
TSA announces “biometrics vision for all commercial aviation travelers” - jtc331
https://papersplease.org/wp/2018/10/15/tsa-announces-biometrics-vision-for-all-commercial-aviation-travelers/
======
clubm8
TSA can "envision" all it wants, it must operate within the confines of the
constitution. CBP gets away with a lot due to the unique legal quagmire that
is the US border. TSA has no such luxury, and thus (with a little help with
orgs like ACLU and EFF) such initiatives _should_ fail. Some restrictions
apply - void where prohibited[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)

~~~
djsumdog
The TSA already gets to harass, molest and assault people all they want. We've
had nearly a decade of videos of crazy invasive and disturbing pat-downs of
both adults and children. It's pretty obvious if you want to touch people
inappropriately and legally, the TSA is the career choice you should be
looking at.

I rarely fly anywhere unless I absolutely have to. I've flown a lot outside
the country and no other country is anywhere near as bad as the US/TSA. No
other country makes you take off your shoes.

I feel like early on, Americans fought hard against TSA security theatre and
nothing changed and people kept flying, so it's just stayed pretty much the
same.

It's gotten a little better. TSA agent can't harass people as much and have to
be nicer since everyone is recording, but everything they do is still
worthless. Millimetre wave machines are filled with so many false positives
you should just have people roll a six-sided die.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Vietnam makes you take off your shoes, I think last time I flew through
Malaysia it was the same, and Australia sometimes requires you to take off
your shoes (I think maybe some airports, like Gold Coast?).

It's annoyingly common, especially since I tend to wear boots, so it's a real
hassle to take my boots off and then put them on again.

~~~
Tharkun
You know this, and you've apparently experienced this several times. So maybe
stop wearing boots when flying? I always carry a pocket knife, but not when
flying. Not just because I want to avoid anal probing, but also out of
courtesy towards everyone who is behind me in the security theatre queue.

~~~
Klathmon
You are assuming they don't need or want the boots for any reason.

I've flow places with 4 laptops before, not because I think it's fun to
inconvenience everyone in line, but because I needed them for where I was
going.

If I was flying somewhere that I needed boots, I'd probably try to wear them
to avoid having them pretty much take up most of my carry on space...

------
njarboe
If the TSA and its $85 for a five year TSA Pre pass make you upset (like it
does me), then you should really check out the private security pass system
call CLEAR[1] for the next level of crazy. $179 a year, lines even faster than
TSA Pre, already in 35 airports and starting to make a big push into stadium
events. "Our advanced technology is SAFETY Act Certified from the Department
of Homeland Security." WTF?

[1][https://www.clearme.com](https://www.clearme.com)

~~~
ubernostrum
CLEAR is not Pre.

CLEAR is "skip waiting in line for a person to look at your ID and boarding
pass". That's it. CLEAR by itself still sends you into the unpack-your-bag,
take-off-half-your-clothes, body-scanner experience.

If you want to leave things in your carry-on, stay fully dressed and use the
metal detector, you still need Pre (or another program which grants membership
in Pre). CLEAR does not give you Pre.

~~~
grompf
As someone who has CLEAR, and flys frequently on airlines that are not
enrolled in Pre (JAL out of SFO), this is simply untrue. CLEAR escorts me to
the front of the Pre line, allowing me to keep my shoes on and laptop in bag
-- even though the airline is not a part of the Pre program.

~~~
ubernostrum
The international terminal at SFO often has dogs patrolling along the line;
when they do that, _everyone_ gets the Pre-style experience.

CLEAR does not provide Pre. You can read their own documentation on that; they
only get you past the podium.

------
josephpmay
The amount of misinformation and fear mongering here is staggering. The
article is posted by an anti-surveillance publication, so I guess the skewed
perspective makes sense.

I understand and agree with the fear of it being a slippery slope. I'm
concerned about facial recognition becoming a regular part of surveillance in
everyday life, and I hope that there is legislation around this TSA rollout
that strictly prohibits their database from being used for non-airport related
purposes.

Here's how the system is designed to work at full implementation. This is
based on a briefing I had about 6 months ago, so I imagine it's still along
the lines of what they're planning.

You get to airport security with your cary-on. You walk up to a kiosk to scan
your face. When you booked your flight, they essentially did a background
check on you, and if it was clean you just walk through to the terminal, with
minimally-invasive scanning that doesn't require any stopping or removing
anything from your bag.

If something did come up on your background check (mainly a conviction for a
violent crime or a pattern of information that suggests possible ties to
terrorism... one of the TSA's goals behind this system is do screening based
on suspicious activity rather than profiling) you go through what essentially
is the TSA experience today.

~~~
sdrothrock
> You get to airport security with your cary-on. You walk up to a kiosk to
> scan your face. When you booked your flight, they essentially did a
> background check on you, and if it was clean you just walk through to the
> terminal, with minimally-invasive scanning that doesn't require any stopping
> or removing anything from your bag.

That's a pretty attractive sales proposition there; it's really hard for me as
an individual to argue against the reduced hassle (and essentially a return to
pre-2001 boarding patterns) in return for them having access to data they can
realistically already get.

Japan takes pictures and fingerprints from people as they arrive; this doesn't
seem too much different, just the direction.

I wonder if this could also be expanded to people without boarding passes. I
know a lot of people mourn the loss of the ability to go directly to the gate
to meet or see off family.

