When entering China, they take your fingerprints, iris, and I guess face too... I was there in 2019, at one point I was at an airport, and a screen was bragging, "Stand where the camera can see your face, and we'll tell you which way to your gate.". It worked too, the screen displayed my name, flight number and direction to my gate. And implicitly, "We can identify you wherever you are.".
There's a famous saying about Mussolini making the trains run on time. The joke was that anyone who complained about the trains running late, which was an endemic issue emblematic of the financial failures of fascism (his government system), was killed.
But if you didn't complain about the trains, maybe because you didn't take them, you didn't get killed. It was fine.
Maybe things are actually kinda bad, but you're just not willing to admit it to yourself because you aren't complaining about the trains.
In the US, we complain about the trains. And if the gov't is spying on us with facial recognition, we're going to stop them.
tbqh, first if the insinuation is that China is not democratic, that is only true in the sense it is not a liberal democracy with a conservative wing represented (a good thing), but it is still a democracy with elections.
secondly, if people surviving a literal genocide in Palestine can resist the most technologically sophisticated, surveilled, and completely enclosed death camp ever constructed by the U.S. and Israel, you can figure out how to deal with cameras.
I was in China a few years ago, didn't take fingerprints, iris, or face recognition. Just a routine passport check and that's it. I flew from Europe to Beijing, might be different if you fly from the US.
I was travelling by train from Mongolia/crossed the border by bus because it was cheaper, and when I mean by bus, the bus collects you at the station before the border and drives you to the big border checkpoint building where you cross the border by foot/where they have booths and guards that do the passport and visa checks, just like at an airport.
Maybe I'm misremembering the iris scan. If it did happen, it could be because there were loads of Mongolian students about to embark on their next semester of studies in China.
Travel by plane/DMV applications normalized fingerprinting.
What’s next? Semen and blood samples as well?
The terrorists have won. Fear has ruled the major powers of the world. And the current major power of the free world is a puppet and an all around idiot.
For this to work they must have already done facial recognition on everyone’s ID photos, so I fail to see what opting out even does for me from a privacy perspective. Seems like shutting the barn door after the horse is already out.
Indeed, not to mention the availability of public social media photos. To think that every intelligence agency on earth hasn’t already trained FR across their databases of IDs and material voluntarily uploaded by themselves and their family/friends…
One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn’t like getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone would get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you have a friend who don’t value your privacy, there is nothing you can do about it.
Add to this any public event, where they are well within their rights to take your picture and match it against known threat actors and the only way to not play this game is to be a hermit
> One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn’t like getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone would get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you have a friend who don’t value your privacy, there is nothing you can do about it.
I hated this too, but there was an option to disable it. I know because I used it for that very reason. I don't know if they removed it; I left Facebook probably around a decade ago and it was there when I left.
The current program in limited beta test is called "TSA PreCheck Touchless".
So you need to be in TSA PreCheck, and you gave them your photo and fingerprints when you voluntarily enrolled in that program. They are probably using your passport biometrics if those are available as well.
Yet again we accept the premise that we need 'more' security so it is OK to do these types of things. This implies without evidence that there is a problem and then jumps right to the, again, unfounded conclusion that this type of thing will solve that hypothetical issue. The discussion shouldn't be about how to do this 'responsibly', implicitly admitting that there is some sort of need, and instead it should be about how to dismantle things like this completely and how to stop new things like this from ever happening again.
I don't like TSA or the US security state, but I really find it hard to see why this has attracted so much attention. When you enter the airport, you're surrounded by cameras from numerous government and commercial entities, no doubt performing facial recognition. When you get to your destination, your photo will be taken by the destination country plus countless other surveillance cameras along the way. And unless you like long lines, you've already submitted fingerprints and yet another photo to TSA or CBP for precheck. Even if you didn't, all REAL IDs (except a foreign passport) require digital storage of the ID photo--that's what they are matching your face to at the checkpoint.
(During the pandemic, I had a job that let me--I mean, a friend of my choice--do my own e-verify/I-9 form. When you enter your passport number, the e-Verify system spits out a digital copy of the photo you sent it to prevent counterfeit or altered photos.)
I just don't understand how one more potato quality still capture of your face, that by definition is very similar to those they already have, changes the equation much.
Because they are using more than just a 2d photo, these things are taking almost microscopic details in. I just pay the devil and ask for the personal treatment and skip these things. These are not potato quality and the government isn’t as backward at tech as you think. Remember when you’re dealing with cops there is nothing you can say or do that will be to your advantage in court , the same goes in real life. Skip all of these types of security theater as it’s possible. While I did not want to see the new regime change in Washington because of the high chance of economic and challenges to democracy, one of the things they might cut back on is stuff like this; a Harris admin certainly was not going to be.
You've precisely described the reason I will not fly commercial anymore. All of this surveillance has a chilling effect. On citizens, on business, on international trade.
Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.
Also, the thing you're ignoring, and perhaps why you fail to understand the problem, is you haven't bothered to ask what the false positive rate is. Would you enjoy being stopped and arrested by very cocksure police simply because a computer made a mistake and they refuse to believe that?
> Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.
In Germany, there is no way you'll get on a commercial airfield without going through security, and if you're not a passenger but an employee or a pilot, you'll need a comprehensive background check.
Only exemption for now is ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car (or if you just compare kinetic energy, even less dangerous because they're barely half a ton in weight.
Your "commercial airfield" may actually be two airfields in one. This is not uncommon. There is a "commercial" side which is where public carriers usually work and there is a "private" side which is where individuals and often cargo works.
Aside from this there are plenty of private airfields in Germany.
> ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car
The cool things about vehicles is you can put things in them. Things like explosives. The incredibly low tech version of this is currently in use in some parts of the world, and that is where you attach a mortar to a drone, then go drop it on a target.
God I hate this argument and this blunt misunderstanding of computer vision. (I've dealt with it so many times on reddit) Frequently I'm met with these arguments with some imaginative justification for this technology. At this point it's hard to be convinced that the arguements aren't an AstroTurf by security vendors. (Yes dang, I realize this is bad to make this accusation to say but I'm speaking generically and over a large group of people)
Additionally you threw in a false equivalency: But a ton of things are going on..you're useless in fighting it. On top of that you threw in an accusation that "if you don't then face longer lines".
The cameras that are above aren't good enough to do a confident identification of an individual. They're great for tracking where unique blobs go.
The picture they are doing a comparison against is a profile picture and consistent lighting. Additionally the old picture that is on your license is a much older photo. The thread here is that the people who are taking your image now are updating their models and maintaining the models of what you look like. With that they are able to retroactively and perform future lookups on different visual datasources about what you did. (Gas stations, stores, weed shop, adult toy store, walking down the red light district, being on a train, etc)
People started complaining about cameras, and airport id checks, and facial recognition, and REAL ID, and incentives like PreCheck to support mass fingerprinting for a decade or three.
At some point the rubber band breaks, or at least one of the ropes snap.
I can’t believe it has gone this far. I was flying out of Logan airport (Boston) and had to have my face scanned right boarded the plane. There was nothing about opting out. It seemed like I didn’t comply, I wasn’t flying.
I hate this. Feels so wrong and dystopian. They need to abolish this. It’s so unnecessary.
So a bipartisan group of Senators can write a letter to the TSA speaking out against a policy but not get themselves to bring it to the floor and vote against it? Which is, you know, their actual job?
Hard to think of their intentions as anything more than theater for their voter base.
Making it a requirement sounds like some project manager has a KPI to hit to justify the expense of the hardware rollout. Maybe a stretch since I doubt most people opted out anyway.
Either that or they took a page out of the big tech playbook where the plan was to boil the frog all along.
And the senators’ letter quotes a talk given by TSA Administrator David Pekoske in 2023 in which he said “we will get to the point where we require biometrics across the board.”
As opposed to hoping the TSA agent doesn't properly proof you to your government credential you hand them? The data is already there, in state motor vehicle databases, and various federal databases. If you have Global Entry or PreCheck, your biometrics are already on file. The Dept of State has your photo associated with your passport, as does the DoD Common Access Card system.
I was shocked to see this program arrive in my local airport. I opt out every time, but the horrifying thing is that almost everyone simply complies with whatever is asked of them. The TSA agents use phrasing that make it seem like you are supposed to go through the facial recognition process and don’t have a choice. Yes, there are tiny signs scattered around that say you can opt out. But when the officer says “step in front of the camera”, most people comply with what seems like orders from a legal authority.
TSA will punish you for opting out of anything. If you're lucky, the least they will do is hold you up a long time so you have a good chance of missing your flight. I've also had them sexually harass me, and confiscate (e.g. steal) legal items in retaliation for opting out of things I had the legal right to opt out of. They know people are in a hurry and won't do anything about being treated unethically or illegally, because calling them out would require missing your flight.
When I opted out of the scanner once, I had to wait about 20 minutes, and then the TSA agent comes over to do a "pat down" instead, but is going inappropriately slow and squeezing my body, and saying things like "I'd bet you opted out because you like this." I regret not immediately calling them out and filing charges.
I always opt out of the scanner (even have a special shirt [1]), and without fail they always stand me by the intake (radio-leaky-end) of the baggage x-ray machine for 5+ minutes.
I had a phase where I would always wear this "cease your investigators" shirt, never had any comments but yea stood by the machine for 5 minutes or so, never considered the machine would be radiating outward as well as inward, but yeah, mostly did it as a small protest, thought it worth demonstrating you don't have to comply.
The last I was in San Francisco International the TSA staff came barreling out of their door and the first agent out yelled into the terminal, "MAN! I really hope someone opts out today! I can't wait to give that guy a serious patdown."
Other than a nearly identical uniform that says CAS in place of TSA there is no apparent difference. Which is why I probably didn't even realize. In any case my return leg was delayed so I rented a car to drive back and have never returned to commercial flights since.
Generally speaking you present ID to pass through security.
The facial recognition is based on the biometric data collected when you got your ID, the ID you presented to pass through security. The ID with your name, address, date of birth, and uniquely identifying number on it. The ID which is associated with your boarding pass. The ID they scan (or they scan the boarding pass which is associated with your ID) prior to letting you through security.
Using facial recognition changes nothing, absolutely nothing, except that it reduces the amount of time spent at the checkpoint.
It does not grant anyone access to any information they do not already have.
It does not impede the traveler in any way.
It does not change, at all, any aspect of one's privacy whatsoever.
"But I don't wanna..." doesn't seem like a defensible position.
I was with you until "doesn't grant them info that they don't already have." It gives them the opportunity to update their face model of you in a confirmed and consistent manner.
It also doesn't improve anything:
An agent comparison of you vs the id is still considered to be the gold standard. When this system fails, you have to default to the agent's comparison. This is a slow down compared to the previous scenario.
The time for an id comparison isn't the bottleneck in security. It's the physical actions used to go through the TSA and the built in inconsistency to prevent people from speedrunning the screening.
Maybe I’m old school but I despise the idea of the government tracking me as I travel. Time and time again they are caught violating privacy laws and abusing power.
