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.
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.
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