Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

You Can Say No To a TSA Face Scan. But Even a Senator Had Trouble. (washingtonpost.com) 127

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: On his way to catch a flight, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) was asked to have his photo taken by a facial recognition machine at airport security. The Transportation Security Administration has been testing use of facial recognition software to verify travelers' identification at some airports. Use of the technology is voluntary, the TSA has told the public and Congress. If you decline, a TSA agent is supposed to verify your identification, as we have done at airport security for years. When Merkley said no to the face scan at Washington's Reagan National Airport, he was told it would cause a significant delay, a spokeswoman for the senator said. There was no delay. The spokeswoman said the senator showed his photo ID to the TSA agent and cleared security.

Is facial recognition technology really voluntary if a United States senator has trouble saying no? The TSA is using facial recognition technology for a limited purpose that the agency says is accurate. As flying reaches record highs again this summer, the technology could improve safety and efficiency with fewer risks than controversial uses of facial recognition such as police trying to identify crime suspects from vast numbers of images. But problems encountered by Merkley and others raise questions about whether the technology can be used fairly and how far it might spread in American life without true oversight.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Can Say No To a TSA Face Scan. But Even a Senator Had Trouble. More

You Can Say No To a TSA Face Scan. But Even a Senator Had Trouble.

Comments Filter:

  • TFS/A used the words TSA and oversight.

  • Just Another Form (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoWayNoShapeNoForm ( 7060585 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:12PM (#63680059)

    Just another form of that old line Your papers PLEASE.

    And the summary and the news report are trying to create a problem where that was no problem for the Senator. The process worked as designed...

    ...but I am not saying this process and this technology are good things. Quite the contrary. This entire concept is Orwellian in nature.

    • Just another form of that old line Your papers PLEASE.

      To be fair, you're legally required to prove your identity to get on a commercial flight.

      This entire concept is Orwellian in nature.

      No argument here.

      • Re:Just Another Form (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:26PM (#63680115)

        "To be fair, you're legally required to prove your identity to get on a commercial flight."

        This is already a broken security concept built on a trust model. They are already confirming you aren't a threat to the flight so it really shouldn't matter who you are. The real reason they do this is to track the movements of the population without warrants.

        • Re:Just Another Form (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ugen ( 93902 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @01:20PM (#63680295)

          Given that airline ticket information is available to the government (in fact, available from the point you buy that airline ticket with a credit/debit card, so way before travel), I don't think they really need to check ids to track anyone.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            "Given that airline ticket information is available to the government (in fact, available from the point you buy that airline ticket with a credit/debit card, so way before travel), I don't think they really need to check ids to track anyone."

            No offense but you obviously don't think about systems in terms of security and exploitation. If they don't check ID's then they don't know if the person who purchased the ticket is the one who traveled or if the owner of the credit/debit card is even the one who actua

            • You're making the mistake of saying that the US is a "free society." The US is actually much more controlled, surveilled, and incarcerated than truly free countries in Europe.

          • Re:Just Another Form (Score:4, Insightful)

            by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:03PM (#63680443) Homepage
            Just because they know who bought the ticket doesn't mean that they know who's boarding the flight. I could buy a ticket, showing my ID, and hand it off to somebody on the No Fly List. From a security standpoint, just knowing who bought the ticket isn't enough.

            • Not to mention that people buy tickets for other people all the time, especially in a business.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mjwx ( 966435 )

              Just because they know who bought the ticket doesn't mean that they know who's boarding the flight. I could buy a ticket, showing my ID, and hand it off to somebody on the No Fly List. From a security standpoint, just knowing who bought the ticket isn't enough.

              I have never, anywhere in the world, been asked for ID to board a domestic flight... besides that it would be the airline asking airport security. AFAIK, DCA is entirely domestic. Last time I flew a cheap carrier (EasyJet) I didn't even speak to a single person until I arrived in Germany. Checked in online, scanned my boarding card to get airside, scanned it again to board... Didn't really need anything from the cabin crew on the short flight, first person I had to speak to was the nice German at the EU bo

          • They still need to verify that the person boarding the aircraft is the person who actually purchased the ticket, due to any number of scenarios where a person disallowed from flying (no-fly list, banned from an airline for violating FAA rules, etc.) doesn't have someone else buy the ticket and hand it to them.