Given that you already need government issued ID that matches the name printed on your ticket to travel on an airplane, wouldn’t the government already have the ability to track you, regardless of facial recognition?
Indeed, the government doesn't even need the ID, they ingest a data feed of Passenger Name Records (PNRs) from all airlines. This is why when TSA performs the automated identity proofing, comparing a photo of you to your ID, they don't require that you provide a boarding pass.
Comparing an ephemeral photo taken of you to your government credential at the TSA checkpoint is a temporary formality. At some point, the government credential presentation will be unnecessary.
> the biometric data collected when you got your ID
When I got my license, which I can use to board a flight in my country I did not give fingerprints or an eye scan. They have my photo, DOB, name - not more.
This isn't a casual mistaken. Taking from the newly implemented border exit control that we've gotten. (If you think we don't have one, re-read that) :
The GAO found that the ability for people to understand that Americans are not required to go through the biometric exit was non-existant and the experience of opting out was very poor.
What this means is signage was not posted that indicating for Americans this is an optional process and people forming the "requirement" were not educated that it is optional for citizens.
Yet, the experience is that people forcefully push people into to posing for the camera with markings on the floor, the lack of opting in/consenting to it, and prevent people from being aware of what's going on. (Yes: You can opt out .. walk up to the board area with your passport open to your photo page)
What do you think opting out does exactly? For the system to work they must already have your photo associated with your name and ID. And even if you opt out they’re still tracking your movement. It seems like an impotent protest so I don’t bother.
They make it opt out so they don't need to demonstrate the cost/benefits of making it required.
They make it opt out because there are always a few people who object[1], so this is a safety valve.
If everyone opted out ("I am Spartacus") then it would stop and they would have to switch to less efficient means. (If it weren't less efficient then they wouldn't need this one.)
"If you politely decline to show ID whenever someone asks (or demands) it, and continue politely declining regardless of how they escalate, you will discover what your rights are. You'll be surprised. You'll get away with it. Most of the people who were asking for it have no right to demand it. They've been relying on your voluntary cooperation. They forgot to tell you that part; but you just found it out for yourself. Sometimes you may discover that you didn't have the right to live, move around, or do business in your own country without government-issued documents. That's very interesting knowledge to acquire first-hand too. If you haven't recently tried exercising your right to exist and live without government permission, are you sure you still have that right?"
[1] In one of the author Robert Heinlein's biographical accounts he walks out of a hotel because they demand to see id at registration. He went to another hotel which did not.
Every state id picture is run through facial recognition, and that data is processed to detect duplicate people and other issues. Every passport has a picture which is digitized for facial recognition.
This is a good thing, as it potentially disarms the stupid RealID fiasco with respect to ID and airports.
There is no privacy benefit to document validation.
People just want to get through an incredibly annoying experience as fast as possible, and they know the people behind them want this too. Doesn’t excuse the bullshit, but it’s much less of a dramatic “sheep bowing to authority” than made out to be here.
This is it. I don't think I've opted out of it. I know I can but I know the agent is going to make a big deal of it and the line is already long for everyone behind me so whatever lets just get through it.
Nah. In my experience when you opt out, they say “Okay,” scan your ID the same way they’ve been doing for 20 years, and you get through in the same time.
If they want to entice us with convenience, the facial recognition should allow you to just stroll through without talking to anyone.
Senators should not be complaining about this. Congress required the TSA to check identity, and soon, REAL ID will be required to fly in the US, even domestically. So what's their problem with doing it effectively?
There is only one sort of person who signs up to check internal passports and search innocent people, and I don’t care what color shirt they’re wearing these days.
It will happen if enough voters make it clear to their elected representatives that they want them to repeal the laws passed after 9/11 that mandate the security screening that TSA does. I agree that's highly unlikely, but it was voters who clamored for those laws in the first place after 9/11, so it's voters that need to push for getting them repealed.
Unless you are implying having no security at airports whatsoever (which will never happen), abolishing TSA simply means replacing one central agency with hundreds/thousands of private security agencies and companies in every state and city, which will only increase costs.
> Contractors provide a more flexible workforce for his airport, and on top of that, it’s easier to show people the door, he said.
> “If employees are not performing, they can be dealt with appropriately, better or more effectively on a contract side than a government side,” Sprenger said.
> Labor unions say the real reason airports want to go with contractors is simple: to cut costs. James Mudrock is the president of AFGE Local 1230, the union representing TSA workers in Sacramento, California.
So I’ve heard this a lot, but how can we actually test this? The only realistic test I can imagine here is that the TSA shuts down for a decade and we see what happens?
Because other forms of mass travel such as trains and buses, which barely have any security checks, rarely get blown up by bombs smuggled on to them, or hijacked by guns smuggled onto them.
They test the TSA with weapons and most get through. This means people don't wish to use weapons to hijack planes, or it would happen way more often and it doesn't.
That will never happen. The long lines and inconveniences are the point, not a side effect.
How many shoe bombers does the TSA catch in a day? 0. In a month? 0. Since the only shoe bomber? 0. We still take off our shoes. Same with underwear bombs. 0. We still partially undress and do the nude-a-tron.
The point is, we could already ditch the lines, we don't want to.
I mean it's like saying what's the point of a security feature if thing that feature prevents from happening isn't happening after implementing that feature.
Sure, there's some truth to that, but shoe bombs, underpants bombs and the two liquids bombs have never been tried again. If they did, they would set off their shoes and underpants in the "cattle maze", where there are several planesfull of people, and nobody has been ID'ed, or x-rayed or swabbed.
There's nothing magical about setting off a bomb on a plane as far as terrorizing a populace goes. Bombs in the mazes before "security" would be effective, as we learned at the Boston Marathon.
