Senators Want Limits On TSA Use of Facial Recognition Technology For Airport Screening (pbs.org) 29
A bipartisan group of senators, led by Jeff Merkley, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall, is advocating for limitations on the Transportation Security Administration's use of facial recognition technology due to concerns about privacy and civil liberties. PBS reports: In a letter on Thursday, the group of 14 lawmakers called on Senate leaders to use the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration as a vehicle to limit TSA's use of the technology so Congress can put in place some oversight. "This technology poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit TSA's development and deployment of facial recognition tools until rigorous congressional oversight occurs," the senators wrote.
The effort, led by Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., John Kennedy, R-La., and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., "would halt facial recognition technology at security checkpoints, which has proven to improve security effectiveness, efficiency, and the passenger experience," TSA said in a statement. The technology is currently in use at 84 airports around the country and is planned to expand in the coming years to the roughly 430 covered by TSA.
The effort, led by Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., John Kennedy, R-La., and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., "would halt facial recognition technology at security checkpoints, which has proven to improve security effectiveness, efficiency, and the passenger experience," TSA said in a statement. The technology is currently in use at 84 airports around the country and is planned to expand in the coming years to the roughly 430 covered by TSA.
Proof (Score:3)
Re: Proof (Score:1)
Or they can point to the reduction of other security theater and costs they can remove as an "upgrade" - which certainly improves efficiency and passenger experience.
I'm not of a fan of pervasive surveillance tech, but at airport security checkpoints you are in a "publicly surveilled" space and already submitting to privacy-invasive procedures.
If you are in line to submit to a full body scanner while they rub your biometrically-linked id against a gazillion govt databases - I'm not sure what expectation of
Re: (Score:2)
>> what expectation of privacy would be violated
Didn't read the link?
“This technology poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit TSA’s development and deployment of facial recognition tools until rigorous congressional oversight occurs,”
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. They don't need to know your name to make sure you don't have any weapons on you.
Disproof (Score:2)
A former employer used to tell the story of trying to sell facial recognition to the country's federal security service. They set up in airport with a list of 1,000 faces they wanted, and started scanning passengers. When they finished the first thousand of them, they were very very disappointed: that had got a huge number of false positives...
For each of a thousand people, they did a thousand comparisons. That's a million comparisons. Even if the error rate was only one percent, 1% of a million is 10,000
Federal Security Market is closed (Score:1)
The market is for security theater only, no effective security allowed. We had a lot of good bids from our families and friends here on the Hill, but we are no longer accepting proposals.
"Grab 'em by the pussy"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so they won't be able to ID a little girl by her face but sexual assault [nbcsandiego.com] is still OK with them?
These people are sick in the head.
The problem of airplane terrorism was solved over a field in Shanksville PA ninety minutes after a plane hit the North Tower.
We'll have to take back the Fourth Amendment if we want it - it won't be returned.
Re: "Grab 'em by the pussy"? (Score:2)
Not just facial recognition (Score:3)
The TSA itself poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit it.
After 20+ years of invasive pat-downs, millimeter wave scanners that see through clothing, and needing picture ID to fly... NOW they have concerns about privacy and civil liberties? Must be an election year. I expect they'll give this the same lip service they've given it during every other election year since 2001, and promptly forget about it after November.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Having to personally identify to fly domestically does nothing to increase the security. You can ensure people don't have weapons or bombs and still allow them to anonymous. But even the security lines themselves are security theater. Now if someone wants to detonate a bomb they do it in the security line and kill 8-10 planes worth of people waiting in that line versus just the people on one flight. Not one single bit of what they do makes anyone any safer. The only reason it hasn't happened i
Re: (Score:3)
I've done a lot of work at a major airport and a few smaller ones. Ramp workers do have to go through metal detectors and have their bags x-rayed to get into the "sterile area". They do get to keep their shoes on and avoid the body scanner, for the
Dems cheerleading for terrorists again (Score:2, Interesting)
You know why I'm an unapologetic conservative Republican? Even if the mean and nasty libertarians call me every name in the book?
Because on 9/11, I was a kid, and I was, like most of us, jolted out of my complacency and started paying attention. And the thing that caught my attention wasn't the security theater and the politicians posturing and getting Bill Maher canceled off of ABC.
The thing that caught my attention, before the first bombs dropped in Afghanistan, was the masked anti1f4 types (who the fuck
Re: (Score:3)
Identification of ANY type is completely irrelevant to making sure someone doesn't have a weapon or a bomb. Unique identification does nothing for safety. Security lines just make larger groups than would have been on the plane to be a target. Heck if a bad guy wanted to blow up a high school football game it's there for the taking and not a damn thing would stop it. Same with those security lines. It is all just security theater that gives power to the government that they shouldn't have. Government should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dems cheerleading for terrorists again (Score:1)
Identification presents a barrier to certain classes of bad actors. Granted it doesn't present very much of a barrier if the borders are wide open and those bad guys can just walk across and claim asylum, blending in to the 2m+/year of people from the world over who've been doing it for the past couple of years.
Re: Dems cheerleading for terrorists again (Score:3)
It's a bipartisan bill
Re: Dems cheerleading for terrorists again (Score:2)
Stupid is not a partisan issue, but along the particular dimension of law enforcement, its center of mass is with the looters, rioters, and terrorists, almost all of whom are being eyed by the democrats for potential votes. So it's the dems who pander to this kind of stupid.
The kind of stupid Republicans pander too generally doesn't see terrorists getting a pass because it would be bad optics to give guys like Nidal Hassan extra scrutiny for opining about jihad on government time on account of you can't be
Optional? (Score:2)
The effort, led by Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., John Kennedy, R-La., and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., "would halt facial recognition technology at security checkpoints,
So, no chance of just requiring TSA to include a "manual check" line as an option? Let the customer decide. Either smile for the camera or get in the line with the grumpy agent checking IDs and faces.
We must all be made equal. And dragged down to the level satisfying that paranoid tweaker with outstanding warrants.
For those not paying attention... (Score:1, Insightful)
The TSA is a joke. It's security theater. President George W Bush and most Republicans in congress at that time wanted it to show people they were serious about security, and the Democrats in congress at the time saw it as another huge government agency that could be unionized.
Shortly after it was created (in the aftermath of 9-11 and with most Americans thinking it was going to protect them from future airborne terrorism by so-called Islamic Extremists) it was caught waving-through persons dressed as [pres
Re: (Score:2)
The TSA is a joke.
Well, yes. How many people now have been stopped for entering Turks and Caicos with ammunition in their carry-on luggage? Ammunition that evidently slipped through TSA checks and onto the aircraft.
Not apologizing for the passenger fuck-ups. Check your luggage before you fly. But not catching ammo before boarding is serious. The rest of a firearm could be an undetectable 3D printed plastic pistol. But the ammo would be tough to print.
Problem? (Score:2)
How is facial recognition an "invasion of privacy" when it comes to TSA screening? You are already required to present IDs and be body scanned. Checking your identity is their job. This isn't like it is being run on a street and checking random pedestrians.