17 ms·

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 o

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...
crazygringo 2y ago
> They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public. They already have your photo if you have a driver's license or US passport or basically any form of government ID. The whole point is to compare it to what they already have. So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here, but maybe I'm missing something. Is there something that these cameras record that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos? (You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport, of course.)
- rgrieselhuber 2y ago
  It’s the principle.
  - CPLX 2y ago
    State the principle.
    - gouggoug 2y ago
      The right for privacy and not being constantly filmed, monitored and recorded. That principle.
      - grugagag 2y ago
        Not worried about leaks?
      - ahazred8ta 2y ago
        "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." -- Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner
      - rvnx 2y ago
        If you voted for the lawmakers in power, it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level. If you didn't vote for them, these laws still represent the choice of the majority (or at least of their representatives). Either way, surveillance laws are a direct consequence of our democratic process and must be acknowledged as such.
hammock 2y ago
Counterpoint, I have opted out at multiple airports including Boston without event. They all know opting out is a thing, they press one button to turn off the camera, I hold up a piece of paper over the cameras anyway just in case, and they have never said anything. One reason to opt out even though everyone says “they already have your picture 1000 different ways” is that these cameras are not normal cameras, they are stereoscopic close-range cameras that take a 3D image of your face. That takes facial recognition accuracy up to 95%+, from 70% or less on a normal photo. Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image
- brk 2y ago
  Single sensor face rec is already above 95% on surveillance cameras, which do not have ideal positioning, even when they are intended specifically for face rec.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Accuracy is heavily dependent on how large the populations you’re dealing with. If you’re comparing footage from surveillance camera vs a database of 100+ million people that’s tough. Most algorithms are being tested at 10^5 vs 10^6. Worse, unlike false positive with fingerprints the suspects will likely look similar to the cops not just the algorithm. There’s a major incentive to opt out simply as a result of false positives.
- prepend 2y ago
  > Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image So what? Do you think that the thousands of cameras you encounter every day aren’t doing this already? I think the aim for culture is to limit what we can do with these data, rather than to try to prevent collection of these data. Cameras are too plentiful and powerful to not expect your image linked to your identity. Especially for governmental, lawful uses like immigration screening.
robgibbons 2y ago
I've had no such trouble in Boston. In Denver, I got an annoyed agent, but no argument. They flipped through their TSA state ID binder and did the customary comparison, but no argument. I actually have taken up the habit of wearing a surgical mask through security simply for this purpose, right up until I've opted out and they have my ID in hand. When they ask me to lower it I do, but not until I've opted out.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  The surgical mask is an excellent low friction strategy. Even if the camera ("accidentally") gets a few snaps of your face, they will be (mostly) useless. And post COVID-19, you still see some people wearing masks on flights, so you don't entirely look like a crazy person.
  - immibis 2y ago
    BTW you should probably still be wearing a mask on a flight if you don't want COVID-19. You also avoid many other diseases as a bonus. This is the new normal - public health is dead and it's all pushed onto the individual now.
    - colejohnson66 2y ago
      Masks don’t keep you from getting COVID. They only help prevent you from spreading it.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - DennisP 2y ago
        Depends on the mask. N95 protects you pretty well.
      - prmoustache 2y ago
        It is true that most masks were build initially to prevent airborne transmissions from wearer to others, typically patients in a surgical setting. However studies have later shown that protection works both way.
1oooqooq 2y ago
a bunch of unhelpful commenters will add that they anecdotally did not experience inconvenience. this was the same play book with milliliter wave scanners, which are now proven to not be completely safe but who cares. at first you could opt out. then opt out was the same as mandatory patdown. then opt out meant an extra 30min wait by the xray scanner... etc. now its fully not an option. meanwhile i bet the 911 hijackers would have zero problems getting pre check or whatever other private scamer is selling the no-scan boarding these days. lastly, yeah, this is totally so they do not need a warrant to unlock your phone if you have face unlock. in the most plain and obvious Kafkaesque "he did provide the facescan willingly your honor. not once he opted out, which was always an option".
- robgibbons 2y ago
  You can absolutely still opt out of body scans. Talk about being unhelpful.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    with the barefoot wait that now is over 30min on lax or other major places. that is the same as losing your flight on the majority of cases. and sorry if you cannot understand why countering reports of the exception with the rule is not helpful. thats how you get things like whitelivesmatter.
    - robgibbons 2y ago
      Nonetheless, the option exists. Get there early and you have the option.
