuming the confidence levels of matches are displayed as they should be.

ibejoeb 3y ago

I'm not exactly sure of the connection, but I just got a message that I must enroll in the new, mandatory CLEAR program which appears to use facial recognition. Is this one of the two pilot programs they're talking about here?

quantified 3y ago
Can you elaborate? Where is CLEAR mandatory?
- ibejoeb 3y ago
  It's mandatory in order to continue using clear, not for travelers in general. They're being a little dodgy about what it all entails. > Members will need to upgrade to CLEAR’s NextGen Identity+. This will power CLEAR’s Lane of the Future rolling out over 2024. > NextGen Identity+ will unlock the CLEAR Lane of the Future. The CLEAR Lane of the Future, which will be rolling out over 2024, will deliver an even faster, more predictable airport experience for our Members. It will allow CLEAR Plus Members to verify their identity with their face (instead of iris or fingerprints) and eliminate the need for Members to stop at a CLEAR pod. https://www.clearme.com/support/what-is-nextgen-identity-and-how-does-it-work https://www.clearme.com/support/what-is-nextgen-identity-and...
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    This is because CLEAR screwed up for years and wasn't properly verifying identity. The TSA smacked them for it earlier this year when a significant fraction of the CLEAR user base turned out to be effectively unverifiable. It's mostly unrelated to the article.

wly_cdgr 3y ago

A federal government agency implementing and using facial recognition technology can't possibly be any more dangerous than I think

Vicinity9635 3y ago

The TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day and has a 95% failure rate at its job simultaneously. Read it for yourself and ask if searching every single person trying to fly is "reasonable" or if they have a warrant: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

sokoloff 3y ago
I think a metal detector search of the person and X-ray of bags is reasonable in terms of an invasiveness of search which is no greater than required for the legitimate safety concern and proportionate to the risk. I think the AIT machines are not reasonable (by nature of being more invasive than required), which is why I opt-out 100% of the time, much to the frustration of my wife when we’re traveling together, but I don’t care. I think the TSA agrees the AIT is likely enough to be unreasonable to not want it tested in court, hence they allow opt-out.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  Does the "opt-out" still involve a groping by a minimum wage fake LEO whose abuse is protected both by a union and federal law? I'm not concerned for myself, I'm concerned for _my kids_. As long as TSA agents are allowed to molest kids under the color of authority, then the "opt-out" is as much or more of a threat as the naked pictures they take in the AIT machines.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Yes for adults, but no on the kids. Kids (along with one parent per kid) are already directed through the metal detector line. I know that's not a great answer and I'm frustrated that AITs exist as a convenience and throughput increasing device, but it's also not "TSA is molesting kids who opt-out."

Racing0461 3y ago

I don't see facial recognition going away anytime soon since (other than fingerprints) is being rolled out to answer "this document is a legit document, but is the holder of this document the person on the document". Anyone's guess why facial recognition is being used in favor of fingerprints is anyone's guess since fingerprints are way more accurate.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
I would guess (really, just a guess) that 1. government IDs have photos but not all contain fingerprint data. 2. facial recognition can be done at a distance. In the future, you could be verified walking the building. 3. (tin foil hat) People associate giving fingerprints to the govt with criminals moreso than they do pictures.

injeolmi_love 3y ago

When will the temporary post 9-11 policies end? They aren’t really needed anymore, if they ever were.

avazhi 3y ago

Can somebody explain to me, succinctly and without the slippery slope nonsense immanent in this link, why facial recognition is seen by some reasonable people to be a problem? I’m not interested in why anarcho-fascists or tinfoil hat libertarians or Luddites think it’s a bad idea - I’d like to know why your average reasonable man would have a problem with this. As somebody with both a law and a science degree, I just can’t understand the outrage. We already have to take our photos for passports and our IDs - how the fuck is this substantively different? I get the sense this a situation that proves that rule that somebody, somewhere will always find a way to be outraged about everything in 2023.

from-nibly 3y ago
Because it gives the government a direct up to date photo of you, while it's already tracking where you are going. It's just that much easier to decide you have committed a crime. And find you. However, the slippery slope holds true when you complain about previous actions. I.e. the government knowing where you go when you fly, and searching your private belongings without a warrant. This isn't the first thing on the slope. With just those two examples this is the 3rd. I'll believe the slope isn't slippery when they repeal the patriot act. Edit: finished first thought.
rebeccaskinner 3y ago
> I’m not interested in why anarcho-fascists or tinfoil hat libertarians or Luddites think it’s a bad idea - I’d like to know why your average reasonable man would have a problem with this. I think this is an overly adversarial view of people trying to take a long and systems based view of this, but even if we do focus on the immediate practicalities, there are a couple of obvious ones. First, and foremost, I don't trust TSA to get it right. Facial recognition is one of many technologies that works well enough most of the time that it might be fine for non-critical infrastructure, but there are enough issues with it that at the scale of imposing it on all passengers we should anticipate a lot of negative impact. This can include both the possibility of bad actors being allowed to travel because they can find effective ways to defeat the system, and innocent people being negatively impacted through no fault of their own. Early on the system may be opt-in, and in the medium term there may be reasonable paths to opt out, but once the system is mandatory- or a significant default, people will be punished with a significantly degraded experience because the technology doesn't work well for them. There's also the infosec angle. I don't trust TSA to get security right any more than I trust them to get facial recognition working right. We've already seen leaks of images from millimeter wave scanners. Although a photo of your face may not be as private as the images leaked from those scanners, there are a lot of potential negative outcomes from someone getting a hold of a corpus of facial recognition data, especially if it contains more than just a raw photo and includes information that could help someone to impersonate you.

