- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
We were told it was not optional coming home from an international flight last month. However, our toddler was with us and nervous and they said we could opt out for him. I said great, thanks. Picked him up while we were talking and I wasn’t really thinking about where I was holding him. The agent looked over, smiled and said hi to get their attention, and I saw him take the image, seconds after we verbally opted out. Sigh.
I’m a bit confused at the technology here…or the logic.
They say they don’t store your photo. So how does taking a photo prove anything if there’s no data to compare it to?
they are comparing it to the id.
My dumb ass thought I could do this at immigration. Partner loved me asking
I’m legitimately surprised at the amount of actual morons in this thread popping out with the ol “They already have it why not just make it as easy as possible for them to continually keep an updated database of your current facial appearance?”.
Same vein as “I have nothing to hide so privacy invasions are fine!”. Fuck off with this cattle-ass mindset.
Last time I tried to opt out of the face scan the TSA agent literally laughed in my face, the rule of law is a joke in this country.
Insist.
Does this also apply to the face scans they ask U.S. citizens to do when passing the Canadian border?
If it’s into Canada, I don’t think you have that option. If it’s into the US, then yeah, they have to let you enter, so I assume refusing face scans is allowed. They can certainly detain you, but you have rights. IANAL though, and YMMV depending on the color of your skin and/or accent, unfortunately.
Every time I opt out I am mysteriously pulled aside for a “randomized check.”
I opt out whenever I travel and I get random checks about 4/5 times now. I definitely don’t flag on this scale either.
That’s odd. I opted out and was meet with no fuss whatsoever. Might have just been lucky.
Fascinating how many “people” here are saying it’s ok, “you’re already on camera”, "your picture is on your ID "…
And? I’ll still say no.
Better start wearing burka going forward if u think TSA face recognition is taking your privacy away. There are 100s of camera in airport that already know who u are and what you are boarding. And this was implemented like 20 years ago right after 911
My question is does opt out keep them from imaging your id in any way? Because my id already has my photo.
Probably not. But you have the right to opt out, so you should. Don’t make it any more convenient for them to violate your rights than you have to, and if someone proves they’re retaining data illegally, you could join a class action lawsuit.
If you comply, you might save a few minutes. Is that really worth it?
Didn’t take any extra time for me to opt out in SFO. It was a quick and he just took an extra 2 seconds to stare at my ID and face.
I mean the convenience is worth it when the commodity is valueless. They got that when I applied for passport at the federal level and drivers license at the state level. Some folks give facebook a whole bunch and out all their relatives.
deleted by creator
You can opt out, here’s why!
…
The government might use your picture for something nefarious in the future we can’t even think of an example of besides real-time tracking. ooooOOOOOoooOooo.
You are on candid camera every time you’re in the airport guys. You’re probably carrying a tracking device in your pocket already. This article doesn’t say anything about anything, it’s slop.
I love how “it’s already bad may as well go full stupid” is your security and privacy policy.
Open with this if you interview with us, okay? I’ll tell my boss to look out for it and save us some time.
Open with this if you interview with us, okay? I’ll tell my boss to look out for it and save us some time.
This is some “That happened” material right here.
Why SHOULD you decline to have a photo taken to compare to your ID with your photo on it? This article doesn’t say that, but that’s what the headline reads.
This is not “it’s already bad, might as well go full stupid” so much as “did you know bread has dirt in it? you should avoid it.” - people who don’t wash their hands after they shit.
By all means decline the picture, but most people have way, WAY bigger security and privacy problems than having a live picture taken when they fly once a year.
I’m sure they do have many problems. This is an easy one to fix.
Is it a problem though? Or just questionable security hygiene? That’s the issue I take with the article: the headline says “BIG PROBLEM” but then doesn’t deliver any supporting evidence.
I’d say questionable security hygiene is a problem.
Oh no the government might get access to my picture, which they already have access to!
Why would you defend this?
We trust an enormous amount of data to the federal government, and until recently, that privacy risk was mitigated by the fact that the branches did not automatically share data with each other.
Now, they are trying to vacuum it all up, and increase the power of the government.
Why should the federal government have my driver’s license photo anyway? That’s through the state. And even if they did, why should I give them easy access to an updated photo of me, cross referenced with my name and identity?