“For any amount convenience, it’s okay to discriminate against people based on any collection of facts, including ones you can see on their face like their heritage, so long as none of those facts are mine.”
Serious question: why is this bad? Is it just the 3% false negative rate? I don't see the negative privacy implications of face recognition when the alternative is to present your face (via photo ID) anyway.
I enjoy traveling to Berlin for vacation, as it's a totally different atmosphere around privacy. Default payment is cash, your entry and exit from train stations is not tracked (surveilled perhaps, but you do not tap-in/tap-out or god forbid tap your credit card every time you step on a train like SF or NYC), and it's against the law to publish photographs of someone without their consent.
Ask IBM what becomes of databases full of people's names associated with their movements.
It is not against the law to publish photographs of someone without their consent. People post me to Instagram without my consent in Berlin all of the time.
I think this is silly given how much Germany is actively helping a country where the PM of that country has an arrest warrant out for him through the ICC.
Germany is still facilitating an alleged genocide. The only thing that has changed is the profile of the victims. The situation now is even worse, given that practically everyone in the world knows what’s happening but life is going on as normal.
I appreciate the response, but it seems that database can be constructed with or without facial recognition because photo ID is already required. So, I ask again, why is this bad?
Showing ID to pass a gate is somewhat different than having a timestamped record of the fact that you passed a gate, but I agree that given it's already surveilled it's not a big difference. Still, small differences add up.
I mean, it was living memory for many HN'ers that you could travel freely in the United States with doing either. It's a post-9/11 thing that an airline ticket is associated with a unique person, and requires a matching photo ID.
There was a time when America's security forces did not routinely surveil its own peoples' movements.
When I was a kid there were classified ads like "Pan Am NYC Dec 20-28, E. Smith, $200 o.b.o" for people who wanted to resell their ticket because they couldn't make the trip. There were no id checks then.
In the 1990s the airplanes jumped at the opportunity to have required id checks so they could take control of the secondary market.
It was still possible to buy a ticket like "E. Smith", but that option was cut off a few years later.
(American here) A quick search shows Pew Research, National Academies Press (associated with the Library Of Congress), AmericaUnderWatch dot com, Politico and Georgetown Law .. all with varying responses to this question. In the case of social structure and law, there are many layers, interwoven, and difficult or impossible to fit into chat-level responses.
I also can't see the tracking difference between a human verifying your identity and entering that into a database and a computer verifying your identity and entering that into a database.
But it's still a valid concern as to whether or not this new system is at least as secure and privacy-respecting as the old one.
Automation and scale? You can't imagine how technology that allows a small number of people to automatically surveil billions of people can enable horrors that would be more difficult if you needed to use a labor force of hundreds of thousands of humans?
I don't disagree, but installing face scanners at the same location humans do face scanning and using them the same as they used the humans is not the same as mass surveillance.
What that has to do with TSA Checkpoint at the airport? How many people go to through that checkpoint isn't dictated by how automated it is - it's dictated by how many people are flying.
All this thing does it speeds up process of you getting through TSA.
No faster than having a human hold up your id and compare it, plus now you don’t have yet another digital copy of your face floating around for the police state.
When entering China, they take your fingerprints, iris, and I guess face too... I was there in 2019, at one point I was at an airport, and a screen was bragging, "Stand where the camera can see your face, and we'll tell you which way to your gate.". It worked too, the screen displayed my name, flight number and direction to my gate. And implicitly, "We can identify you wherever you are.".
Pictures are also taken on entry in Canada, at least at Vancouver airport [1]. And obviously getting the visa requires submitting your fingerprints.
[1] https://www.yvr.ca/en/passengers/navigate-yvr/customs-and-im...
When entering the United States they also take fingerprints and a picture of your face.
Facial recognition systems like this are used everywhere in china. Its common for gates in apartment buildings.
Its just how things work there. It feel more malicious to pretend its not happening
There's a famous saying about Mussolini making the trains run on time. The joke was that anyone who complained about the trains running late, which was an endemic issue emblematic of the financial failures of fascism (his government system), was killed.
But if you didn't complain about the trains, maybe because you didn't take them, you didn't get killed. It was fine.
Maybe things are actually kinda bad, but you're just not willing to admit it to yourself because you aren't complaining about the trains.
In the US, we complain about the trains. And if the gov't is spying on us with facial recognition, we're going to stop them.
The problem is that by this it becomes ever more difficult to get rid of an oppressive, dictatorial, unelected and violent Government.
For an insider's perspective about "The Social Credit System", and the biometrics which underpin it, you can watch https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system
It's a long, but interesting talk.
tbqh, first if the insinuation is that China is not democratic, that is only true in the sense it is not a liberal democracy with a conservative wing represented (a good thing), but it is still a democracy with elections.
secondly, if people surviving a literal genocide in Palestine can resist the most technologically sophisticated, surveilled, and completely enclosed death camp ever constructed by the U.S. and Israel, you can figure out how to deal with cameras.
I was in China a few years ago, didn't take fingerprints, iris, or face recognition. Just a routine passport check and that's it. I flew from Europe to Beijing, might be different if you fly from the US.
It changes every month it seems, port of entry is also probably significant.
I was travelling by train from Mongolia/crossed the border by bus because it was cheaper, and when I mean by bus, the bus collects you at the station before the border and drives you to the big border checkpoint building where you cross the border by foot/where they have booths and guards that do the passport and visa checks, just like at an airport.
Maybe I'm misremembering the iris scan. If it did happen, it could be because there were loads of Mongolian students about to embark on their next semester of studies in China.
