7 ms·

Kennedy, Merkley introduce bill to end TSA facial recognition (2023)

124 points by samename 2y ago

ein0p 2y ago
How about we end the TSA instead. It’s provably pointless security theater. Their own pen tests show it to be ineffective.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  I'm sitting on a plane with a bag full of knives, can confirm, they aren't doing shit
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  TSA detected 6700+ firearms in 2023, 93% of which were loaded. I like that people can’t accidentally bring a loaded gun onto my plane and are deterred from doing it on purpose. A committed attacker can probably get by TSA, but a committed attacker will also likely flag other parts of the layered defense system that TSA is only one part of. The intelligence apparatus can and does flag specific threats to TSA, which is way better than FBI having to figure out ad-hoc how to screen millions of travelers whenever they think there’s a specific credible risk.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-underco... I have no reason to believe this got any better since then. So they accidentally caught a bunch of dudes who don’t read the fine print. Any determined adversary would have no issue at all bringing guns or explosives onboard whether or not I “remove my shoes and put my laptop in the bin”. It’s only a matter of time. Don’t like it? Stop funding genocide in the Middle East.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Did you reply to the wrong comment? I don't know if you're familiar with guns, but you actually don't have to be a sophisticated committed ideologue to be dangerous with them. Especially on an airplane. You ever seen a drunk asshole on a plane? Now add a couple loaded firearms to the mix, held by drunk person or by person annoyed by drunk person. Sufficiently dangerous for me to be thankful TSA intercepts thousands of them every year. > Any determined adversary would have no issue at all bringing guns or explosives onboard whether or not I “remove my shoes and put my laptop in the bin”. It’s only a matter of time. Don’t like it? Stop funding genocide in the Middle East. Yet, stunningly, the number of times someone has brought a bomb or a gun through TSA and committed a terrorist act with it since 9/11 is exactly zero times.
    - nerdponx 2y ago
      This is the same nonsense argument that people use in favor of abolishing police. "They only catch some crime and keep some criminals off the streets, not all of it" is a totally nonsensical reason to get rid of the institution entirely. I will leave it to the sibling comment or to describe in detail how wrong you are about guns specifically.
    - ClassyJacket 2y ago
      This is a logical fallacy. Bring unable to stop 100% of something doesn't mean you should give up. If they're stopping over 90% that's reason to keep going. The same argument can be used for almost any risk reduction techniques, including air bags and seatbelts, and it's wrong there too.
edm0nd 2y ago
The TSA is a joke and is nothing more than security theater and a government jobs program for low skilled workers. >Undercover tests conducted by the Department of Homeland Security have shown that the TSA's failure rate frequently ranges between 80% and 95%. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini... >An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials, ABC News has learned. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...
- kelnos 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but what does this have to do with the linked article?
- hamandcheese 2y ago
  Unpopular opinion: That means for someone actually trying to bring explosives on board, they are looking at between 1/20 and 1/4 odds that they are caught and potentially deemed an enemy of the state, taken to a CIA black site, etc. I'm not saying that the TSA is a cost effective deterrent, but I do think that that even with those odds there is a deterring effect. And its a jobs program! The US Gov spends money in worse ways. Edit: and TSA is funded by airline fees, so not only is it a jobs program, it is paid for by a tax on the wealthy.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    For someone that was about to blow themselves up, that’s not much of a deterrent. A terrorist group can just sent 10 people through and be happy with the successful 9 or so that get through.
    - 2y ago
kelnos 2y ago
This is great; I hope it passes, even with our dysfunctional Congress. I've kinda given up on opting out at the airport because it's a bit of a pain to get shunted to a different line. (Yes, clearly I care a lot about this /s) The facial recognition doesn't actually seem to save much (if any) time; the TSA people still run my ID through their little scanner thing. I don't have to scan my boarding pass, but I'd usually do that while they were dealing with my ID, and be done before they were anyway. Clearly this is just a surveillance play. Or they think the facial recognition is going to weed out people using someone else's ID. Or it's a "cute" way to funnel tax dollars to whoever manufactures this tech.
- komali2 2y ago
  > I've kinda given up on opting out at the airport because it's a bit of a pain Probably by design. One of my favorite memories is after defcon (can't remember which), I arrived at the airport at the same time as some several hundred other attendees not going to other security conferences that week, and the sheer volume of people rejecting going through the lemme-see-your-genitals machine, requesting pat-downs, or simply refusing to show ID (this is allowed for domestic flights), utterly overwhelmed TSA causing a many hours line that also trapped the hundreds of normies heading home after their vacations. If I sound like I'm blaming the hackers I'm not - it's the fault of TSA for being unprepared to handle a situation where every traveler exercises their rights. Much like the justice system, which would utterly collapse if everyone exercised their right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the TSA would collapse if everyone exercised their rights to not be subjected to any more search than is necessary to determine they aren't a threat to the airplane (the mission statement upon which TSA's authority is derived). This worries me because it means our government agencies and branches are incentivized to convince people to not exercise their rights, or restrict people's rights.
