Delta to start scanning faces at airport check-in
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Now other companies will offer large amounts of money for this data because they can identify you when you enter stores, walk by things, have your picture online, etc.
This is different to let’s say Facebook because the scans are made at a booth with professional scanning equipment, not some person’s crappy holiday picture with too much backlight.
Also, there is no doubt about who is scanned while on social media you might get on someone’s pictures and Facebook will ask “is this James?” Ehm maybe. Not with delta though.
In a few years you will get extorted for this info bacausenif you don’t let your face get scanned, you can’t fly. Complete distopia.
EDIT: Re: the "quality" of those photos: Because "they" already have the original image that was printed on your license or passport. Images really don't need to be that big or high quality to identifiably determine your facial features.
I'm talking about scanning the photo you gave them to make your passport with.
Why, for example, do you think they've started rejecting passport photos where you're wearing glasses, even if you otherwise wear them all of the time?
Also note that quality of Delta's photo booth will be much better than a copy of your passport.
DL photos are an extremely specific specification (no smiling, headgear etc) and only 1 angle. Delta could gather a much richer data set with these cameras.
They're using your passport number, and either matching that with your passport file photo at the Department of State (for US citizens) or from the immigration entry database (for everyone else). This part's not that sophisticated.
Not to say there's not plenty of things to be concerned about here, but this information has always been readily available on the government's end. It's just the most visible use of it to date.
Exactly, the government, not some company that is building a database full of personal info connected to proper face-scans. This data is very valuable for advertisers/other ill-willed companies.
More seriously, the amount of security theater going on at airports is getting out of hand. It's obvious that this is intended to start off optional, gradually warm people up to the new norm and then ramp up the data collection.
Because here I am, as a Libertarian/AnCap, and all I can think is: "What, they haven't already been doing this at secure locations for at least a decade?!"
With the amount of corruption I've seen in Africa/third-world, I would not trust any sort of official documentation coming from them. Biometric data allows an entity/government to tie down or verify a person's identity beyond the limitations of human-corruptible identification documents. And the only way to do that is to build a database to cross-reference and detect fraud.
What is a "secure area", and what is required to make it secure?
I ask because I think it's an overly broad characterization which doesn't distinguish between the different types of security under discussion.
If you think the secure area is the flights, and the level of security you need is the ability to prevent certain types of weapons and explosives from entering the airplane, then what is the need for yet another layer of physical identity checking?
Why is there any need for identity checking? If you are known to have malign intent (but not enough to arrest you), and you don't have any guns, knives, explosives, etc. that can cause problem then why does it matter that we also have automated facial recognition combined with long-term record storage? Bear in mind too that some countries do not require any id for domestic travel, though still do require security checks.
On the other hand, if you think the "secure area" is the US border, then as a libertarian, what is the amount of intrusion that the government should be allowed to do on a US citizen in order to allow that citizen to traverse the border?
As the article points out, last year the TSA's views were 'if you don't like it, don't travel internationally by air.' Can not any border check be justified in the name of security? DNA analysis? Scanning of all data sources you have? Release of your passwords to any servers?
Which "secure area" do you mean, how might it be helped by having this sort of system, and what are the potential downsides?
As a libertarian, how does that change your views with respect to someone who is, say, a Nordic-style democratic socialist and decidedly not not a libertarian?
Further, it's not "by force" if it's a pre-requisite for being on private property, which would be the proper analogy if you want to discuss this in an AnCap context.
> The airline said the biometric facial scanning is optional — a move that will shave off a few minutes off each flight
as long as they are only allowed to use this data to secure flights, and nothing else (including selling it).
Laws against tracking and selling of private data needs to step up in the USA (i would imagine this falls under GDPR, and you'd have to give consent in europe for this to happen).
it has always been out of hand. most of the security theater actually increases the threat surface of transit, making it easier for anyone with malicious intent to kill many people.
the fact that we have not seen attacks is proof that the terrorism threat is very far overblown... and yet the government needs no more excuses. they have their foot in the door.
welcome to our surveillance dystopia, HN -- you built it even when we warned you this would happen. predictably, nobody will volunteer to clean up the mess they have made.
It's a CBP-operated system called Biometric Exit, and from what I've heard is being rolled out at other airports, including Boston [1], San Jose [2], and Orlando [3]. So it's not exclusive to Delta or ATL... though this might be the largest deployment so far.
[1]: https://www.airportfacescans.com/
[2]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/06/san-jose-airport-show...