      - 1oooqooq 2y ago
        (thumbs up emoji)
    - marssaxman 2y ago
      I did not wait anywhere near 30 minutes at LAX when I opted out there a couple weeks ago! If you can cite some evidence that your impression is the rule, that might be helpful. My own experience, having opted out and gotten the pat-down every time I've flown since the new scanners were introduced, is that the process has not really changed at all over the years, and opting out has never come close to causing a missed flight.
superkuh 2y ago
Is there a photo booth available outside? I would definitely not take of my mask in an airport. I would rather miss my flight.
dheera 2y ago
I feel like as a non-white person I would not try to fight these kinds of things. I want to be at my destination, not in a jail. I'll leave it upto the white people to audit their rights, it's less risky for them. I also have a cardiac implant, if they try to tase me I might even end up dead.
- kiratp 2y ago
  As an Indian American, I opt out of this photo scanning and the mm wave scanners (and get a pat down) every single time. The system needs active backpressure.
  - dheera 2y ago
    Out of curiosity why do you dislike the mm wave scanners? (I always ask to be opted into them because they seem to understand my cardiac device and give me a green light, whereas the metal detectors always trigger, followed by a yelling contest where they are yelling at me to take shit out of my pockets and I'm yelling that I don't have anything in my pockets and have a cardiac device)
    - ozgrakkurt 2y ago
      Probably because of radiation
    - simoncion 2y ago
      I refuse to use the pornoscanners because 0) For years and years and years, European prisons and airports refused to use them because they were deemed to be largely ineffective. 1) They're very, very, very expensive. 2) As mentioned above, they're ineffective. Explosives in a body cavity or a dense hairdo, or spread thinly across one's skin cannot be detected by these devices. Early on there were also demonstrations of fairly-reliable methods of storing weapons that would have been detected by a metal detector on one's person so that they could not be detected by the scanner. 3) When checkpoints get backed up and the lines get too long, TSA often bypass the scanners AND patdowns by running huge numbers of people only through metal detectors. 4) When they were first introduced in the US, they were obviously sufficiently-high resolution to get a clear nude picture of you. 5) No thought had been put into ensuring that these nude photos were not stored... and the only way this was discovered was by some researchers getting a hold of one and finding all of the nude photos of travellers on the thing's storage. 6) It was very, very obvious that TSA screeners were using the pornoscanners to perv on attractive travelers. I used to fly a fair bit and I often heard smoking-hot babes and dudes talk about having to go through the scanners multiple times because of a "glitch" or a "bad scan". The claim is that points four through six were addressed by making the on-scanner screens show a paper doll with a "region of interest". I have zero faith that the scanners stopped storing full-resolution scans on the machine's local storage, and zero faith that checkpoint personnel are unable to access that storage. I also note that even years after the paper-doll update, checkpoints had a habit of refusing to run children under 13 through the scanner, and usually ran families with kids so young just through a metal detector. This absolutely is not evidence of data storage, but given how insane the US is about data handling regarding kids under 13, it sure is suggestive of it.
milleramp 2y ago
As a somewhat frequent flyer I now am seeing signs (in CA airports) that inform people they are allowed to opt out.
puppycodes 2y ago
To be fair every photo you have ever uploaded to the internet of your face is also going through this TSA line 1000 times a day. Which is also horrifying. In my opinion faces are really not very good ID. I think it could also be distracting from the wayyy scarier types of identifying you like the storing of DNA for simply being arrested... not even convicted of a crime... forever...
monksy 2y ago
File a complaint. https://www.tsa.gov/contact-center/form/complaints https://www.tsa.gov/contact-center/form/complaints The process is optional and you were coerced. https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-identification-technology https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-...
yieldcrv 2y ago
right, optional as in you can walk away, but you can't get past TSA to your flight
fasa99 2y ago
I was flying through JFK in the past year, JetBlue, and there they had these types of cameras at the boarding area, in addition to TSA. So instead of handing your ticket to the agent, scanning, go on plane, you self scan, there's a picture, and big gates open to let you on. How do you opt out of that?!? Also it was a disaster logistically because the machines were finicky, it moved super slow. see: https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2018/Your-Face-is-Your-Boarding-Pass-JetBlue-Introduces-Its-First-Integrated-Biometric-Self-Boarding-Gate-at-New-Yorks-John-F.-Kennedy-International-Airport-11-15-2018/default.aspx https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2018/Your-Face-is-Y... (your face isn't your boarding pass, your face AND your boarding pass is your boarding pass)
- gu5 2y ago
  I had to go through that same system recently, and noticed that families with children - in the same, nornal boarding group - were all called to a line to the side of the face scanners that had the normal boarding pass scan system. Maybe you have to ask to be in that line? It was very confusing in the moment because a sign implied that line was for the 'premium' members (or whatever the preboarding group is called) and the face scanners were for regular boarding... (+ zero information about opting out)