Must be the Amazon benefits for being a US citizen
A new Chinese export market: surveillance technology. I think Israel will be very interested... And the West will follow in time.
I was there and they didn't do an iris scan.
Taking a photo and fingerprint is pretty standard everywhere.
The selfie normalized public photography.
Travel by plane/DMV applications normalized fingerprinting.
What’s next? Semen and blood samples as well?
The terrorists have won. Fear has ruled the major powers of the world. And the current major power of the free world is a puppet and an all around idiot.
Too late, I already gave the US government my DNA/reference via blood sample. The military has been doing that since the early 90's.
For this to work they must have already done facial recognition on everyone’s ID photos, so I fail to see what opting out even does for me from a privacy perspective. Seems like shutting the barn door after the horse is already out.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42230738
2. If people stand up for decency, they might get it.
It’s a question of normalization, not data.
Indeed, not to mention the availability of public social media photos. To think that every intelligence agency on earth hasn’t already trained FR across their databases of IDs and material voluntarily uploaded by themselves and their family/friends…
One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn’t like getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone would get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you have a friend who don’t value your privacy, there is nothing you can do about it.
Add to this any public event, where they are well within their rights to take your picture and match it against known threat actors and the only way to not play this game is to be a hermit
> One reason I left Facebook early on was that I didn’t like getting tagged in photos the next morning after everyone would get home from parties. Too bad for me, as long as you have a friend who don’t value your privacy, there is nothing you can do about it.
I hated this too, but there was an option to disable it. I know because I used it for that very reason. I don't know if they removed it; I left Facebook probably around a decade ago and it was there when I left.
Resolution, recency, additional training data to up accuracy.
Yeah, it seems pretty useless. Nothing stops them from simply doing this on publicly available data online as well.
We’ve known for over a decade that DHS, FBI, CBP, and local police buy location data.
https://www.propublica.org/article/no-warrant-no-problem-how...
The current program in limited beta test is called "TSA PreCheck Touchless".
So you need to be in TSA PreCheck, and you gave them your photo and fingerprints when you voluntarily enrolled in that program. They are probably using your passport biometrics if those are available as well.
https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-...
Yet again we accept the premise that we need 'more' security so it is OK to do these types of things. This implies without evidence that there is a problem and then jumps right to the, again, unfounded conclusion that this type of thing will solve that hypothetical issue. The discussion shouldn't be about how to do this 'responsibly', implicitly admitting that there is some sort of need, and instead it should be about how to dismantle things like this completely and how to stop new things like this from ever happening again.
I don't like TSA or the US security state, but I really find it hard to see why this has attracted so much attention. When you enter the airport, you're surrounded by cameras from numerous government and commercial entities, no doubt performing facial recognition. When you get to your destination, your photo will be taken by the destination country plus countless other surveillance cameras along the way. And unless you like long lines, you've already submitted fingerprints and yet another photo to TSA or CBP for precheck. Even if you didn't, all REAL IDs (except a foreign passport) require digital storage of the ID photo--that's what they are matching your face to at the checkpoint.
(During the pandemic, I had a job that let me--I mean, a friend of my choice--do my own e-verify/I-9 form. When you enter your passport number, the e-Verify system spits out a digital copy of the photo you sent it to prevent counterfeit or altered photos.)
I just don't understand how one more potato quality still capture of your face, that by definition is very similar to those they already have, changes the equation much.
Because they are using more than just a 2d photo, these things are taking almost microscopic details in. I just pay the devil and ask for the personal treatment and skip these things. These are not potato quality and the government isn’t as backward at tech as you think. Remember when you’re dealing with cops there is nothing you can say or do that will be to your advantage in court , the same goes in real life. Skip all of these types of security theater as it’s possible. While I did not want to see the new regime change in Washington because of the high chance of economic and challenges to democracy, one of the things they might cut back on is stuff like this; a Harris admin certainly was not going to be.
You've precisely described the reason I will not fly commercial anymore. All of this surveillance has a chilling effect. On citizens, on business, on international trade.
Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.
Also, the thing you're ignoring, and perhaps why you fail to understand the problem, is you haven't bothered to ask what the false positive rate is. Would you enjoy being stopped and arrested by very cocksure police simply because a computer made a mistake and they refuse to believe that?
> Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.
In Germany, there is no way you'll get on a commercial airfield without going through security, and if you're not a passenger but an employee or a pilot, you'll need a comprehensive background check.
Only exemption for now is ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car (or if you just compare kinetic energy, even less dangerous because they're barely half a ton in weight.
> a commercial airfield
Your "commercial airfield" may actually be two airfields in one. This is not uncommon. There is a "commercial" side which is where public carriers usually work and there is a "private" side which is where individuals and often cargo works.
Aside from this there are plenty of private airfields in Germany.
> ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car
The cool things about vehicles is you can put things in them. Things like explosives. The incredibly low tech version of this is currently in use in some parts of the world, and that is where you attach a mortar to a drone, then go drop it on a target.
God I hate this argument and this blunt misunderstanding of computer vision. (I've dealt with it so many times on reddit) Frequently I'm met with these arguments with some imaginative justification for this technology. At this point it's hard to be convinced that the arguements aren't an AstroTurf by security vendors. (Yes dang, I realize this is bad to make this accusation to say but I'm speaking generically and over a large group of people)
Additionally you threw in a false equivalency: But a ton of things are going on..you're useless in fighting it. On top of that you threw in an accusation that "if you don't then face longer lines".
The cameras that are above aren't good enough to do a confident identification of an individual. They're great for tracking where unique blobs go.
