5 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoSingle 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 agoAccuracy 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.
- deafpolygon 2y agoWould you consent to DNA screening every time you fly? You have to draw the line somewhere and I would rather draw the line here (not consenting to airport face scans).
- prepend 2y agoIf it was noninvasive and already pervasive, yes. It’s not that I like facial scanning. It’s that it is pervasive and can do nothing about it.
- saulpw 2y agoOTOH maybe we shouldn't make it too easy for them by giving in without any resistance whatsoever. Fight this to delay or derail the next thing which will be even more.
- prepend 2y agoIt’s not like we chose. Cameras and transistors are just absurdly cheap and have millions of other purposes. So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. Just like dna sampling will one day be so cheap that air conditioners test for every person and every germ they see. It will be so cheap as hard to stop. I guess we can resist digital stuff making dna cheaper. But we’ll have to stop all the other benefits (real time, targeted anti-virals, etc).
- simoncion 2y ago> So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. What? No. The problem with this stuff is the privacy-invasion aspect. For example, ubiquitous camera installations in public spaces and businesses are 100% fine if they're truly closed-circuit systems that have no storage capability. If all these cameras offer is tele-vision, then there's no privacy problem. So, if this sort of stuff was guaranteed to be used for a purpose that's beneficial to individual clients and the public at large (rather than scraping up pennies by selling the recordings to data brokers and data analysis firms), there'd be no problem at all. The solution becomes clear: make video, audio, still image, biometric, and behavioral data toxic waste. * If a company ever uses such data in any way that's not clearly and conspicuously disclosed in plain English to their clients, fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again. * If a company ever sends any payment (whether monetary, or in goods and/or services rendered) to a company that is (or owns) a data broker, customer/consumer data analysis firm, or similar, then that company is considered to have engaged the services of said company and presumed to be sending the data of their clients to said company. Fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again.
- sofixa 2y ago> 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. Interesting, I'm fairly sure the cameras at one US airport I was (maybe Salt Lake City?) were just bog standard Logitech C920 like my previous webcam. Do you have more information on the cameras?
- prmoustache 2y agoHaven't seen the setup but it seems possible to me that there may be several cameras, one that is clearly visible and used to give visual feedback in the computer screen so that you put your face in the right place, and another one that actually do the biometric scan.
- nullfrigid 2y ago[dead]
- hhh 2y agoThe automated passport gates have way more, but the manual photo checks by guards are indeed a mounted C920.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dangleberry 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- monksy 2y agoEven if its a non-special camera.. they're capturing a fixed profile photo. That's the gold standard used for matching against a dataset.