Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

I opt in, and am always very excited to participate in this beta. Opting out isn’t going to change the deployment scale.

View on HN

Hope it does.

I’m also the person who consistently opts out of airport body scanners too, much to the embarrassment of whomever is unfortunate enough to be travelling with me. It is my petty indignation- if you want to violate me then I’m going to make it resource consuming for you also, should I have the capability.

Reactions of the airport staff are surprisingly mixed, many don't mind at all - though universally they will force you to wait for 10-30minutes, though Gatwick staff in particular consistently repeats that “this won’t always be possible”, which is a weird statement to make to be honest, but I've travelled through there many times and they try to talk me about of it this way.

Has the ability to opt out changed the TSA operating model? Or does it satisfy some emotional response in those who do while adding slightly more time to aggregate screening for the opt out population? I understand the desire, but the lever you're trying to pull is in concrete. Redirect your efforts to somewhere effective.

By participating in Global Entry and opting into CBP and DHS/TSA "one to many" credential and identity proofing (colloquially "facial recognition"), it makes my life much easier while traveling. If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks. The databases relied on for matching already exist [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045575

The fact that it still exists indicates that it's likely to be the case, it's clearly frustrating for them and they would get rid of the option if they thought they could.

People like me are probably padding the stats in favour of a small but consistent "preference". There's no way they're not watching the statistics and making decisions based on that. If they think a small enough minority opt out they will remove the option.

> By participating in Global Entry and opting into CBP and DHS/TSA "one to many" credential and identity proofing (colloquially "facial recognition"), it makes my life much easier while traveling. If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box.

That's not my concern, petty bureaucracy and trampling the dignity of people nonchalantly is.

What I'm referring to is much larger than just the TSA, it's a global industry selling security theatre, imagining the techniques of tomorrows bomb threat are anything they've seen before, forcing you to throw your liquids away and then charging you through the nose for water on the other side.

"But you can take an empty bottle, there are fountains!"

That's the discretion of the security agent you happen to get, I've had bottles thrown out because they had "flOz" written on the side despite being empty.

I travel a lot, so it's probably just the fact I want a consistent experience above else, and the rules are different depending on airport and very selectively enforced. Though they might argue that this is a feature to thwart terrorism.. (he says while rolling eyes)

If it makes you feel better, carry on, just don't expect it to change outcomes. It clearly doesn't. Opt outs are not tracked [1]. TSA opt outs are the equivalent of a close door elevator button that does nothing [2].

[1] https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/tsa...

[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/the-close-door-buttons-in-eleva...

And a very on topic quote from the above citation:

"Perceived control is very important," Harvard psychologist Ellen J. Langer told Christopher Mele at The New York Times. "It diminishes stress and promotes well being."

Do you really think that if everyone opted out of the scan, and took five minutes to process instead of five seconds, nothing would change?

Protest definitely does change something. The only problem is that not enough of us are doing it.

If you're opposed to these scans, it is your moral duty to opt out, and to make everyone's life harder while doing it. That's exactly how things change.

Do you really think that everyone is going to opt out? If so, can you please provide evidence when and why they haven’t already? Or is it more likely that a small, vocal minority will continue to be vocal? And that vocal minority will remain perpetually upset that everyone else does not protest with them? I am using the entire existence of the TSA until now in evaluating.

I am simply the messenger for the bad news, based on observations of the system at scale. “If the people would just rise up” is not an argument, unless you’re going to show evidence that there is a scenario in which a non insignificant amount of the traveling public opt out, which is…unlikely in my opinion.

See y’all in the related thread 1-3 years from now when this is common practice.

The fact is: defeatism is guaranteed failure, while activism is potentially a success.

> Do you really think that everyone is going to opt out?

You sure as shit don't need everyone to opt-out. You just need enough folks standing around in a queue for the supervisor to get uncomfortable with how long the line is getting for them to dispense with the theater and start waving everyone through only metal detectors.

I am willing to make a LongBet of $10k to a charity of the winner's choice on this prediction we are arguing over. Please let me know if you would like to take the other side of the bet. You win if protests occur and stops deployment of facial recognition technology for identity proofing travelers at security checkpoints within the US, I win if protests are simply annoying and deployment in the US moves ahead without issue. Timeline is within the next five years.

Let me know and we'll spin it up so we're accountable for our predictions: https://longbets.org/

> Let me know and we'll spin it up so we're accountable for our predictions:

I am not and was not making a prediction. I was using my field observations to refute the implied assertion that everyone would need to refuse automated screening in order to cause that part of the screening to be bypassed by folks who are not refusing to participate.

It’s government software right? There’s no chance the opt out button works.

> the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks

This WAS solved at the ballot box. The law written by our elected representatives requires airport security to allow a reasonable opt-out[1].

