4 ms·

Example: Everyone on the terrorist watchlist gets a face photo associated with the name. Then run face detection software in the booth and don't let the travele

by jblow 13y ago

Example: Everyone on the terrorist watchlist gets a face photo associated with the name. Then run face detection software in the booth and don't let the traveler out if it matches. That is a pretty straightforward next step from what is there now. I am not sure how likely it is, but if you claim you can't possibly think of abuses, then you just aren't thinking very hard.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
Putting video cameras and facial-recognition databases into an otherwise straightforward and simple one-way-door system... is many things, but "straightforward" is not going to be one of them. Consider: hats, scarves, small children, people looking at the floor... moreover, if the US government wants to take pictures of your face and arrange an arrest, they can get it at airport entry (or customs) which are far more detention-like procedures, and a place you could actually enforce the measure: the guard tells you "look at the camera, please" before waving you through. So I don't really see the "exit-turnstile-chamber plus camera" threat to be particularly worrisome. It's a poor choice of place to implement camera-system abuses.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Everyone on the terrorist watchlist gets a face photo associated with the name. I'm pretty sure that even the TSA is smart enough that if they were going to install facial recognition systems to catch people on the terrorist watchlist or no-fly list, the first place they would do it wouldn't be the exit from the secure area of the airport.
logicallee 13y ago
I'm extremely receptive to this argument (face detection) since adding it to an existing system "seems" easy (low marginal cost), leading to easy abuse. But I would like you to be a bit more descriptive in that "abuse". Okay, don't let the traveler out if it matches. Then what? Come and collect them with guards, I imagine? This is a glass thing in view of everyone... Likewise, as someone else mentioned, it would be very similar to doing the same thing with revolving doors, which are just as easy to stop and trap someone in it. I am receptive to the idea that this is even easier than adding face recognition to revolving doors, as these doors are already associated with security, already in a high-security area, etc. But these very things - the high security - mean that in practice the end result is going to be what? How is it different from scanning a crowd and sending guards out to collect someone at an airport? Likewise, how is it different from adding this to turnstiles? I mean, I am just not seeing how this one thing qualifies as 'detention'. I walked through double doors like this to get to high security banks (to my surprise - must have been a rough part of town). I certainly did not feel 'temporarily detained'! Any more than I do in an elevator. And I've been stuck in an elevator. That actually sucks. I just am not seeing the exact argument you're making, you're not really being descriptive or visual enough. If face recognition is a worry, why not worry about it in every place that it could be applied, where people go through some point single-file and it's security-related? Why have a special worry reserved for this particular situation? Put another way, what if the doors were always open - but spaced far enough apart that even at adult running speed, the system can do face detection fast enough to slam both of them shut. Is that just as bad as this system? Why or why not - after all, it's always open, anyone can walk through.... But logically the end-result is equivalent. is it a psychological thing? You think it feels psychologically like preemptive detention? Let me tell you, it didn't feel that way to me...it just felt like double-doors. I imagined that in an emergency, they can all be briefly locked, and no one can just fly out there at running speed. it slows things down a bit. that's it. I'm just not seeing it. The security nightmare you imagine can be added everywhere, there's nothing special about this system and it's practically logically equivalent to two open doors - would you call that "temporary detainment" based on the fact that they could (but don't) slam shut? That this could (but doesn't) arrest you? it doesn't feel that way and doesn't have that effect any more than any other part of the airport does. on the other hand it can act very well as a one-way valve, making sure no one comes in past you through an exit-only door on your way out. that is not really related to detention in any way.

by jblow 13y ago

fennecfoxen 13y ago

Putting video cameras and facial-recognition databases into an otherwise straightforward and simple one-way-door system... is many things, but "straightforward" is not going to be one of them. Consider: hats, scarves, small children, people looking at the floor... moreover, if the US government wants to take pictures of your face and arrange an arrest, they can get it at airport entry (or customs) which are far more detention-like procedures, and a place you could actually enforce the measure: the guard tells you "look at the camera, please" before waving you through. So I don't really see the "exit-turnstile-chamber plus camera" threat to be particularly worrisome. It's a poor choice of place to implement camera-system abuses.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Everyone on the terrorist watchlist gets a face photo associated with the name. I'm pretty sure that even the TSA is smart enough that if they were going to install facial recognition systems to catch people on the terrorist watchlist or no-fly list, the first place they would do it wouldn't be the exit from the secure area of the airport.

logicallee 13y ago

I'm extremely receptive to this argument (face detection) since adding it to an existing system "seems" easy (low marginal cost), leading to easy abuse. But I would like you to be a bit more descriptive in that "abuse". Okay, don't let the traveler out if it matches. Then what? Come and collect them with guards, I imagine? This is a glass thing in view of everyone... Likewise, as someone else mentioned, it would be very similar to doing the same thing with revolving doors, which are just as easy to stop and trap someone in it. I am receptive to the idea that this is even easier than adding face recognition to revolving doors, as these doors are already associated with security, already in a high-security area, etc. But these very things - the high security - mean that in practice the end result is going to be what? How is it different from scanning a crowd and sending guards out to collect someone at an airport? Likewise, how is it different from adding this to turnstiles? I mean, I am just not seeing how this one thing qualifies as 'detention'. I walked through double doors like this to get to high security banks (to my surprise - must have been a rough part of town). I certainly did not feel 'temporarily detained'! Any more than I do in an elevator. And I've been stuck in an elevator. That actually sucks. I just am not seeing the exact argument you're making, you're not really being descriptive or visual enough. If face recognition is a worry, why not worry about it in every place that it could be applied, where people go through some point single-file and it's security-related? Why have a special worry reserved for this particular situation? Put another way, what if the doors were always open - but spaced far enough apart that even at adult running speed, the system can do face detection fast enough to slam both of them shut. Is that just as bad as this system? Why or why not - after all, it's always open, anyone can walk through.... But logically the end-result is equivalent. is it a psychological thing? You think it feels psychologically like preemptive detention? Let me tell you, it didn't feel that way to me...it just felt like double-doors. I imagined that in an emergency, they can all be briefly locked, and no one can just fly out there at running speed. it slows things down a bit. that's it. I'm just not seeing it. The security nightmare you imagine can be added everywhere, there's nothing special about this system and it's practically logically equivalent to two open doors - would you call that "temporary detainment" based on the fact that they could (but don't) slam shut? That this could (but doesn't) arrest you? it doesn't feel that way and doesn't have that effect any more than any other part of the airport does. on the other hand it can act very well as a one-way valve, making sure no one comes in past you through an exit-only door on your way out. that is not really related to detention in any way.