10 ms·
Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
- Animats 2y agoThe article mentions NIST standards for face recognition. NIST evaluates face matching systems.[1] They've gotten considerably better in the last decade, as would be expected. [1] https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt11.html https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt11.html
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoI was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.
- mmooss 2y agoThey don't understand and also they despair - both in part because the people who should help them (people like us) also buy into despair.
- mncharity 2y agoI wonder if there's a "missing infrastructure opportunity" here. An isolated individual opt-out has the uninspiring cost/risk-vs-benefit/principle tradeoff others have mentioned. But what if that equation could be shifted? Perhaps "I'll do the scan just now, but also, while it has my motivation and attention, I'll press the easy button to donate $N to some org effectively fighting it". Or "I'll opt out, and press the easy button to encourage others with a somewhat-anonymized "I/someone at airline-or-city-or-region-or-occupation-or... just opted-out! N+1! - Yay future!" tweet/counter"?
- mmooss 2y ago> An isolated individual opt-out has the uninspiring cost/risk-vs-benefit/principle tradeoff others have mentioned. One way to shift the equation is to shift understanding of the tradeoff: Some minor inconvenience - I think none in this case - for freedom and other human rights is hardly a tradeoff that needs much consideration. Honestly, I think it's people following the herd to the cultural trend of despair, powerlessness, and worship of strongmen - a incredible reversal from American individualism I'd read has dominated the culture for centuries. More practically, a little courage and action has a large effect on others. Imagine you are in a meeting where something obviously morally wrong is likely to be approved, and there is pressure to go along: Imagine nobody raises their hand to object. Imagine the despair and powerlessness everyone would feel, that it just passes without objection, that everyone is cowed. Imagine one person raises their hand. Not only does it greatly reduce the feeling of despair and powerlessness, it heartens people, and even more it makes it far easier for a second person to raise their hand, or for others to object to this issue or to others later. Imagine two raise their hand ...
- i80and 2y agoWhile you can opt out, not every document check station has signage to that effect in my experience; the TSA individual only tells you to put your head in the camera frame; and most people have had An Experience with TSA officials becoming belligerent and even aggressive over small things. Frankly, it's intimidating, and I don't blame people for not opting out even assuming they know that's possible
- radicaldreamer 2y agoThe only way to stop these things is to legislate them out of existence.
- monksy 2y agoTheres an implied threat when flying. It's that you won't be able to take the flight you purchased because they feel vindictive.
- BadHumans 2y agoI flew recently and didn't opt out. If you have a passport or a state ID, any federal agency has you in the system already. What good would avoiding this particular picture do?
- curiouscavalier 2y agoAre they basic RGB cameras or do they collect depth as well? Would even know if they decided to change the system to start collecting depth data, even if comparisons are to flat images? Honest questions, as that’s where my concerns are. Boil the frog. If they start to collect more, it’s not as simple as “they already have my picture.” Should there be a breach, I can’t easily change my face. I’m generally of the opinion that when it comes to personal data collection we should always say “no, convince me you should” rather than “sure, why not?” Other than an ever-so-slightly faster processing time is there evidence of any real security gain? My initial reaction, uninformed on the specifics but fairly versed in this type of security, is that’s unlikely.
- BadHumans 2y agoI have no idea and don't know the difference but I could say the same thing of the camera they used to take my passport photo or my state ID.
- curiouscavalier 2y agoThat’s true, but those are also different agencies, so at a minimum you’re spreading the data (and risk surface). My concerns are generally (though not entirely) around data breaches rather than the collector. And sadly we have ample evidence that federal agencies aren’t always great at securing PII. But more to the point the reason for doing it is there, for better or worse — want a passport? Have a picture taken. In this case I am (at least for now) comparing opting out or not. You can still take your flight without them taking that additional picture. That of course may not stay true.
- BadHumans 2y ago
- Dalewyn 2y agoI actually opted in (Delta Airlines Digital ID, default opt out) because I have Global Entry so CBP and TSA all have my information already anyway. Opting in was just me authorizing Delta to also share my flight data with them so they can match my records up. The result? Faster passage through gate security, significantly faster than TSA Precheck in fact. As a frequent flyer, I like it.
- hnburnsy 2y agoIn what way is it faster? Do you skip xray for carry ons?
- Dalewyn 2y agoTSA Precheck lines are excessively long now, to say nothing about the normie lines which probably violate some population density laws of the universe. Meanwhile the Digital ID line is (at least for now) practically empty. So that's an easy 10~20 minutes shaved off. Once I'm ushered through to screening I have the same convenience benefits as TSA Precheck since it's a prerequisite for Digital ID anyway.
- hnburnsy 2y agoCool. You must be at ATL. I hardly ever run into a line long line at pre check, I am thankful most flyers dont sign up. A line even shorter sounds good, and with global entry and passport, the government has everything it needs to track me down.
