Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

I was shocked to see this program arrive in my local airport. I opt out every time, but the horrifying thing is that almost everyone simply complies with whatever is asked of them. The TSA agents use phrasing that make it seem like you are supposed to go through the facial recognition process and don’t have a choice. Yes, there are tiny signs scattered around that say you can opt out. But when the officer says “step in front of the camera”, most people comply with what seems like orders from a legal authority.

View on HN

TSA will punish you for opting out of anything. If you're lucky, the least they will do is hold you up a long time so you have a good chance of missing your flight. I've also had them sexually harass me, and confiscate (e.g. steal) legal items in retaliation for opting out of things I had the legal right to opt out of. They know people are in a hurry and won't do anything about being treated unethically or illegally, because calling them out would require missing your flight.

When I opted out of the scanner once, I had to wait about 20 minutes, and then the TSA agent comes over to do a "pat down" instead, but is going inappropriately slow and squeezing my body, and saying things like "I'd bet you opted out because you like this." I regret not immediately calling them out and filing charges.

I always opt out of the scanner (even have a special shirt [1]), and without fail they always stand me by the intake (radio-leaky-end) of the baggage x-ray machine for 5+ minutes.

[1]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/art/tsashirt.jpg

lol

I had a phase where I would always wear this "cease your investigators" shirt, never had any comments but yea stood by the machine for 5 minutes or so, never considered the machine would be radiating outward as well as inward, but yeah, mostly did it as a small protest, thought it worth demonstrating you don't have to comply.

https://neongrizzly.com/products/cease-your-investigations-i...

Just saw this one- love the guy's eye contact also. He knows how to stand up to fascist jerks.

https://preview.redd.it/travel-safe-for-thanksgiving-v0-i3ja...

LOL I need to buy that shirt. I'm disabled and kinda dark so they're always "randomly" going for me.

How do you know the dude in blue is a fascist, and a jerk?

To be fair, I think most of the TSA agents are not, many are just doing their job and trying to bring some dignity to a tense situation. I travel a lot and have met some very kind TSA agents.

But as an organization, they clearly have a culture that allows or even encourages people to openly abuse and harass travelers, and punish people for exercising their rights. When I was being sexually harassed by a TSA agent, the other agents standing nearby allowed it to happen and said nothing.

Opting out of the face scanner is a totally different experience than opting out of the body scanner lol

The last I was in San Francisco International the TSA staff came barreling out of their door and the first agent out yelled into the terminal, "MAN! I really hope someone opts out today! I can't wait to give that guy a serious patdown."

They're trained to operate in an unethical way.

They're all threats until I walk up to them and actively volunteer. Then it's all "i swear i'm not gay i'm required to touch you near your groin."

The amount of agents who act like that and then start to get shy when you smile and go through with a patdown is pretty comical.

I once had the unusual luck of being patted down by a young attractive trainee woman in sweden. They also made her to re-do it because she hadn't done it properly apparently (she had actually touched waaaaaay more than usual).

SFO doesn't use TSA

https://www.flysfo.com/about/airport-operations/safety-secur...

To a person not familiar with the minutiae of government structure "TSA" is a job position as much as an organization, and CAS does have the former.

Other than a nearly identical uniform that says CAS in place of TSA there is no apparent difference. Which is why I probably didn't even realize. In any case my return leg was delayed so I rented a car to drive back and have never returned to commercial flights since.

> "I'd bet you opted out because you like this."

"You're damn right I like it, usually I have to pay for it."

My 2c: I use precheck, and fly regularly between RDU and PBI. Opting out of the 3d face camera has always been easy, and I never had pushback from them. PBI has well placed opt-out signs, but I hadn't see them at RDU.

I expect that one day it won't be optional, but I'll avoid it while I can

I always opt-out, of course.

The most recent time, which was years ago now, when I was leaving the country (I'm not a US citizen, and had finished working on a H1-B).

In the EU, there's delay - they have to get someone, you go to a room, pat-down. Unremarkable.

In the US, delay, they get someone - but the "pat-down" was so forceful I had trouble keeping my balance. It seemed to me to be deliberately excessive.

Fortunately, I do not live in, and do not need to travel to, the USA.

I would be curious to know which airport(s) you receive this treatment from? I fly regularly between a handful of major US hubs. There is only one airport that I would be vocal about their treatment of passengers to a group of local TSA that I played co-ed sports with. The most senior one's response was that it wasn't surprising as that location (entire airport management) has had a toxic culture from the top down and they were trying to clean it up but it's still a bureaucracy. Anywhere else and I have an agent that would be having an off or bad day, but nothing like what you are describing at any of the others.

When I pull the pre-check random scanner check, I opt out and will go straight into small talk with the agent, they don't like it any more than you do, (maybe one or two might) but the majority they want it over with as quickly as you do. My personal tactic is to go into my story of being sexually molested at a checkpoint at an airport in Spain. It was very unexpected and extremely uncomfortable, including the smile after as though waiting for me to drop my number. I can joke about it now, and it gives TSA agents an opening to assure me that is not their intent without being weird about it. They're also annoyed that people who do things like that give them all a bad rep

I fly a lot and cannot remember where these events occurred. It was a small airport in California- not in the Bay Area or LA.

