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.
Which exceptions?
I'll bet one of the exceptions is having a bunch of money.
I remember when travelling in the US (Im a foreigner) there was a vip pass thingy to skip lines and enter without even talking to a migration officer (I think). Really seemed like a rich person pass
I'm Canadian and I used to have a pass like that. It was $50 at the time and valid for 5 years.
Hey everyone, this guy's loaded!
Yeah, there are two different programs. One is for domestic flights and one is for domestic and international.
I did the domestic flight one once because it was free with my credit card.
But I had to fill out some forms and interview in person.
I only got to use it once because they vip lanes were always closed.
It’s only worth it if you need to travel a lot.
Additionally, I’ve never really suffered long lines through airport security.
The long lines are typically at immigrations and you can’t skip those outside of being a diplomat or private jet rich.
They can skip it yeah, that's the whole point of the international one
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-entry
And you can also skip them if an employee gives you TCC pass when your connecting flight will leave soon so you need to get there fast (had that happen to me once)
Canada is one, last I heard.
Probably diplomatic passport holder.
Stupid privacy people. What's the worst that could happen? A fascist coming into power next year who could misuse the data?
Minority Report
Stupid privacy people. What's the worst that could happen? Surveillance companies that have already scoured the internet for photos of people to build a giant database of people?
It's also not like they could ever use the hundreds of other cameras all over the airports. What would they do with all that data anyways?
I'm going to assume they can photgraph you the moment you walk into the airport.
I used to be extra during the TSA body scan BS. And honestly, I felt like they won.
They'll always win because they can just prevent you from flying.
They pulled me in a private room when I refused to body scan and my bag was suspicious.
It was an extra 25 minutes. Enough to be inconvenient as they tried to find two available TSA agents willing to body check me then check every single item in my suitcase.
That's the fun part about the war for privacy. We have already lost and if you make a big deal about it they're just going to make your life hell!
It's not such a binary thing as winning or losing, it's a constantly shifting process. The only way to actually lose is by giving up -- instead, consider it making it as hard as possible for your privacy to be infringed upon. Sometimes it's more inconvenient, but what makes us such a farmable populace is our reluctance to be inconvenienced. Be good at being uncomfortable.
Yup, go to the airport early, wear something like reflectacles and a mask, and record everything. Who knows, maybe they'll violate your rights and you can find a lawyer to sue them to recoup some of that inconvenience.
And we lost it under W and the patriot act.
I tried to refuse the face scan and they looked at me like I just grew eye stalks. After a long pause, I said never mind I need to catch this flight, let's do it.
It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, even though I'm disappointed with the practice.
I refused, it went fine. I had to repeat myself because it was unexpected and dudebro wasn't prepared, and they had to turn on the other machine and wait for it to start up, but it only delayed me like 2 minutes. The more people ask, the easier it gets.
I still opt out of those scans to this day. Why stop?
I’m okay with the TSA scan (pre-check) since.. you know.. they already have you if you took a picture for your ID.
Those “clear” people however. Who TF thinks it’s a good idea to hand your biometric info to a corp?
I'm sure the government would never let biometric data be compromised. Right?
As I said. They already have it.
Isn't reducing the size of the dataset worth it? I'd rather them have a picture from three years ago than a new scan every month or two.
Clear is now a TSA “vendor” for the precheck process. The machines they use for the sign up process - at least the airport I was at - don’t have the eye scanning camera in the kiosk.
The Clear representative I was asking questions of had said they don’t require eye scans for Clear, though that is the default. People can ask to use just fingerprints, which he said does disrupt the terminal process as the agents don’t think to ask if fingerprints were what was registered when the eye scans fail.
I am not advocating for Clear. I refuse to use them. I simply do want to call out that they are one of 3 who handle the process for the TSA now. People do have a choice of which of the three to use.
There's no way my ID photo would work for facial recognition. I don't plan on giving them anything new before I'm forced to
How did you get into TSA Pre without providing fingerprints? I tried once, and they strictly refused to let me apply because I wouldn't give fingerprints.
Well, I’ve had DLs in multiple states and they all required fingerprints. The little digital ones. Maybe that’s not the case everywhere though.
Oh, weird. They don't require prints for a DL in TX, but we're already closing in on an authoritarian state anyways. I didn't know this was a thing.