            It's the old authentication != authorization chestnut. Authorization comes from having the valid ticket, and authentication comes from matching the name on the ticket to a valid photo ID presented by

            • Maybe people shouldn't be disallowed from flying in the first place, as long as they can pass the usual checks for weapons and dangerous items. Plenty of non-airline transportation carriers in the US (railroads, bus lines) don't check ID or do so only sporadically. I don't see a crime wave happening on Amtrak, even though their ID requirement is mostly theoretical, and they don't even use bag scanners.

              • Maybe people shouldn't be disallowed from flying in the first place, as long as they can pass the usual checks for weapons and dangerous items.

                Have you seen stories like this [independent.co.uk]? Or about the guy on the flight to South Korea that opened the emergency exit door while the plane was on approach? Airlines and passengers have a vested interest in preventing some people from flying, even if they don't have a weapon on them.

                • Yes and I don't give a rat's ass.

                  Neither incident risked causing a catastrophe. Opening an emergency exit at altitude wouldn't have worked. If he had got it open on landing and fallen out, he'd have just killed himself - no big deal.

                  Should we also have "no ride lists" for commuter trains because people can get drunk and unruly?

                  • Should we also have "no ride lists" for commuter trains because people can get drunk and unruly?

                    If you get drunk and inappropriately pull the emergency stop on a train, yeah, I'd be alright with the operator banning you from future travel. Actions have consequences.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ugen ( 93902 )

            Funny, all of the replies missed my point :) I am not advocating for not checking ids here. I am merely stating that the government can track travelers without the need to check ids, and therefore it is unlikely that that is the purpose of TSA.

            As far as checking ids goes, the airlines would do it regardless, due to simple commercial requirements, because if they did not - indeed a wrong person could fly, resulting in various commercial losses (stolen ticket, theft of services such as elite benefits, etc).

            • In Europe for "domestic" flights, it depends on the airline and/or the country -- it seems like not all airlines think that the revenue gained from checking "papers please" will be more than the cost of doing so, or the cost of the goodwill lost through treating people like criminals.

            • Funny, all of the replies missed my point :) I am not advocating for not checking ids here. I am merely stating that the government can track travelers without the need to check ids, and therefore it is unlikely that that is the purpose of TSA.

              No, you missed their point, which is that knowing who bought the ticket doesn't tell you much about who is traveling. You can't track people if you don't know who actually gets on the plane.

              But the TSA didn't create the ID requirement anyway. Airlines did that themselves a couple of decades before 9/11. They did it so they could more effectively price-discriminate. Charging different prices to different people is hard if there's a secondary market in airline tickets, which there was. It was common for peo

          • If they didn't have TSA scum checking your "papers please", you could buy the ticket under a prepaid credit card using any name. Interestingly, in EU countries, confirming your identity for "domestic" (within the EU) flights is required by some airlines and countries, but not by others. Planes aren't falling out of the sky because the ID requirement is looser than here in the "Land of the Free."

        • The real reason they do this is to track the movements of the population without warrants.

          Possibly, but the real reason is enforcement of the "no-fly list" - if you've done something that gets your name on the list, then they need to actually make sure you're not flying and the only way to do that is to be checking everyone's identification.

          Now, there can be a robust debate over whether the "no-fly list" should exist or not; but it does exist and there is funding for enforcement, so enforcement there will be. And there can be debate over whether there are un-stated "out-of-band goals" to collec

          • If that's the reason, I imagine no one logs or communicates the data outside the airport, and any personal information is deleted immediately after checking that a passenger is not on the no-fly list. Right?

            • Well, if you want to believe that the TSA is looking out for your best interests, then that is probably the case. For the rest of us realists that have seen how the US government actually operates, there can be secondary uses for the data being collected while fulfilling the publicly stated primary purpose.

              I didn't say that's the only thing they're doing with it. I said that's the reason for it. The government is really good at having one legitimate purpose for doing a thing, and then a whole lot of ques

      • You can fly without ID. It means they pat you down and go through your bags.

        • You can fly without ID. It means they pat you down and go through your bags.

          Not really. Various sources say you will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be verified. According to Google US fly without ID [google.com] and the TSA [tsa.gov]: (Lists various acceptable IDs.):

          Adult passengers 18 and older must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel. ... In coordination with its DHS counterparts, TSA has identified acceptable alternate identification for use in special circumstances at the checkpoint.

