Very click-baity. Below the only part that actually relates to the title:<p><i>The announcement came as we began to board. Last month, I was at Detroit’s Metro Airport for a connecting flight to Southeast Asia. I listened as a Delta Air Lines staff member informed passengers that the boarding process would use facial recognition instead of passport scanners.<p>As a privacy-conscious person, I was uncomfortable boarding this way. I also knew I could opt out. Presumably, most of my fellow fliers did not: I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners.<p>To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board.</i><p>The rest of the article is a (not very novel) discussion about the risks and problems of facial recognition.
I've recently traveled outside Australia and used the facial recognition "smart" system. It was completely non-obvious that we could opt-out - it was only implied by the text.<p>After going through security, I asked an official if I could've opted out. They said yes, and said I could flag someone down.<p>When I returned, I tried to do so - but there was no-one around! Its an automated system, and almost impossible to opt out of.<p>Airport security is full of dark patterns when it comes to privacy.
><i>Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric information?</i><p>The problem is that you've <i>already</i> handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0].<p>At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that.<p>So, to make an appeal on the argument of privacy of data is being woefully ignorant of the fact that this encroachment has been happening for <i>years</i> and it didn't seem to matter very much <i>then</i>.<p>[0] - <a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-real-id-requirements/" rel="nofollow">https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-rea...</a>
“Until we have evidence that facial recognition is accurate and reliable—as opposed to simply convenient—travelers should avoid the technology where they can.”<p>No, no, no! The possibility that this technology may occasionally be wrong pales in comparison to the world we’re marching toward. By far the biggest risk facing society is that having your every move tracked by governments will soon be next to impossible.<p>Also just imagine what our world will look like as facial recognition data slowly leaks out into the hands of non governments (or they find ways to collect it.) It isn’t hard to imagine a world where everyone knows everyone else’s whereabouts at all times. Facial recognition feels like the biggest looming step toward a dystopian world.<p>The fact that they throw out the possibility of this technology occasionally being wrong sidesteps the real risks in favor of something that’s just easier to explain.
I was at London's Gatwick Airport last week, where facial recognition was being trialed at the boarding gate for my flight.<p>On the way, multiple, large signs announced the trial.<p>At the gate itself, there was a prominent notice addressing travelers' privacy (and other) concerns - several paragraphs of large text. It was clearly mentioned that, for people who were reluctant to use the new technology, there would be attendants available to process them in the usual way.<p>I was quite impressed. However, the trial was cancelled, and the machines still retained their plastic wrapping. Oh well.
I don't understand the problem here.<p>How does the facial recognition system work? I'm thinking that biometric passports contain the necessary data and that the airline has already got then by scanning the passport at some point so that it quick and easy to use facial recognition at boarding time.<p>If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really.<p>In any case, there is no anonymity in air travel (this is really more about anonymity than privacy). You are identified and tracked from the moment you buy your ticket until you leave the airport.<p>Facial recognition is a new technology that people need to adapt and be confident with. It will take some time then no-one will pay attention anymore.
Maybe we'll get to McLuhan's global electronic village after all.<p>Having come from a rural area, in a village it is just like in Cheers - "Everybody knows your name". They also know a lot about you, your family, friends and enemies. Much of what they know is true, but some of it is wrong (gossip).<p>Privacy and anonymity is of recent origin, starting with industrial development and large cities. It's a "security by obscurity" strategy for the more powerless segments of society. Powerful people are in the Social Register.
A bit weak of an article. I absolutely hate how facial rec is going to be the norm in a lot of things outside security.<p>1. The infamous they, already have a picture of your face. Your id/passport. It's kind of too late to be anonymous when boarding a plane, for multiple reasons.<p>2. One agency has it, thus its easy for them to share it with others. HA! You, have never dealt with fed agencies. You want to meet the grownup versions of those toddlers that never learned to share their toys? Any fed agency. Doesn't matter how important the info is and how timely, "it's our data, our jurisdiction, we'll handle it".<p>Just two points that stood out to me.<p>Again, I agree that privacy now seems like a dream we had in the distant past due to tech companies and the results of a post-911 world. But this article is the equivalent to complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating said cake.