It probably has to do with whether the driver's license is Real ID compliant or not. Here in Minnesota, you have the option of getting the Real ID license that can be used as a federal ID card for things like flying, or the regular old driver's license which soon will really only be good for showing you're allowed to drive a car.
I only have the regular driver's license so I don't know what all getting the Read ID involves, but having your biometric data scanned and stored seems like something they'd require.
Texas is real id compliant. Has been for like seven years iirc
I'm in Utah and have a "real ID" or whatever (the little gold star) and never had my fingerprints taken, eyes scanned, etc. If they required that, I'd say no and just use my passport instead, which also didn't require biometrics.
Brit here. About eight years ago I flew from London to Belfast and return for business. We don't need a passport to travel to Northern Ireland, just photo id like driving licence is fine.
Coming back to London I approached the gate and before I could pull out my wallet to show my id, the guard says " Good evening Mr. Codandchips have a safe journey "....
Yes they have facial recognition, the cameras are visible but you don't notice them.
Sounds fishy to me.
Yeah, they didn't know he is Mr. Codanchips @lemmy.world?
It isn't necessarily. Had a police officer greet me by name once (had never interacted with this officer or the station they were from). They'll have the data necessary to identify you by sight. If you're a British citizen the British government most likely has a photo of you somewhere if you have any photo ID, not to mention if your face is known to the state through other means eg through interaction with the criminal justice system.
Check his username :)
Oh fair enough lol
Good God, were you that security guard???
I had no idea we were already at that point.
always wanted to visit the US. I guess that won't happen then.
I refuse to participate in this dystopia. But I'm a little worried this will make me a recluse
Trust me you're already a recluse relative to most by being on here. If you observe what passes for a "normal" "person" these days, they will endlessly scroll algorithmic ai-generated incomprehensible horrors on Tiktok, then purchase something through an ad from temu, they do not think. They are gone.
But once you stop worrying that you may be saying no to experiences too much purely on principle, then you're free to go even further and eradicate surveillance capitalism influence from your life altogether. One day you can ascend to even go smartphone-free.
Ascended to that in late 2014 because using a smartphone was a trigger for my anxiety.
Back to using those since 2020 because of WhatsApp calls, apps for every shit and such being needed in life.
I have two these days, one Google™️ Pixel™️ for all government and job bullshit, and one crappy old riced to hell and back Sony for everything else. No Google play, no SIM, rooted and ROM'd, no problems, just a neat multi tool in a pinch.
OK, I'll see what I can find
How is that much different from scrolling Lemmy? They are both social media
Because Lemmy is Free, as in Libre and as in free beer, it is open source, and on top of all that, it's not run for-profit by a single large corporate entity, it's decentralised structure precludes that by design.
There is nothing actually wrong with websites or forums like this or "social media", not anymore than there is anything wrong with atoms even if humans found a way to make a weapon of it.
In this case technology is weaponized by capitalism, and they'll do anything to make you think it's anything but the corporations who are to blame, misinformation on top of misinformation.
The "mental health effects" of social media or smartphones are all just corporate distractions from the fact all those are really effects of capitalism. Even cryptocurrency isn't actually bad inherently, I use monero all the time, it's a great idea actually, especially where power consumption is addressed, but capitalism made it a speculative assets and state backed players wrestle for control. AI too. Open source LLMs benefit everyone, but the lack of tech literacy turned progressives against it and the played right into OpenAI and the rest of those scumbags' hands.
The fact that those who aren't immersed in tech don't know this is why all is lost. For the common man - they won, and it's all black box products made to exploit people to the last drop.
That's like saying a Subaru and a submarine are both modes of travel.
Can you just like, not be so damn condescending and elitist? Literally saying people who use TikTok and purchase stuff from Temu are sub-human...
Yeah I'm sorry, I just feel pretty strongly about this I guess and Lemmy is one of the few safe places to vent to like-minded folks.
To explain myself a little: It's not the "normies" that the techy people hate, it's the perverted messed up world those less savvy in technology live in and everything about it, and with how much we've learned to circumvent corporate control it's often a culture shock to see that people just take it, even stuff like online ads or algorithmic content feeds, stuff I haven't experienced in probably a decade, like as if that's just normal, and the sad part is it is for so many.
Imagine if most of the world population was just falling for pyramid schemes or other blatant financial scams constantly. That's how it feels.