onetokeoverthe 3y ago

[dead]

_8j50 3y ago

Story time! They probably had different reasons but I had funny encounters with the TSA involving hoodies. One time I missed a flight in Miami and the next flight was 6-8hrs later. I decided to hang around the airport. Eventually I became sleepy, put my bags next to me, sat down where there are no passengers, put headphones and covered myself with a large hoodie to keep it dark enough for a nap. A couple of hours later I take off my hoodie for a peek and this uniformed TSA guy is sitting in front of me and staring at me, I stared back for a few seconds, checked the time and went back to sleep. A while later I am rested so I get up, now there are 2-3 people around me but the TSA guy is still staring at me. We had a staring contest for like 5-10min the I got bored and started wasting time on my phone. A little later, I was hungry and my departure time was within 1h so I ignored the guy and went to my gate area and ate an expensive tuna sandwich before leaving miami. Second story, same hoodie I think, I was similarly taking a nap (forgot the airport), I hear a small commotion and look up there are TSA people standing around one is trying to make it look like they are not trying to look at me, then another TSA worker brought a k-9 dog straight to me without saying a single word and had the dog take its time sniffing me and all my stuff. I didn't mind tbh. Then they had the dog sniff around a couple of nearby seats and took it away. Not a big deal, I just couldn't figure out what they were thinking? Did they think I was a terrorist but needed a nap before my attack? Also, I don't know if facial recognition flags people but I can tell by their body language when I am standing line if they will do a chemical test, to the point I prepare my hands and volunteer them before the guy even asks (they comment on how I am too used to it lol). People complain about this stuff but personally I care more about all the surveillance they buy that then gets paired with your facial/biometrics and sticks with you for life. Also, had a rookie TSA agent follow procedure one time and tell me I can request a private pat-down if I so wish. I told him "sure" just to see what they do, they knew I was fooling around so they didn't pat me down properly but they took me to a private room for the pat down. Worth mentioning because it sounded like they are supposed to inform you of that for each pat down and if you are legitimately a person sensitive about being touched and fondled in public you have that option (they even leave the cash on the dresser before they leave /s ). I say all this but I do understand that the TSA workers on the ground are well meaning folks keeping everyone safe. I have much respect for them even if I don't always agree with TSA/DHS policy, which ulitimately is a product of the american voter's will.

et-al 3y ago

Do most privacy-oriented here who fly a lot just not bother with Global Entry then?

gdsdfe 3y ago

Isn't it ironic that they're doing what they blamed the Chinese for doing?!

monkeydust 3y ago

I was at JFK recently and was shocked how fast the Global Entry facial recognition system was compared to say UK one. I literally had barley registered on the camera before it gave me a green tick.

Moto7451 3y ago

> Another risk that is set in motion by TSA’s use of face verification is the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID and creates a de facto national ID controlled by the government. For one, why are people afraid of a national ID? I remember this argument being used to delay RealID changes in some states. Other countries have a national ID and it hasn’t lead been billed as a privacy nightmare. Second, we have a national ID already called a passport. That’s valid ID in the US and issued by the Federal government. I have one and so far the Feds haven’t come for me while I’ve slept or thrown me into whatever lies at the bottom of this slippery slope argument. Am I missing something? Third, what makes the Feds worse than my State government? What stops Florida or New Mexico from turning State ID databases into a surveillance tool? Is it possible we really have 50 slippery slopes to deal with? Again, I don’t understand where the fear is.

ShrimpHawk 3y ago
Some state governments already perform facial recognition when issuing drivers licenses. There have been stories of twins being unable to obtain an ID because it was flagged as fraud due to matching facial features.
saq7 3y ago
1. People don’t trust the government and are wary of giving it more power 2. You’re missing that your face is different than a piece of paper. You can choose to refuse to show ID in some cases. You could keep your face covered, but that has ramifications you might not desire 3. The Feds are worse because they are already much more powerful than any state government. It’s really not hard to see where the fear is. This might be one of the most obtuse comments I have seen on here
- kanbara 3y ago
  identity “verification” by ssn is stupid; almost every other democracy has national id systems and residential verification and it works better and is easier to get benefits or prove yourself than real id and any other absurd american invention.