I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy
wired.com
wired.com
The announcement came as we began to board. Last month, I was at Detroit’s Metro Airport for a connecting flight to Southeast Asia. I listened as a Delta Air Lines staff member informed passengers that the boarding process would use facial recognition instead of passport scanners.
As a privacy-conscious person, I was uncomfortable boarding this way. I also knew I could opt out. Presumably, most of my fellow fliers did not: I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners.
To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board.
The rest of the article is a (not very novel) discussion about the risks and problems of facial recognition.
I guess that qualifies as "not easy", because it's a meaningless statement that can be justified by the slightest inconvenience.
One is by legible criteria: how long does it take & such. The other way is: how likely people are to do it. That's how a UI design would be measured. How many more people sign up if I remove the "age" field from a form. How many fewer people become organ donate if you need to register online vs tick (or untick) a box on your lisence form?
The first way is how a regulator or judge would see it. The second is often the one that matters to how things develop practically. Eg how gdpr-ish consent actually affects realities of user control over their data.
A common pattern is to concede the first, and rely on the second to make it irrelevant. Opt out is available, but the "UI" design ensures that it's rare.
Is that true? I hadn't thought about this.
I know the Schengen zone does, as well as China and much of Latin America, but in my experience the UK doesn't. Does Australia/New Zealand/Canada (my feeling is that Australia doesn't)? What about Asian and African countries?
[0] they call it a "smartgate", presumably because it sounds less invasive than "biometric checkpoint", see https://www.abf.gov.au/entering-and-leaving-australia/smartg...
Opting out could risk holding up the boarding process, possibly missing the flight, unpleasant treatment by security and being pitted against the other passengers - all of it to opt out of something is clearly a dark pattern.
All of this is very well understood by the people who designed this system.
Articles like that and some of the comments in this thread at least give me an idea what opting out would take.
(from the wikipedia article linked above)
> In the United States, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required that all full-body scanners operated in airports by the Transportation Security Administration use "Automated Target Recognition" software, which replaces the picture of a nude body with the cartoon-like representation.[3] As a result of this law, all backscatter X-ray machines formerly in use by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from airports by May 2013, since the agency said the vendor (Rapiscan) did not meet their contractual deadline to implement the software.[4]
Some posters are claiming the screens don't show the raw images anymore, but what happens to those scans? Betting they don't discard them. Ever.
That's the reason why there are more recent devices that hide the nudity and only show abstract figures with suspicious body areas highlighted.
But the airport visitors has no way of knowing what generation the software is, i.e. whether they are visible in the nude or not. Also, the unmodified images by still be stored on the device - who knows?
So what if they see me naked? I don't care. There's nothing harmful that can come from that information.
Your youth makes your actions forgivable, but not acceptable.
And yet... https://gizmodo.com/one-hundred-naked-citizens-one-hundred-l...
From a Defcon angle, it's also an information security risk; even large government bodies have fallen victim to cryptolockers, so it's not like the government-grade IT security keeping the photos secure is impenetrable.
The 'reassurance' that I'm too ugly and unimportant for anyone to take particular interest in does nothing to restore this dignity :)
And their effectiveness is, questionable (Germany reports 54% false positives, TSA reports handguns being concealed successfully in underwear, etc.)
Body scanners.
[1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/laser-identify-distance-heartb... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111284
They're already gathering facial recognition biometrics, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've been doing gait analysis biometric identifiers (it's established tech). Adding heart rate would give them three separate identifiers that can be used to identify anyone in a crowd with practically complete confidence.
I made the decision that I was okay handing over personal information one time to get TSA Pre if it meant I could skip the naked scanners, not have to take off my shoes, avoid patdowns etc.
Generally when I'm coming back from Defcon I have a whole lot of stuff with me that I'd really rather avoid having someone take a closer look at.
I still strongly respect people that take a stronger stance than I.
It's not clear to me at all. Explain please.
This would be similar to an "opt-out" instead of "opt-in" checkbox on a "let us harvest your data" disclaimer, except that the checkbox is at 0% opacity so you don't know it's there.
1. Present your passport
2. Use the Facial Recognition software
They are tricking people into using option 2 by not informing them of option 1.