If the answer is it speeds up the TSA’s job and makes them more accurate, I don’t think that’s a compelling enough reason for me personally to give up that little bit of privacy.
If this is for surveillance, it’s an absolute nothingburger. Your face is public data, not something protected by privacy. Period. Your boarding pass is already tracking your location at a specific time, so the photo doesn’t do anything about tracking either. The only practical use for this is quick identity verification.
I will be very happy to change my mind if someone can give me a specific privacy violation, but no one has said anything except vague murmurs about “tracking”.
Now if they require you to unlock your phone? Yeah. That’s a BIG fucking privacy violation.
No my face is not public data. While I may choose to appear in public with my face, if a private party wants to use my likeness, in advertising for example, they have to get my consent. It’s not in the public domain, unless I’m a celebrity. I see no reason why we should just roll over and allow anyone to use our faces for any purposes without contesting it.
If some government spy wants to make a dossier on me, it would be easy to hire a photographer to take a recent photo. But they can’t do this on a large scale. What they can do is pay a company that already has a model of my face, which I object to, and then they can try to run facial recognition algorithms on anyone who turns out at a demonstration, for instance.
I can only mitigate the threat of public photos of myself so much, like not having photos on social media or LinkedIn. Maybe someday I’ll be able to opt myself out of facial recognition databases.
Choosing not to let the TSA routinely take a high quality photo of my face is just a small way to mitigate against how many facial recognition databases I’m in, and how high quality their models are.
If any of this is wrong I would be glad to be corrected.
The fact that you don’t like your face being public data changes nothing about whether or not it actually is public data.
Just because you say it is public doesn’t make it so.
The fact that you have to sign model consent forms is proof enough that it’s not public.
Incorrect, your face is public data. The consent forms for model are the use of your likeness for commercial purposes which is a very different context.
Whether it is for commercial advertising purposes or commercial surveillance purposes, I don’t see why surveillance should have less protection.
So far you are all saying this is not correct, but without some kind of documentation it seems like companies and governments are seeing how far they can go before getting pushback.
In my opinion, the privacy violation would be taking my biometric data without my consent (e.g. facial geometry, fingerprint, blood, dna/genetics, etc.) While yes my face is public, I’d rather not give them a high-res facial geometry map that gets fast-tracked directly to a database.
Making it harder for them makes them put in the effort to track or profile people which does not eliminate the problem, but does make it more difficult and thus more resource consuming for them, especially if many people do the same
This is basically fear mongering. You’re worried about what they might do rather than what they are doing, which is not keeping the pics taken at kiosks. This is even mentioned in the article.
I’d certainly be worried about any plans they have, but skipping the pics now isn’t doing anything for either party unless you don’t believe what they say. Which is fair enough, but you’d need to provide a reason to doubt it.
what they might do rather than what they are doing, which is not keeping the pics taken at kiosks
Do you have proof of that? I personally don’t trust what law enforcement says. They have already proven themselves incompetent and to have no respect for the law, what more reason do I need to not trust them?
Even if I do believe them, making things inconvenient for the police is just a small way for me to get back at them for making my life inconvenient. If enough people push back and slow TSA to a crawl, they’ll reconsider the policy.
The current admin is utilizing IRS data for deportation efforts and the USPS for data collection in furtherance of those same efforts. Why would collection of facial recognition data from the TSA be any different?
The TSA site specifically says that the photos are not stored. AI training data generated from the “live” photo(s) they take would be just as useful to them for the things people should be worried about and there’s no mention of them not storing that data.
Is that even something they do though? Or just another “but they could” argument?
It’s a “but they could.” The fact they are doing the comparison means there’s some sort of machine learning/AI going on which would have to generate some sort of dataset to function. So if they weren’t going to store any of that data they could say so instead of only saying “photos” won’t be stored.
The site does later say “Biometrics are not used for surveillance – Facial recognition technology is solely used to automate the current manual ID credential checking process and will not be used for surveillance or any law enforcement purpose.” (so they do seems to understand the difference between “photos” and “biometrics”) but things can change and the possible existence of such data would make it much easier to end up legally/illegally being used for such things than if it doesn’t exist.
You don’t need to provide a reason, you just have to say you choose to opt out.
Frankly with how easily this administration attempts to skirt the law, and defy judges that tell them to knock it off, I would not trust that the TSA is always deleting the photos that they’re supposed to.
