Senators blast DHS facial scanning at airports | Hacker News Reader

Senators blast DHS facial scanning at airports

thehill.com

82 pointsbickfordb50 comments

I hate the fact that US citizens are increasingly treated as enemy combatants.

I have a citizenship for a reason. You know who I am. I shouldn't not be subjected to unreasonable search, I should be treated to an express lane where they can simply scan my ID, see I am not a threat and let me go on my way.

I have a suspicion that the TSAs unreasonable behaviour (unreasonable adherance to protocol) is due to them being subject to random performance tests where they actually do send through enlderly women in wheelchairs with contraband straped to their butt and automatically flag them for extra search. Failing to detect the contraband in this case is probably punished in some way so the agents are forced to throw all common sense out the window when handling people[0] that have been flagged for additional screening.

[0] People like me. I get flagged every single time I enter the United States.

Sorry everyone. Explaining this person's comment, this comment was on-topic but I deleted a huge personal story about going through security and seeing an elderly woman in a wheelchair getting flagged.

My post got downvoted since the story was a bit rambly so I removed it. :)

They do conduct undercover tests, and the TSA consistently fails them: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-o...

Indeed things like guns go unnoticed in these tests but at least Americans are safe from the hazards regular sized containers of shampoo and toothpaste.

Is it worth the human cost?

Anecdotally, my octagenarian grandmother outright refuses to fly anymore. Why? Because about a year ago she had to go through a 3-hour intensive screening/interview process which involved invasive searches because she had used hair spray that morning.

Ridiculous. Knowing her, if she hadn't had a relative with her, she probably would have wound up in the hospital. And that's justified because the agency is afraid of failure?

No, they have already failed beyond redemption IMO.

Probably not. There's about 900 million passengers a year in the US (https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts018_16), so if you assume a 15 minute wait, you can estimate number of lifetimes lost in line: ((((900,000,000 * 15) / 60) / 24) / 365.25) / 78.74 = 325.98.

Not to say we should have no security, but I suspect we're past the point of doing more harm than good.

> agents are forced to throw all common sense out the window when handling people

It is not common sense but totally sensical. A grandma could have been threatened to strap it on her butt or her relative/friend gets it in the head.

Internal US propaganda channels have been working up the hatred against internal threats, too.

Leaving the United States is the best decision I ever made. And watching what's transpired in the (almost) ten years since I left makes me despair for the folks I still know there.

Where did you go that you enjoy so much? Not challenging, asking sincerely.

I'm glad you are happy but please also forgive me for saying this is a very un-American attitude. This country is not perfect but we won't fix the problems by running away from them. I don't need your despair.

It's quite possible that beeddogs is Ukranian. Or Indian. Or Laotian. Or any number of other nationalities that I've worked with over the years. And their response might be, "if that's what an 'American attitude' means, I'm going back home." And that's just one of the many more charitable hypotheses I came up with.

I don't see a problem with the attitude that the country can be changed by its citizens.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with this thought, however the amount and kind of work needed to change the current situation is revolutionary.

It's perfectly logical they might say that. They'd probably go somewhere else if there was more money there. You met them in a working environment because they're here primarily for money.

Is "American attitude" a historical term? Certainly doesn't seem like America has the "American attitude" to which I suspect you're alluding.

Just a random thought: what does citizenship have to do with it?

Why is it not okay to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, but okay to discriminate based on citizenship, which for most cases is what you're stuck with at birth and hard to change?

This is a blind spot I believe we will one day recognize as regressive.

That said, part of being a citizen is having trustworthy documentation on record. The trust conferred by this information ought to be granted regardless of the traits you’ve identified.

Good point. When the NSA started going crazy and spied everyone, it was the first time I saw the "It's not OK to spy on USA citizens, but it's OK for foreign citizens" reasoning. I don't know if it was used as openly before.

Invasive facial recognition in physical places seems to be the future. A nightclub I walk by on my way to work has a sign up outside stating that they're operating facial recognition cameras. At least they disclose it, I suspect many more places aren't. We need legal recourse against this sort of invasive spying by both private and public parties.

Anyone want to guess what percent of these places keep their facial tracking database in an incorrectly configured public AWS bucket?

I bet it's not 0.

Who on earth is downvoting these comments?

Case in point...

Realistically, I think the even bigger problem will be whatever private company provides this facial recognition service probably aggregating their data from thousands of sites and selling it to advertisers/stalkers/etc.

Maybe securing it poorly on top of that.

Or if the places using it are in control of their own data, they'll be reselling it to data brokers because hey, free money. Doesn't cost them anything, just their customers' privacy.