It's also a crapshoot - you may have an aggressive officer, or a friendly one. I've been patted down twice for absolutely no reason; not a second screening, the guy just went over me two times.
I keep wondering why we have chosen to sacrifice freedom for some small measure of security. More importantly, I don't really believe airport security stops much - it's security theater.
The only shitty part is when agents let your stuff go through the scanners but you’re stuck behind the machines. I’m always trying to crane my neck to make sure no one walks off with a laptop.
Usually the TSA agents are very nice. I ask them about their days, how things are, and then I’m on my way.
I like to exercise my rights just to make sure they keep being available, and there’s not much better to do inside the airport anyways.
Before our last trip, I read about the facial ID thing, and I was worried because my passport was expired (we were traveling domestic). Fortunately, it seems neither of the airports we went through were implementing it yet, so I'll have time to renew before it's a thing.
I just wish we can all come to our senses and realize that the TSA doesn't really make us safer and that it just makes everyone mad. Unfortunately, people just seem to put up with it.
Because people don't feel like they can make any real impact, and for those who can (our representatives), it's political suicide. The TSA is a giant waste of money but turning the front line of security back to airports would extremely easy to attack as weak on crime, inviting in terrorists, etc. (But who knows, maybe the sight of the TSA line makes terrorists give up in frustration because they're too busy to wait an hour or more just to hijack a plane.)
It was never about security, it was only ever about job creation. 9/11 was a convenient excuse to put lots of underqualified/underskilled people to work overnight.
For a politician to go against that now, they get doubly fucked on both the "made America less safe" and "got rid of thousands of jobs" fronts.
> Because people don't feel like they can make any real impact
I'd say this generalization applies to a lot of topics that we're having with democracy. That people don't feel that it's democratic. I think there's this weird feeling where most believe we're both in a democracy and autocracy (which may not be untrue, but the less we try to fix it with democracy the harder we'll leave to autocracy)
Indeed. What makes us safer are 2 things:
1. Secured cockpit doors 2. Passengers
Now, if someone tried doing something bad/unsafe/terrorist, everybody would jump them, and stop them from doing the thing. That's how shoe-guy was stopped. The passengers about killed him.
It used to be the chokepoint was departure. Now the TSA shoves a chokepoint to "terrorize" at the lines in front the scanners. And wherever you move the scanners creates yet another chokepoint. I'm surprised someone of ill intent hasn't done something at the lines of people.
But in the end, there's little we can do. Ideally our politicians should reconsider their roles, but thats 'reducing security yadda yadda', and political suicide.
The 2016 Brussels bombing did involve explosives in the check-in area of the airport.
When the machines first started being used there was some expose on them where pics from the machine were leaked, and you could clearly see that even people waiting in line within about 10 feet of the machine or so were scanned, and you can clearly see their bodies appear in the images, just as you can those who were in the machine itself.
Now, being scanned outside of the machine probably doesn't give them as good an image as outside of the machine, and they won't get an image of both sides of your body, but nevertheless your body will be covered to some extent with radiation from the machine.
I've always opted out of the machines at the airport, and they've always made me wait in a chair within 10 feet or so of the machine. So I know I'm getting some radiation dose from it, but really don't know what to do about it.
Hopefully, the cost of supporting this useless security theater will make it infeasible eventually.
The newer scanners use millimeter wave RF, which is non-ionizing and much safer. The primary concern with RF is classic thermal effects, which shouldn't be significant at low power levels.
There's still plenty of room for research on the topic, but no direct causal link to any health effects have been found with these systems at present.
(That said, the TSA agents are also standing next to the baggage x-ray machines all day. And I do still see backscatter x-ray body scanners in use in other countries.)
You need real legislation to fix this problem.
1. They make you wait while they get someone to do the work.
2. They offer to take you somewhere private (I declined).
3. They tell you the routine ("I'm gonna go up your leg until I feel resistance").
4. They wipe their gloves and put them in a chemical detector.
5. They let you go.
Only once did I have to get an extra exam where they detected some chemical on me and had to do that whole wipe down + chemical test process on my carry-on. It wasn't a big deal.
In 2017 I finally got TSA Precheck. So I've very rarely had to go through this since then (flying w/ non-Precheck friend, flying at non-Precheck airport).