It becomes all too easy to blame the people rather than the systems that led to this, and sometimes it just feels like nobody outside of the hacker (classic definition) circles really gives enough of a shit to take control of the few things they can, and this is late stage capitalism, so I can't really blame them, we're all so tired just trying to survive.
If I thought people were just taking it I'd agree, but a lot of people genuinely don't know what things like ad blockers are. Much less something like using ad guard dns or pi hole. They've just never heard of it.
But honestly, how?
Tell them!
Opt out. If we don't exercise our rights, we lose them.
"What if they retaliate and make life difficult for me? "
That's both illegal and against policy. If someone delays your right to travel for this specific reason, delay their job by asking for their supervisor and their name and employee number. Then file a complaint. That will dissuade that public servant (and their leadership) from exhibiting such behavior and encouraging it respectively.
"But they are capturing your image in 10 skillion other public locations."
If you don't care, then that's fine. Some people don't mind the slow encroachments on 4th Amendment protections. Cool. Others do. Cool also. That's why we can opt out.
There should exist a law that orders privacy by default forcing all this intrusive stuff to bi opt-in instead of opt-out. With data, it is often to late if it is only opt-out..
Agreed. This was rolled out without any regard whatsoever for people's interest in data privacy. That kind of entitled behavior from any government agency is just plain gross.
I figure that by being in the airport there's enough footage of my face from security cameras that I didn't consent to (other than by being in public) that the scan of my face while boarding is moot.
Opting out of this face scan in particular is like using Chrome to browse the web, but searching with DuckDuckGo "for privacy reasons"
There's probably a huge difference in resolution.
Sure, but what's stopping them from just adding whatever high res cameras they want in their terminals and jet bridges anyway? How can we be sure they aren't already doing that? The only thing the face scan does that those cameras can't is require you to lower your mask.
As the article points out, TSA is using this tech to improve efficiency. Every request for manual verification breaks their flow, requires an agent to come address you, and eats more time. At the very least, you ought not to scan in the hopes that TSA metrics look poor enough they decide this tech isn't practical to use.
More likely they'll just remove the option to opt out
Budget probably.
Yeah, because just adding high-res cameras is not good enough.
They will need a good quality data transfer network with it and also have to use higher powered computers for data processing, to get whatever they want out of those videos.
They might even have to pay *shriek* C++ devs to rewrite their Python prototype into a more efficient production code (and considering how hard it is to find devs that actually know what they are doing...).
There is a reason I wear a large hat and a mask when walking through the airport and generally keep my head tilted down. I also wear large sunglasses, but that's as much because every airport has at least one giant wall that is nothing but glass and inevitably I will walk around a corner and get face fucked by the sun. The privacy is just a bonus 😅
If you already have a passport and opt out of facial recognition, you're only deluding yourself into a false sense of privacy. In fact, if you enter the screening area at all in an airport, you are kidding yourself if you think you can maintain some semblance of privacy. The government knows what you look like. Calm down and move on with your life.
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.
I went vacationing in another country and it was kinda uncomfortable being scanned by cameras, then scanning my passport, then moving across country lines and getting cameras and another scanning of my passport.
I did this during an international trip last year coming back into the country. The guy mostly seemed confused and kind of suspicious, but it was nbd.
They will potentially take you out of line to a side room to hand you off to someone else. It seemed to be an area where they deal with any oddball kind of things. There was a lady ahead of me who was more raucus and upset about some issue with her ID. The guy who checked mine mainly seemed kind of bemused, like it was unusual.
Be prepared for "We have the biometric data from your photo already, why do you care?"
You're not obligated to give them a super detailed justification. Just remain polite and unconfrontational, and explain that you prefer not use the system as long as the right remains afforded to you to opt out.
(Note, this right only extends to US citizens)
"Normies" avoiding scanning their face is useless because the vast majority of them still use Instagram and other social media services full of surveillance
I've never posted any pictures of my face online. But I'm sure many data brokers have them. And some family members many years ago I'm sure posted some.
Like I get it, it’s scary and I don’t want them to have my data, but my picture is being taken ALL the time basically everywhere I go. Is putting my foot down for this specific type really making a difference?
It's the only real way to push back that other folks will notice if enough of us do it.