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...

crazygringo 2y ago

> They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public. They already have your photo if you have a driver's license or US passport or basically any form of government ID. The whole point is to compare it to what they already have. So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here, but maybe I'm missing something. Is there something that these cameras record that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos? (You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport, of course.)

rgrieselhuber 2y ago
It’s the principle.
- CPLX 2y ago
  State the principle.
  - gouggoug 2y ago
    The right for privacy and not being constantly filmed, monitored and recorded. That principle.
    - grugagag 2y ago
      Not worried about leaks?
    - ahazred8ta 2y ago
      "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." -- Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner
    - rvnx 2y ago
      If you voted for the lawmakers in power, it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level. If you didn't vote for them, these laws still represent the choice of the majority (or at least of their representatives). Either way, surveillance laws are a direct consequence of our democratic process and must be acknowledged as such.

hammock 2y ago

Counterpoint, I have opted out at multiple airports including Boston without event. They all know opting out is a thing, they press one button to turn off the camera, I hold up a piece of paper over the cameras anyway just in case, and they have never said anything. One reason to opt out even though everyone says “they already have your picture 1000 different ways” is that these cameras are not normal cameras, they are stereoscopic close-range cameras that take a 3D image of your face. That takes facial recognition accuracy up to 95%+, from 70% or less on a normal photo. Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image

brk 2y ago
Single sensor face rec is already above 95% on surveillance cameras, which do not have ideal positioning, even when they are intended specifically for face rec.
- Retric 2y ago
  Accuracy is heavily dependent on how large the populations you’re dealing with. If you’re comparing footage from surveillance camera vs a database of 100+ million people that’s tough. Most algorithms are being tested at 10^5 vs 10^6. Worse, unlike false positive with fingerprints the suspects will likely look similar to the cops not just the algorithm. There’s a major incentive to opt out simply as a result of false positives.
prepend 2y ago
> Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image So what? Do you think that the thousands of cameras you encounter every day aren’t doing this already? I think the aim for culture is to limit what we can do with these data, rather than to try to prevent collection of these data. Cameras are too plentiful and powerful to not expect your image linked to your identity. Especially for governmental, lawful uses like immigration screening.

robgibbons 2y ago

I've had no such trouble in Boston. In Denver, I got an annoyed agent, but no argument. They flipped through their TSA state ID binder and did the customary comparison, but no argument. I actually have taken up the habit of wearing a surgical mask through security simply for this purpose, right up until I've opted out and they have my ID in hand. When they ask me to lower it I do, but not until I've opted out.

throwaway2037 2y ago
The surgical mask is an excellent low friction strategy. Even if the camera ("accidentally") gets a few snaps of your face, they will be (mostly) useless. And post COVID-19, you still see some people wearing masks on flights, so you don't entirely look like a crazy person.
- immibis 2y ago
  BTW you should probably still be wearing a mask on a flight if you don't want COVID-19. You also avoid many other diseases as a bonus. This is the new normal - public health is dead and it's all pushed onto the individual now.
  - colejohnson66 2y ago
    Masks don’t keep you from getting COVID. They only help prevent you from spreading it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - DennisP 2y ago
      Depends on the mask. N95 protects you pretty well.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      It is true that most masks were build initially to prevent airborne transmissions from wearer to others, typically patients in a surgical setting. However studies have later shown that protection works both way.

1oooqooq 2y ago

a bunch of unhelpful commenters will add that they anecdotally did not experience inconvenience. this was the same play book with milliliter wave scanners, which are now proven to not be completely safe but who cares. at first you could opt out. then opt out was the same as mandatory patdown. then opt out meant an extra 30min wait by the xray scanner... etc. now its fully not an option. meanwhile i bet the 911 hijackers would have zero problems getting pre check or whatever other private scamer is selling the no-scan boarding these days. lastly, yeah, this is totally so they do not need a warrant to unlock your phone if you have face unlock. in the most plain and obvious Kafkaesque "he did provide the facescan willingly your honor. not once he opted out, which was always an option".

robgibbons 2y ago
You can absolutely still opt out of body scans. Talk about being unhelpful.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  with the barefoot wait that now is over 30min on lax or other major places. that is the same as losing your flight on the majority of cases. and sorry if you cannot understand why countering reports of the exception with the rule is not helpful. thats how you get things like whitelivesmatter.
  - robgibbons 2y ago
    Nonetheless, the option exists. Get there early and you have the option.
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
      (thumbs up emoji)
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    I did not wait anywhere near 30 minutes at LAX when I opted out there a couple weeks ago! If you can cite some evidence that your impression is the rule, that might be helpful. My own experience, having opted out and gotten the pat-down every time I've flown since the new scanners were introduced, is that the process has not really changed at all over the years, and opting out has never come close to causing a missed flight.