          Also Can You Fly If Your Driver’s License or ID Card Was Lost or Stolen? [corporatet...safety.com] and How to fly without an ID [skyscanner.com] (from the latter):

          Can you fly domestically without an ID?
          The short answer is yes.

          If you’re catching a domestic flight within the US and your ID is lost, stolen, or you left it at home, you might be in luck. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has other ways of confirming your identity using publicly available databases, so there’s a good chance you’ll be allowed on your flight.

          First, though, you’ll need to complete an identity verification process with a TSA officer—so arrive at the airport well ahead of your flight’s scheduled departure time for the best chance of making it for take-off. (We’d recommend at least two hours ahead.) The TSA officer will ask for info, including your name, current address and other personal details that can be used to confirm that you are who you say you are. The process could take a while.

          If they’re able to confirm your identity against a database, you’ll be allowed through to the security screening. (You’ll get a boarding pass with a note on it explaining that you don’t have an ID).

          If, however, your identity can’t be verified, they’ll have no choice but to turn you away.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          I thought you just have to have access to a private, non-commercial plane.

      • "To be fair, you're legally required to prove your identity to get on a commercial flight."

        Not really. Otherwise if you ever lost your ID in a far away city, you'd never be able to return home. You have to go through extra interrogation to get through security, but you CAN travel without ID in the US, even via commercial airlines.

        • "To be fair, you're legally required to prove your identity to get on a commercial flight."

          Not really. Otherwise if you ever lost your ID in a far away city, you'd never be able to return home. You have to go through extra interrogation to get through security, but you CAN travel without ID in the US, even via commercial airlines.

          As I noted here [slashdot.org] you have to be able to verify your identity to fly domestically. The TSA will accept various forms of identification and can try to otherwise verify your identity (after you fill out a form, get there really early), but if they can't, you can't fly (according to the TSA website).

    • Correct. As usual, everyone is wrong, except maybe the senator. Then again, he voted for all that crap.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Just another form of that old line Your papers PLEASE.

      And the summary and the news report are trying to create a problem where that was no problem for the Senator. The process worked as designed...

      ...but I am not saying this process and this technology are good things. Quite the contrary. This entire concept is Orwellian in nature.

      The thing is, this stuff can be used to easily automate what has traditionally been a terrible burden. In many countries, the UK and Australia included we now have automated immigration gates (A.K.A. Smartgates) where I just scan my passport, it takes my picture and fingerprints then lets me through. I can land at Heathrow (that's in London) from anywhere in the world and be kurbside in just 30 mins... And I'm not even on a UK passport, I'm one of the 12 nations and customs unions that can also use these ga

  • Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Akardam ( 186995 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:15PM (#63680065)

    Good on the Senator for sayin' no.

    Obvious that "it will cause a significant delay" is a bullshit, scare tactic. Every time I've gone through the line, it takes on the close order of 10-15 seconds for the agent to scan my ID (they don't use the boarding passes anymore), and do a peek check (mask down for a moment, if wearing one).

    So either TSA has to admint that the manual ID to face veritication is not effective, or they have to admint that the primary goal of facial recognition is NOT security.

    Or they can continue to bullshit us. I'm betting on this one.

    We all need to keep our bullshit smeller in peak condition, maintain it regularly. Otherwise we're doomed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Marful ( 861873 )
      What the TSA does isn't "vigilance" it is security theater.

      TSA agents are the greatest threat to airport security insofar as weapons, drug smuggling and theft and does absolutely nothing [politico.com] to stop the threats it was intended to combat.

      The primary goal of the TSA isn't security, it's money for the "security" industrial complex mixed with control of the populace. So many encroachments on our 4th amendment rights just in the name of money.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Akardam ( 186995 )

        I did not argue that TSA is (or should be) the ones to be vigilant. Quite the opposite. Every person subject to their actions are the ones who should be vigilant.

    • Re:Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liber (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:38PM (#63680163) Homepage

      This isn't even close to sufficient level of protest. The government isn't supposed to know where we travel especially within our own borders. It does not take knowing who someone is to confirm they have no weapons or explosives or otherwise. Also, the entire premise is security theater and their current method makes the carnage even worse (human toll wise). If someone wants to wear an explosive vest and detonate on a plane, they take out the planes passengers and the plane. This stupid security theater just moves that point to the security line. Now someone can just detonate and line and take out MULTIPLE PLANE worth of travelers waiting in the security line to be groped and personally identified. Fuck that and them.