~~~
camillomiller
They take pictures and fingerprints of foreigners when you arrive in the USA
as well. I hope no families at the gates will be allowed. People are already
clueless about how to properly cue and board a plane. As a frequent flyer it
is beyond irritating. Families or friends at the gate would just make things
even worse. Plus, letting them in without a boarding pass is just a way to add
insecurity variables to the airport experience for no reason but the movie-
like romantic idea of airport goodbyes.

~~~
whatshisface
Direct experience from when they _were_ able to come to the gates overrides
any speculation about what they "would" do. It's simply not a problem.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Surely they all need to come through the security screening, though? So
suddenly the (already far too long) lines are 2-4x longer. Just say your
goodbyes before security, it's really not as issue.

~~~
camillomiller
It’s a weird custom that I’ve seen only in American movies and that was ever
probably true only for American airports. It’s not an issue indeed and I think
Americans are as usual a bit myopic in pretending that a cultural experience
is globally recognized. Feel free to downvote this (true) generalization.

------
samstave
On a serious note; One has already provided their personal details to purchase
the ticket, then to receive their bording pass, then presenting their ID to
pass through securit - and soon, to provide their "realID" BS which requires a
bunch more hoops-to-jump-through-to-obtain, and now in addition to all of
this, WHAT exactly is facial recognition/retinal scanning going to do?

I would argue that if they are going to use facial recognition/retinal
scanning - then I shouldnt be stopped, searched or require ANY paper document
to do anything and should be able to just walk through access-portals for
which my ID can be tied to my ticket-of-passage....

~~~
rbetts
That's the argument - you are already required to show photo id and have a
person compare your photo to your face. This replaces that person with an
algorithm.

~~~
xyz0
But that person isn't attached to databases containing archived CCTV, scraped
social media data [1], parking tickets, license plate reader data [2], phone
metadata, or the myriad biased and unaccountable algorithms created by private
companies, used to rank and sort humans [3].

Think about the implications for whistleblowers, journalists meeting anonymous
sources, activists, immigrants, etc etc etc.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-
million...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-
faces-from-web-images.html)

[2] [https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-
trac...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-tracking/you-
are-being-tracked)

[3] [https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-
assessm...](https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-
in-criminal-sentencing)

------
usaphp
I remember how everyone in USA made fun of China’s facial recognition/social
rating system. I wonder if something similar will be implemented soon in USA
too.

~~~
maze-le
It just one major assault away... In europe too for that matter.

------
ryandrake
I love how their "stakeholder" list [1] doesn't include travelers. Just
government and air travel industry. This speaks volumes to their mentality.

1: [https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/biome...](https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/biometrics-stakeholders.png)

------
cm2187
What I don't understand is why? Is it in response to an increase in plane
hijackings in the US since 9/11?

Unless the terrorists board with machine guns, 9/11 wouldn't be possible
today. No passenger would assume that a bunch of middle eastern hijackers have
any other intention than to kill them all, and it would be impossible for the
hijackers to control the passengers.

~~~
tehwebguy
Unless attackers bring a circular saw and an extension cord to cut open the
cockpit door they can bring a damn bomb if they want.

No one is going to give up the plans and turn their bomb into a missile ever
again.

------
sverhagen
I'm very conflicted about this. And I'm actually sitting at my gate while
typing this, in an uncharacteristically busy terminal, where I'm suddenly so
very urgently aware about the risks of large crowds at airports and such.
Conflicted because it does make sense to me that tracking people in facilities
like this could help with safety and security. I have no principled problem
with my picture being taken. But I wouldn't want it to be abused, for sure.
So... is it the secondary uses, like marketing and totalitarian uses (never
thought that'd go in one sentence) that I'm worried about? Or should I be
worried about it anyway? Does the distinction matter? Is distinguishing
between the two possible? Realistic? ... CONFUSED!

~~~
keiferski
There are large crowds of people in every city on planet Earth. Do you want a
security check to be required to be out in public?

~~~
sverhagen
Airlines have traditionally been targets for terrorism. For other
concentrations of people like pop concerts the same may apply. Or in any case,
those already have had security measures for a while beyond just some town's
busy downtown. But I don't know what I want. I'm probably mostly saying that
it's not a black or white matter for me.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> Airlines have traditionally been targets for terrorism.

Orders of magnitude more terrorist attacks are targeted at crowds of people
"out in the open" in cities than at airlines.

------
poulsbohemian
> In the future, TSA will be able to use TSA Pre® enrolled facial images for
> matching…. Moving forward, TSA Pre® will increase its access to and
> utilization of voluntarily-provided biometric data, including facial images,
> to modernize the trusted traveler experience for TSA Pre® travelers.

