21 ms·

You can opt out of airport face scans

287 points by rntn 2y ago

chasil 2y ago
You can also opt out of the cylindrical x-ray. The correct incantation is: "I would like to opt out of the millimeter wave." If you do this, then someone of the same gender will run their gloved hands over (somewhat sensitive) areas of your body, then test the gloves for explosive residue. At my age, I probably shouldn't care about any of this, but I don't like needless x-rays.
- joe5150 2y ago
  Not to suggest that you shouldn't opt out for any reason you want, but the mm wave scanner doesn't use x-rays. I don't think the x-ray scanners were ever widely deployed and none of them are in use anymore. You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence.
  - dijit 2y ago
    > You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence. I've heard this before, but this really isn't how radiation works. The higher dosages you're exposed to and the longer, the more likely the negative affects. But it's strangely additive, like getting wet. Which is a poor analogy but the most fitting I can think of. You might get "more wet" by standing in the rain than getting splashed with puddle, sure, but you're still increasing your "wet-ness" by not drying out before getting splashed. Only this wet gives you cancer if you stay wet too long, or get too wet.
    - joe5150 2y ago
      I agree that's a poor analogy. Nonetheless, millimeter wave scanners don't use ionizing radiation.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > this really isn't how radiation works. Yes, actually it is, at least as far as the risks of security scanners vs. flying are concerned. The radiation you get exposed to in an airplane at altitude is largely ionizing radiation. The radiation you get exposed to in security scanners is not. So in addition to the much shorter time of exposure, and hence the much smaller overall dose, the type of radiation in security scanners is much, much less damaging to your body even at comparable doses. > it's strangely additive I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that the additional radiation from security scanners is somehow "additive" with the radiation you are exposed to in the airplane, no, that's not correct. They're different types of radiation and do different things to your body. There's no cumulative effect between them.
      - dijit 2y ago
        If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. Truthfully, the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects, we certainly consider it as such for every work environment for a reason. You are confident in this, and more eloquent than me at 2am, whoever I cannot let that falsehood stand. As far as ionising radiation goes, if its ionising then its ionising, there’s not “different types”- however the parent is correct that millimetre waves do not penetrate the skin and are considered non-ionising
        pdonis 2y ago
        > the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects What kind of radiation? If you mean ionizing radiation, the evidence, as far as I know, is mixed; some indicates there is buildup over time, some indicates that there are threshold effects and single doses below threshold, separated in time, do not accumulate. We do have lifetime dose limits as well as single exposure dose limits for such radiation because the evidence is mixed and we can't rule out that there are accumulation effects. But if you mean non-ionizing radiation, such as is used in the millimeter wave security scanners, there is no evidence of accumulation of effects over time from low doses (i.e., doses that do not cause immediate harmful effects) that I'm aware of. Do you know of any?
        2y ago
    - prepend 2y ago
      I think the issue is that people don’t think about limiting their airline flights, so why think about limiting mmwave? Not that it isn’t additive, it’s that people don’t care like they don’t care that eating a banana vs eating another item [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
  - hammock 2y ago
    They are still using backscatter X-ray scanners in parts of Europe, for example Berlin. That airport does allow you to opt out of them. And in the US, backscatter X-rays have found continued use in jails and prisons. There is actually one that is used in Cook County (Chicago) that is a conveyor belt you stand on to get a full 5 seconds of X-ray exposure. Opting out of the prison scanner may be possible depending on your circumstances, but undoubtedly more difficult
    - Klonoar 2y ago
      Does Berlin actually tell you anywhere that you can opt out? Flew through there recently and didn't see anything... prior to having TSA Pre I'd always opt out in the USA, would love to know if it's as simple in Germany for when I fly through.
      - hammock 2y ago
        Not that I saw. But I saw people talking about it online. I did the same thing I do in the US, tell the scanner guy I’d like to opt out. I think they wanded me, no pat down. No fuss.
    - joe5150 2y ago
      that's good to know but disappointing to learn!
- MengerSponge 2y ago
  X-rays are sub-nanometer waves. Millimeter wave scanners are fancy radar (with microwave photons) I always opted out of x-ray backscatter machines, but mm-wave scanners aren't worth the hassle.
  - kiratp 2y ago
    https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyist-takes-congressional-job-overseeing-spending-tsa-security/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyis... https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-sc... The whole implementation of these scanners was layers of corruption. Still worth it IMO - as long as they have to train people to maintain the manual process, its a signal that there are people out there who won't just fold.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      They have to do manual pat downs for people who "fail" the scanner, either because there was something that warranted a double check or the computer randomly assigned someone to receive extra scrutiny. I've walked out of the security perimeter to reschedule after a flight cancellation in an airport with <10 passengers in the terminal. Upon reentering I was "randomly" selected for an explosives swab despite passing the first time with the same bag and not walking more than 50 feet away from the TSA checkpoint.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        I "Failed" the scanner once because I was wearing too much deodorant! It decided the titanium or aluminum in my extremely sweaty armpits was clearly explosive. I felt sorta bad for the TSA guy who had to grope my sweaty armpits to make sure I wasn't a terrorist somehow
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    Are these things regulated by the FDA? And if not, why not?
- koolba 2y ago
  For bonus points make sure to refuse to send your bags through the X-ray scanner, blocking everyone else behind you as well, until the agent is ready for your manual pat down. When they demand you put your bags through, speak in a loud commanding voice, “Do not touch my bag! It must remain in my sight!”. If they’re not prepared for passengers to opt out, the public needs to be aware and the only way they’ll be aware is by delaying hundreds of passengers directly behind you.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    This is a great way to spread awareness that anyone who cares about privacy rights is a crazy and annoying weirdo.
- pcmaffey 2y ago
  This is the primary reason I pay for TSA Precheck, to automatically opt out of the scanner without requesting a groping.
floren 2y ago
And I do, every time! They don't really care, although some make a half-hearted pitch about how the image gets deleted right away.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I opt in, and am always very excited to participate in this beta. Opting out isn’t going to change the deployment scale.
  - dijit 2y ago