superkuh 2y ago

Is there a photo booth available outside? I would definitely not take of my mask in an airport. I would rather miss my flight.

dheera 2y ago

I feel like as a non-white person I would not try to fight these kinds of things. I want to be at my destination, not in a jail. I'll leave it upto the white people to audit their rights, it's less risky for them. I also have a cardiac implant, if they try to tase me I might even end up dead.

kiratp 2y ago
As an Indian American, I opt out of this photo scanning and the mm wave scanners (and get a pat down) every single time. The system needs active backpressure.
- dheera 2y ago
  Out of curiosity why do you dislike the mm wave scanners? (I always ask to be opted into them because they seem to understand my cardiac device and give me a green light, whereas the metal detectors always trigger, followed by a yelling contest where they are yelling at me to take shit out of my pockets and I'm yelling that I don't have anything in my pockets and have a cardiac device)
  - ozgrakkurt 2y ago
    Probably because of radiation
  - simoncion 2y ago
    I refuse to use the pornoscanners because 0) For years and years and years, European prisons and airports refused to use them because they were deemed to be largely ineffective. 1) They're very, very, very expensive. 2) As mentioned above, they're ineffective. Explosives in a body cavity or a dense hairdo, or spread thinly across one's skin cannot be detected by these devices. Early on there were also demonstrations of fairly-reliable methods of storing weapons that would have been detected by a metal detector on one's person so that they could not be detected by the scanner. 3) When checkpoints get backed up and the lines get too long, TSA often bypass the scanners AND patdowns by running huge numbers of people only through metal detectors. 4) When they were first introduced in the US, they were obviously sufficiently-high resolution to get a clear nude picture of you. 5) No thought had been put into ensuring that these nude photos were not stored... and the only way this was discovered was by some researchers getting a hold of one and finding all of the nude photos of travellers on the thing's storage. 6) It was very, very obvious that TSA screeners were using the pornoscanners to perv on attractive travelers. I used to fly a fair bit and I often heard smoking-hot babes and dudes talk about having to go through the scanners multiple times because of a "glitch" or a "bad scan". The claim is that points four through six were addressed by making the on-scanner screens show a paper doll with a "region of interest". I have zero faith that the scanners stopped storing full-resolution scans on the machine's local storage, and zero faith that checkpoint personnel are unable to access that storage. I also note that even years after the paper-doll update, checkpoints had a habit of refusing to run children under 13 through the scanner, and usually ran families with kids so young just through a metal detector. This absolutely is not evidence of data storage, but given how insane the US is about data handling regarding kids under 13, it sure is suggestive of it.

milleramp 2y ago

As a somewhat frequent flyer I now am seeing signs (in CA airports) that inform people they are allowed to opt out.

puppycodes 2y ago

To be fair every photo you have ever uploaded to the internet of your face is also going through this TSA line 1000 times a day. Which is also horrifying. In my opinion faces are really not very good ID. I think it could also be distracting from the wayyy scarier types of identifying you like the storing of DNA for simply being arrested... not even convicted of a crime... forever...

monksy 2y ago

File a complaint. https://www.tsa.gov/contact-center/form/complaints https://www.tsa.gov/contact-center/form/complaints The process is optional and you were coerced. https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-identification-technology https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-...

yieldcrv 2y ago

right, optional as in you can walk away, but you can't get past TSA to your flight

fasa99 2y ago

I was flying through JFK in the past year, JetBlue, and there they had these types of cameras at the boarding area, in addition to TSA. So instead of handing your ticket to the agent, scanning, go on plane, you self scan, there's a picture, and big gates open to let you on. How do you opt out of that?!? Also it was a disaster logistically because the machines were finicky, it moved super slow. see: https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2018/Your-Face-is-Your-Boarding-Pass-JetBlue-Introduces-Its-First-Integrated-Biometric-Self-Boarding-Gate-at-New-Yorks-John-F.-Kennedy-International-Airport-11-15-2018/default.aspx https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2018/Your-Face-is-Y... (your face isn't your boarding pass, your face AND your boarding pass is your boarding pass)

gu5 2y ago
I had to go through that same system recently, and noticed that families with children - in the same, nornal boarding group - were all called to a line to the side of the face scanners that had the normal boarding pass scan system. Maybe you have to ask to be in that line? It was very confusing in the moment because a sign implied that line was for the 'premium' members (or whatever the preboarding group is called) and the face scanners were for regular boarding... (+ zero information about opting out)