this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
165 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

73567 readers
3184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some airport travelers, including a U.S. senator, are having trouble saying no to security technology that's supposed to be voluntary.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] got2best@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I assumed your face gets scanned as soon as you walk into any airport

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

The Algorithmic Justice League, which opposes the TSA’s use of facial recognition[...]

the wat? lmao

[–] ablackcatstail@lemmy.goblackcat.com 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Saying no I'll bet increases the scrutiny that you're going to get.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I go for the massage over the scanner and I've never been overly scrutinized.

[–] hansl@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

These are TSA employees, not CBP.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can also say no to a mugger. Giving them your wallet is entirely voluntary.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago

You can probably deduct it as a charitable donation on your taxes.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Even a Senator had trouble saying no!"

The article says he said no, showed his ID (which is the standard) and went through as smoothly as usual. What's the problem?

[–] rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That he was lied to, that opting out would result in a significant delay before he made a decision.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

So... Basically the same shit TSA has been doing since its inception?

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Why would that matter? Your walking all the way through the airport, passing dozens of cameras.

Your ID has your picture on it. Do you refuse to have an ID? Honestly using facial recognition is better for security because it's really hard to fake a face. Way harder than getting a SSN.

[–] SocializedHermit@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Once your face is scanned it is disseminated to several databases both Federal and State, which can be leaky. It can be passed around law enforcement circles, used on mesh camera networks to record movements in public (China is an example) and potentially used against you in ways you might not be aware of yet. The Chinese via tiktok and other sources such as hacking, are building dossiers on every American citizen they can get their hands on. The "it's easy and I've got nothing to hide" rationale is what they're banking on, makes their job really simple. Hell, people take fucking selfies and post them along with their name in the clear on the internet all time, those posts are scraped for security data and identity.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Your face in a billion person database as an identification factor is crap.

Scanning your face to Get in your iPhone is a no-brainer. The chances of someone having a false positive match against the people who might get your phone are slim. But when *they're searching your face against a billion people for no fly targets... Let's just say *there are profiling problems even in digital AI.

Then there's the fact that very dark-skinned people end up having a lot of false positives and face recognition.

You might have walked past 100 cameras to get to the TSA but none of those cameras were wired up directly to a task force that wants to handcuff you to a chair if you maybe look kind of like someone who did something bad once.

edit: voice dictate corrections

[–] Blamemeta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, low contrast is a bitch for ai. Darker skin folks are going to have problems with AI as it is currently. Hopefully, devs will figure it out soon.

[–] NotYourSocialWorker@feddit.nu 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Jepp, cameras in general are optimised to take pictures of light skinned people.

[–] Blamemeta@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Jepp?

Also not just light skinned people, pretty much anything with high contrast. Goes for actual eyes too, thats why text is often black on white, or white on black.

[–] Toribor@corndog.uk 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's it's optional, what's the problem if I decline?

If it's not optional, don't we deserve to know more information about how this data is used and stored? It's clearly not just taking a picture.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Because giving them the ability to do so is inherently dangerous. When a government or corporation asks "can we further our ability to track your every move? We pinky promise not to use it for evil", they are invariably lying.

It's happened every single time. Expecting tjat to change is the literal definition of insanity

[–] Master@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

and yet facial recognition misidentifies a lot of people every year and turns their lives upside down. To much trust it put into the system and not enough oversight on what the system kicks out. Until that is fixed it's a flawed system that has no place in society.

load more comments
view more: next ›