    Hope it does. I’m also the person who consistently opts out of airport body scanners too, much to the embarrassment of whomever is unfortunate enough to be travelling with me. It is my petty indignation- if you want to violate me then I’m going to make it resource consuming for you also, should I have the capability. Reactions of the airport staff are surprisingly mixed, many don't mind at all - though universally they will force you to wait for 10-30minutes, though Gatwick staff in particular consistently repeats that “this won’t always be possible”, which is a weird statement to make to be honest, but I've travelled through there many times and they try to talk me about of it this way.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Has the ability to opt out changed the TSA operating model? Or does it satisfy some emotional response in those who do while adding slightly more time to aggregate screening for the opt out population? I understand the desire, but the lever you're trying to pull is in concrete. Redirect your efforts to somewhere effective. By participating in Global Entry and opting into CBP and DHS/TSA "one to many" credential and identity proofing (colloquially "facial recognition"), it makes my life much easier while traveling. If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks. The databases relied on for matching already exist [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045575
LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
Flying back to the US earlier this year in June, I declined to have my face scanned. The agent was rude and aggressive because I “didn’t tell him I wanted to opt out before he started.” He went overboard in terms of harassment and intimidation but he did not win. Fuck that guy. Also who cares whether the photo is immediately deleted? The metrics are what matter and those are kept.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  Good for you. There is no shortage of assholes at the border. It's gotten to the point where when I encounter a polite one, I think "what's his angle?" Maybe he's just not a jerk projecting his sense of powerlessness onto strangers. Imagine! That said, I don't envy their job. But it seems to be a systemic attractor of asshole.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    I think it must be their training, at least in part. Does acting this way catch people who are trying to deceive them? Border guards in other countries are often very polite.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      >Does acting this way catch people who are trying to deceive them? The retired cops who will charge your department $100k for "training" will absolutely tell you they are teaching you how to detect liars. Actual studies have shown their techniques (things like microexpressions etc) are not only ineffective, but make you WORSE THAN RANDOM CHANCE at detecting lies. A person who has received no "training" in these stupid systems are better at detecting lies. But cops love other cops and former cops, and have a shitload of money in their budget for stupid nonsense training like "Killology", and apparently have absurd and unscientific worldviews that they refuse to escape. So they keep booking the retired cop who tells them "that hoodlum who you feel is sketchy is definitely sketchy so trust your instinct" and do not book the scientist who tells them "actually everything you know is mostly wrong, and you shouldn't ever trust your gut".
- 2y ago
magnetowasright 2y ago
It's such a challenge coming up against this stuff. So many people will (understandably) just accept it and go along with it. Surveillance is normalised. Data breaches of our most sensitive data are normalised. Companies simply giving all this sensitive data to law enforcement is normalised. Fighting back is hard if it even occurs to you that you can and should. My husband's workplace tried to force him to enrol in biometrics along with the rest of his company. It was just for doing timesheets. We'd have fought it if it were for identity verification and security as well, but no, it was just for bloody timesheets. Giving away immutable biometric data to a crappy third party company who has data breaches every six months just for bloody timesheets just felt extraordinarily ridiculous and audacious. My husband did encourage his colleagues to consider not signing it but nobody gave it much thought (or was worried about being fired). We recently needed to verify our identities to a financial institution and they pushed hard to use a (different) third party biometrics system instead of the good ol fashioned just not doing that. We needed to provide them with all the normal ID documentation anyway. Why the hell would we sign up for biometrics on top of that? I suppose my point is that people generally choose the path of least resistance (understandably). Turning the tides on biometrics garbage being normalised, the default, and probably the only way in the future is something I can't really see happening.
- TheJoeMan 2y ago
  One nitpick, was the timesheet biometrics like a cheap fingerprint scanner on the wall like they have at restaurants? Because I believe those work like smartphone fingerprint scanners, you enroll on the device and it’s just a hash. The bank example is probably a real image of the fingerprints like done for passports etc.
  - prepend 2y ago
    And I believe the hash is salted so that it’s only useful for that timesheet system. So an individual’s biometrics could not be extracted or reused for other purposes. Of course, I’d like to see auditing of the device and data to confirm everything.
  - dogleash 2y ago
renewiltord 2y ago
I opt-in to everything. Global Entry, Pre, Clear Plus, Face Scan, uploaded my genome and medical data. I shall be the experiment. If you read on the Internet about "Guy who uploaded all his data gets what was coming" you'll know I did the wrong thing. But so far, so good. The stuff I didn't upload is in publicly available databases too. SSN etc. hahaha
stonethrowaway 2y ago
I think they (Palantir, Five Eyes, etc) already have everything on you and the face scan is just an added touch. You can opt out but then you’re just part of a much smaller subset that’s even easier to keep track of.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  The TSA is putting a high resolution, 3D camera two inches away from your face and then are storing it in a readily accessible government database with no legal barriers to access (With Palantir, or any other private company the government would need to find a Judge to sign off on a national security letter or a subpoena).
  - mindslight 2y ago
    > With Palantir, or any other private company the government would need to find a Judge to sign off on a national security letter or a subpoena Erm, only if the private company wants to keep the data from the government? But given we're talking about surveillance companies that make their money selling surveillance records, I'm pretty sure they're eager to give it to the government (for a price).
oceanplexian 2y ago
I opted out at Boston International Airport. It involved arguing with the TSA for about 5 minutes while holding up a 150 person line. Then the supervisor came over, told me that I "was required to have to have my photo taken" and opting out consisted of checking a box in the software to not save my photo. My alternative was to not get on the flight. The whole idea of opting out is a scam. They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  What I really like is that the signs say they don't retain the image for more than a certain amount of time. Yes, most definitely the TSA does not retain it. But the Five eyes surveillance scheme? You can bet they do.
  - creer 2y ago
    I guess "it's not retaining if they end up not "using" it"? With "using" creatively defined elsewhere. None of these words means anything anymore.
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    The sign continues… …unless you’re not a US citizen, in which cases we retain the image forever. You can’t opt out.
    - lmz 2y ago
      ... well the US gov already has my face from my Visa application anyway.
      - danpalmer 2y ago
        That's true for some, but there are many countries with visa-free travel to the US.
    - dhritzkiv 2y ago