Peripherally related. I needed a new passport, and applied online for one. The online application kept rejecting my photo which I had taken by a pharmacy specifically approved for taking passport photos. It said that my eyes were too shaded or had too much shadow. I tried everything with levels and contrast.
I gave up and started messing with the application software. I cut the eyes out a different photo in the Mac Preview.app application. I lined up the eyes and thought they looked pretty good, then uploaded the photo.
The application doesn't give a pass/fail, it just submits and its off.
I have traveled quite extensively on this passport, including going to some countries that are pretty uptight about security. I'm sure I behave like a drug dealer going through security.
Even if you opt out of the boarding pass/passport scanner facial recognition etc. you're still not technically opting out.<p>There's quite a few CCTV cameras in airports. They've most likely (definitely) got some sort of facial recognition software connected to them.
> Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out?<p>yes :/<p>Many commenters say that your data / picture is in the system already, which is fine, but your passport photo can be 10 - 15 years old and these systems record how you look now. That's the question if you are comfortable providing it.<p>What you can't do anything about is CCTV and I think it's a safe bet that they are already equipped with facial recognition and other ML tracking technologies. It's just a question of which database you can avoid being registered in.
"99% accuracy for male faces, but 35% error rate for women..."<p>The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.
I am usually opting-out of body scanners (in the EU its still optional). But at some airports the security people seem to not know that it's optional.<p>By now I always carry a letter from the federal police (responsible for border + airport security) explaining that it's optional.<p>At Berlins airports they usually ask for a reason why I opt-out of body scanners, which is ridiculous, as one needs no reason to NOT do something that's legally optional to do.
Recently traveled internationally. I cannot agree with the claims of this clickbaity article. In the security line there were numerous signs telling passengers they could opt out of having their photo taken.<p>As I approached the kiosk, I mentioned that I preferred to not have my photo taken, and was nearly cut off by the lady asking for my passport.<p>I'd argue that getting my passport scanned was quicker than waiting for the machine go take your picture.
At Rome's FCO airport there is a facial recognition passport control for flights outside of the EU. Last time I left the EU, my aging passport's chip refused to work and a person made me retry 5 times before letting me go to the human passport control.<p>It must be said that the non-European, non-biometric passport control can easily take 30 minutes longer.<p>I have to say that I've never thought about this in terms of databases, I somewhat assumed that they were only matching against the local copy in my passport, but maybe someone can elucidate for me on how this works on EU passports.
Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects privacy?<p>Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.
I see the issue with false positive, but I don't get the privacy argument here. Scanning your face vs your passport is not any different from privacy perspective.
> I began to wonder: Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out?<p>No. No ordinary people would care even when there will be no choice to opt out.
"I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy"<p>"I had to ... speak with a Delta representative at their information desk ... then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board."<p>That sounds relatively easy, actually.
Airports hve got to be 100% covered with cameras that CBP could easily get access to—why is taking a single still photo—to be matched to the passport photo they already have—such a big deal?
>Research shows that it is particularly unreliable for gender and racial minorities: one study, for example, found a 99 percent accuracy rate for white men, while the error rate for women who have darker skin reached up to 35 percent. This suggests that, for women and people of color, facial recognition could actually cause an increase in the likelihood to be unfairly targeted for additional screening measures.<p>So this should also be a very good reason to reject this tech for this use. Darker skinned people and women get misclassified even more, and subject to further interrogation.<p>I may be a white guy (works 99/100)... But I can't just defend my own rights, or all of our rights degrade.
I would like to opt-out as well, but it seems it actually was quite easy. All she had to do was say that she wants the passport to be scanned. Good to know.
Of all of the problematic uses of facial recognition, this isn't one. You are already in a context where your identification must be verified. Who cares if they establish that identity with a precanned passport image? It isn't like there is any new data available here.
Airport is about the only places that I have no problem with being Facial Recognition as long as the data is correctly handled because it contributes to the safety of so many parties.