EDIT: My experience is from US only. I missed that the parent's description was from the UK.
I have not tried to opt out of a pure-EU/UK scanner, so your point is still valid. I suspect Toronto may work the same way.
I _always_ opt out of backscatter machines. I’m British so I’ve flown Heathrow and Gatwick and Luton (etc), normally the process is painless. I wait a fair while longer than others, sitting/standing publicly as people pass me by and it feels awkward, but not enough to stop me.
I have never been denied boarding for my choice. But I make sure I have time to be harassed. Just in case.
The pat down is very humane, they tell you what they will do and they use the back of their hands a fair bit.
Then they brush the glove and put the cloth they brushed with in a scanner, then you’re free to go.
However, I’ve been to a couple of airports that have... aggressive.. security. Heathrow was one, they made me feel so small, as if I was causing trouble, implying I was hiding something.
Eventually I told them that I worked on the backscatter x-rays, and claimed that while they were safe for normal use, they were not safe for use with the added radiation of flying and that the world would be defaming it in a decade as, I said it was this generations asbestos.
They stopped pestering me then, since that incident it’s been my go-to response.
It’s not true as far as I know, but, it /is/ an added dose of radiation right before you get some more radiation, so it’s not exactly a complete fabrication.
Now they’re using millimetre wave scanners which are less radioactive, but have other considerations like the activation of moles on skin, or their relative ineffectiveness of finding handguns in underwear (as per TSA reporting) or 54% false positive rate (as per Germany’s report)
Airports are likely already using facial recognition anyways. PDX had these installed not too long ago: https://www.dormakaba.com/us-en/solutions/products/entrance-...
What makes these interesting is they're getting stereoscopic imaging with multiple camera angles of video. That can potentially be used for some invasive tracking.
I opt out of the body scan every time and it sounds like the face scan is easier.
" To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board"
That is a process that is not easily discoverable. And the "opt out" isn't announced as an something that even exists.
> To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board.
While I agree that it's made as easy as possible to go with the flow, and communicated less clearly than I'd like that you can avoid it, I think that this (the article's presentation, not your post) is disingenuous. I flew from DTW to SYX about 6 months ago, and saw signs (though no announcements) clearly indicating that you could opt out. I simply told the boarding agent when I came to the front of the line that I wanted to opt out; there was no need to leave the line.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I don't know for sure that this works, because they were trying to speed up very delayed boarding and had given up on the facial scanning anyway, so they just waved me past without appearing even to notice that I asked.)
After going through security, I asked an official if I could've opted out. They said yes, and said I could flag someone down.
When I returned, I tried to do so - but there was no-one around! Its an automated system, and almost impossible to opt out of.
Airport security is full of dark patterns when it comes to privacy.
As for departures, it wasn't obvious to me - like with you - that I could opt-out. I'll give it a shot next time and see what happens. Am expecting some annoyed and suspicious glances! :)
I fail to see the privacy implications. I’m already giving someone my passport details – I must do that to enter or exit the country. That passport already contains my photograph. What privacy am I losing by having my photograph taken at the airport?
I say this as a very privacy-conscious individual. I block ads, don’t use Facebook, etc. I fail to see the further loss of privacy in this case, over and above the mandatory scanning of my passport.
It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of facial recognition entirely in any situation.
Realistically the only way to resist is to develop an informed, engaged populace. There's a huge gulf between "facial recognition for crossing international borders" and "facial recognition for getting on the subway" - the former is obviously beneficial and the latter is obviously a massive overreach.
The idea that one will inevitably follow the other is only really plausible because of the public's apathy, and it leads to situations where we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Its unfortunate that the idea of privacy is in such a downhill spiral, but the much more daunting question is, if privacy can so easily be abandoned, how will other stuff, like freedom of thought be treated in the future? What happens if technological development of surveillance could catch up some day? We are currently living in a society where no matter how horrific the methods, there are some who will find justifications to utilize them on other people. If the charges are heinous enough, human rights go out of the window. You only have to think of torture and look as far as Guantanamo. Differently put, in a society that preserves samples of eradicated plagues for possible future military uses and has no quarrels of threatening to torture the kids of enemy combatants, the research into and work on offensive capabilities with disastrous capabilities, like I would argue facial recognition is, is morally reprehensible.