      I believe there's also an exemption for Canadian citizens. [1] and [2] (Cmd-f "Canadian") [1] https://www.cbp.gov/about/congressional-resources/testimony/statement-record-assessing-cbps-use-facial-recognition-technology https://www.cbp.gov/about/congressional-resources/testimony/... [2] https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2022-Sep/CPE%20Final%20Report%20Traveler%20Verification%20Service%2020220815%20Final_%20Redacted_0.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/202...
cbanek 2y ago
One interesting thing, in Arizona to get a "Real ID" drivers license that you can use in for flights, they make you use a face scanning app that runs on your cell phone. So sometimes they're getting the face scan done before you even go to the airport. I wonder if they can scan it at the airport no matter what, and just compare you to previous face scans? Hard to tell when these things actually happen.
omneity 2y ago
But are you guaranteed this opt out will not be used against you in future circumstances?
- itishappy 2y ago
  No, but you're not guaranteed opting in won't be used against you either, and I'm more worried about that.
tw04 2y ago
I was flying home from dallas a few months back. They had a giant sign in the security line that said (maybe not verbatim) - We're trying out a new face recognition security system. This is completely optional. If you don't want to participate, just tell the agent "I'd like to opt out". I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out" - she looks at me like I was speaking Algonquin. So I repeat "I'd like to opt out". Her - "What are you talking about??". So I point to the sign sitting two feet away from her and say "your sign says the face scan is optional and I can opt out???" "Just say you want a pat down, we don't know what you're saying". To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest...
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest... It makes more sense if you think about it as a giant jobs program, but one that detracts from society instead of adding to it.
  - tw04 2y ago
    Don't get me started, our country makes my brain hurt. The Works program was considered so successful at eliminating unemployed folks, we killed it. Because why would we need to continue building roads and bridges, and fixing old roads and bridges, and giving people meaningful work to do vs. just handing out food stamps? That problem is solved... (Please note I'm not against food stamps/welfare programs, I just think having that be the ONLY option is detrimental to able-bodied folks that just want to feel like they're contributing to society but also can't find steady employment for various reasons).
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      I dug into this, and apparently the Works program was terminated because WWII happened, which obviously depleted people who were using it as a bunch were being either shipped off to war or hired up for war industries. The fact it hasn't been spun up again is worth investigating but it seems its termination had nothing to do with how successful it was.
throwaway290232 2y ago
[dead]
Kab1r 2y ago
Last time I opted out of facial recognition when re-entering the US, I got put through an additional baggage and security scan with my passport literally locked in a box.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw7 2y ago
What's funny is other (possibly less trustable) countries will have your scan anyway... try "opting" out of the face scan when you arrive in India.
- slackfan 2y ago
  sounds like a good reason to not go to india.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  Well that is a choice each individual does. I have never visited the USA either, and I have absolutely no plan to do so in my lifetime.
reilly3000 2y ago
These scans are likely to be property of a dictator. Please prepare for that.
- slackfan 2y ago
  Likely? They already are.
basementcat 2y ago
I seem to recall one of the TSA screening lines at JFK had a sign indicating that one could opt out. I’m disappointed if airports do not have similar signage.
crazygringo 2y ago
When did we start calling this "face scanning"? Isn't it just literally taking a photo, like any digital camera? To me "scanning" implies a 3D point cloud. Apple's TrueDepth camera, with a projected dot cloud, that it uses for Face ID -- that's scanning, as opposed to just a photo. Are airports actually performing 3D scans now? Or are they still just normal digital cameras, but people are calling it "scanning" because they want it to sound scarier than "photos"?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Uncle Sam is using your money so generally pays top dollar for the best stuff. A comment in the top thead, with “counterpoint” in it seems to confirm the 3d scan.
- callahad 2y ago
  It's a stereoscopic camera, so you get depth and such.
  - prepend 2y ago
    So just like a smartphone camera nowadays?
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      Smartphone cameras aren't stereoscopic by default... yet, but that's probably coming. Rumors are that the iPhone 16 will have a stereoscopic camera layout on some or all models, for example.
      - prepend 2y ago
        iPhone 15 pro added it.
exabrial 2y ago
I have never _even once_ gone through the TSA naked scanner since they were put in after 9/11. A pat down is invasive, but the pat down is ephemeral by its own nature. Just wait until the TSA announces they trained an AI model on sorted naked images.
- prepend 2y ago
  There are no “naked” images. Unless you consider x-rays and other similar imaging systems to create “naked” images.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    "TSA dick detector" then.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > There are no “naked” images. Untrue. For years there absolutely were. <https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tsa-full-body-scans-private-parts/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tsa-full-body-scans-privat...> > Unless you consider x-rays and other similar imaging systems to create “naked” images. These are used in medical scenarios with your fully-informed consent. TSA was absolutely not forthcoming about the capabilities of their checkpoint scanners, and they earned the moniker "pornoscanner" for a very good reason. Additionally, even ignoring the fact that most medical x-rays are used to look inside of you rather than at your skin (why would one use a fancy machine for a surface inspection when the Mk. 1 eyeball is Right There?), the context is completely different in a way that's very, very important.
  - exabrial 2y ago
    This is categorically false unfortunately. Peruse the government’s own website for proof.
blindriver 2y ago
I used to opt out of everything, and get searched manually but now I have given up. I applied for clear, I let them take my pic, I do everything because at this point I know they already know everything about me. It's sad, it's 1984-come-to-fruition, but I am too old and tired to keep tilting at windmills. They've won.
PoachedEggs 2y ago
Have they been scanning the faces of minors? Toddlers? Do parents need to opt out for them separately?
- slackfan 2y ago
  Yes.
mixmastamyk 2y ago
I noticed last year that they’d simply say “photo” at the time they were to take it. Not, would you like to? (Because you’d say no)… nor you must. It’s mildly awkward, so they must’ve been trained explicitly to just say “photo” which is not a question or a command.
satvikpendem 2y ago
If you opt out, you can't use automated immigration and boarding systems at many airports. At Singapore's Changi, for example, their process for entering and exiting the country is incredible, fully automated (unless the system determines you need further verification by a human, but this still saves more time than only human verification for everyone). This is the same for boarding, you scan your boarding pass and it verifies your picture with a camera, then you just get on the plane.
prepend 2y ago