The picture they are doing a comparison against is a profile picture and consistent lighting. Additionally the old picture that is on your license is a much older photo. The thread here is that the people who are taking your image now are updating their models and maintaining the models of what you look like. With that they are able to retroactively and perform future lookups on different visual datasources about what you did. (Gas stations, stores, weed shop, adult toy store, walking down the red light district, being on a train, etc)
Where is the line where you say "stop"?
People started complaining about cameras, and airport id checks, and facial recognition, and REAL ID, and incentives like PreCheck to support mass fingerprinting for a decade or three.
At some point the rubber band breaks, or at least one of the ropes snap.
I can’t believe it has gone this far. I was flying out of Logan airport (Boston) and had to have my face scanned right boarded the plane. There was nothing about opting out. It seemed like I didn’t comply, I wasn’t flying.
I hate this. Feels so wrong and dystopian. They need to abolish this. It’s so unnecessary.
So a bipartisan group of Senators can write a letter to the TSA speaking out against a policy but not get themselves to bring it to the floor and vote against it? Which is, you know, their actual job?
Hard to think of their intentions as anything more than theater for their voter base.
You write a letter and hopefully that solves it.
You then hold a committee meeting and hopefully that solves it.
You finally change federal law and usually that solves it.
If it doesn't you have to start arresting people to foment change.
This is not a gentle tool.
Being subtle never works.
Making it a requirement sounds like some project manager has a KPI to hit to justify the expense of the hardware rollout. Maybe a stretch since I doubt most people opted out anyway.
Either that or they took a page out of the big tech playbook where the plan was to boil the frog all along.
Did you even read the article?
And the senators’ letter quotes a talk given by TSA Administrator David Pekoske in 2023 in which he said “we will get to the point where we require biometrics across the board.”
As opposed to hoping the TSA agent doesn't properly proof you to your government credential you hand them? The data is already there, in state motor vehicle databases, and various federal databases. If you have Global Entry or PreCheck, your biometrics are already on file. The Dept of State has your photo associated with your passport, as does the DoD Common Access Card system.
Sibling comment covers this well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42228984
I was shocked to see this program arrive in my local airport. I opt out every time, but the horrifying thing is that almost everyone simply complies with whatever is asked of them. The TSA agents use phrasing that make it seem like you are supposed to go through the facial recognition process and don’t have a choice. Yes, there are tiny signs scattered around that say you can opt out. But when the officer says “step in front of the camera”, most people comply with what seems like orders from a legal authority.
TSA will punish you for opting out of anything. If you're lucky, the least they will do is hold you up a long time so you have a good chance of missing your flight. I've also had them sexually harass me, and confiscate (e.g. steal) legal items in retaliation for opting out of things I had the legal right to opt out of. They know people are in a hurry and won't do anything about being treated unethically or illegally, because calling them out would require missing your flight.
When I opted out of the scanner once, I had to wait about 20 minutes, and then the TSA agent comes over to do a "pat down" instead, but is going inappropriately slow and squeezing my body, and saying things like "I'd bet you opted out because you like this." I regret not immediately calling them out and filing charges.
I always opt out of the scanner (even have a special shirt [1]), and without fail they always stand me by the intake (radio-leaky-end) of the baggage x-ray machine for 5+ minutes.
[1]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/art/tsashirt.jpg
Just saw this one- love the guy's eye contact also. He knows how to stand up to fascist jerks.
https://preview.redd.it/travel-safe-for-thanksgiving-v0-i3ja...
lol
I had a phase where I would always wear this "cease your investigators" shirt, never had any comments but yea stood by the machine for 5 minutes or so, never considered the machine would be radiating outward as well as inward, but yeah, mostly did it as a small protest, thought it worth demonstrating you don't have to comply.
https://neongrizzly.com/products/cease-your-investigations-i...
That shirt is really something else... you should get one that says "proudly an illegal immigrant" also
The last I was in San Francisco International the TSA staff came barreling out of their door and the first agent out yelled into the terminal, "MAN! I really hope someone opts out today! I can't wait to give that guy a serious patdown."
They're trained to operate in an unethical way.
SFO doesn't use TSA
https://www.flysfo.com/about/airport-operations/safety-secur...
Other than a nearly identical uniform that says CAS in place of TSA there is no apparent difference. Which is why I probably didn't even realize. In any case my return leg was delayed so I rented a car to drive back and have never returned to commercial flights since.
To a person not familiar with the minutiae of government structure "TSA" is a job position as much as an organization, and CAS does have the former.
They're all threats until I walk up to them and actively volunteer. Then it's all "i swear i'm not gay i'm required to touch you near your groin."
The amount of agents who act like that and then start to get shy when you smile and go through with a patdown is pretty comical.
Opting out of the face scanner is a totally different experience than opting out of the body scanner lol
Generally speaking you present ID to pass through security.
The facial recognition is based on the biometric data collected when you got your ID, the ID you presented to pass through security. The ID with your name, address, date of birth, and uniquely identifying number on it. The ID which is associated with your boarding pass. The ID they scan (or they scan the boarding pass which is associated with your ID) prior to letting you through security.
Using facial recognition changes nothing, absolutely nothing, except that it reduces the amount of time spent at the checkpoint.
It does not grant anyone access to any information they do not already have.
It does not impede the traveler in any way.
It does not change, at all, any aspect of one's privacy whatsoever.
"But I don't wanna..." doesn't seem like a defensible position.
I was with you until "doesn't grant them info that they don't already have." It gives them the opportunity to update their face model of you in a confirmed and consistent manner.
It also doesn't improve anything:
An agent comparison of you vs the id is still considered to be the gold standard. When this system fails, you have to default to the agent's comparison. This is a slow down compared to the previous scenario.