You seem to be operating under the core assumption that because we as a society allow facial recognition in that situation it will inevitably expand to others, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. If an educated and well-informed populace says "no, we will not allow this technology to be used outside of these specific circumstances" and then enforces that position at the ballot box, there won't be a problem. Unfortunately most people just don't care, and no amount of technological backtracking will fix that.
In other words, don't worry about the tech; worry about the people that make the tech matter.
The argument also assumes that we will continue have democratic systems and the population not voting for such systems to be implemented. The reality is what ever means and information we currently entrust to governments later versions will also have access to. Not to mention the export of these technologies to "friendly" dictatorships. Its the old problem of census data in the Netherlands. They had extremely detailed census data involving peoples religious beliefs before the Nazis invaded and with the data available the persecution of Jews was extremely efficient. The resistance targeted the locations of these datasets but it didnt work good enough.
I also dont see how international borders need anything more then fingerprints. They are also far more accurate and reliable. Facial recognition has the only added benefit of being usable without the effected people noticing. Thats not a positive characteristic.
To come back to the central argument, we do already have other means of identifying people and facial recognition only differs in a few core issues from existing mechanics. The core characteristics of facial recognition are
* No need for a cooperative, consenting subject
* Not alerting the subject being identified and no protection against being identified without noticing
* Unchangeable identification characteristic
We already have reliable easy to use systems for characteristic 1 and 3, fingerprints, and I see how there might be a need for such systems at specific locations. For example at a police station or border checkpoints.
Then we have facial recognition which is a lot less accurate and its only additional benefit is point 2. Point 2 however has no positive use cases, its a purely totalitarian instrument aimed at its scale-ability. For not only being used in specific places but everywhere. You cant even make the argument which makes nuclear weapons a worthwhile technology to have, the possible usage for war against a foreign aggressor. Facial recognition is only beneficial to keep a population suppressed.
The same was said about the TSA searching people boarding aircraft, but then that moved to people in train stations, greyhound stations etc. being searched. Overreach is commonplace.
This is the airline collecting your biometrics — a completely different entity from the border control that usually checks your passport.
You insert your passport and that should be it. Border control has already checked your identity. Afterwards, your photo was taken by the airline in order to "verify you".
Granted, airlines could get your photograph in a myriad of ways, but this system makes it as convenient for them as it can get.
YMMV, but I actually find using the smart gates much less invasive than dealing with human immigration officers. The gates do exactly one thing and that's that, whereas with officials there's always an uncomfortable "guilty until proven innocent" feeling (where are you going? where are you coming from?) coupled with the knowledge that borders are largely civil rights free zones, even for citizens.
I think it would be fair if the system would scan your passport , scan you, confirm the identity but not store your biometric data.
The problem is that you've already handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0].
At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that.
So, to make an appeal on the argument of privacy of data is being woefully ignorant of the fact that this encroachment has been happening for years and it didn't seem to matter very much then.
[0] - https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-rea...
No, no, no! The possibility that this technology may occasionally be wrong pales in comparison to the world we’re marching toward. By far the biggest risk facing society is that having your every move tracked by governments will soon be next to impossible.
Also just imagine what our world will look like as facial recognition data slowly leaks out into the hands of non governments (or they find ways to collect it.) It isn’t hard to imagine a world where everyone knows everyone else’s whereabouts at all times. Facial recognition feels like the biggest looming step toward a dystopian world.
The fact that they throw out the possibility of this technology occasionally being wrong sidesteps the real risks in favor of something that’s just easier to explain.
On the way, multiple, large signs announced the trial.
At the gate itself, there was a prominent notice addressing travelers' privacy (and other) concerns - several paragraphs of large text. It was clearly mentioned that, for people who were reluctant to use the new technology, there would be attendants available to process them in the usual way.
I was quite impressed. However, the trial was cancelled, and the machines still retained their plastic wrapping. Oh well.
How does the facial recognition system work? I'm thinking that biometric passports contain the necessary data and that the airline has already got then by scanning the passport at some point so that it quick and easy to use facial recognition at boarding time.