      • While everything you wrote is true, the thing is that, in addition to killing everyone aboard, a flying plane can also be used as a projectile weapon and additionally kill the people inhabiting whatever it is the plane is crashed into, e.g., the World Trade Center. To many people, that's a bit more terrorizing (which is the point).
        • You're making the mistake that ID checks have prevented another 9/11 attack. Another 9/11 hasn't happened because of locked flight deck doors and a change in policy/passenger attitude that doesn't allow for cooperation with hijackers. Before 9/11, the rule was that airlines/flight crew would cooperate with hijackers, since the worst that typically happened was a free vacation in Havana.

          • You're making the mistake that ID checks have prevented another 9/11 attack.

            You didn't read (and heed) my sig. I never said nor implied that they would have. My comment was only in response to:

            Now someone can just detonate and line and take out MULTIPLE PLANE worth of travelers waiting in the security line to be groped and personally identified.

            Again, that's completely true and objectively worse. However, again (and this is my only point) having a plane used as a projectile weapon is emotionally worse fo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          a flying plane can also be used as a projectile weapon

          You mean they're violating my 2nd Amendment rights too?!

      • Well there are other methods of travel that allow you to cross state borders without showing ID. Maybe not as convenient but they exist. Traveling to AK or HI though would not be possible without ID.

      • The government isn't supposed to know where we travel especially within our own borders.

        That ship sailed long ago. Ever noticed a growing array of cameras atop your stop lights in the USA? One of those is called an "ALPR" or Automated License Plate Reader. Between those and your cell phone, the government, and a number of other parties, have a pretty detailed view of where you were at any given time.

    • Good on the Senator for sayin' no.

      Obvious that "it will cause a significant delay" is a bullshit, scare tactic.

      Old man yells at airport screen. Someone mumbles "OK, Boomer" and checks his ID. How in the hell is this a "news" story?

      "Is facial recognition technology really voluntary if a United States senator has trouble saying no?"

      Give me a fucking break. The senator had "trouble" in an airport about as much as a porn star has "trouble" getting laid. Hell, who needs facial recognition when the brainwashing works this well.

    • It is curious this comes at the same time as REAL ID, a program which requires states to share ID information with the federal government. It really seems they're pushing to build out their database.

    • So either TSA has to admint that the manual ID to face veritication is not effective, or they have to admint that the primary goal of facial recognition is NOT security.

      That doesn't follow.

      If we assume that manual face verification has a significant and useful level of effectiveness, there are still reasons why they might want to deploy automated systems. The most obvious is the reason for nearly all automation: It's cheaper. It may be just as good, or it may even be slightly worse, if it's much cheaper it may still make sense.

      Another one is that perhaps the automated system is better. This isn't as inconceivable as it might sound. While the human brain is crazy good a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fedos ( 150319 )
      Very little of what the TSA does is actually about security. At best it's about providing the illusion of security.

  • Can't see the forest, for the trees? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:16PM (#63680069) Journal

    Abolish the TSA. That's the correct solution.

    Seriously, I can board a train, a subway or a local bus full of (often kind of sketchy looking) passengers, or get on a cruise ship and nobody's making me go through these long lines where they want to x-ray my things, have me step through body scanners, get my ID verified against some secret "no fly" list, etc. etc. Never felt particularly unsafe doing any of these things, and I wouldn't for boarding a plane either.

    When you look at the tests run where people purposely tried to get past airport security with weapons and other "can't take on board" items, they were successful in the vast majority of cases. The TSA utterly failed to catch this in any meaningful way.

    We're wasting all these tax dollars on the charade and we've normalized it to the point most people just accept the madness as "the way it has to work", at this point.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Akardam ( 186995 )

      Abolish the TSA. That's the correct solution.

      I 100% agree. It's going to be an uphill battle, but I agree, and will continue to do what I can to help make this happen.

      In the mean time, those who want/need to fly have to deal with it. I encourage everyone to evaluate for themselves how best that's done. However that is, everyone should understand their rights, and stand up for themselves if those rights are being infringed upon.

      • I 100% agree. It's going to be an uphill battle

        I agree, too, but it's not just an uphill battle, it's a lost cause. Not only will approximately all voters think that abolishing the TSA is a bad idea, even if you could convince enough of them (and you can't), no politician is going to take the political risk associated with an action like that.