[3]: https://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2018/08/five-examples...
Go through a detailed background check and in-person interviews and biometric capture -- then discover at the airport (JFK for example) anyone with the Mobile Passport app on iOS can breeze right through the same global entry lanes, without having to use the Global Entry machines ...
Mobile Passport - Breeze through Customs
The Mobile Passport app speeds you through U.S. Customs and Border Protection at 3 cruise ports and 25 airports.
This app is officially authorized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
There are still marginal benefits of GE over Mobile Passport - more airports have GE, you get expedited service at land borders and at Canadian airports, and you can cut the standard line if the kiosks are broken. My favorite part of GE might be the reciprocal benefits you get in other countries though. For instance, you can sign up with the UK to use their automated border gates which is normally limited to EU citizens only.
Spoke to customs officer for the express line handling both, who observed because of commingled lines and no kiosk, MP can indeed get you through quicker.
As if in the past this wasn't done by handling back the I94/I94W to the airline or done automatically through passport numbers in more recent times.
The fact that CBP is just now bothering to comply with the law should be more alarming.
Interestingly enough, that same announcement wasn’t made on the China -> USA leg of the flight. I don’t know about airplanes being a public space, but it’s definitely private property and companies can and do record on their property for all manner of reasons, marketing will be the primary driver I awesome.
What would audio analysis tell an airline about additional products / services they could be selling customers that are currently untapped?
I for one tend to complain about my seat, mainly mumbling to myself, but if I had a offer to move to any open seat for a $20 fee. I’d take it in heart beat.
That's free. Just move once the plane is in the air. You are free to do so on any plane I've ever been on.
But yes, it's usually not a problem
Otherwise, of course there's no issue.
It’s common for them to paint their chins black and this affects the ML which assesses your facial proportions throwing it off the scent.
I wonder if it’d be possible to design makeup that’s subtle enough to fool the naked eye but that would alter your facial structure when viewed by a camera? Maybe some type of reflexive make up that might make your irises look much further apart?
My face is not a secret. The photons that bounce off my face in all forward directions are not my property. Anybody is welcome to capture these photons if they come into that person's possession, whether it's a camera on the street of a facial recognition system in an airport.
I'm very concerned about security and expression in our world, but I think we need to notice which things are naturally public (such as the likeness of our face) and which aren't.
I believe there's a site somewhere on the internet that was originally premised on being "a book of faces"...
> Do citizens have a right to be forgotten in such a database?
No. The idea of a "right to be forgotten" is an effort to manipulate the memories of other people, and that's not a right at all. I have a right to remember you. I have right to tell other people what I remember of you.
This is essential for collective social and political action.
However, let’s not simply dispose of the conversation, and leave it at that. There are quite a few more twists and turns right around the next bend...
Which takes a cue from the idea of using tracking pixels, browser fingerprinting and cookies at all. If I visited your website three days ago, and explored a few link paths, would you be so kind as to show me the same website you show to everyone, instead of modifying your website in confusing ways, so as to either extract value from my actions or reduce them to limited options that act against my normal inclinations?
So, with that, a deeper realization starts to develop, that simply “asking people to be nice” within the context of rational facts isn’t good enough. Yes, faces aren’t secret. But the unflinching long term memories of biometric recognition systems, operating with direct connection to systematic business rules as brutal as any cold-blooded algorithmic stock trader, looking at user names like ticker symbols, cannot simply be trusted to be nice.
I encourage you to expand this into a full blog post if you haven't already.
I dump my thoughts out in the open, under arbitrary handles, when I think at least one person could use the sound of my voice.
The Fourth Amendment does not restrict the generation of such structured data which, to my mind, is evidence that a Constitutional Amendment to protect US citizens from governmental surveillance should be written and ratified.
EDIT: add missing direct object at end of 1st paragraph.
Does it seem reasonable to have law enforcement go through your curbside trash for evidence when you're suspected of a crime? How about when a private investigator hired by a competitor in your industry looks for discarded documents? Or when an unfriendly journalist counting how many liquor bottles you've tossed? The trash is naturally public in all those cases.
To play devil's advocate, how do you feel about this statement?
My DNA is not a secret. The traces that shed from my body are not my property. Anybody is welcome to capture these traces if they come into that person's possession, whether it's fallen strand of hair or a DNA profiling system in an airport.