If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really.
In any case, there is no anonymity in air travel (this is really more about anonymity than privacy). You are identified and tracked from the moment you buy your ticket until you leave the airport.
Facial recognition is a new technology that people need to adapt and be confident with. It will take some time then no-one will pay attention anymore.
It isn’t US Boarder Control running the facial control system, its Delta, Southwest, or anyone else, which has implications about the privacy of the biometric data, that up until this point hasn’t been collected by Airlines, only Boarder entities.
That said, in order to boot strap this system, Delta et., al. would have had to either; 1. Build their own database of biometric and facial data that they believe was reliable (unlikely) 2. Get a full and continually updated copy from CBP (Probably noisy) 3. Use an API made available by CBP that acts as a Biometric/Facial oracle.
I’ve heard rumblings that it’s 3, but I can’t cite anything to back that claim up, so grains of salt.
Here they are using this information to automatically check that it is in fact you instead of having a staff member look at you and check against your passport's photo.
This is especially true for domestic travel as well.
At TSA, They scan the first page of passport (or local ID) and usually Full body scan. So in the strict sense of facially scanned no.
At the gate (until now), neither. They would scan the boarding pass and eyeball the passport if international.
Again the point here is that in the first two instances these are Government agencies doing the scanning. At the third, the Government no longer has anything to do with it.
The question with this stuff is how and where are Airlines (private companies) getting a database of biometric data and what are they doing with it?
Neither of which are good.
As a US citizen, this is mostly just to validate any visa requirements for the country you're traveling to.
However, for non citizens, this data gets sent to CBP to create an exit record. I believe the concern is that between the check-in counter and the flight, you could trade places with someone to effectively overstay a visa without CBP's computer systems noticing (since you'd have a valid exit record)... hence the push for facial recognition at the gate.
Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash?
Let me tell you about flying before 1996, kid. It was great. No ID presented, you just needed a paper ticket. You could actually buy and sell paper tickets on usenet (and people did), and you could wave to your family when you get on the airplane as you didn't need a ticket to be in the boarding area. I thought it was a disaster when they started implementing the dystopia we have today, and remember premonitions of disaster listening to some douchbag I brought to the airport babbling about the government "keeping us safe."
Oh yeah: no body cavity searches getting past the gate, we had legroom, free food on the plane, free baggage, and they didn't blare CNN in the airports like some Orwell dystopia, or ads for the airline on the airplane telescreen. The planes were better too; 747 was super common and comfy (now you need to fly the Luftwaffe or British Airways, and the seats aint what they used to be), and if you were loaded, you could take the Concorde across the pond for a price which seems comically cheap these days.
Because while air travel has undoubtedly gotten less comfortable, in most (if not all?) cases it's also gotten cheaper. With every passing decade air travel because accessible to broader and broader swaths of the economic pyramid. Now it's at the point where the cost of the taxi to a London airport can cost more than the airfare of whatever budget airline flight I'd be on.
I am [not really] too young to have flown on the Concorde, but a Googling of "Concorde flight cost" suggested between $6000 and $12000 round trip for NYC-LON flights. That doesn't strike me as cheap.
What are you talking about with the concorde flights!? They were a lot more expensive than they are today let alone the prices of a normal carrier flight at the time. When was the last time you flew?
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Having come from a rural area, in a village it is just like in Cheers - "Everybody knows your name". They also know a lot about you, your family, friends and enemies. Much of what they know is true, but some of it is wrong (gossip).
Privacy and anonymity is of recent origin, starting with industrial development and large cities. It's a "security by obscurity" strategy for the more powerless segments of society. Powerful people are in the Social Register.
1. The infamous they, already have a picture of your face. Your id/passport. It's kind of too late to be anonymous when boarding a plane, for multiple reasons.
2. One agency has it, thus its easy for them to share it with others. HA! You, have never dealt with fed agencies. You want to meet the grownup versions of those toddlers that never learned to share their toys? Any fed agency. Doesn't matter how important the info is and how timely, "it's our data, our jurisdiction, we'll handle it".
Just two points that stood out to me.
Again, I agree that privacy now seems like a dream we had in the distant past due to tech companies and the results of a post-911 world. But this article is the equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating said cake.
