Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepsun | Hacker News Reader

What's the difference if in order to fly an airliner you already have surrendered your ID?

Because people lie and when they say "we don't store" they really actually do. It's the difference between checking a single ID photo at a time and having a database full of photos every time you submit to it.

A lot of defeatism in this thread but I for one will opt out, just like the body scanners.

Why should we have to show ID in order to board an airplane? Frankly, that's none of the governments business. It's a tyrannical, invasive policy that should be reversed. Instead of doubling down on more of the same big brother overreach, why not fight it?

ID makes sense for a variety of reasons, but "proof of citizenship" certainly does not, which will be required in the next few years.

Exactly. This is a giant nothingburger. You can't get through a gate at the airport without showing government-issued ID, by which point they know exactly who you are, and every detail about your life. What exactly are you opting out of? You're still being recorded by dozens--if not hundreds--of TSA/airport security cameras every step of the way, and even if there isn't software automatically identifying and tagging you, it would be trivial to determine who you are. You're on camera when you arrive at the airport, you're on camera when you check in, you're on camera when you go through security, walk to the gate, and board the plane. It's unlikely a single second of your activity in the airport is off-camera (bathrooms notwithstanding).

I don't like the surveillance state, in particular the ubiquity of cameras in public open spaces where there's no compelling reason. I don't like the networks of private cameras people have attached to their front doors, all fed to Amazon and Google (and the state, most likely). If we're going to have cameras anywhere, though, the airport is the place I have the least problem with.

We're way past opting out, whatever that even means in this scenario.

It's not a nothingburger. An ID card has biometric information from years ago. Correlating a photo match with a ticket at gate check in gives confirmation for updating the stored id-face model, which means the recency and fidelity of the biometric data stored by e.g. the airlines or CBP is higher than that from the ID card.

Random surveillance video in an airport probably can't be used to update records because you have lower confidence of a match absent the other known factor that confirms ID. Moreover, masks/face covering is a norm that will also help subvert ambient face ID and model updating.

The data won't stay in the airport—the updated id-face model will be used in places where we expect or should expect more privacy of identity.

We as a society could decide to limit the legality of this. As individuals we can opt out and likely make a small but meaningful difference in the recency and fidelity of our collected and shared biometric data.

There's a flip side to this "nothingburger" argument. If it isn't such a big deal/difference over the status quo, then why do the airlines want it?

You say, "I don't like the surveillance state, in particular the ubiquity of cameras in public open spaces where there's no compelling reason." You are assuming there is no compelling reason because you do not personally know what that reason may be. Someone, somewhere, thought they had a compelling reason to go through the expense and hassle of developing and installing the surveillance system. It wasn't just "IDK, it's kinda neat".

It's clear from the gaping, empty space between our understanding of these systems and the desire of institutions to have them that something must be filling it. Whatever that "it" is should not be hidden from the public and communicated clearly, and not just hidden in a TOS-like document locked in a room with a tiger in the basement.

I suspect it's the combination of the defensive medicine effect (if something does go wrong, no one wants to be the one to take responsibility for having said no to a system that someone else will argue (true or not) that that system could have stopped the event), the belief that the security theater aspect makes customers feel safer, the belief that more data and whiz-bang technology is always better, and the decision makers don't have the technical expertise to understand that it is not getting them much in terms of increased security, and they can always make some money on the side by selling the data that they collect.

Airlines want ID check to stop the mileage points resale trade. TSA are the airlines' frequent flier (free tickets to Hawaii) mall guards.

Not quite true about ID being required to get to gate. In USA, under 18 are waived through without ID. Over 18, I have gone through without ID. Be polite, say you misplaced it, and they will make you sign a form. Then on your way.

Most of the airport security theater is voluntary. Full body scans are also voluntary. Most soy boiz are too lazy to opt out.

What about the real id reqs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com