Why do people want to opt out? This perplexes me as “the government” already has scans of your face. So these devices aren’t used to collect data. I’m also perplexed when my parent won’t give the State department their SSN, but received SSN benefits, and Medicare, and pays taxes to the IRS. They say they don’t want “the government” to have their data, but oddly think the government doesn’t already have a dossier on them. I love the scans as they speed up security. I traveled recently, internationally to and from the US and it was nice to just scan my face and show my passport and not need to scan my qrcode boarding pass.
- quasse 2y ago
  > This perplexes me as “the government” already has scans of your face. So these devices aren’t used to collect data. Citation extremely needed. Why would the government have a preexisting scan of my face?
  - prepend 2y ago
    Driver’s license. Passport. Student id. Employment id (for the millions employed by the government). Etc etc etc Not to mention the data legally purchased from data brokers and illegally captured by NSA/etc.
    - a_dabbler 2y ago
      Photo != Biometric scan
      - prepend 2y ago
        Yes, when it comes to face scanners at the airport. You’re standing in front of a government camera for a driver’s license or student id and it can (and likely will) take the same image data that the TSA cameras do. A high rez image is a type of biometric scan if you’re using it for facial recognition.
        2y ago
ggm 2y ago
Thank you for reminding me to renew my ESTA for this year.
slackfan 2y ago
have been opting out for a while, including at Boston, never had an issue.
AzzyHN 2y ago
I'll be honest, I don't mind if the federal government has my face information. I already have a passport and a driver's license, I live here, I pay taxes, the federal government already has all my information. My issue is if any private company gets to use it or store it. I will never join Clear and I tell everyone I meet not to trust them.
- 650REDHAIR 2y ago
  What are they going to do with my biometrics? Waymo, cruise, etc are driving around scanning us every day. My fingerprint is used on my phone. My palm is scanned at Whole Foods. Clear is the easiest way to fly and I’ll never go back (until it’s as packed as TSA pre…).
  - mattrighetti 2y ago
    Why would they need a palm scan at Whole Foods?
    - 650REDHAIR 2y ago
      Great question, but it’s at my Whole Foods
  - nullfrigid 2y ago
    Congress has been taking a long hard look at Clear and might consider their practices and business model to be illegal, as they rightfully should.
  - corytheboyd 2y ago
    Where is Clear considerably faster than TSA pre-check? It’s the same wait for either nearly every time I’ve seen them next to each other. I’m sure it varies by airport though.
    - 650REDHAIR 2y ago
      Clear is faster everywhere. They literally walk you to the front of the line.
matrix87 2y ago
I'm more bothered by the fact that customs agents can demand people unlock their phones [0]. The government already has your picture, but letting them copy device data over is a much more significant invasion of privacy Also kind of pointless too, because anyone with something actually important could just encrypt it, upload it somewhere, and wipe the device. Good luck putting the packets through customs [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/18/phone-data-privacy-customs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/18/phone-d...
ElFitz 2y ago
Those that leaked because of the CBP’s poor security practices? [0] I really can’t wait for tomorrow’s hackers using the next generation of Sora to make fake video of me doing god knows what [1] thanks to the CBP’s next data leak. And I can’t opt out, because I’m an evil foreign national. Or rather I can; it just means giving up on travelling to or through the US. [0]: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/O... [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-hong-kong-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-ho...
dawnerd 2y ago
I have a Passport, Global Entry and Pre Check. The digital ID and face scanning in general has actually been a pretty positive improvement. They already have the data anyways, might as well skip the showing my id nonsense. That said I do think it should be default opt-out.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I saw these installed at a couple airports I was at recently. I opted out myself, but to my horror, 100% of the line, except for me, simply agreed to the facial scan. Even though there are signs in the security line talking about how the new process is a trial with the option to opt out, the TSA agent simply said “step up to the camera” and everyone complied. It felt like I was watching dystopia forming live because people are too ready to accept authority. If a few educated people on hacker news opt out, it means nothing. The practice of invasive biometric scanning will be normalized by the masses who just comply. Just like with other existing security procedures. Soon the scans will be mandatory but also everywhere else in society. I’m not sure what a good defense is against this.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  This is not suprising as people actively opt-in to give out every single detail of their life to third parties social medias on a regular basis.
mattrighetti 2y ago
Wondering if this is a thing in Europe too? I did not know you could opt-out of this in the US but every time I go through one of those machines I always wonder where that data is stored, how long it is kept around and why.
aejfghalsgjbae 2y ago
I misread the title at first. "Why would you opt out of a font?"
mathiasose 2y ago
Interesting read, I (a Norwegian citizen) traveled to the US (OSL -> CPH -> SFO and back) in July and was surprised by some parts of the procedures at the airport. Some notable parts of my experience: - There is no longer the paper form you filled out on the plane/prior to customs. You fill out online forms (visa or ESTA in my case) months before you travel. - Upon arrival customs and immigration took my fingerprints and photo. My passport and ESTA were in order and I have traveled to the US several times before (and well, I am a privileged ethnicity from western Europe), and the agent didn't do any questioning about purpose of travel, accommodation, etc this time. That has happened to me on previous trips though. This type of questioning always makes me feel uncomfortable and afraid to say something wrong, so that was a relief. I would certainly not begin to argue with the agent about opting out of the biometrics at this stage. - My checked bags were not inspected by customs. On a previous US trip I did find a notice that the bag had been inspected. - On departure, at the TSA bag check there were the full body scanners you step into and raise your hands. I didn't see any information about opting out anywhere, though I wasn't actively searching for it. There was nothing in particular that made me consider that my face was being scanned in detail here. - At the gate I was surprised that boarding check was via facecam. This was the first time I have seen this and I had not considered that my pictures from before could be used this way. Everywhere else and all other times I have traveled you board with the barcode/QR on the boarding card and without any ID check. So in my experience (as an admittedly privileged traveler) the system is optimized for efficiency and "convenience", but certainly not for privacy. There isn't much information to find about what you must do and what you are able to opt out of. Just do the same thing as the person in front of you in the line, ad infinitum. I know I should be more concerned about privacy in general, but the stress of travel and anxiety about doing something "wrong" and somehow getting in trouble with these agencies make me (and probably most others) accept these things.
troyvit 2y ago
The Vox article refers to an Algorithmic Justice League[1] article which footnotes the TSA article that says you can opt out [2]. I have to fly next week and if I have the guts to try this I'll definitely have the TSA article handy, not, er, the Vox article. [1] https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly [2] https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition-technology https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition...
tfhfj 2y ago
[flagged]

