- 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.
I’m going to assume they can 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.
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?
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
“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.
I find stupid to give away my biometric data to everyone asking for it just because I give it away once in exchange of my passport, but I guess that’s just me.
Simply stand away from the camera or keep your face covered with a mask, present your ID, and say, “I opt out of biometrics. I want the standard verification process.”
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.
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”
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.
Agreed, but they’ll inevitably fuck those up too.
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.
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)
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?
Facial recognition poses privacy risks, including potential data breaches,
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.
For international flights, US citizens can opt out but foreign nationals have to participate in face scanning, with some exceptions.
Which exceptions?
I’ll bet one of the exceptions is having a bunch of money.
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?
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.
So then why do they need it again?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
won’t lead
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.
You’re never going to live in a world where you’re allowed to fly without photo id amigo
Move to a different country.
Eg in Australia I can book a domestic ticket and have two interactions after that:
- x-ray/security where they scan my carry on
- boarding at the gate where they scan my pass.
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?
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 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
That’s a strawman, who said otherwise? Showing ID is one thing, storing your ID and tracking your trips is another.
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.
For hundreds of years women couldn’t vote and minorities were categorically segregated.
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.