Last time I went through DC a few weeks ago they were using these. I saw a sign saying you're welcome to opt out. Nobody even questioned what they were doing and were just going along. When it was my turn I politely said I'd rather not do the scan. Dude just glanced at my ID and waved me through. The next few folks behind me blinked and said they didn't want the scan either. If enough people push back it can at least maybe slow down the normalization of constant surveillance.
Put your foot down everywhere then -- it's a fallacy to think that it's not worth it to resist data harvesting because it already gets collected "everywhere" anyway, take one step at a time to make it harder and harder. Opting out of this is just one step.
I have global entry, so they already have my biometric data. I'd love to not here scanned, but this point it wouldn't be anything they didn't already have.
The game was lost for me when I started getting fingerprinted at certain airports. This privilege used to be reserved for suspected criminals. Now we're are all suspected criminals on a default setting.
I find stupid to give away my biometric data to everyone asking for it just because I gave it away once in exchange of my passport, but I guess that's just me.
It's about normalizing survellience, and the article also says this as an opinion further down in the text.
Everyone can see that we are going towards the society in black mirror, with social scores, and people being punished for not complying with rules of any kind. I'm glad I'm kind of old because the future will suck.
The last time I flew they did this, but there was a huge sign that said photos are immediately deleted after verification...is this not true?
Just for example, that's an easy way to save just the biometric signature and have very few people question it.
Also, bureaucratic lies can be technically true. They copy the photo from the original device to a database, then delete the photo on the device. So it's technically true the photo was immediately deleted, it's just also copied and persisted forever. And a bureaucrat will proudly stand in front of you all day and tell you they deleted the photo, and they will sleep well that night with not any concern
isn't politics and bureaucracy great.
Judge would declare that unlawful on the spot but without malicious intent whoever did it would have qualified immunity since a judge hasn't already ruled on that specific case so it's a wash.
Unlawful to tell the truth? it was deleted, it's true. What else may or may not exist is not part of this statement, we deleted the photo from the device within seconds of scanning it. 100% no perjury required.
Your point about qualified immunity is so good, it's a joke. No police officer from east side of Wichita has ever run someone over, back and forth until their spin was broken, using BF GoodRich KO3 tries before, so it was impossible for the officer to know that it was violating the law. The closet case law we have is when Officer Daniels ran over his ex-wifes lover in using his duty vehicle using BF GoodRich KO2 tires, and on the West side of Wichita - but that is such a different situation no reasonable peace officer could have known it was illegal using the KO3 tires.
It’s discussed in the article. We can’t really be sure if they do, but they already store the measurements of your face along with other bits of metadata. They could reconstruct your face with it even without the photo. It’s a deceptive claim, because even if they throw away the camera video they still have your face for all intents and purposes.
I know you're using the acceptable legal term.
As a Cybersecurity person, the "potential" data breaches we talk about, today, are really pretty certain, at this point, in history.
We may work towards a collective genuine 'potential', where the breach might never happen, someday, with effort.
Turns chair around and sits straddling it like a cool youth mentor.
Y'alls faces at airports are definitely getting leaked on the dark web.
The good news is it might take enough years to leak that your appearance might happen to change in between.
You're already on hundreds of cameras by walking into any airport in the world. Do they need your consent to run facial recognition software on the security footage?
I used to work for a company that did various kinds of biometric recognition. I unfortunately was paraded past these cameras many times for testing purposes, so my face was compromised many moons ago.
We had two kinds of products we installed in airports. When looking at large crowds most airports wanted cameras that would monitor the flow of traffic, determining if there were any bottlenecks causing people to arrive at their gate (or baggage claim) after their luggage.
The other product was facial recognition for identification purposes. These are the machines you have to stand right next to. There are various legal reasons airports did not want to use any crowd-level cameras for identification. They hadn't obtained consent, but also, the low resolution per face would lead to many more false positives. It was also too costly.
But we did have high def cameras installed in strategic locations at large music halls. These private companies were less concerned with privacy and more concerned with keeping banned individuals out of their property. In those cases, we registered faces of people who were kicked out for various reasons and ignored all other faces.
My point I guess is twofold: first, you might not be facially tracked in as many places as you think you are. Second, eventually you will be and there's not a whole lot we can do to stop it. For many years, Target has identified people with their payment card, used facial recognition to detect when they return to the store, and used crowd tracking to see where in the store you go (and sometimes they have even changed ad displays based on the demographics of people standing nearby).
