Traveling this summer? Maybe don’t let the airport scan your face.
vox.com
- Travelers can opt out of facial recognition at US airports by requesting manual ID verification, though resistance or intimidation may occur.
- Facial recognition poses privacy risks, including potential data breaches, misidentification, and normalization of surveillance.
- The Algorithmic Justice League's "Freedom Flyers" campaign aims to raise awareness of these issues and encourage passengers to exercise their right to opt out.
You are viewing a single comment
Fuck calming down. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. People are to complacent with privacy. Anyone that thinks this attitude won't lead to terrible things is a fool.
I would say we are already seeing / have already seen bad things happening because of this complacency. Buf of course worse things will happen if we don't take measures.
You're never going to live in a world where you're allowed to fly without photo id amigo.
That's not what the other user is saying - we have to fight to keep what rights we have, and maybe one day gain some of the ones we lost
Their message is correct but they’re mad at that “calm down” part and addressed it poorly
User 1: if you fly using a passport, the government knows what you look like, whether or not you opt out of facial recognition, being a Karen at the airport won’t help with you
User 2: Fuck that, if we are complacent, more privacy will be taken away from us
User 3: You can’t fly without a photo id
Seems to me the user you responded to knows what they are saying, and you’re both right. You don’t have a right to fly on an airplane without a legal verification of who you are. We should have a right to verify our identity without facial recognition software. But that happens with laws, not making scenes at airports
Honestly, we should have a right to fly w/o providing ID as well. I don't need it to ride the bus or local train, and I don't think I need it for a greyhound bus (if I pay w/ cash). I've heard you can maybe get away w/o ID on Amtrak, but their official policy says it's required.
So why are airplanes so different? Fatalities per mile on airplanes are among the lowest of any form of transportation, so I highly doubt terrorism is a significant, statistically relevant factor here. I think they do it because they can, not because it actually helps reduce risk in any meaningful way. I don't see any basis for needing an ID for any form of mass transit, you should only need it for driving to prove that you have the privilege to do so.
I really don't understand why law enforcement is so infatuated with checking my ID...
Move to a different country.
Eg in Australia I can book a domestic ticket and have two interactions after that:
No photo ID - or any ID really - needed. Now there's enough dribs and drabs of information when I book the ticket and etc etc that they can identify me, but there's nothing stopping someone from booking a ticket for someone else under their name.
Wait are you really arguing Australia as a privacy and security IMPROVEMENT on three rest of western countries?
It sounds like it is an improvement for domestic flights. I don't see anything that invalidates that argument...
I don't know but have you ever taken a domestic flight? Or even a Schengen one? Open border policy woks wonders for data security and also quality of life in general
Yes, but Cinnabon doesn't need to scan my face while I'm there. Every little bit helps.
That’s a strawman, who said otherwise? Showing ID is one thing, storing your ID and tracking your trips is another.
You really don't think your trip can't be tracked?
Is that what I said? No. Of course it can be and is tracked. But I’m not going to Hand over my biometrics and make it easier for them.
Exactly. If they need it, they can issue a lawful order, and that has certain prerequisites here in the US. I'm guessing international airports have special rules, but I'm only going to hand over what I'm legally obligated to and force them to dance around my 4th amendment rights or face a lawsuit.
The reality is that the ship for that kind of privacy has shipped a long time ago. Like a hundred years ago. The reality is that the authorities know details about every single person that passes through an airport. You can't get in or out without a passport/identification.
There is virtually no expectation to privacy at an airport. It's a public place that is heavily monitored for good reason. And that fact isn't hidden in the slightest. You are legally required to freely and honestly identify yourself to the authorities.
If this was at your local bus stop, then you'd have a point. But not at airports.
Also, the serious discussion about privacy should have started with the introduction of the smartphone. That's when the conversation would have mattered and made a difference. But that ship has sailed.
For hundreds of years women couldn't vote and minorities were categorically segregated. Things aren't perfect for those groups now either but those ships had sailed and it was only because some people were vocal and outraged about it. If you're not pissed off and making a little bit of a scene about what's happening to human rights including privacy rights you're part of the problem. If you see somebody protesting their picture in an airport security line, don't be one of the sheep in the line saying hurry up buddy, you're slowing us down. Tell the people around you he's got every right to be upset about this. A bit of awareness and resistance is a good thing.
That's a strawman analogy. We're not talking about privacy as a whole. The discussion here is about the supposed right to privacy at, what amounts to, a government controlled entrance point into the country. You have to identify yourself no matter which technology is being used. There's no anonymity at an airport (from the government). Whether it's technology or a piece of paper, you are legally required to identify yourself.
I keep saying this over and over, but if you want to talk about digital privacy, focus your energy on smartphones and the internet. The impact for privacy violation and the impact for regaining privacy rights is the most effective there.
Only a subset of any population has any interaction with an airport and the privacy implications there are next to nothing (because there is no right to anonymity there).
The more you let a government stick high resolution 3d cameras in your face and shrug it off because you've already lost privacy the stronger their database becomes, the more complacent you become, the more willing you become to let them do it at the train station, the post office, the crosswalk, etc. The more willing you become to put your palm on their palm reader and retina in their retina scanner when they deploy that technology. I'm not dismissing better avenues to focus efforts, I'm acknowledging the increase in surveillance and potential for abuse in the absence of any proven benefit to the people that are allegedly protected by these changes.
But they don't need to do that track where you go and what you do. They're already doing that with smartphones. That was my point.
And for the record, they don't need 3D cameras for anything. A photo off of Facebook is enough. I worked in that field and developed that kind of software.