287 points by rntn 2y ago

You can also opt out of the cylindrical x-ray. The correct incantation is: "I would like to opt out of the millimeter wave." If you do this, then someone of the same gender will run their gloved hands over (somewhat sensitive) areas of your body, then test the gloves for explosive residue. At my age, I probably shouldn't care about any of this, but I don't like needless x-rays.

joe5150 2y ago
Not to suggest that you shouldn't opt out for any reason you want, but the mm wave scanner doesn't use x-rays. I don't think the x-ray scanners were ever widely deployed and none of them are in use anymore. You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence.
- dijit 2y ago
  > You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence. I've heard this before, but this really isn't how radiation works. The higher dosages you're exposed to and the longer, the more likely the negative affects. But it's strangely additive, like getting wet. Which is a poor analogy but the most fitting I can think of. You might get "more wet" by standing in the rain than getting splashed with puddle, sure, but you're still increasing your "wet-ness" by not drying out before getting splashed. Only this wet gives you cancer if you stay wet too long, or get too wet.
  - joe5150 2y ago
    I agree that's a poor analogy. Nonetheless, millimeter wave scanners don't use ionizing radiation.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > this really isn't how radiation works. Yes, actually it is, at least as far as the risks of security scanners vs. flying are concerned. The radiation you get exposed to in an airplane at altitude is largely ionizing radiation. The radiation you get exposed to in security scanners is not. So in addition to the much shorter time of exposure, and hence the much smaller overall dose, the type of radiation in security scanners is much, much less damaging to your body even at comparable doses. > it's strangely additive I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that the additional radiation from security scanners is somehow "additive" with the radiation you are exposed to in the airplane, no, that's not correct. They're different types of radiation and do different things to your body. There's no cumulative effect between them.
    - dijit 2y ago
      If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. Truthfully, the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects, we certainly consider it as such for every work environment for a reason. You are confident in this, and more eloquent than me at 2am, whoever I cannot let that falsehood stand. As far as ionising radiation goes, if its ionising then its ionising, there’s not “different types”- however the parent is correct that millimetre waves do not penetrate the skin and are considered non-ionising
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects What kind of radiation? If you mean ionizing radiation, the evidence, as far as I know, is mixed; some indicates there is buildup over time, some indicates that there are threshold effects and single doses below threshold, separated in time, do not accumulate. We do have lifetime dose limits as well as single exposure dose limits for such radiation because the evidence is mixed and we can't rule out that there are accumulation effects. But if you mean non-ionizing radiation, such as is used in the millimeter wave security scanners, there is no evidence of accumulation of effects over time from low doses (i.e., doses that do not cause immediate harmful effects) that I'm aware of. Do you know of any?
      - 2y ago
  - prepend 2y ago
    I think the issue is that people don’t think about limiting their airline flights, so why think about limiting mmwave? Not that it isn’t additive, it’s that people don’t care like they don’t care that eating a banana vs eating another item [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
- hammock 2y ago
  They are still using backscatter X-ray scanners in parts of Europe, for example Berlin. That airport does allow you to opt out of them. And in the US, backscatter X-rays have found continued use in jails and prisons. There is actually one that is used in Cook County (Chicago) that is a conveyor belt you stand on to get a full 5 seconds of X-ray exposure. Opting out of the prison scanner may be possible depending on your circumstances, but undoubtedly more difficult
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    Does Berlin actually tell you anywhere that you can opt out? Flew through there recently and didn't see anything... prior to having TSA Pre I'd always opt out in the USA, would love to know if it's as simple in Germany for when I fly through.
    - hammock 2y ago
      Not that I saw. But I saw people talking about it online. I did the same thing I do in the US, tell the scanner guy I’d like to opt out. I think they wanded me, no pat down. No fuss.
  - joe5150 2y ago
    that's good to know but disappointing to learn!
MengerSponge 2y ago
X-rays are sub-nanometer waves. Millimeter wave scanners are fancy radar (with microwave photons) I always opted out of x-ray backscatter machines, but mm-wave scanners aren't worth the hassle.
- kiratp 2y ago
  https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyist-takes-congressional-job-overseeing-spending-tsa-security/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyis... https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-sc... The whole implementation of these scanners was layers of corruption. Still worth it IMO - as long as they have to train people to maintain the manual process, its a signal that there are people out there who won't just fold.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    They have to do manual pat downs for people who "fail" the scanner, either because there was something that warranted a double check or the computer randomly assigned someone to receive extra scrutiny. I've walked out of the security perimeter to reschedule after a flight cancellation in an airport with <10 passengers in the terminal. Upon reentering I was "randomly" selected for an explosives swab despite passing the first time with the same bag and not walking more than 50 feet away from the TSA checkpoint.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      I "Failed" the scanner once because I was wearing too much deodorant! It decided the titanium or aluminum in my extremely sweaty armpits was clearly explosive. I felt sorta bad for the TSA guy who had to grope my sweaty armpits to make sure I wasn't a terrorist somehow
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Are these things regulated by the FDA? And if not, why not?
koolba 2y ago
For bonus points make sure to refuse to send your bags through the X-ray scanner, blocking everyone else behind you as well, until the agent is ready for your manual pat down. When they demand you put your bags through, speak in a loud commanding voice, “Do not touch my bag! It must remain in my sight!”. If they’re not prepared for passengers to opt out, the public needs to be aware and the only way they’ll be aware is by delaying hundreds of passengers directly behind you.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  This is a great way to spread awareness that anyone who cares about privacy rights is a crazy and annoying weirdo.
pcmaffey 2y ago
This is the primary reason I pay for TSA Precheck, to automatically opt out of the scanner without requesting a groping.

floren 2y ago

And I do, every time! They don't really care, although some make a half-hearted pitch about how the image gets deleted right away.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I opt in, and am always very excited to participate in this beta. Opting out isn’t going to change the deployment scale.
- dijit 2y ago
  Hope it does. I’m also the person who consistently opts out of airport body scanners too, much to the embarrassment of whomever is unfortunate enough to be travelling with me. It is my petty indignation- if you want to violate me then I’m going to make it resource consuming for you also, should I have the capability. Reactions of the airport staff are surprisingly mixed, many don't mind at all - though universally they will force you to wait for 10-30minutes, though Gatwick staff in particular consistently repeats that “this won’t always be possible”, which is a weird statement to make to be honest, but I've travelled through there many times and they try to talk me about of it this way.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Has the ability to opt out changed the TSA operating model? Or does it satisfy some emotional response in those who do while adding slightly more time to aggregate screening for the opt out population? I understand the desire, but the lever you're trying to pull is in concrete. Redirect your efforts to somewhere effective. By participating in Global Entry and opting into CBP and DHS/TSA "one to many" credential and identity proofing (colloquially "facial recognition"), it makes my life much easier while traveling. If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks. The databases relied on for matching already exist [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045575

