7 ms·

I don't understand this. I don't think we should have facial recognition tracking us as we walk down our streets, and I do think the TSA is mostly a jobs progra

by dexwiz 3y ago

I don't understand this. I don't think we should have facial recognition tracking us as we walk down our streets, and I do think the TSA is mostly a jobs program, but airports are already high security areas. I have to buy a ticket under a real name, present ID, consent to a search, and be funneled through multiple checkpoints (bag drop, TSA, gate). Having the cameras already watching me also perform recognition isn't that big of a jump. The only thing I can figure is the people with power who get to flash credentials and walk through, or skip the terminal all together, don't want their face automatically recognized and recorded. If these Senators were really concerned about privacy they would force the TSA to dump all records after 3 months, not just biometric

nonameiguess 3y ago
I don't think I get this one, either. Not like I personally want to be surveilled or anything, but for better or worse, the TSA inherently has to use facial recognition because they're required right now to check your ID and see that you look roughly similar enough to the picture on it and the name matches the boarding pass to let you through without further questioning. The way this is titled right now isn't even accurate. They're not trying to ban facial recognition. They're just banning the automation of it. The automated facial recognition service they currently offer also isn't mandatory. Anyone that uses it is doing so voluntarily. They're banning people from volunteering to pay the cost of being added to a database in return for saving a few minutes at security checkpoints. Why not ban precheck then? Is it less invasive to have your fingerprints in a database compared to having a scan of your face in one?
- greyface- 3y ago
  > they're required right now to check your ID Can you provide a citation for this requirement? I.e. a law, not an administrative decision made unilaterally by the TSA?
  - robcohen 3y ago
    REAL ID act: "OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term `official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine. " https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf
    - greyface- 3y ago
      This does not have the effect you claim it does. Despite significant efforts, the airport ID checking component of REAL ID has not gone into effect, after decades of can-kicking and playing chicken with individual states that haven't implemented REAL ID locally. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/05/dhs-announces-extension-real-id-full-enforcement-deadline https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/05/dhs-announces-extension-...
      - robcohen 3y ago
        Laws don't have to be enforced, but it's still the law. You asked for a law, and REAL ID is one. Although it isn't fully enforced, the provision for an ID is fully enforced. It's just not required to be a REAL ID, but an ID is required.
        greyface- 3y ago
        > the provision for an ID is fully enforced Which provision, specifically, are you referring to? The REAL ID pdf you linked does not contain a "provision for an ID" in airports separate from 202(a)(1), which is not yet in effect, and will likely get snoozed for a few years again in 2025. Furthermore, even if it were in effect today, it would not require the checking of IDs; it merely prohibits the checking of non-REAL IDs.
      - yummypaint 3y ago
        There is a simple experiment you can do to test this yourself. Just attempt to board a US domestic flight without showing any personal identification. You will most certainly not be allowed through security.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > They're just banning the automation of it. The automated facial recognition service they currently offer also isn't mandatory. Anyone that uses it is doing so voluntarily. For someone concerned about mandatory face scanning, there is a good argument against permitting the TSA to do voluntary face scanning, which is that the voluntary often becomes the mandatory. As an analogy, consider doing business with the government. Many government agencies will only do business with you if you have a phone number (increasingly an app) and pay with credit or debit card, all practices that started out as voluntary conveniences but morphed into requirements. You could describe this process in a variety of ways, depending on how much agency and malevolence you want to ascribe to the decision makers: "ratchet effect", "slippery slope", "boiling the frog", etc. Regardless of name, the process tends to look like this: first give people the option to do B instead of A. Then give people an incentive to do B. Then, once most people are doing B, deprioritize A (which makes it inconvenient). Finally, remove option A when there are only a few people left to complain. The TSA is already pushing the envelope with PreCheck and adding more categories to the No Fly List. It works very well. Consider your comment: "but for better or worse, the TSA inherently has to use facial recognition because they're required right now to check your ID" (emphasis mine). Your logic isn't wrong, but it's starting from the premise of how to better serve what is being done right now rather than what should be done. Consider that the US only started requring airlines to check IDs a few years before 9/11, and personal identification is only indirectly related to the security of an airplane (why there's all those people checking your shoes despite knowing your name and face). The effect of airport IDing is mainly as a tool for law enforcement interdiction and to bolster airline profits by preventing ticket switching. Similarly, after the TSA has built a national database of face models, there is no reason this data has to be used primarily for airline security.
m463 3y ago
The problem might be that all these things feed into each other. The California DMV can intercept your tax refund if you haven't paid your registration. Or if someone hasn't made a child support payment, the courts can ask the DMV to prevent registration of a vehicle. I'm using this as an example of how the lines get blurred between different government functions.
troyvit 3y ago
It's simple for me. How has the TSA done handling security since its inception without facial recognition? No buildings knocked over by airplanes? Cool then we don't need to degrade our expectation of privacy any more than we already have.
- polski-g 3y ago
  What if we could save taxpayer's dollars by implementing automation thru facial recognition?
  - dmitrygr 3y ago
    Imagine the savings if the government just ran your entire life for you...
    - polski-g 3y ago
      They certainly run my airport security for me.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        They didn't until not that long ago and it wasn't a problem.