> DHS ensures alternative processing is available to resolve match or no match outcomes. The mechanism or process to opt-out and complete alternative processing may not impose additional burdens or requirements on the individual beyond what is necessary to complete the verification process.

Many of the responses in this thread are indicating that the implementation of this opt-out is excessively burdensome, such that opting out could easily cause a traveler to miss their flight.

We should all be concerned that the authority granted an extraordinary enforcement power over a functionally mandatory part of modern life ignores limitations that that we "made at the ballot box" because it finds them inconvenient.

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/23_0913_mgmt...

> the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks

> This WAS solved at the ballot box. The law written by our elected representatives requires airport security to allow a reasonable opt-out[1].

Perhaps I did not express my thought cohesively, let me expound. By "solving" in this context, I mean with regards to data collection, retention, storage, and processing of sensitive personal information, biometrics specifically (quoting myself below):

> If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks.

Current state, the event of you traversing a checkpoint is logged in a system of record, with a human proofing your credentials against your live face. These systems automate the proofing process. Your photo exists in government databases (state for state ID and driver's license, and federal for passports and global entry/CBP). Your event of travel is logged, and also provided ahead of flights to TSA/DHS via PNR data exchanges. My government, today, already has the necessary information to cause me harm without using facial recognition to compare my ID to my live face and PNR.

What material risk to privacy does swapping a human checking your ID with facial recognition incur in this context? And how does opting out materially improve your privacy posture? It very well may be that the opt-out is excessively burdensome, but if the opt out is ceremony and provides no actual benefit, then why do I care if it is excessively burdensome? Because someone believes the opt out process is providing a benefit when it, in reality, provides no benefit? That is a belief system challenge, not an objective risk to be assessed and potentially mitigated. Fear is a feeling, danger is real. If there is evidence that the opt out process materially improves someones privacy and data security posture, certainly, then it is worth expending effort to defend opt out use and overly burdensome efforts to exercise. Otherwise, I find it inconvenient to argue over the travel security checkpoint equivalent of an elevator close door button (in this context, the opt out process).

Fight for and expend effort on effective improvements in outcomes, not ceremony.

It's been nearly a decade since I've had to deal with the assholes at the airport, but I'd always make sure to wait close enough to the line to not end up forgotten about. This would also cause the occasional person in line to think I was in line ahead of them, so they'd stop and wait behind me until an agent manually coaxed them forward. Sometimes they'd ask me if I was waiting and I'd get to say something like "oh, no, I'm not going near that thing". But the turbulence would generally make the agents see my waiting there as a higher priority to take care of.

Back in the day, there was a commercial bulletin board software called TBBS ("The Bread Board System"). It differed from most BBSs in that it could handle multiple lines on a single computer, through a built-in multitasking implementation. Most TBBSs allowed new users to dial in and create new accounts by entering their name and choosing a password on the first login. TBBS had a companion product called TDBS ("The DataBase System") that allowed writing interactive programs for use by users. One of these programs that became popular was a light adventure MUD called Illusions. I had a two line demo of TBBS/TDBS I got from somewhere (I think legitimately, actually), and I downloaded a demo copy of Illusions to play with on my own machine. Looking at its databases, I found something curious - the players' characters and the non-playing characters were stored in the same database, with the user name for all of the NPCs being "aa non-playing character". It turns out the game did not check for a user using that name. And of course TBBS knew nothing of Illusions's design choices. And so by creating a new login account so-named, I was able to play as the NPC characters, moving them around town and chatting with other players to much amusement. At least until the sysop realized what was happening. That is all to say, I too have had the experience of choosing to play as a non-playing character.

(another fun fact: the companion product for connecting TBBS to the nascent Internet was called an IPAD - Internet Protocol ADapter)

I don't know what article you intended to post this on, but it sounds interesting and I'd like to see it!

Yes, this was the most fun I had in this entire thread.

It's a high effort way of calling the GP an NPC, so just an insult.

Ah, I missed that sentence on my first read. Kind of a shame because the NPC meme is dumb as shit and the rest of the post was interesting.

As a model for attempting to understand the world and root causes, the NPC meme is obviously wrong and dumb. But as a coping mechanism for those trying to distance themselves from herd behavior and withstand the social pressure that leads to it, it has some utility. Also note I did not say or imply the OP is an NPC, rather I said that they're choosing to act like one. And I totally get picking which battles you spend your effort on, but when you're intellectually justifying choosing the expedient option as if it's the right one, you've gone too far.

(also fwiw, everything in my original comment is true. it's not LLM drivel or anything)

If you email the mods with a link to the thread you intended to write this in (hn at ycombinator dot com), they should be able to move this comment for you so that it receives the attention it deserves and is preserved appropriately for future forum enjoyment. Please delete this comment if a mod takes action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com