LgWoodenBadger 2y ago

Flying back to the US earlier this year in June, I declined to have my face scanned. The agent was rude and aggressive because I “didn’t tell him I wanted to opt out before he started.” He went overboard in terms of harassment and intimidation but he did not win. Fuck that guy. Also who cares whether the photo is immediately deleted? The metrics are what matter and those are kept.

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
Good for you. There is no shortage of assholes at the border. It's gotten to the point where when I encounter a polite one, I think "what's his angle?" Maybe he's just not a jerk projecting his sense of powerlessness onto strangers. Imagine! That said, I don't envy their job. But it seems to be a systemic attractor of asshole.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  I think it must be their training, at least in part. Does acting this way catch people who are trying to deceive them? Border guards in other countries are often very polite.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    >Does acting this way catch people who are trying to deceive them? The retired cops who will charge your department $100k for "training" will absolutely tell you they are teaching you how to detect liars. Actual studies have shown their techniques (things like microexpressions etc) are not only ineffective, but make you WORSE THAN RANDOM CHANCE at detecting lies. A person who has received no "training" in these stupid systems are better at detecting lies. But cops love other cops and former cops, and have a shitload of money in their budget for stupid nonsense training like "Killology", and apparently have absurd and unscientific worldviews that they refuse to escape. So they keep booking the retired cop who tells them "that hoodlum who you feel is sketchy is definitely sketchy so trust your instinct" and do not book the scientist who tells them "actually everything you know is mostly wrong, and you shouldn't ever trust your gut".
2y ago

magnetowasright 2y ago

It's such a challenge coming up against this stuff. So many people will (understandably) just accept it and go along with it. Surveillance is normalised. Data breaches of our most sensitive data are normalised. Companies simply giving all this sensitive data to law enforcement is normalised. Fighting back is hard if it even occurs to you that you can and should. My husband's workplace tried to force him to enrol in biometrics along with the rest of his company. It was just for doing timesheets. We'd have fought it if it were for identity verification and security as well, but no, it was just for bloody timesheets. Giving away immutable biometric data to a crappy third party company who has data breaches every six months just for bloody timesheets just felt extraordinarily ridiculous and audacious. My husband did encourage his colleagues to consider not signing it but nobody gave it much thought (or was worried about being fired). We recently needed to verify our identities to a financial institution and they pushed hard to use a (different) third party biometrics system instead of the good ol fashioned just not doing that. We needed to provide them with all the normal ID documentation anyway. Why the hell would we sign up for biometrics on top of that? I suppose my point is that people generally choose the path of least resistance (understandably). Turning the tides on biometrics garbage being normalised, the default, and probably the only way in the future is something I can't really see happening.

TheJoeMan 2y ago
One nitpick, was the timesheet biometrics like a cheap fingerprint scanner on the wall like they have at restaurants? Because I believe those work like smartphone fingerprint scanners, you enroll on the device and it’s just a hash. The bank example is probably a real image of the fingerprints like done for passports etc.
- prepend 2y ago
  And I believe the hash is salted so that it’s only useful for that timesheet system. So an individual’s biometrics could not be extracted or reused for other purposes. Of course, I’d like to see auditing of the device and data to confirm everything.
- dogleash 2y ago

renewiltord 2y ago

I opt-in to everything. Global Entry, Pre, Clear Plus, Face Scan, uploaded my genome and medical data. I shall be the experiment. If you read on the Internet about "Guy who uploaded all his data gets what was coming" you'll know I did the wrong thing. But so far, so good. The stuff I didn't upload is in publicly available databases too. SSN etc. hahaha

stonethrowaway 2y ago

I think they (Palantir, Five Eyes, etc) already have everything on you and the face scan is just an added touch. You can opt out but then you’re just part of a much smaller subset that’s even easier to keep track of.

oceanplexian 2y ago
The TSA is putting a high resolution, 3D camera two inches away from your face and then are storing it in a readily accessible government database with no legal barriers to access (With Palantir, or any other private company the government would need to find a Judge to sign off on a national security letter or a subpoena).
- mindslight 2y ago
  > With Palantir, or any other private company the government would need to find a Judge to sign off on a national security letter or a subpoena Erm, only if the private company wants to keep the data from the government? But given we're talking about surveillance companies that make their money selling surveillance records, I'm pretty sure they're eager to give it to the government (for a price).

oceanplexian 2y ago

I opted out at Boston International Airport. It involved arguing with the TSA for about 5 minutes while holding up a 150 person line. Then the supervisor came over, told me that I "was required to have to have my photo taken" and opting out consisted of checking a box in the software to not save my photo. My alternative was to not get on the flight. The whole idea of opting out is a scam. They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public.

sidewndr46 2y ago
What I really like is that the signs say they don't retain the image for more than a certain amount of time. Yes, most definitely the TSA does not retain it. But the Five eyes surveillance scheme? You can bet they do.
- creer 2y ago
  I guess "it's not retaining if they end up not "using" it"? With "using" creatively defined elsewhere. None of these words means anything anymore.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  The sign continues… …unless you’re not a US citizen, in which cases we retain the image forever. You can’t opt out.
  - lmz 2y ago
    ... well the US gov already has my face from my Visa application anyway.
    - danpalmer 2y ago
      That's true for some, but there are many countries with visa-free travel to the US.
  - dhritzkiv 2y ago
    I believe there's also an exemption for Canadian citizens. [1] and [2] (Cmd-f "Canadian") [1] https://www.cbp.gov/about/congressional-resources/testimony/statement-record-assessing-cbps-use-facial-recognition-technology https://www.cbp.gov/about/congressional-resources/testimony/... [2] https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2022-Sep/CPE%20Final%20Report%20Traveler%20Verification%20Service%2020220815%20Final_%20Redacted_0.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/202...