I'm sorry you experienced this. Don't be hard on yourself for not calling them out, you shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of doing so.

> I opt out every time, but the horrifying thing is that almost everyone simply complies with whatever is asked of them.

I honestly blame Apple for pushing FaceID, as it completely normalized facial recognition on a mass scale. Nobody thinks about this at all anymore.

(No, it's not entirely Apple's fault, but I do think this point warrants more notice/discussion)

> Apple's fault

Apple showed how this can be done without compromise.

A combination of on-device-only FaceID and app-by-app opt-in to even trigger a validation, with on-device federal ID validation of some kind, putting you in control of presenting a cryptographically signed ID, would, in fact, be ideal for both convenience and privacy.

IF you're going to require ID, that would be a fine way.

The REAL issue is whether ID should be allowed to be required at all to move around, or if you have the right to anonymously assemble (and travel for assembly) within your own national boundary. That's the goalpost to debate.

> Apple showed how this can be done without compromise.

Sure, but also no.

I am outright stating that facial recognition did not need to become so normalized, and everyone getting used to it for the device in their pocket did no good in this regard.

> IF you're going to require ID, that would be a fine way.

Or we could just, y'know, do it the way we've been doing it for decades now.

This isn't a casual mistaken. Taking from the newly implemented border exit control that we've gotten. (If you think we don't have one, re-read that) :

The GAO found that the ability for people to understand that Americans are not required to go through the biometric exit was non-existant and the experience of opting out was very poor.

What this means is signage was not posted that indicating for Americans this is an optional process and people forming the "requirement" were not educated that it is optional for citizens.

Yet, the experience is that people forcefully push people into to posing for the camera with markings on the floor, the lack of opting in/consenting to it, and prevent people from being aware of what's going on. (Yes: You can opt out .. walk up to the board area with your passport open to your photo page)

Generally speaking you present ID to pass through security.

The facial recognition is based on the biometric data collected when you got your ID, the ID you presented to pass through security. The ID with your name, address, date of birth, and uniquely identifying number on it. The ID which is associated with your boarding pass. The ID they scan (or they scan the boarding pass which is associated with your ID) prior to letting you through security.

Using facial recognition changes nothing, absolutely nothing, except that it reduces the amount of time spent at the checkpoint.

It does not grant anyone access to any information they do not already have.

It does not impede the traveler in any way.

It does not change, at all, any aspect of one's privacy whatsoever.

"But I don't wanna..." doesn't seem like a defensible position.

Maybe I’m old school but I despise the idea of the government tracking me as I travel. Time and time again they are caught violating privacy laws and abusing power.

Given that you already need government issued ID that matches the name printed on your ticket to travel on an airplane, wouldn’t the government already have the ability to track you, regardless of facial recognition?

Indeed, the government doesn't even need the ID, they ingest a data feed of Passenger Name Records (PNRs) from all airlines. This is why when TSA performs the automated identity proofing, comparing a photo of you to your ID, they don't require that you provide a boarding pass.

Comparing an ephemeral photo taken of you to your government credential at the TSA checkpoint is a temporary formality. At some point, the government credential presentation will be unnecessary.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/clearing-cbp/passenger-name-recor... (Control-F "What information is collected?")

You are basically arguing that facil recognition is not needed, which doesn’t seem what you want to argue about.

The US government has access to all of your location history via Verizon/ATT/TMobile.

> the biometric data collected when you got your ID

When I got my license, which I can use to board a flight in my country I did not give fingerprints or an eye scan. They have my photo, DOB, name - not more.

It could be used to "update" the record.

It is more recent, multi angle, high res data. It allows their training data to be much better.

This "it changes nothing" attitude is unproductive.

I was with you until "doesn't grant them info that they don't already have." It gives them the opportunity to update their face model of you in a confirmed and consistent manner.

It also doesn't improve anything:

An agent comparison of you vs the id is still considered to be the gold standard. When this system fails, you have to default to the agent's comparison. This is a slow down compared to the previous scenario.

The time for an id comparison isn't the bottleneck in security. It's the physical actions used to go through the TSA and the built in inconsistency to prevent people from speedrunning the screening.

If it doesn’t change anything, why is it needed then? And I don’t think it is faster than a human matching the ID card against a person at all.

The point of this program isn't that it makes things substantially quicker at the checkpoint – it is a minor speed-up at best. The goal is to normalize the collection of biometric data, to shift the Overton window of surveillance.

The collection of biometric data is already normalized.

It has been normalized since the 1920s, when the FBI's central fingerprint repository was created.

And the end goal isn't the system that currently exists. It is a system in which the movement of passengers isn't halted. Someone watched 1990's Total Recall and said "we need a security checkpoint like that".