  - morpheuskafka 2y ago
    > refusing to show ID (this is allowed for domestic flights) There's a procedure for people who don't have a valid ID with them--but I'm not sure it is legal to use it otherwise. Presumably it requires making some statement to the effect of "I don't have an ID with me," or "I forgot my license at home," etc. which could be subject to the incredibly broad 18 USC 1001 statute if they really wanted to try, or more likely, they would mail you a civil penalty notice or put you on a list for additional questions in the future. Of course you could say you didn't realize the statement was false because the ID is so small that you can't even feel if its in your pocket, or you could conveniently put it in your checked bag by mistake, etc. But still, it's probably not a great look if they manage to find it somewhere when you said you forgot it.
aduffy 2y ago
I’m much happier with the TSA having those scans than airlines and services like CLEAR. At least there are rules the government is held to about how the data is stored and privacy/deletion requirements.
- dawnerd 2y ago
  Just used digital id today and it let me skip a massive line. Also really nice not having to show anything. They already got my biometrics from my passport and global entry, might as well get some benefit out of it.
- grogenaut 2y ago
  I kinda sadly agree with you, esp with where 23andme is and where millions of peoples DNA will be... with the highest bidder.
cowpig 2y ago
Can they ban facial recognition in general?
ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
A bipartisan bill to protect our freedoms. This is the America I know and love.
CarpaDorada 2y ago
This is a short bill. It disallows the TSA from using facial recognition and requires that the TSA disposes of all facial recognition biometric information, including images and videos, obtained through facial recognition, no later than 90 days of the enactment of the act. Congressional acts prior to the enactment of the act are invalidated with regards to TSAs authorization of facial recognition use, and the TSA can use facial recognition only if authorized in future congressional acts. In section 4, it modifies law to exclude facial recognition for pilot licenses, those deemed threats to air security, and prevents the TSA from using the $20mm DARPA defense research grant for researching facial recognition means of defense. Additionally in section 5 it prevents the TSA from using facial recognition in implemented pilot programs, it prevents the TSA from cooperating with airport operators on the use of facial recognition, and prevents the TSA from issuing guidance to identify airport employees & law enforcement via facial recognition. Cynic criticism: 1) The invalidation of former Congress acts with regards to TSA authorization of facial recognition use seems too polemic; would this pass as is? 2) Airport operators can still use facial recognition. 3) It does not define biometrics; nor what disposing means, and this may render this part ineffective, especially if derivatives of these data are not considered biometrics. Overall what I'm reading this bill as, is that the government does not want the TSA to directly participate in this type of surveillance, but I think it leaves open the possibility of contractors to do so. It is still a good bill in my opinion.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  I disagree, I think it's worse than useless. It provides a false sense of security to voters, and it will prevent future reform because people will think the problem has already been solved.
  - cowpig 2y ago
    Better is good. You can keep your standards up after things get better.
userbinator 2y ago
It's been almost a year since it was introduced, and it doesn't look like it has made much progress since then.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Why is that? I didn't know the timeline for bills would be so slow.
bnjemian 2y ago
Need to look into how this turned out – I've sent letters to Merkley and Wyden over the years about privacy concerns relating to facial recognition and similarly invasive technologies. We need more regulation in this space. That said, the TSA is in some respects the lesser concern. Don't get me wrong, the TSA not having free rein with facial and biometric technologies is a good thing. But when companies like Clearview AI (https://www.clearview.ai https://www.clearview.ai) sell their facial recognition technologies to local police departments – technologies that were built on illegally obtained data and have a history of substantial racial bias – we have bigger issues. It's opaque, unregulated, invites a wellspring of social injustice, and doesn't past muster under any ELSI framework. Government regulating government is important. But we, as a society, need to stop giving private companies like Clearview AI a pass on harmful, exploitative behavior – especially when they're run by founders like Hoan Ton-That who offer post-hoc rationalizations that amount to (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Well, if we hadn't done it, someone else would have, so why not us?' We need a bigger bill that enshrines and elevates privacy for the modern world.
- Simulacra 2y ago
  I think facial recognition is a good vehicle for those bills. For example, it should be illegal for a business to use facial recognition for decisions about pricing. I think that's a no-brainer. Put that together with other protections for facial recognition and I think it will leave the station.
pkaye 2y ago
Nothing has happened to the bill since it was introduced. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3361 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/336...
- Simulacra 2y ago
  And FYI nothing will in this session. The chambers are split, and regardless of the election results, there is unlikely to be a mad dash by one party to push through bills. This will be reintroduced in January.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

124 points by samename 2y ago

How about we end the TSA instead. It’s provably pointless security theater. Their own pen tests show it to be ineffective.

AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
I'm sitting on a plane with a bag full of knives, can confirm, they aren't doing shit
llamaimperative 2y ago
TSA detected 6700+ firearms in 2023, 93% of which were loaded. I like that people can’t accidentally bring a loaded gun onto my plane and are deterred from doing it on purpose. A committed attacker can probably get by TSA, but a committed attacker will also likely flag other parts of the layered defense system that TSA is only one part of. The intelligence apparatus can and does flag specific threats to TSA, which is way better than FBI having to figure out ad-hoc how to screen millions of travelers whenever they think there’s a specific credible risk.
- ein0p 2y ago
  https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-underco... I have no reason to believe this got any better since then. So they accidentally caught a bunch of dudes who don’t read the fine print. Any determined adversary would have no issue at all bringing guns or explosives onboard whether or not I “remove my shoes and put my laptop in the bin”. It’s only a matter of time. Don’t like it? Stop funding genocide in the Middle East.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment? I don't know if you're familiar with guns, but you actually don't have to be a sophisticated committed ideologue to be dangerous with them. Especially on an airplane. You ever seen a drunk asshole on a plane? Now add a couple loaded firearms to the mix, held by drunk person or by person annoyed by drunk person. Sufficiently dangerous for me to be thankful TSA intercepts thousands of them every year. > Any determined adversary would have no issue at all bringing guns or explosives onboard whether or not I “remove my shoes and put my laptop in the bin”. It’s only a matter of time. Don’t like it? Stop funding genocide in the Middle East. Yet, stunningly, the number of times someone has brought a bomb or a gun through TSA and committed a terrorist act with it since 9/11 is exactly zero times.
  - nerdponx 2y ago
    This is the same nonsense argument that people use in favor of abolishing police. "They only catch some crime and keep some criminals off the streets, not all of it" is a totally nonsensical reason to get rid of the institution entirely. I will leave it to the sibling comment or to describe in detail how wrong you are about guns specifically.
  - ClassyJacket 2y ago
    This is a logical fallacy. Bring unable to stop 100% of something doesn't mean you should give up. If they're stopping over 90% that's reason to keep going. The same argument can be used for almost any risk reduction techniques, including air bags and seatbelts, and it's wrong there too.

edm0nd 2y ago

The TSA is a joke and is nothing more than security theater and a government jobs program for low skilled workers. >Undercover tests conducted by the Department of Homeland Security have shown that the TSA's failure rate frequently ranges between 80% and 95%. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini... >An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials, ABC News has learned. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

kelnos 2y ago
I don't disagree with you, but what does this have to do with the linked article?
hamandcheese 2y ago
Unpopular opinion: That means for someone actually trying to bring explosives on board, they are looking at between 1/20 and 1/4 odds that they are caught and potentially deemed an enemy of the state, taken to a CIA black site, etc. I'm not saying that the TSA is a cost effective deterrent, but I do think that that even with those odds there is a deterring effect. And its a jobs program! The US Gov spends money in worse ways. Edit: and TSA is funded by airline fees, so not only is it a jobs program, it is paid for by a tax on the wealthy.
- kortilla 2y ago
  For someone that was about to blow themselves up, that’s not much of a deterrent. A terrorist group can just sent 10 people through and be happy with the successful 9 or so that get through.
  - 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

This is great; I hope it passes, even with our dysfunctional Congress. I've kinda given up on opting out at the airport because it's a bit of a pain to get shunted to a different line. (Yes, clearly I care a lot about this /s) The facial recognition doesn't actually seem to save much (if any) time; the TSA people still run my ID through their little scanner thing. I don't have to scan my boarding pass, but I'd usually do that while they were dealing with my ID, and be done before they were anyway. Clearly this is just a surveillance play. Or they think the facial recognition is going to weed out people using someone else's ID. Or it's a "cute" way to funnel tax dollars to whoever manufactures this tech.