- Dalewyn 2y agoThe closest major airport I use is SEA (which unfortunately doesn't have Digital ID yet), but I've definitely enjoyed the time savings whenever I fly through ATL or LAX. The TSA Precheck lines at all three airports are horrifically long. ;_;
- worik 2y ago> when most people don’t care. Some people care a lot. But take great care not to be noticed. For some people the concentrated attention of the state is too be feared. So that is why they say "yes sir, no sir". It is a matter of survival
- rty32 2y agoI wasn't "appalled" but definitely felt uneasy about it. I am aware I could opt out and read all the discussions about it here on HN. I didn't do anything about it, despite being a very privacy conscious person (using firefox, use max adblocking/anti tracking etc). Why? I don't want to be an asshole, hold the queue and cause trouble for a TSA agent who is just doing the job and likely have no idea what "opt out" means, and with, let's admit it, no practical benefit for myself. (If anything, help myself miss a flight.) The feds and local law enforcement probably already have my face data anyway.
- username135 2y agoWas gonna meave the same comment almost verbatim.
- giantg2 2y agoIf you have a passport, they already do. If you have a driver's license or state ID, they most likely do.
- hammock 2y agoThe TSA scanners use a hi res stereoscopic camera to take a 3D photo of your facial features. It's not the same as your passport photo
- refurb 2y agoDifferent tech for sure. But I have global entry which is all done through facial recognition now (and matching to passenger manifests). No passport needed. The camera they used was just a normal DSLR, but it had no problem matching me. The tech is getting really good. In Singapore you can enter through automated gates without ever interacting with a person or showing a passport. All through facial recognition if they have a photo on file (citizens and permanent residents). I assume the tech will get good enough to scan entire crowds very quickly and identify everyone.
- giantg2 2y agoPretty sure many DMVs are using that tech now. Wouldn't surprise me if it's Real ID related and integrated with TSA.
- lsllc 2y agoI recently reentered the US after a short vacation (the first time I'd been out of the country for a couple of years) and the CBP now have cameras/face scanners. The agent said hello using my name before I'd even handed over my passport -- in fact I don't think he even looked at it. I assume they must be face-matching on the passport photo database.
- giantg2 2y agoYes, passport photos have been used for facial recognition for a long time now.
- mixmastamyk 2y agoInteresting, the camera is usually a bit behind the officer, perpendicular to the lane. Did you walk past the station or was it pointed towards you?
- beaglesss 2y agoYes this seems variable based on point of entry. I had (have?) a flagged passport for awhile and I never got the oh shit face from CBP until they scanned my passport.
- cge 2y ago>Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. Given the reputation of groups involved, I expect many people who might have otherwise opted out felt that trying to do so would have revealed there was no efficient opt-out process, just an empty offer of one, or that opting out would have lasting repercussions for their treatment during travel in the future.
- AzzyHN 2y agoI grew up in a post 9-11 world. To me, flying has always been something involving security and federal oversight. I have no problems with the federal government knowing that I have taken flight A123 to Chicago, or something. If I wanted to travel incognito, I'd take a train, or perhaps a greyhound bus.
- hammock 2y agoPre 9/11, the government still knew what flight you were taking. You ID was checked at the gate just prior to boarding the plane, and the passenger manifests were uploaded to a federal database in real time. A similar process happens on trains and Greyhounds - your ID is checked and manifests are monitored - so those are not necessarily more incognito options. However, non-passengers (such as family members or friends) could accompany travelers to the gate, or meet them there when they disembark, passing through security without a ticket
- jondwillis 2y agoI have tried to opt out and by the time I finished my sentence it’s done scanning my face. You’re also facing social pressure to just opt in from the people behind you, because opting out often takes longer, or is implied to take longer, since it isn’t the default. People who also cut it close with their flight times will understand ;)
- beaglesss 2y agoYou have no right to privacy in public. If you make this illegal private companies will do it instead, and the first amendment makes that impossible to stop.
- worik 2y ago> first amendment makes that impossible to stop. How so? Preventing facial recognition misuse (or use even). How is that impinging on the freedoms guaranteed in the First Ammendment?
- nickff 2y agoRecording things is generally interpreted as a form of speech. For example, recording police officers in public is speech. If the government can ban private parties from recording people's faces in public, the same could be done to prevent recording the police.
- kyleee 2y agoAnd a valid news/press activity protected by the first amendment
- mindslight 2y agoResolving this pathological impasse is straightforward - differentiate between personal activity and commercial activity. Individuals recording the police, other people happenstance, or even spending a considerable amount of their personal time compiling a self-administered facial recognition database of people - fine. Businesses (or really, entire industries) creating surveillance databases that would make a Stasi agent blush, likely by paying the salaries of many people to do this, and likely selling [access to] the databases to pay for it all - not fine. Societally, we've basically been hoodwinked with this temporarily embarassed millionaires fallacy - scale itself creates logical contradictions of our rights and we need to attack this head on.
- nickff 2y ago
- farceSpherule 2y ago[flagged]
- booleandilemma 2y agoAs AI, facial recognition, cameras, etc. become more widespread, we'll need to rethink privacy laws. Imagine a company in the near future called MyPI that uses a ubiquitous camera network and facial recognition to track someone you have an interest in. You could surveil dozens or hundreds of individuals this way, all for a low cost. What time they leave the house, start work, where they go after work, etc. All legal because, hey, they're in public.