Also, the "Overton window" is a libertarian bullshit response to the natural shifts that occur in society, usually trotted out whenever libertarians get pissed off that "muh freedom" no longer excuses their bigotry and they can't make "because their knee-grows" jokes anymore.

So you are saying that we should just accept that we have lost our privacy rather than to continue advocating for it?

Yes.

That, instead of "people who think that this is an erosion of privacy are wrong" is exactly what I am saying.

Face scanners at airports change exactly and precisely, with no room for qualifications, unequivocally, irrefutably, nothing.

>The collection of biometric data is already normalized.

So by your logic we should just fully accept its further normalization with absolutely no pushback or regard for any notion of private life and activity?

>It has been normalized since the 1920s, when the FBI's central fingerprint repository was created.

This is a blatant bullshit comparison that you can't possibly be ignorant enough to compare to modern real-time data collection accessible to many levels of government for tracking you and your personal details down to a deeply minute level almost as you live them. The U.S government of the 1920s and for decades after had its repositories and files on people, but in any given moment they were unlikely to have any clue what you were doing or where you were and lacked the means to easily know these things unless they were specifically targeting you for a particular reason.

That by the way is as it should be, a world in which a powerful state that could easily at some point turn actively hostile in some unfair way can't also passively monitor anyone and everyone as it pleases. A world in which the state, if it wants to monitor someone heavily, needs to make an effort to do it, and through means that can only be sanctioned by specific legal procedures, for specific activities, based on specific legal motives.

No, the Overton window is not "libertarian bullshit" about natural shifts in society. There's no natural law that makes total surveillance axiomatic to a society, and normalizations of dangerously abnormal permissiveness are very real in many social contexts.

>usually trotted out whenever libertarians get pissed off that "muh freedom" no longer excuses their bigotry

What the fuck are you even talking about at all here? What's bigoted about wanting personal freedom or defensible privacy? So because some random hypothetical racist libertarian likes to make off-color jokes, defending privacy is only something done by racist bigots?

>So by your logic we should just fully accept its further normalization with absolutely no pushback or regard for any notion of private life and activity?

Yes.

That, instead of "people who think that this is an erosion of privacy are wrong" is exactly my logic.

Face scanners at airports change exactly and precisely, with no room for qualifications, unequivocally, irrefutably, nothing.

Sorry I hurt your libertarian feelings. Some more YouTube videos on stoicism may help. They won't, but keep thinking they will.

If anything friend it's you who's got the childish little mindset about these things, and other people. What a silly way to use a brain.

What do you think opting out does exactly? For the system to work they must already have your photo associated with your name and ID. And even if you opt out they’re still tracking your movement. It seems like an impotent protest so I don’t bother.

They make it opt out so they don't need to demonstrate the cost/benefits of making it required.

They make it opt out because there are always a few people who object[1], so this is a safety valve.

If everyone opted out ("I am Spartacus") then it would stop and they would have to switch to less efficient means. (If it weren't less efficient then they wouldn't need this one.)

As John Gilmore points out at http://new.toad.com/gnu/ :

"If you politely decline to show ID whenever someone asks (or demands) it, and continue politely declining regardless of how they escalate, you will discover what your rights are. You'll be surprised. You'll get away with it. Most of the people who were asking for it have no right to demand it. They've been relying on your voluntary cooperation. They forgot to tell you that part; but you just found it out for yourself. Sometimes you may discover that you didn't have the right to live, move around, or do business in your own country without government-issued documents. That's very interesting knowledge to acquire first-hand too. If you haven't recently tried exercising your right to exist and live without government permission, are you sure you still have that right?"

[1] In one of the author Robert Heinlein's biographical accounts he walks out of a hotel because they demand to see id at registration. He went to another hotel which did not.

Americans can opt out.

Nope - Canadian here, opted out in Austin.

Unless you are a Canadian born in an undesirable country: Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, .. etc. It doesn't matter if you are citizen and have a passport, you will always be racially profiled when crossing the US unfortunately and I bet the experience will be much worse under the new Administration.

You're talking about the border exit. We're talking about security after checkin.

What are you opting out of?

Every state id picture is run through facial recognition, and that data is processed to detect duplicate people and other issues. Every passport has a picture which is digitized for facial recognition.

This is a good thing, as it potentially disarms the stupid RealID fiasco with respect to ID and airports.

There is no privacy benefit to document validation.

People just want to get through an incredibly annoying experience as fast as possible, and they know the people behind them want this too. Doesn’t excuse the bullshit, but it’s much less of a dramatic “sheep bowing to authority” than made out to be here.

This is it. I don't think I've opted out of it. I know I can but I know the agent is going to make a big deal of it and the line is already long for everyone behind me so whatever lets just get through it.

Nah. In my experience when you opt out, they say “Okay,” scan your ID the same way they’ve been doing for 20 years, and you get through in the same time.

If they want to entice us with convenience, the facial recognition should allow you to just stroll through without talking to anyone.

I'll do it next time I'm flying to see what happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com