        Security measures basically never go away, because if they're left in place the harm (some money spent) is fairly invisible and doesn't generate much negative attention, but if they're taken away and then somethi

    • they were successful in the vast majority of cases

      That you've been told about. These "we tried to take a gun on a plane, you'll never guess what happened" shock stories don't paint a complete picture. The TSA in America stops upwards of 6000 weapons being brought incorrectly on planes every year.

      But really the problem here is one made from convenience. Your ID used to get checked when a ticket was issued. You can now do that yourself, so you've bypassed a check that has existed since long before the TSA was introduced.

      I mean still fuck the TSA and the enti

      • Re:Can't see the forest, for the trees? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @01:00PM (#63680241) Homepage Journal

        The TSA in America stops upwards of 6000 weapons being brought incorrectly on planes every year.

        Does that include granny's knitting needles? In any case, this could be like law enforcement intercepting and confiscating "X tons" of drugs every year - Never mind that the actual amount smuggled in every year is 10X.

        There are millions of flights a year. 853 million passengers in the USA alone, apparently. And they're only catching 6k or so?

        The real change that increased security wasn't the TSA. It was the change that the passengers on a flight will kick the shit out of anybody who causes trouble now, along with reinforced cockpit doors.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )

        Your ID used to get checked when a ticket was issued.

        It used to be, when you got printed tickets from the ticket counter or the travel agent, they would only check your ticket at the boarding gate. The ticket counter might verify your ID for the credit card if you bought it at the airport. When I started flying for work in the 80s, you already had to walk through a metal detector and show your ticket to get in, and they also x-rayed your checked and carry-on luggage. There was no checking ID when the ti

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flippy ( 62353 )

        The TSA in America stops upwards of 6000 weapons being brought incorrectly on planes every year.

        6000+ based on what numbers? Self-reported numbers by the TSA who says "trust me"?

        Also, in this context, define "weapons".

      • That's the x-ray/metal-detector/body-scan part of TSA, which actually makes sense. Historically, ID wasn't always checked when the ticket was issued ... up to a certain time (80s? 90s?) you could actually board commuter flights and buy tickets in the air for a small surcharge, similar to commuter trains and buses - LGA to DC shuttles worked that way.

    • When you look at the tests run where people purposely tried to get past airport security with weapons and other "can't take on board" items, they were successful in the vast majority of cases. The TSA utterly failed to catch this in any meaningful way.

      For example, I did this completely accidentally. I few no less than 3 times with 3 throwing knives in my carryon.

      Okay, the story: Deployed military, packing up for returning home. I had managed to get a set of engraved throwing knives as a souvenir. I'm going home on a military flight, so no care at all about weapons in my "carryon". I mean, it's not like I don't have a M-4 assault rifle, M-9 handgun, etc... So I find a pocket in my backpack that the knives slide right into.

      Que getting home exhausted

      • That just illustrates the futility of banning knives on airplanes. Shit, they can't even keep shanks out of American prisons, even with far tighter security than airports have.

    • We're wasting all these tax dollars on the charade.

      This is an important point. I had a friend who didn't like using the E-passport gates. When he went to the border agent to get his passport manually checked, the agent asked him why he wouldn't use the gates and he responded with 'to keep you guys in work'. The agent didn't ask him any more questions.

      I know the TSA don't have a sense of humour, but I wonder if such a response might smooth your path through the manual check.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ugen ( 93902 )

      Just to be pedantic, Cruise ships do have security. Everyone goes through a WTMD when they board, and then again when they return at all ports of call.
      The luggage is also scanned (when they take it from you at check in, before it is delivered to your cabin).

      *Some* security is definitely needed on public transportation. The question is how much is enough.

      Personally, I have a lot less issues with face recognition (my photo is already on the ID I present) than I do with "nudoscopes" used to scan travelers. The

      • Just to be pedantic, Cruise ships do have security. Everyone goes through a WTMD when they board, and then again when they return at all ports of call.

        Yeah, but cruise ships are really looking for people smuggling *alcohol* aboard.

    • Good luck abolishing a federal employee union.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      Seriously, I can board a train, a subway or a local bus full of (often kind of sketchy looking) passengers, or get on a cruise ship and nobody's making me go through these long lines where they want to x-ray my things, have me step through body scanners, get my ID verified against some secret "no fly" list, etc. etc.