by dexwiz 3y ago

nonameiguess 3y ago

I don't think I get this one, either. Not like I personally want to be surveilled or anything, but for better or worse, the TSA inherently has to use facial recognition because they're required right now to check your ID and see that you look roughly similar enough to the picture on it and the name matches the boarding pass to let you through without further questioning. The way this is titled right now isn't even accurate. They're not trying to ban facial recognition. They're just banning the automation of it. The automated facial recognition service they currently offer also isn't mandatory. Anyone that uses it is doing so voluntarily. They're banning people from volunteering to pay the cost of being added to a database in return for saving a few minutes at security checkpoints. Why not ban precheck then? Is it less invasive to have your fingerprints in a database compared to having a scan of your face in one?

greyface- 3y ago
> they're required right now to check your ID Can you provide a citation for this requirement? I.e. a law, not an administrative decision made unilaterally by the TSA?
- robcohen 3y ago
  REAL ID act: "OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term `official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine. " https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf
  - greyface- 3y ago
    This does not have the effect you claim it does. Despite significant efforts, the airport ID checking component of REAL ID has not gone into effect, after decades of can-kicking and playing chicken with individual states that haven't implemented REAL ID locally. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/05/dhs-announces-extension-real-id-full-enforcement-deadline https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/05/dhs-announces-extension-...
    - robcohen 3y ago
      Laws don't have to be enforced, but it's still the law. You asked for a law, and REAL ID is one. Although it isn't fully enforced, the provision for an ID is fully enforced. It's just not required to be a REAL ID, but an ID is required.
      - greyface- 3y ago
        > the provision for an ID is fully enforced Which provision, specifically, are you referring to? The REAL ID pdf you linked does not contain a "provision for an ID" in airports separate from 202(a)(1), which is not yet in effect, and will likely get snoozed for a few years again in 2025. Furthermore, even if it were in effect today, it would not require the checking of IDs; it merely prohibits the checking of non-REAL IDs.
    - yummypaint 3y ago
      There is a simple experiment you can do to test this yourself. Just attempt to board a US domestic flight without showing any personal identification. You will most certainly not be allowed through security.
ramblenode 3y ago
> They're just banning the automation of it. The automated facial recognition service they currently offer also isn't mandatory. Anyone that uses it is doing so voluntarily. For someone concerned about mandatory face scanning, there is a good argument against permitting the TSA to do voluntary face scanning, which is that the voluntary often becomes the mandatory. As an analogy, consider doing business with the government. Many government agencies will only do business with you if you have a phone number (increasingly an app) and pay with credit or debit card, all practices that started out as voluntary conveniences but morphed into requirements. You could describe this process in a variety of ways, depending on how much agency and malevolence you want to ascribe to the decision makers: "ratchet effect", "slippery slope", "boiling the frog", etc. Regardless of name, the process tends to look like this: first give people the option to do B instead of A. Then give people an incentive to do B. Then, once most people are doing B, deprioritize A (which makes it inconvenient). Finally, remove option A when there are only a few people left to complain. The TSA is already pushing the envelope with PreCheck and adding more categories to the No Fly List. It works very well. Consider your comment: "but for better or worse, the TSA inherently has to use facial recognition because they're required right now to check your ID" (emphasis mine). Your logic isn't wrong, but it's starting from the premise of how to better serve what is being done right now rather than what should be done. Consider that the US only started requring airlines to check IDs a few years before 9/11, and personal identification is only indirectly related to the security of an airplane (why there's all those people checking your shoes despite knowing your name and face). The effect of airport IDing is mainly as a tool for law enforcement interdiction and to bolster airline profits by preventing ticket switching. Similarly, after the TSA has built a national database of face models, there is no reason this data has to be used primarily for airline security.

m463 3y ago

The problem might be that all these things feed into each other. The California DMV can intercept your tax refund if you haven't paid your registration. Or if someone hasn't made a child support payment, the courts can ask the DMV to prevent registration of a vehicle. I'm using this as an example of how the lines get blurred between different government functions.

troyvit 3y ago

It's simple for me. How has the TSA done handling security since its inception without facial recognition? No buildings knocked over by airplanes? Cool then we don't need to degrade our expectation of privacy any more than we already have.

polski-g 3y ago
What if we could save taxpayer's dollars by implementing automation thru facial recognition?
- dmitrygr 3y ago
  Imagine the savings if the government just ran your entire life for you...
  - polski-g 3y ago
    They certainly run my airport security for me.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      They didn't until not that long ago and it wasn't a problem.