It was much easier and less gropey than opting out of the mm wave scans.
CBP is another matter. When returning from abroad I find their agents to be more aggressive or snarky when I (politely) opt out, although I wouldn’t say it’s gone as far as retaliation. I often get asked why I’m opting out, and sometimes they follow that with additional questions. Several times I’ve received a standard spiel explaining that the photo is not stored permanently or transmitted; the vibe I get is that they’re trained to respond this way to “kooks.”
_He_ then held up the line as he walked off, consulted with someone who obviously knew better, came back and pouted while he verified my identity "manually."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41052152
It is possible that people's experience vary. But unless we know opt out is something that is done quickly as a routine, and running into clueless TSA agent is a rare exception, I would not try that.
- A few people report they’ve had issues opting out
- Most people report they have no issues at all
Personally, I’d feel like I’m perpetuating the problem (of privacy violation/overreach) by not opting out. Even if most people don’t care, it seems critical to have at least some portion of the population holding back the tide somewhat.
If nothing else, a consistent stream of people opting out helps us understand how big the problem has become, i.e. if discussions about this flip over time and most people are getting hassled.
Furthermore, the TSA scanners use a hi res stereoscopic camera to take a 3D photo of your facial features. It's not the same as your passport photo or a regular CCTV camera
But I have global entry which is all done through facial recognition now (and matching to passenger manifests). No passport needed. The camera they used was just a normal DSLR, but it had no problem matching me.
The tech is getting really good.
In Singapore you can enter through automated gates without ever interacting with a person or showing a passport. All through facial recognition if they have a photo on file (citizens and permanent residents).
I assume the tech will get good enough to scan entire crowds very quickly and identify everyone.
Perhaps "I'll do the scan just now, but also, while it has my motivation and attention, I'll press the easy button to donate $N to some org effectively fighting it". Or "I'll opt out, and press the easy button to encourage others with a somewhat-anonymized "I/someone at airline-or-city-or-region-or-occupation-or... just opted-out! N+1! - Yay future!" tweet/counter"?
One way to shift the equation is to shift understanding of the tradeoff:
Some minor inconvenience - I think none in this case - for freedom and other human rights is hardly a tradeoff that needs much consideration. Honestly, I think it's people following the herd to the cultural trend of despair, powerlessness, and worship of strongmen - a incredible reversal from American individualism I'd read has dominated the culture for centuries.
More practically, a little courage and action has a large effect on others. Imagine you are in a meeting where something obviously morally wrong is likely to be approved, and there is pressure to go along:
Imagine nobody raises their hand to object. Imagine the despair and powerlessness everyone would feel, that it just passes without objection, that everyone is cowed.
Imagine one person raises their hand. Not only does it greatly reduce the feeling of despair and powerlessness, it heartens people, and even more it makes it far easier for a second person to raise their hand, or for others to object to this issue or to others later.
Imagine two raise their hand ...
I assume they must be face-matching on the passport photo database.
The camera was right by the counter, not behind the officer.
Frankly, it's intimidating, and I don't blame people for not opting out even assuming they know that's possible
Some people care a lot. But take great care not to be noticed.
For some people the concentrated attention of the state is too be feared. So that is why they say "yes sir, no sir".
It is a matter of survival
Given the reputation of groups involved, I expect many people who might have otherwise opted out felt that trying to do so would have revealed there was no efficient opt-out process, just an empty offer of one, or that opting out would have lasting repercussions for their treatment during travel in the future.
Boil the frog. If they start to collect more, it’s not as simple as “they already have my picture.” Should there be a breach, I can’t easily change my face.
I’m generally of the opinion that when it comes to personal data collection we should always say “no, convince me you should” rather than “sure, why not?” Other than an ever-so-slightly faster processing time is there evidence of any real security gain? My initial reaction, uninformed on the specifics but fairly versed in this type of security, is that’s unlikely.
But more to the point the reason for doing it is there, for better or worse — want a passport? Have a picture taken. In this case I am (at least for now) comparing opting out or not. You can still take your flight without them taking that additional picture. That of course may not stay true.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/how-app...
The result? Faster passage through gate security, significantly faster than TSA Precheck in fact. As a frequent flyer, I like it.
So that's an easy 10~20 minutes shaved off. Once I'm ushered through to screening I have the same convenience benefits as TSA Precheck since it's a prerequisite for Digital ID anyway.
The TSA Precheck lines at all three airports are horrifically long. ;_;
However, non-passengers (such as family members or friends) could accompany travelers to the gate, or meet them there when they disembark, passing through security without a ticket