It's trite and flippant, but one response I have to public officials doing this is, "you first".

When I can know where my Congresscritters are at every moment, every time they cross a camera's path. Who visits them, in public and in private. What shows they watch -- and their children and grandchildren.

Same goes for our tech lords.

You first.

That’d be cool if citizens just did this to make a point. Could the cameras be small or discrete enough to install in several places in DC, so that even politicians walk by a website is updated? There has to be enough video training footage for them in the public. What’s the legality of this?

Regardless of legality have fun explaining it to the Secret Service.

Yeah I wonder what they could do, if anything. Especially if it was on private property with owners consent. It’ll never happen but fun to think about.

Assuming congress doesn't have special laws for themselves (quite likely –_–) there's still stalking to contend with. http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-cen...

Even if individuals just posted footage from their properties and some DAO actually did the aggregation, image processing, and posting, I bet any individuals connected to the effort would still get harassed by law enforcement.

The facial recognition camera they use is an ID checking machine. They're basically used to prevent liability for underage drinkers, and to keep track of banned patrons.

They're not actively scanning your face in the club, and I question how good the facial recognition actually is.

Regardless, it's a private establishment, you don't have to go there and get your face scanned if you don't want to. You do have legal recourse, you can choose not to patronise that establishment.

Sure, but there's no legal requirement for them to notify me that such behavior is occurring. And in the case of this article, it's not exactly something you have the option not to participate in. I guess my point is that is should be be seen an an acceptable or reasonable or non-invasive thing.

It's quite obvious it's happening, they take your ID, and put it in a fairly conspicuous machine.

I think it's fair to assume that anywhere that is recording video is running facial scanning, as they have the capability to. If it's not a legal requirement where you live for businesses (and government) to put signage where security cameras are in operation, that's a concern.

Is that really all they are used for? I'd be shocked if they weren't also used to identify VIPs and big spenders to do things that would generate additional revenue. Or do things like track the gender and age ratios to let the bouncer's know how many people of which types to let in.

Bouncers usually have a pretty good idea of the age and gender ratios in the club and who to let in.

A few years ago I went to a place with that. I didn't have a driver's license with me, just a passport that obviously didn't fit into the card slot.

So the guy just looked at the passport and let me in.

At least they disclose it, I suspect many more places aren't.

Last time I was in a Vegas casino, I don't recall any signs (granted, it's been a few years). I do know that there are cameras everywhere, and casinos have been using facial recognition for a while.

The referenced study:

https://www.airportfacescans.com/

Article says this program is opt-in. Does that mean you can decline? If so, I wonder how one does that.

I wrote to the CBP years ago when they instituted kiosks that took your picture to "expedite customs" asking how to opt out. My question was lost 3 times, and finally the response was "there is no way to opt out."

Using facial recognition tech is just common sense. Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law?

Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face?

Yes. A machine can record that data, and others can look at it later. The issue is not what we can readily see, but storing recordings and and information gleaned from those recordings.

This is the same issue when you replace a person with a surveillance camera that records video.

> Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face?

Seriously? Yes, of course it does, by a gigantic amount; this should be maddeningly self-evident. Human beings do not, for instance, have instant recall of hundreds of millions of names and faces.

Can you explain? I don't see it as any more invasive than taking a photo of a person.

And you don't have a problem with everyone at an airport being photographed for an undisclosed purpose?

Also, the photo is being analyzed. As in, the photo doesn't just exist, your identity is tied to it. It's not just the same thing as taking a photo.

>Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law?

Because I am a US citizen who under the US constitution is protected against unreasonable search.

Being forced to have my face scanned to leave my country is beyond unreasonable.

I am not sure if it is in the constitution but being able to freely leave the country should be a no-brainer. Leaving the country should involve no paperwork or procedure for US citizens. Entering the country should involve a rubberstamp procedure where they verify you are who you state you are.

I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry if it meant I could scan my passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

>I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry if it meant I could scan my passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-...

So why would the Constitution be a barrier to whatever the government wants to do? It's only a piece of paper unless enforced by the elected and appointment officials and judges. If they choose to ignore it there is nothing you can do other than hope you can vote in someone who does.

freedom of movement is in the universal declaration of human rights

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

If the camera is doing the same thing as a human then use humans. Call it a jobs program. If the camera does something else then your argument is invalid. Since they are using the cameras and not more people when I think it is clear we are not talking about the same thing.

Definitely since a person analyzing my face is just looking at it and not flipping through millions of pictures comparing it at the speed of thought and also magically collating that with the rest of me (credit rating, salary, lifestyle markers, etc.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com