cbanek 2y ago

One interesting thing, in Arizona to get a "Real ID" drivers license that you can use in for flights, they make you use a face scanning app that runs on your cell phone. So sometimes they're getting the face scan done before you even go to the airport. I wonder if they can scan it at the airport no matter what, and just compare you to previous face scans? Hard to tell when these things actually happen.

omneity 2y ago

But are you guaranteed this opt out will not be used against you in future circumstances?

itishappy 2y ago
No, but you're not guaranteed opting in won't be used against you either, and I'm more worried about that.

tw04 2y ago

I was flying home from dallas a few months back. They had a giant sign in the security line that said (maybe not verbatim) - We're trying out a new face recognition security system. This is completely optional. If you don't want to participate, just tell the agent "I'd like to opt out". I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out" - she looks at me like I was speaking Algonquin. So I repeat "I'd like to opt out". Her - "What are you talking about??". So I point to the sign sitting two feet away from her and say "your sign says the face scan is optional and I can opt out???" "Just say you want a pat down, we don't know what you're saying". To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest...

lotsofpulp 2y ago
>To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest... It makes more sense if you think about it as a giant jobs program, but one that detracts from society instead of adding to it.
- tw04 2y ago
  Don't get me started, our country makes my brain hurt. The Works program was considered so successful at eliminating unemployed folks, we killed it. Because why would we need to continue building roads and bridges, and fixing old roads and bridges, and giving people meaningful work to do vs. just handing out food stamps? That problem is solved... (Please note I'm not against food stamps/welfare programs, I just think having that be the ONLY option is detrimental to able-bodied folks that just want to feel like they're contributing to society but also can't find steady employment for various reasons).
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    I dug into this, and apparently the Works program was terminated because WWII happened, which obviously depleted people who were using it as a bunch were being either shipped off to war or hired up for war industries. The fact it hasn't been spun up again is worth investigating but it seems its termination had nothing to do with how successful it was.

throwaway290232 2y ago

[dead]

Kab1r 2y ago

Last time I opted out of facial recognition when re-entering the US, I got put through an additional baggage and security scan with my passport literally locked in a box.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throw7 2y ago

What's funny is other (possibly less trustable) countries will have your scan anyway... try "opting" out of the face scan when you arrive in India.

slackfan 2y ago
sounds like a good reason to not go to india.
prmoustache 2y ago
Well that is a choice each individual does. I have never visited the USA either, and I have absolutely no plan to do so in my lifetime.

reilly3000 2y ago

These scans are likely to be property of a dictator. Please prepare for that.

slackfan 2y ago
Likely? They already are.

basementcat 2y ago

I seem to recall one of the TSA screening lines at JFK had a sign indicating that one could opt out. I’m disappointed if airports do not have similar signage.

crazygringo 2y ago

When did we start calling this "face scanning"? Isn't it just literally taking a photo, like any digital camera? To me "scanning" implies a 3D point cloud. Apple's TrueDepth camera, with a projected dot cloud, that it uses for Face ID -- that's scanning, as opposed to just a photo. Are airports actually performing 3D scans now? Or are they still just normal digital cameras, but people are calling it "scanning" because they want it to sound scarier than "photos"?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mixmastamyk 2y ago
Uncle Sam is using your money so generally pays top dollar for the best stuff. A comment in the top thead, with “counterpoint” in it seems to confirm the 3d scan.
callahad 2y ago
It's a stereoscopic camera, so you get depth and such.
- prepend 2y ago
  So just like a smartphone camera nowadays?
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    Smartphone cameras aren't stereoscopic by default... yet, but that's probably coming. Rumors are that the iPhone 16 will have a stereoscopic camera layout on some or all models, for example.
    - prepend 2y ago
      iPhone 15 pro added it.

exabrial 2y ago

I have never _even once_ gone through the TSA naked scanner since they were put in after 9/11. A pat down is invasive, but the pat down is ephemeral by its own nature. Just wait until the TSA announces they trained an AI model on sorted naked images.

prepend 2y ago
There are no “naked” images. Unless you consider x-rays and other similar imaging systems to create “naked” images.
- eesmith 2y ago
  "TSA dick detector" then.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > There are no “naked” images. Untrue. For years there absolutely were. <https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tsa-full-body-scans-private-parts/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tsa-full-body-scans-privat...> > Unless you consider x-rays and other similar imaging systems to create “naked” images. These are used in medical scenarios with your fully-informed consent. TSA was absolutely not forthcoming about the capabilities of their checkpoint scanners, and they earned the moniker "pornoscanner" for a very good reason. Additionally, even ignoring the fact that most medical x-rays are used to look inside of you rather than at your skin (why would one use a fancy machine for a surface inspection when the Mk. 1 eyeball is Right There?), the context is completely different in a way that's very, very important.
- exabrial 2y ago
  This is categorically false unfortunately. Peruse the government’s own website for proof.

blindriver 2y ago

I used to opt out of everything, and get searched manually but now I have given up. I applied for clear, I let them take my pic, I do everything because at this point I know they already know everything about me. It's sad, it's 1984-come-to-fruition, but I am too old and tired to keep tilting at windmills. They've won.

PoachedEggs 2y ago

Have they been scanning the faces of minors? Toddlers? Do parents need to opt out for them separately?

slackfan 2y ago
Yes.

mixmastamyk 2y ago

I noticed last year that they’d simply say “photo” at the time they were to take it. Not, would you like to? (Because you’d say no)… nor you must. It’s mildly awkward, so they must’ve been trained explicitly to just say “photo” which is not a question or a command.

satvikpendem 2y ago

If you opt out, you can't use automated immigration and boarding systems at many airports. At Singapore's Changi, for example, their process for entering and exiting the country is incredible, fully automated (unless the system determines you need further verification by a human, but this still saves more time than only human verification for everyone). This is the same for boarding, you scan your boarding pass and it verifies your picture with a camera, then you just get on the plane.

prepend 2y ago

Why do people want to opt out? This perplexes me as “the government” already has scans of your face. So these devices aren’t used to collect data. I’m also perplexed when my parent won’t give the State department their SSN, but received SSN benefits, and Medicare, and pays taxes to the IRS. They say they don’t want “the government” to have their data, but oddly think the government doesn’t already have a dossier on them. I love the scans as they speed up security. I traveled recently, internationally to and from the US and it was nice to just scan my face and show my passport and not need to scan my qrcode boarding pass.