      No body scanners involved, but last time I rode Amtrack, they did check my ID against the ticket and x-ray my things as I was boarding.
      There were also long lines, but that was because of late

      • Out of curiosity, which station had bag x-rays? I've never seen this in any station in the Northeast, which are the busiest parts of the system. The only ID check I've had was a passport check for the Toronto train.

        Also, many stations have a way to bypass the Kindergarten lines - if you're in Penn Station NY, you just board from the middle level or use the same track number on the NJ Transit side.

    • All of this, and more. TSA is, as you say, incompetent. They have prevented me from having a blunt letter-opener, however, I have inadvertently carried my 8cm pocketknife through a TSA checkpoint without them noticing.

      Worse, they are counterproductive. I once read an estimate of the total time they add to people's travel time. You are talking hundreds or perhaps thousands of *lifetimes* of wasted time every single year.

      Abolish TSA and indeed the entire Dept. of Homeland Security.

    • Re:Can't see the forest, for the trees? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:09PM (#63680873) Homepage Journal

      I like to extrapolate things into "Human lifetimes" to create interesting viewpoints

      Assuming:

      853 million travellers annually
      72 year life expectancy
      30 minutes to clear security on average

      That works out to the TSA consuming the equivalent of 676 human lifetimes per year; about two entire human lifetimes every single day.

      2,996 people dead in the 9/11 attack

      14,876 human lifetimes wasted by TSA since 2001

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dadoo ( 899435 )

      Abolish the TSA. That's the correct solution.

      Totally agreed, but I can't help but wonder if this senator had trouble because he's a Democrat.

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:16PM (#63680075)

    To be fair, given the high percentage of criminality in their demographic, a senator needs to be subject to more profiling and scrutiny than an average person.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by a9db0 ( 31053 )

      LOL!
      Oh, to have mod points...

    • To be fair, given the high percentage of criminality in their demographic, a senator needs to be subject to more profiling and scrutiny than an average person.

      Mandatory body cavity searches for all Congressional members?

      Oh, how we'd love to find that shit on page 4,273 of the next Bill they need to pass in order to read what's in it.

  • Waste of money (Score:3)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:19PM (#63680095)

    The thing I find amusing about this stupid "trial" is that they have it in the Precheck line. The line where you actually sit for an interview to get cleared... the line where customs has already decided that a regular photo is actually plenty of information to uniquely identify you for entering the country. It is also a 3rd party commercial solution that is also essentially competing with the precheck/global entry solution for identification confirmation.

    The TSA needs some serious streamlining.

    • The thing I find amusing about this stupid "trial" is that they have it in the Precheck line.

      That makes sense. The precheck line has lighter security. So it is more important to verify the identity of the people in that line.

      I signed up for precheck to save time. If this tech saves time, it's ok with me. They will check my identity with or without the face-recognition. The only difference is that the machine is faster and more accurate than a human.

    • The thing I find amusing about this stupid "trial" is that they have it in the Precheck line.

      This actually makes some sense to me, in that in theory this is as you say just using data you've already given up to be in the program, however the benefit of using this is in theory improved throughput and more accurate ID check to use the line.

      However that portion of the process really does not need more efficiency, almost always the backup is in the luggage scanning portion (even with reduced requirements for pr

  • I've been there. Airport security in the US. Airport security in the UK. Threats of delays, questions as to why I opted out. I filed complaints, they got nowhere. Successive governments have abused their powers (in that area and others).

  • Had this on JetBlue: boarding hack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:21PM (#63680103)

    Was going on a JetBlue flight some months ago and they had the facial recognition for boarding the flight. Everyone lined up, and very slowly, one would step up, wait a long time for the machine to recognize them, then they'd get to board.

    I walked up to the flight attendant on the side and said I'd like to opt out of the facial scan. So they looked at my boarding pass and ID and I skipped the entire line.

    I have never felt so self-satisfied and smug in my life.

  • Not so voluntary. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:26PM (#63680113)

    If they are Delaying people significantly or telling them that there will be a Delay (Beyond the few minutes it takes to have a human manually review the ID and compare it to them), Then they are coercing them. This is Not scanning people voluntarily - This is coercing people to agree to face scanning.

    If you don't agree to the scan, then you will be punished by making you wait longer.

    Admittedly it's a softer stick than detaining someone or forcing them to undergo something more intrusive in response, but it's still a kind of coercion.