Mostly, you will be identified and tracked when there is financial incentive to do so.
Planes <<<<<< trains.
You're too smart for this site. I too love taking trains across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans!
I'd actually love to take some sort of sea train, underground tunnel or floating death wave train one day. It wouldn't be relaxing, peaceful, or cheap. But it would be an adventure.
For distances >600km, flying is usually 4x-10x faster at a similar price. At least in and around Germany. I assume in the US trains compare way worse, also because the distances are way larger.
Examples: "Normal" example: Stuttgart (Germany) -> Amsterdam (Netherlands) Train: 11h 10min - 241€ Plane: 1h 20min - 225€
Best case scenario for train in Germany at around that distance (because there's a direct connection): München -> Berlin Train: 3h 54min - 167€ Plane: 1h 5min - 226€
Hour vs. hour it's the best form of transportation
You get more space, there's no TSA, you don't get charged for bringing luggage, you can carry on liquids, you get leg room, the wifi is decent.
But if I'm traveling a really far distance... For example, if I'm going from California to New York I'd rather go by plane. Going by train for that seems to be pretty horrible. America is in desperate need of a ground transportation that can get from California to New York quickly.
If we put in a mag-lev system that averages 250 mph from station to station, an overnight sleeper train across the country becomes extremely attractive.
There is a sleeper train from Amsterdam to Vienna, last 2 / 3 years I checked it was sold out almost everyday. It seems like the perfect mode of transport
Yup, that's like 70-80 hours, depending on where in CA you're leaving from. So you'll be on that train for 3 days, and have to change trains 2-4 times. The plus side is that it's cost-competitive w/ flying ($400-ish, vs $200-ish flying), but that's for coach, so you'd spend those 3 days sleeping in a chair. If you want a sleeper room, that's like $2k.
A direct flight would take 5-ish hours and cost $200-ish.
There's a reason nobody rides trains in the US, and it's because it takes way too long and it's too expensive. It would be a fun experience, but not great if you're using it for transportation.
They are very much incomparable more so than they are comparable. Try taking a train over a sea or across a country like the US.
Exactly. I live near SLC, and to get to SF would take:
And that's a route with a direct train connection, so literally no transfers. So, a train takes way longer, is probably more expensive (esp. if I take family), and I'd probably need a rental car on the other end. And that's for a "best case" scenario with direct train service.
Screw that, trains anywhere other than the east coast of the US makes pretty much no sense for transportation. As an experience, sure, but not to get from A to B.
Agreed, but they'll inevitably fuck those up too.
Dumbass article, if you go to an airport your face is all over the security cameras and the checkpoints delete your image immediately after scanning so they are the least of your worries.
I'm going to need a source on this bullshit lie.
Source: the signs on the device itself at an airport I saw last week, also the TSA website https://www.tsa.gov/digital-id
The photo is immediately deleted unless clear signage is posted ndicating that the checkpoint is undergoing testing as results may be retained for up to 24mo.
How do you know it is auto deleted?
What if it relies on specific personnel to actively purge the database? What if said personnel are poorly trained, low pay, exteme limited time, and simply does not care?
How likely does a TSA agent fall under all of those criteria? (Hint: very likely)
Edit: here's the fucking clincher directly from their website
I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they plan to test this system for the next decade. So technically they don't delete anything due to being a long as fuck period of "testing".
That testing period, plus 24 months
Well if that is the case at your specific airport, you'd know because it would say as much on the sign. You know, like it says in the sentence immediately following the line you quoted.
I went thru naturalization process. They have everything already. Including DNA, retina scan, etc. So I opted for Clear. Global Entry as well. They have it all already. May as well fast track going thru customs.
Clear is run by a 3rd party company. TSA pre-check is run by the government. TSA pre-check comes free with Global Entry, you just need to sign up for it.
Yeah I have pre because I have had global entry for a while (8 years now I think). Got clear because where I am, it changes wait time from 30 minutes to 5.
Poison pill their data instead.
Go to www.thispersondoesnotexist.com
Generate a person
Print it
Scan it when asked for facial data
5. Get hand-picked by the TSA for involuntary colonoscopy
And that's how you get free healthcare.
Upon searching your anus for potential contraband, we found a large hemoroid. Please contact your primary care physician.