Umm, yeah, that sounds totally reasonable to me. If I shed cells all over the earth, is every piece of matter that was ever part of me my property in perpetuity? Obviously not. When I excrete or shed or discard, the matter with which I have parted ways becomes in the public domain of nature and subject to whatever exercise the public creatures may desire, from consumption for nutrition to examination for insight.
Sure man, follow me around and grab traces of my DNA is you want. It's none of my business.
Many people blinded by "security". Should be aware of this phenomenon.
it's because the authorities prey on fear. It stops people from thinking rationally.
Security is always a trade off, but what is getting traded off for having some security is never clearly laid out.
You can pick and choose rights that are important to you and say America is number one. Others can say America is positively lacking in other important aspects. It can easily be argued that America isn't even the best when it comes to protecting freedom of speech, and it's evident with how American-run tech corps police what's permitted on their sites to fit with American laws.
Personally, I found America to be too constricting and the police state overwhelming, and I left for somewhere with more freedom. :)
There is also no argument to be made at all when it comes to speech. America has by far the most extensive and thorough protections for expression and association in the world.
Individuals in America also have much more protection from police interference than in any other country. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments all protect individuals against malicious police actions and prosecutions. There is simply no other country that has anything remotely close to the Bill of Rights.
Additionally, many video games have had to release versions with reduced blood and gore in Germany, due to laws prohibiting the uncensored original versions.
http://www.dorkly.com/post/80945/germany-censorship
There are lots of examples of the German government restricting free expression.
Freedom of speech and art was, indeed, circumvented for games in Germany, but not Austria.
And whether it is such a great thing to allow racist speech without consequences is everybody's guess.
I gave you several cases. Now you have.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#... -- because apparently if we outlaw Nazi symbolism it will disappear.
France is even more awesome: Gayssot Act makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter. Let that sink in - it is illegal to question.
But I'm diverting, the starting was a comment stating that the US are having superiour rights in that regard in general. Which is, IMHO, not true and to generalized without concrete examples. Now we do have examples and everbody can make up their own mind.
The US would compare somewhat poorly to Hong Kong in terms of regulatory overhead for example, but Hong Kong only allows certain political parties to exist, so they’re clearly not going to be winning any civil liberties competitions.
The US would potentially also compare quite poorly to many developing countries in this regard. But that’s because the mechanism that keeps regulation and bureaucracy in check in the developing world is rampant corruption and state sanctioned labor exploitation. Again, not something you’d want a respectable country to emulate.
Whenever you see a country providing citizens human rights and denying them to non-citizens, that country is morally bankrupt.
I keep seeing the sentiment pop-up that as long as it isn't the government building the dossier directly, everything is a-ok.
Regardless of the fact that most nations have begun ignoring any claim of privacy being at stake by mere virtue of doing business with someone else.
The lack of follow-thru on the sentiment, and the danger it poses to far more fundamental societal building blocks (good treatment of guests and strangers, trust, forgiveness, willingness to live and let live on an individual basis).
Seems like someone's driving out on some pretty thin ice with one heavily laden forklift.
Nevermind the behavior grossly violating classic human social norms. If I went to someone's door, and started rifling through their house and person to build up a dossier on them, before even bothering to say "hello", I'd likely be shot (not that I would blame them). Same thing if I made the presumption I could do it in a public space for my own self-enrichment (again, would not blame them).
I'm a bit of a stickler for privacy in that regard. If you want info for your own edification, that's fine. If you start sharing it without my informed consent, free of such compulsions as "every actor in this sphere is doing it", I've got issues with that. Especially if a State actor is one of the beneficiaries, directly or indirectly. It's a really bad door to open that I'd prefer stayed where it belongs. In the history books.
>CBP spokesperson Jennifer Gabris said that only US citizens can opt out, and will have their documents checked manually.
>Homeland Security, which oversees border security, struck a different tone when last year it said that anyone who wanted to opt out of having their faces scanned should “refrain from traveling.”
Found the different responses interesting.
(sigh it's so long past the point of joking that it wouldn't be a surprise to see something like this implemented somewhere for similar reasons.)
Always glad for an assist from a Heisenberg compensator.
Why do I need my documents check to leave the country?
If America is starting to do this, then for sure China will at some point.
As another posted noted they're also running facial recognition on security cameras for "public safety" and there's some propaganda about them finding a wanted criminal in the crowd at a concert and arresting him there using this tech. But I think a lot of the time there's too much bureaucracy to get this system to run efficiently unless the scope is within a certain, limited area (like Xinjiang) or a major crime was committed.