komali2 2y ago
> I've kinda given up on opting out at the airport because it's a bit of a pain Probably by design. One of my favorite memories is after defcon (can't remember which), I arrived at the airport at the same time as some several hundred other attendees not going to other security conferences that week, and the sheer volume of people rejecting going through the lemme-see-your-genitals machine, requesting pat-downs, or simply refusing to show ID (this is allowed for domestic flights), utterly overwhelmed TSA causing a many hours line that also trapped the hundreds of normies heading home after their vacations. If I sound like I'm blaming the hackers I'm not - it's the fault of TSA for being unprepared to handle a situation where every traveler exercises their rights. Much like the justice system, which would utterly collapse if everyone exercised their right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the TSA would collapse if everyone exercised their rights to not be subjected to any more search than is necessary to determine they aren't a threat to the airplane (the mission statement upon which TSA's authority is derived). This worries me because it means our government agencies and branches are incentivized to convince people to not exercise their rights, or restrict people's rights.
- morpheuskafka 2y ago
  > refusing to show ID (this is allowed for domestic flights) There's a procedure for people who don't have a valid ID with them--but I'm not sure it is legal to use it otherwise. Presumably it requires making some statement to the effect of "I don't have an ID with me," or "I forgot my license at home," etc. which could be subject to the incredibly broad 18 USC 1001 statute if they really wanted to try, or more likely, they would mail you a civil penalty notice or put you on a list for additional questions in the future. Of course you could say you didn't realize the statement was false because the ID is so small that you can't even feel if its in your pocket, or you could conveniently put it in your checked bag by mistake, etc. But still, it's probably not a great look if they manage to find it somewhere when you said you forgot it.

aduffy 2y ago

I’m much happier with the TSA having those scans than airlines and services like CLEAR. At least there are rules the government is held to about how the data is stored and privacy/deletion requirements.

dawnerd 2y ago
Just used digital id today and it let me skip a massive line. Also really nice not having to show anything. They already got my biometrics from my passport and global entry, might as well get some benefit out of it.
grogenaut 2y ago
I kinda sadly agree with you, esp with where 23andme is and where millions of peoples DNA will be... with the highest bidder.

cowpig 2y ago

Can they ban facial recognition in general?

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago

A bipartisan bill to protect our freedoms. This is the America I know and love.

CarpaDorada 2y ago

This is a short bill. It disallows the TSA from using facial recognition and requires that the TSA disposes of all facial recognition biometric information, including images and videos, obtained through facial recognition, no later than 90 days of the enactment of the act. Congressional acts prior to the enactment of the act are invalidated with regards to TSAs authorization of facial recognition use, and the TSA can use facial recognition only if authorized in future congressional acts. In section 4, it modifies law to exclude facial recognition for pilot licenses, those deemed threats to air security, and prevents the TSA from using the $20mm DARPA defense research grant for researching facial recognition means of defense. Additionally in section 5 it prevents the TSA from using facial recognition in implemented pilot programs, it prevents the TSA from cooperating with airport operators on the use of facial recognition, and prevents the TSA from issuing guidance to identify airport employees & law enforcement via facial recognition. Cynic criticism: 1) The invalidation of former Congress acts with regards to TSA authorization of facial recognition use seems too polemic; would this pass as is? 2) Airport operators can still use facial recognition. 3) It does not define biometrics; nor what disposing means, and this may render this part ineffective, especially if derivatives of these data are not considered biometrics. Overall what I'm reading this bill as, is that the government does not want the TSA to directly participate in this type of surveillance, but I think it leaves open the possibility of contractors to do so. It is still a good bill in my opinion.

nerdponx 2y ago
I disagree, I think it's worse than useless. It provides a false sense of security to voters, and it will prevent future reform because people will think the problem has already been solved.
- cowpig 2y ago
  Better is good. You can keep your standards up after things get better.

userbinator 2y ago

It's been almost a year since it was introduced, and it doesn't look like it has made much progress since then.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Why is that? I didn't know the timeline for bills would be so slow.

bnjemian 2y ago

Need to look into how this turned out – I've sent letters to Merkley and Wyden over the years about privacy concerns relating to facial recognition and similarly invasive technologies. We need more regulation in this space. That said, the TSA is in some respects the lesser concern. Don't get me wrong, the TSA not having free rein with facial and biometric technologies is a good thing. But when companies like Clearview AI (https://www.clearview.ai https://www.clearview.ai) sell their facial recognition technologies to local police departments – technologies that were built on illegally obtained data and have a history of substantial racial bias – we have bigger issues. It's opaque, unregulated, invites a wellspring of social injustice, and doesn't past muster under any ELSI framework. Government regulating government is important. But we, as a society, need to stop giving private companies like Clearview AI a pass on harmful, exploitative behavior – especially when they're run by founders like Hoan Ton-That who offer post-hoc rationalizations that amount to (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Well, if we hadn't done it, someone else would have, so why not us?' We need a bigger bill that enshrines and elevates privacy for the modern world.

Simulacra 2y ago
I think facial recognition is a good vehicle for those bills. For example, it should be illegal for a business to use facial recognition for decisions about pricing. I think that's a no-brainer. Put that together with other protections for facial recognition and I think it will leave the station.

pkaye 2y ago

Nothing has happened to the bill since it was introduced. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3361 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/336...

Simulacra 2y ago
And FYI nothing will in this session. The chambers are split, and regardless of the election results, there is unlikely to be a mad dash by one party to push through bills. This will be reintroduced in January.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]