Airline security worked fine before 9/11, and it hasn't measurably improved with all of the bull crap the TSA is now doing. From what I can tell, we haven't been attacked in the same way because:
- passengers are more vigilant - terrorist attacks are hard to plan and execute as it is - airlines installed locking doors for the cockpit
All of the rest of the stuff the TSA does is overreach. It's not equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating cake, it's closer to only being offered sugary cake while in prison without being told there's a healthier option available.
Passengers are vigilant. Ha! The one thing your average civilian is not is vigilant. The internet is rife with bad folks doing bad things in crowds. And most people do nothing.
Plus, look up the millennium plot. The news doesn't make a stink when things go well. Lots of people have been stopped at airports and even before being able to start. You only hear about the failures, because it makes for better news.
Fact is, pandora's box was opened. We are in a new age where people get their fame from doing big, nasty things. The Rolling Stone put the Boston bomber's face on the cover for fuck's sake. Where rock star faces have been. I like that on imgur, some people bucked that trend by periodically showing the faces and sharing the stories of those that fought back. But guess what, someone has to actively protect too. Yea, lots of issues with the TSA. They knee jerked hard towards some super fucked up practices those first few years. You think traveling with a really slavic last name was fun? I was always randomly put in the special search line. Three times I got backroom questioned over my recent travels. I still show up 3 hours early to fly out of habit.
But I also chose to roadtrip more often instead. Which was more fun anyways.
Maybe if the public could actually police themselves and evil was eradicated, then we can do away with security in general. Until then, it's a response to a problem where no one is offering a better one other than hugs and unicorns that fart rainbows.
"Photos must not be digitally enhanced or altered to change your appearance in any way"
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
There's quite a few CCTV cameras in airports. They've most likely (definitely) got some sort of facial recognition software connected to them.
yes :/
Many commenters say that your data / picture is in the system already, which is fine, but your passport photo can be 10 - 15 years old and these systems record how you look now. That's the question if you are comfortable providing it.
What you can't do anything about is CCTV and I think it's a safe bet that they are already equipped with facial recognition and other ML tracking technologies. It's just a question of which database you can avoid being registered in.
The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.
By now I always carry a letter from the federal police (responsible for border + airport security) explaining that it's optional.
At Berlins airports they usually ask for a reason why I opt-out of body scanners, which is ridiculous, as one needs no reason to NOT do something that's legally optional to do.
As I approached the kiosk, I mentioned that I preferred to not have my photo taken, and was nearly cut off by the lady asking for my passport.
I'd argue that getting my passport scanned was quicker than waiting for the machine go take your picture.
It must be said that the non-European, non-biometric passport control can easily take 30 minutes longer.
I have to say that I've never thought about this in terms of databases, I somewhat assumed that they were only matching against the local copy in my passport, but maybe someone can elucidate for me on how this works on EU passports.
Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.
I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the environment anyway.
I don't believe that this is true.
For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire world witnessed).
Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil" for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger - certainly - ins't new, right?
No. No ordinary people would care even when there will be no choice to opt out.
"I had to ... speak with a Delta representative at their information desk ... then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board."
That sounds relatively easy, actually.
So this should also be a very good reason to reject this tech for this use. Darker skinned people and women get misclassified even more, and subject to further interrogation.
I may be a white guy (works 99/100)... But I can't just defend my own rights, or all of our rights degrade.
If there is a good reason to keep this data in a database let me know.
Why do you think so? If a human can detect a fake passport why a computer scanner can't detect it?
It even makes sense to do it like this: 1 the passport includes a picture of you but it could include a hash of your biometric face
2 you go at the checkpoint, put the passport in a scanner and your face is also photographed by a camera, the sash is generated and compared, then the hash is deleted, the airport people just care that the passport is real(they can check serial codes or chips if present in the passport, check the other security areas of the passport) and the person using the passport is the one in the passport.
Airports or air transport companies should not be in bussiness of collecting bio-metric data. If NSA or the government of a country wants to create such a database they should propose a law for it, when you get or renew your ID card,passport then you would be added to the national database because such is the law not because you are forced to chose between getting in the plane faster or some unpleasant alternative way/
There is no