The time for an id comparison isn't the bottleneck in security. It's the physical actions used to go through the TSA and the built in inconsistency to prevent people from speedrunning the screening.
Maybe I’m old school but I despise the idea of the government tracking me as I travel. Time and time again they are caught violating privacy laws and abusing power.
Given that you already need government issued ID that matches the name printed on your ticket to travel on an airplane, wouldn’t the government already have the ability to track you, regardless of facial recognition?
Indeed, the government doesn't even need the ID, they ingest a data feed of Passenger Name Records (PNRs) from all airlines. This is why when TSA performs the automated identity proofing, comparing a photo of you to your ID, they don't require that you provide a boarding pass.
Comparing an ephemeral photo taken of you to your government credential at the TSA checkpoint is a temporary formality. At some point, the government credential presentation will be unnecessary.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-recor... (Control-F "What information is collected?")
The US government has access to all of your location history via Verizon/ATT/TMobile.
It is more recent, multi angle, high res data. It allows their training data to be much better.
This "it changes nothing" attitude is unproductive.
> the biometric data collected when you got your ID
When I got my license, which I can use to board a flight in my country I did not give fingerprints or an eye scan. They have my photo, DOB, name - not more.
It could be used to "update" the record.
This isn't a casual mistaken. Taking from the newly implemented border exit control that we've gotten. (If you think we don't have one, re-read that) :
The GAO found that the ability for people to understand that Americans are not required to go through the biometric exit was non-existant and the experience of opting out was very poor.
What this means is signage was not posted that indicating for Americans this is an optional process and people forming the "requirement" were not educated that it is optional for citizens.
Yet, the experience is that people forcefully push people into to posing for the camera with markings on the floor, the lack of opting in/consenting to it, and prevent people from being aware of what's going on. (Yes: You can opt out .. walk up to the board area with your passport open to your photo page)
What do you think opting out does exactly? For the system to work they must already have your photo associated with your name and ID. And even if you opt out they’re still tracking your movement. It seems like an impotent protest so I don’t bother.
They make it opt out so they don't need to demonstrate the cost/benefits of making it required.
They make it opt out because there are always a few people who object[1], so this is a safety valve.
If everyone opted out ("I am Spartacus") then it would stop and they would have to switch to less efficient means. (If it weren't less efficient then they wouldn't need this one.)
As John Gilmore points out at http://new.toad.com/gnu/ :
"If you politely decline to show ID whenever someone asks (or demands) it, and continue politely declining regardless of how they escalate, you will discover what your rights are. You'll be surprised. You'll get away with it. Most of the people who were asking for it have no right to demand it. They've been relying on your voluntary cooperation. They forgot to tell you that part; but you just found it out for yourself. Sometimes you may discover that you didn't have the right to live, move around, or do business in your own country without government-issued documents. That's very interesting knowledge to acquire first-hand too. If you haven't recently tried exercising your right to exist and live without government permission, are you sure you still have that right?"
[1] In one of the author Robert Heinlein's biographical accounts he walks out of a hotel because they demand to see id at registration. He went to another hotel which did not.
What are you opting out of?
Every state id picture is run through facial recognition, and that data is processed to detect duplicate people and other issues. Every passport has a picture which is digitized for facial recognition.
This is a good thing, as it potentially disarms the stupid RealID fiasco with respect to ID and airports.
There is no privacy benefit to document validation.
Americans can opt out.
You're talking about the border exit. We're talking about security after checkin.
Nope - Canadian here, opted out in Austin.
People just want to get through an incredibly annoying experience as fast as possible, and they know the people behind them want this too. Doesn’t excuse the bullshit, but it’s much less of a dramatic “sheep bowing to authority” than made out to be here.
This is it. I don't think I've opted out of it. I know I can but I know the agent is going to make a big deal of it and the line is already long for everyone behind me so whatever lets just get through it.
Nah. In my experience when you opt out, they say “Okay,” scan your ID the same way they’ve been doing for 20 years, and you get through in the same time.
If they want to entice us with convenience, the facial recognition should allow you to just stroll through without talking to anyone.
I'll do it next time I'm flying to see what happens.
Senators should not be complaining about this. Congress required the TSA to check identity, and soon, REAL ID will be required to fly in the US, even domestically. So what's their problem with doing it effectively?
There is only one sort of person who signs up to check internal passports and search innocent people, and I don’t care what color shirt they’re wearing these days.
> There is only one sort of person who signs up to check internal passports and search innocent people
People needing a job?
Abolish the TSA completely. Get back the billions in funds that are allocated for this security theatre. Unfortunately this will never happen
It will happen if enough voters make it clear to their elected representatives that they want them to repeal the laws passed after 9/11 that mandate the security screening that TSA does. I agree that's highly unlikely, but it was voters who clamored for those laws in the first place after 9/11, so it's voters that need to push for getting them repealed.
Unless you are implying having no security at airports whatsoever (which will never happen), abolishing TSA simply means replacing one central agency with hundreds/thousands of private security agencies and companies in every state and city, which will only increase costs.
You should let SFO and the handful of other airports with private security know they can decrease costs by switching to TSA.
Except, quoting https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/11/pros-and-cons-privati...
> Contractors provide a more flexible workforce for his airport, and on top of that, it’s easier to show people the door, he said.
> “If employees are not performing, they can be dealt with appropriately, better or more effectively on a contract side than a government side,” Sprenger said.
> Labor unions say the real reason airports want to go with contractors is simple: to cut costs. James Mudrock is the president of AFGE Local 1230, the union representing TSA workers in Sacramento, California.