  • Speaking as a Canadian... (Score:3)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @12:41PM (#63680179)

    This is just one more example of why people like my wife and me plan never to go the the US again. I've noticed that this is a growing sentiment among Canadians. I don't think it's anywhere near a critical mass yet, but I've been surprised to find that we're far from the only ones who have decided that the US if off-limits.

    We're disappointed that we won't get to do some of the Stateside exploring we had planned on in retirement, and we're very sad that we'll never visit New Orleans again. But even with that strong pull, we're still no longer willing to cross the border. I can't say that the US is a fascist country, but I see a lot of behaviour and policies there that call fascism to mind.

    Let the flaming begin...

    • As much as I'd like to flame you, you are basically right. The definition of fascism is the merger of State and Corporation. The US is basically there.

      However, Socialism is where the State takes over the Corporations, so it's a merger in the opposite direction. The end result is the same.

      And sadly as Trudeau proved during the trucker's protest, Canada is just as bad. "Nice bank account you have there, too bad you had to object to a WEF approved policy."

      • I'll agree that the Italian fascists did set up a corporate state, but corporatism isn't a fundamental part of fascism. Their three basic principles were, Everything for the state, Nothing against the state, Nothing outside the state. There were a number of other fascist nations in Europe between the wars. I haven't checked, but I wonder how many of them were allied with the big corporations and how many weren't.

        • "Why are so many Christians God fearing instead of God loving?"

          Off topic, but the answer is that the god-fearing Christians actually read the Old Testament. Including but not limited to Leviticus 20 and 25, and Numbers 25 and 32.

          The words of a mild-mannered faith healer (Book of Mark) are comforting, but is he really correct? Given the consequences could you really be sure?

          Now I'm off to see what I can see about the economy of Franco's Spain.

    • This is just one more example of why people like my wife and me plan never to go the the US again. I've noticed that this is a growing sentiment among Canadians. I don't think it's anywhere near a critical mass yet, but I've been surprised to find that we're far from the only ones who have decided that the US if off-limits.

      We're disappointed that we won't get to do some of the Stateside exploring we had planned on in retirement, and we're very sad that we'll never visit New Orleans again. But even with that strong pull, we're still no longer willing to cross the border. I can't say that the US is a fascist country, but I see a lot of behaviour and policies there that call fascism to mind.

      Let the flaming begin...

      Don't worry. We're working on that. Our entire government is one more good tantrum away from full-blown fascism. If we had a "Intelligent and Coordinated" Trump-alike take office? It'd be a done deal within their first term.

      How do you think it feels to those of us stuck living here with no easy way out? I look at how far away I am from retirement and wonder if I'll even make it before the clamps come down. I'm more doubtful every day.

    • I'm with you, except I'm *already in* America. We live reasonably close to Fort Erie, ON, and used to enjoy popping over the border for lunch at Happy Jacks. After 9/11 and all this BS security theater, it's just not worth the hassle. Getting into Canada is ezpz. Coming back into our own country is a freakin' pain in the ass. It's not worth the hassle.
      • Yeah, the American border staff generally like to make utter tw@ts of themselves ... "are you dating anyone in Canada?" "why are you coming back via Vermont, not the Interstate in NY?" They're power-tripping jobsworths who don't seem to comprehend the fact that people take vacations. Fuck 'em.

    • The US scares you from visiting? Not Mexico? Venezula? Cuba? China? Saudi Arabia?

      • The US scares you from visiting? Not Mexico? Venezula? Cuba? China? Saudi Arabia?

        TBH, between Mexico and the US it's a toss-up, in spite of drug cartels and some high-profile deaths of Canadian tourists in Mexico a bunch of years ago. I suspect Mexico would probably feel a bit safer, because on the whole it would be obvious that we're not locals and it seems less likely we'd get caught up in local bullshit. In America, it's not immediately obvious that we're foreigners, so over-zealous cops are always a concern.

        As for the others, we've been to Cuba - mostly kept to the resort, spent a l

    • Do you mind if us Americans visit you?
      I live in NY with an enhanced driver's liceince(sp) which counts as a passport for Canada.
      I've always wanted to visit Toronto on July 4th so I can see if the fireworks in Rochester are visible over Lake Ontario.

  • That which can be abused most assuredly will be abused.

  • Its a brave new world. Unfortuneatly, it is neither brave or new. Your compliance is your passport -heil benevolent leader.

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close