- anigbrowl 2y agoThen we should change the laws. Fuck this surveillance society garbage, and its proponents.
- doctorpangloss 2y agoFacial recognition, and the lack of regulating it: a victim of conflating privacy in the sense of limiting government powers and privacy in the sense of whether or not a piece of data is sensitive of embarrassing.
- AlbertCory 2y agoThe issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law prohibiting you from recording everyone who walks by is most likely going to withstand a court review. It's a question of scale.
- vik0 2y ago[flagged]
- beaglesss 2y agoRights are 'god given.' IMO. > Although it's a good thing that a good deal of Americans have plenty of guns to defend themselves (unlike us, who reside outside of the US) Getting a gun is trivial about anywhere, btw, and in EU or latam ammunition enough for self defense is little trouble either. The fgc-9 and 'but what about ammo' are excellent education for curious Europeans. In practice I assure you people don't notice one concealing a gun (especially in gun naive places) and for anyone who isn't a moron, it isn't pulled out unless they're trading a casket for a court docket.
- vik0 2y ago>Rights are 'god given.' I'm not religious anymore, but wasn't it Paul who made the argument that we should respect temporal authority and their temporal laws, because it was God Himself who allowed them to become an authority in the first place? >fgc-9 Isn't it a bit too big to carry concealed for self-defense purposes? That aside, don't 3d printed guns jam much more frequently than "real" guns? So, for example, if you're in a life and death situation, and you live in a country that doesn't allow the concealed carrying of guns, and your opponent is a mafia member - who is, for all practical purposes, untouchable by the corrupt class of bureaucrats who are there to purportedly enforce and carry out the law (like the beauty of a country i find myself in) - and has a "real" gun pointed at you, and all you have is little better than a glorified plastic bb gun (because these days, unless you have a father or grandfather who had bought a gun 20 years ago to give to you today, buying a real gun is not as trivial as you make it sound, at least where I am), who wins nine times out of ten? Like, sure, I've read articles about how there are resistant forces in some south east asian country (I forgot which one exactly and im too lazy to look it up right now, nor is it important to what im about to say) that are fighting a dictatorial military regime, and the resistant forces do use 3d printed guns; but the only reason they're doing so is because, one, before the conflict happened the citizenry didn't have a legal "right" to buy guns and so at the beginning of the conflict they had no real amount of "real" guns to use, and, two, they kill the oppressive military officers and take their "real" guns because they're just better. But keep in mind, they're fighting an actual war, and don't have to conceal their guns (3d guns are too big to conceal in everyday settings), and two, even if someones 3d gun jams, there will be someone else with them to shoot at the opposite side trying to kill you (i.e not something likely to happen in a country that is not the US, where people aren't allowed to carry around guns for self-defense purposes)
- chrismeller 2y ago> Civil rights watchdog Well not quite. They keep getting money every year, but officially their mandate expired in the 90’s and has never been renewed. As crazy as that is by itself, they certainly don’t have the authority to do anything.
- karaterobot 2y agoHonest question: what else can they do but warn people?
- eimrine 2y agoTo be more numerous maybe?
- luxuryballs 2y agoah yes the watchdog alarm aka the nothing will be done but now we feel like someone other than us is working on it alarm (manufactured consent alarm?)
- fsndz 2y agoSoon enough we will have the Machine, like in POI.
- samarthr1 2y agoGenuine question, are the ethics of "anonymous facial recognition", where the system keeps track of a particular face, does not remember the face, and does not correlate the face to a identity , comparable to a social-credit like system?
- godelski 2y ago> anonymous facial recognition I don't have an answer to the specific question, but I have experience working on single and multi-camera person tracking systems and I can tell you that they highly focus on the faces for recognition[0]. There is no such thing as anonymous facial recognition or even person tracking. Data creeps in through things that can be later extracted, though you can make this process more difficult and that's about the best you can do. For a non-technical intuition of this you might notice that you can often recognize a friend walking away from you (no visible face) down the street. Even if you don't know why you can recognize them, it is down to subtle things like the way they walk, dress, hair style, etc. It might be harder to identify people this way and more prone to mistakes, but even when less accurate you could significantly narrow down possible candidates (even more with correlating information like location and time). [0] This was a surprising thing to me because I suspected clothing would be a stronger indicator especially when face isn't always visible but this could also happen for other reasons and can be highly influenced in pretraining. Even saw it with blurred faces in testing, but depended on how these were blurred. Gate tracking also seemed to be picked up but I never confirmed.
- samarthr1 2y agoI see. The reason I ask is that india has a bit of a littering problem at bus stands, and the fines for littering are hardly enforced due to lack of budget. I was hoping to fix the issue by applying a small fine, all the time. To do it, I was hoping I could build a sort of person-hood tracking system that says, see, that fellow who threw a packet of chips is now standing at platform 10, near the concession stand, go catch him, easy 100₹. By consistently enforcing penalties, we can change the behavior of people. It is worse than useless if it is inconsistently applied, for those caught will be likely to reoffend, considering it plain chance that they got caught.