Not to mention that COVID revealed it all a farce. We have shown that we don't really care about millions dying.
the entire tsa is out of control. blow it away elon
Elon doesn’t blow much of anything other than hot air. His joke DOGE will amount to nothing other than another failed ego trip for him and Ramaswamy.
Elon’s technology first approach would be… to eliminate facial recognition?
Nah. I suspect his first target will be the NLRB.
I'll take facial recognition over long TSA lines any day. I can't wait until we have full-throughput non-blocking walk-through security.
That won’t happen since they will always want to go through your bags either by X-ray or by hand, that won’t change ever.
What makes you think this will make lines move any faster? The bottleneck has always been body/luggage scanning, and that isn't changing.
Just remove TSA. Airport security provides nothing.
So I’ve heard this a lot, but how can we actually test this? The only realistic test I can imagine here is that the TSA shuts down for a decade and we see what happens?
That’s a risk I’m willing to take. I hate the TSA. I’ll take my chances in a world without them if given the opportunity.
Because other forms of mass travel such as trains and buses, which barely have any security checks, rarely get blown up by bombs smuggled on to them, or hijacked by guns smuggled onto them.
There's never been a bomb in the maze/lines before security. Why not?
They test the TSA with weapons and most get through. This means people don't wish to use weapons to hijack planes, or it would happen way more often and it doesn't.
That will never happen. The long lines and inconveniences are the point, not a side effect.
How many shoe bombers does the TSA catch in a day? 0. In a month? 0. Since the only shoe bomber? 0. We still take off our shoes. Same with underwear bombs. 0. We still partially undress and do the nude-a-tron.
The point is, we could already ditch the lines, we don't want to.
This anti-tiger rock only costs $10 billion!
Now try the bomb detector wands
I mean it's like saying what's the point of a security feature if thing that feature prevents from happening isn't happening after implementing that feature.
Sure, there's some truth to that, but shoe bombs, underpants bombs and the two liquids bombs have never been tried again. If they did, they would set off their shoes and underpants in the "cattle maze", where there are several planesfull of people, and nobody has been ID'ed, or x-rayed or swabbed.
There's nothing magical about setting off a bomb on a plane as far as terrorizing a populace goes. Bombs in the mazes before "security" would be effective, as we learned at the Boston Marathon.
Already exists when entering the US using global entry. No need to show your passport anymore, just walk right through.
“For any amount convenience, it’s okay to discriminate against people based on any collection of facts, including ones you can see on their face like their heritage, so long as none of those facts are mine.”
Serious question: why is this bad? Is it just the 3% false negative rate? I don't see the negative privacy implications of face recognition when the alternative is to present your face (via photo ID) anyway.
I enjoy traveling to Berlin for vacation, as it's a totally different atmosphere around privacy. Default payment is cash, your entry and exit from train stations is not tracked (surveilled perhaps, but you do not tap-in/tap-out or god forbid tap your credit card every time you step on a train like SF or NYC), and it's against the law to publish photographs of someone without their consent.
Ask IBM what becomes of databases full of people's names associated with their movements.
It is not against the law to publish photographs of someone without their consent. People post me to Instagram without my consent in Berlin all of the time.
It is against the law: https://www.lhr-law.de/en/thema/media-law/the-right-to-your-...
There are some carve outs for including you in a picture of something else, but there is, at least, social backpressure to swinging a camera around.
I think this is silly given how much Germany is actively helping a country where the PM of that country has an arrest warrant out for him through the ICC.
Germany is still facilitating an alleged genocide. The only thing that has changed is the profile of the victims. The situation now is even worse, given that practically everyone in the world knows what’s happening but life is going on as normal.
I appreciate the response, but it seems that database can be constructed with or without facial recognition because photo ID is already required. So, I ask again, why is this bad?
Showing ID to pass a gate is somewhat different than having a timestamped record of the fact that you passed a gate, but I agree that given it's already surveilled it's not a big difference. Still, small differences add up.
I mean, it was living memory for many HN'ers that you could travel freely in the United States with doing either. It's a post-9/11 thing that an airline ticket is associated with a unique person, and requires a matching photo ID.
There was a time when America's security forces did not routinely surveil its own peoples' movements.
When I was a kid there were classified ads like "Pan Am NYC Dec 20-28, E. Smith, $200 o.b.o" for people who wanted to resell their ticket because they couldn't make the trip. There were no id checks then.
In the 1990s the airplanes jumped at the opportunity to have required id checks so they could take control of the secondary market.
It was still possible to buy a ticket like "E. Smith", but that option was cut off a few years later.
The leviathan is often arbitrary and capricious.
(American here) A quick search shows Pew Research, National Academies Press (associated with the Library Of Congress), AmericaUnderWatch dot com, Politico and Georgetown Law .. all with varying responses to this question. In the case of social structure and law, there are many layers, interwoven, and difficult or impossible to fit into chat-level responses.
I also can't see the tracking difference between a human verifying your identity and entering that into a database and a computer verifying your identity and entering that into a database.
But it's still a valid concern as to whether or not this new system is at least as secure and privacy-respecting as the old one.
Automation and scale? You can't imagine how technology that allows a small number of people to automatically surveil billions of people can enable horrors that would be more difficult if you needed to use a labor force of hundreds of thousands of humans?
I don't disagree, but installing face scanners at the same location humans do face scanning and using them the same as they used the humans is not the same as mass surveillance.
What that has to do with TSA Checkpoint at the airport? How many people go to through that checkpoint isn't dictated by how automated it is - it's dictated by how many people are flying.
All this thing does it speeds up process of you getting through TSA.
No faster than having a human hold up your id and compare it, plus now you don’t have yet another digital copy of your face floating around for the police state.