quasse 2y ago
> This perplexes me as “the government” already has scans of your face. So these devices aren’t used to collect data. Citation extremely needed. Why would the government have a preexisting scan of my face?
- prepend 2y ago
  Driver’s license. Passport. Student id. Employment id (for the millions employed by the government). Etc etc etc Not to mention the data legally purchased from data brokers and illegally captured by NSA/etc.
  - a_dabbler 2y ago
    Photo != Biometric scan
    - prepend 2y ago
      Yes, when it comes to face scanners at the airport. You’re standing in front of a government camera for a driver’s license or student id and it can (and likely will) take the same image data that the TSA cameras do. A high rez image is a type of biometric scan if you’re using it for facial recognition.
      - 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

Thank you for reminding me to renew my ESTA for this year.

slackfan 2y ago

have been opting out for a while, including at Boston, never had an issue.

AzzyHN 2y ago

I'll be honest, I don't mind if the federal government has my face information. I already have a passport and a driver's license, I live here, I pay taxes, the federal government already has all my information. My issue is if any private company gets to use it or store it. I will never join Clear and I tell everyone I meet not to trust them.

650REDHAIR 2y ago
What are they going to do with my biometrics? Waymo, cruise, etc are driving around scanning us every day. My fingerprint is used on my phone. My palm is scanned at Whole Foods. Clear is the easiest way to fly and I’ll never go back (until it’s as packed as TSA pre…).
- mattrighetti 2y ago
  Why would they need a palm scan at Whole Foods?
  - 650REDHAIR 2y ago
    Great question, but it’s at my Whole Foods
- nullfrigid 2y ago
  Congress has been taking a long hard look at Clear and might consider their practices and business model to be illegal, as they rightfully should.
- corytheboyd 2y ago
  Where is Clear considerably faster than TSA pre-check? It’s the same wait for either nearly every time I’ve seen them next to each other. I’m sure it varies by airport though.
  - 650REDHAIR 2y ago
    Clear is faster everywhere. They literally walk you to the front of the line.

matrix87 2y ago

I'm more bothered by the fact that customs agents can demand people unlock their phones [0]. The government already has your picture, but letting them copy device data over is a much more significant invasion of privacy Also kind of pointless too, because anyone with something actually important could just encrypt it, upload it somewhere, and wipe the device. Good luck putting the packets through customs [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/18/phone-data-privacy-customs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/18/phone-d...

ElFitz 2y ago

Those that leaked because of the CBP’s poor security practices? [0] I really can’t wait for tomorrow’s hackers using the next generation of Sora to make fake video of me doing god knows what [1] thanks to the CBP’s next data leak. And I can’t opt out, because I’m an evil foreign national. Or rather I can; it just means giving up on travelling to or through the US. [0]: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/O... [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-hong-kong-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-ho...

dawnerd 2y ago

I have a Passport, Global Entry and Pre Check. The digital ID and face scanning in general has actually been a pretty positive improvement. They already have the data anyways, might as well skip the showing my id nonsense. That said I do think it should be default opt-out.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I saw these installed at a couple airports I was at recently. I opted out myself, but to my horror, 100% of the line, except for me, simply agreed to the facial scan. Even though there are signs in the security line talking about how the new process is a trial with the option to opt out, the TSA agent simply said “step up to the camera” and everyone complied. It felt like I was watching dystopia forming live because people are too ready to accept authority. If a few educated people on hacker news opt out, it means nothing. The practice of invasive biometric scanning will be normalized by the masses who just comply. Just like with other existing security procedures. Soon the scans will be mandatory but also everywhere else in society. I’m not sure what a good defense is against this.

prmoustache 2y ago
This is not suprising as people actively opt-in to give out every single detail of their life to third parties social medias on a regular basis.

mattrighetti 2y ago

Wondering if this is a thing in Europe too? I did not know you could opt-out of this in the US but every time I go through one of those machines I always wonder where that data is stored, how long it is kept around and why.

aejfghalsgjbae 2y ago

I misread the title at first. "Why would you opt out of a font?"

mathiasose 2y ago

Interesting read, I (a Norwegian citizen) traveled to the US (OSL -> CPH -> SFO and back) in July and was surprised by some parts of the procedures at the airport. Some notable parts of my experience: - There is no longer the paper form you filled out on the plane/prior to customs. You fill out online forms (visa or ESTA in my case) months before you travel. - Upon arrival customs and immigration took my fingerprints and photo. My passport and ESTA were in order and I have traveled to the US several times before (and well, I am a privileged ethnicity from western Europe), and the agent didn't do any questioning about purpose of travel, accommodation, etc this time. That has happened to me on previous trips though. This type of questioning always makes me feel uncomfortable and afraid to say something wrong, so that was a relief. I would certainly not begin to argue with the agent about opting out of the biometrics at this stage. - My checked bags were not inspected by customs. On a previous US trip I did find a notice that the bag had been inspected. - On departure, at the TSA bag check there were the full body scanners you step into and raise your hands. I didn't see any information about opting out anywhere, though I wasn't actively searching for it. There was nothing in particular that made me consider that my face was being scanned in detail here. - At the gate I was surprised that boarding check was via facecam. This was the first time I have seen this and I had not considered that my pictures from before could be used this way. Everywhere else and all other times I have traveled you board with the barcode/QR on the boarding card and without any ID check. So in my experience (as an admittedly privileged traveler) the system is optimized for efficiency and "convenience", but certainly not for privacy. There isn't much information to find about what you must do and what you are able to opt out of. Just do the same thing as the person in front of you in the line, ad infinitum. I know I should be more concerned about privacy in general, but the stress of travel and anxiety about doing something "wrong" and somehow getting in trouble with these agencies make me (and probably most others) accept these things.

troyvit 2y ago

The Vox article refers to an Algorithmic Justice League[1] article which footnotes the TSA article that says you can opt out [2]. I have to fly next week and if I have the guts to try this I'll definitely have the TSA article handy, not, er, the Vox article. [1] https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly [2] https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition-technology https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition...

tfhfj 2y ago

[flagged]