- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- 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 must log in or register to comment.
For international flights, US citizens can opt out but foreign nationals have to participate in face scanning, with some exceptions.
Which exceptions?
Canada is one, last I heard.
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
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)
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!
Probably diplomatic passport holder.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Texas is real id compliant. Has been for like seven years iirc
As I said. They already have it.
So then why do they need it again?
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.
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)
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.
deleted by creator
Good God, were you that security guard???
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
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
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.
isn’t politics and bureaucracy great.
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.
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.
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.
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 I’m going from California to New York
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.
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
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€
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:
- ~19 hours by train and cost $92 in coach
- ~11 hours by car - $60 in gas in my hybrid, $130 in my minivan
- ~2 hours by plane - <$50 by plane (Frontier)
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Interesting how addicted government is to collecting data.
Poison pill their data instead.
-
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?
Stupid privacy people. What’s the worst that could happen? A fascist coming into power next year who could misuse the data?
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?
Minority Report
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.