Do they bill you $40,000 for that diagnosis? Could be a new source of revenue for discount airlines
Since a lot of hemoroid cases are caused by the seat of the discount flights, it would be a solid business model.
Or just call Preparation H Raymond?
This sounds like a great way for a SovCit to get a full ass inspection from a sausage-fingered security guard.
The best you're going to get is redirected to a very long queue of people who's passports don't have biometrics.
Actually no, they look at your face and your ID, make sure the information matches, and move you along. No secondary inspection, no difference except you didn't get scanned with facial recognition. It's the same process as before facial recognition was implemented.
Why even write that comment?
Because to get to the guy in the kiosk you have to queue up and that is likely to be long. That is what was stated.
I've been in and out of DFW, BOS, and JFK since these facial recognition scanners went in and I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that there's no additional wait time, or queue, or anything else if you opt out. There's a TSA agent right next to the scanner who collects your ID whether you get scanned or not. That's the same person who otherwise just checks it if you opt out. What are you even on about? Maybe its different at some airports, but I've been opting out every time I fly and it's no big deal.
I never said it was a big deal at all, it isnt.
But there is an increased likelihood of a queue when opting for the non automated route. It is the reason automation is implemented.
I too have been throuhh airports, it has never bothered me but if you dont go through the automated queue you might face a longer queue because a lot of previously manual customs real estate is given over to automation now.
¯\(ツ)/¯ maybe, but as long as I have the option and it's not tedious to do so (which is the case), I'm gonna opt out and encourage others to do so. Fair enough if your perspective is you want to accept whatever new security theater data collection is implemented in exchange for some perceived convenience. Making your case here with me in this conversation has taken more effort on your part than opting out of facial recognition at the security checkpoint in an airport would have, and I find that fact amusingly ironic.
I also I never said I prefer the convenience over the privacy. Here is a tip, just because you hold a viewpoint does not mean it is infallible. There ae trade offs. While personally I am scurity and privacy conscious, I was pointing out the barrier for people to opt out, that is all. There is no two ways about it, unless there are a ratoo of 1:1 staff to passengers who opt out there will be a queue. The machines were put in in massive volume far exceeding the number of staff that would ever be checking people through in order to speed up the experience and due to them costing less to run.
I agree with you. You can still be objective and recognise the situation for what it is. A barrier to opting out is the likelihood that the manual check through takes more time. It doesnt have to be significantly more time.
And what I'm saying is it doesn't take more time to opt out in my experience. Its just as quick to get manually verified as to be biometrically scanned.
I refuse to go through the body scanners, but the last time I went through the airport there wasn’t anyone trying to opt-out. I seriously doubt if the radiation perv scanner doesn’t get people to do anything, this won’t either.
You mean the backscatter X-ray units that have already been phased out 10 years ago?
The modern milimeter-wave scanners both do not reveal anything and do not use ionising radiation. If radiation is a concern to you, you really shouldn't be flying at all to be honest. The dose you get up there is much higher than you'd get from an X-ray scanner, although it is still negligible.
Reflectacles are a really good idea if you're going this route. They can ID you with just an eye scan, and this interferes with that.
They have you take your sunglasses off.
Get clear ones. Most (all?) of those security cameras use IR illumination to ID you, so you can have lenses that allow visible light through, but mess up IR scanning. I think you can get them w/ prescription lenses if you email the creator, so you can legitimately tell them you need your glasses to see (if you need a prescription, that is).
If the scan fails, they'll just ask you to take them off.
Sure, and I'll say I don't consent to take them off, so they'll need to verify me another way.
Then just ask to not be facial scanned. Last airport I went to had signs saying you could opt out.
Then you don't need weird glasses either.
I'm less worried about the face scanning (you can opt-out, as you said), I'm more worried about the camera scanning in other parts of the airport. The glasses combat the most common form of face scanning, which uses IR illumination. It also works at grocery stores and whatnot, which is especially important if you're a POC and likely to be racially profiled as a shoplifter (I've read some horror stories).
It does paint a bright red target on my chest since they show up as a massive bright light source on IR feeds (if a security guard happens to watch), so it's more a form of protest than anything.
Interesting how addicted government is to collecting data.
If you already have a passport and opt out of facial recognition, you're only deluding yourself into a false sense of privacy.
she cute