Wait wait, so let's use biometrics on people _we already trust_! I mean, not
that TSA Pre-check is hard to get (airlines include it free for their best
travelers after all) but give me a break government - you've already said
these people are a-ok, so there's no point in this silliness.

~~~
komali2
Holy shit my partner and I were so close to pulling the trigger on precheck
before this news came out. Very glad we didn't.

How does this work in terms of consent? Was there some tiny line of text I
didn't see that allows TSA to go through with this?

~~~
poulsbohemian
Actually, unless I'm missing something, what they are saying here comes in two
parts:

1) You now have to include a photo, same as you would for a passport.

2) They will have photo lines for TSA where they recognize you from these
photos, nominally to help make the lines faster.

So on one hand... you already have to provide a photo for a passport, so this
is just bringing TSA Pre-Check into balance with that. But, on the other...
could government waste anymore of my tax dollars? I mean - they already
"trust" the people who receive pre-check AND the lines are never that long. So
it's just more silliness.

------
stochastic_monk
The link appears to be down. This cached version [0] should help.

[0] [http://archive.is/B88Ce](http://archive.is/B88Ce)

------
thecopy
TSA and airport security-theatre in the USA is such a mind-boggling concept to
me. Im flying a lot within Europe, especially between Sweden and Switzerland,
and i have never had to show my passport to anyone. More often than not they
don't check the fluids in my carry-on, and i get to keep my shoes on. The
security check usually takes 5-10 minutes including the time spent queuing.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm British and fly in and around Europe multiple times per year and I've
never _not_ had to show my passport - even when flying to Northern Ireland.

~~~
Sharlin
Well, as you should know, the UK is a special case because the concessions it
has demanded from the EU include not opening its borders like other Schengen
countries. Thus, normal border controls for people traveling between the UK
and continental EU. And NI, of course, is an even more special case due to the
conditions of the Good Friday agreement. In the Brexit negotiations the
question of what to do with NI borders seems to be one of the most hairy ones.

------
bonestamp2
I'd bet Amazon is powering the facial recognition.

~~~
josephpmay
They're not

~~~
bonestamp2
Source?

~~~
josephpmay
This is the tech they're using

[https://www.vision-box.com/solutions/travel-and-border-
contr...](https://www.vision-box.com/solutions/travel-and-border-
control/airports-and-airlines)

------
crististm
I've always wondered what is the process that generates this kind of
proposals. Was it a single person? A group conspiring from within to
perpetuate the power of the TSA? Or from outside, influencing or enforcing the
directors to take some actions?

How do they come to be? And what strategy do they use to bootstrap the
authority and support of the project? Puss in Boots always comes to my mind.

------
bigiain
I wonder what the GDPR implications of using this on international travellers
from europe are?

What data are they collecting? What are they using to for? Who do they share
it with? How can I request a copy of all my personal data? What's the process
by which I notify them of errors in my data, and how quickly will they correct
them? How do I request that they delete all my data?

~~~
joering2
TSA is a government agency; GDPR doesnt apply.

~~~
Jaruzel
Incorrect. The TSA is a _US_ based [government] agency; GDPR doesn't apply.

In Europe, even governments are subject to the rules of GDPR.

------
crististm
In a way, they are forced to do this by their nature. As an abstract entity
they should not and will not care about consequences other than making their
job easier.

But it operates in a world where other entities might come in play and
counter. The problem is that I don't hear the voices of these other entities.
Is TSA that powerful on its own?

------
marcus_holmes
meh. I flew into Thailand yesterday. They took my photo. Cambodia took my
photo and my fingerprints. Nepal took my photo. The UK took my photo and
compared it to the one encoded in my UK passport. As did Australia (with my
Aussie passport).

I know "America = Freedom", but pretty soon it's going to be the same
situation as we have with gmail - you may not use gmail because you don't want
Google hoovering your conversation to target ads with, but if anyone cc'd in
the chain uses gmail, google gets it anyway.

Whatever country you traveled to or from is going to get your biometrics, and
they're probably sharing that info with the US anyway. I get the point of
protesting this, but it feels kinda academic now.

I'm not saying I like giving up my freedom for convenience, but I am fed up of
standing for hours in lines for "security" checks that are just theater, when
they've got the information from other sources anyway. The automated checks
using the biometric information in my passport(s) feel so much quicker and
less biased (e.g. Thai immigration officer getting into a long conversation
with a Chinese tourist about what hotel they were staying at).

~~~
opportune
It only feels academic because not enough people care. But it's not set in
stone that people won't care.

Sadly, it may take very major data privacy or biometric abuse for there to
ever be action.

------
gumby
What problem is being solved here? I didn’t see any explanation.

~~~
caconym_
The problem of how to gradually implement a pervasive surveillance state
without at any one time arousing people's suspicions to the point where they
will actually do something meaningful about it?

Seriously, though, I would love to know the actual motivation for this.
Somehow these days I have trouble attributing changes like this to simple
bureaucratic momentum.

------
dguido
At least they are not using the blockchain. :-x

------
eanzenberg
Good! I for one am glad for this and the measures that were implemented as a
result of certain actors wishing ill on our society. It’s a small price to pay
for piece of mind when flying. For the past 17 years there was immense fear-
mongering of what kind of slippery slope these measures would lead to and yet
none have really materialized.

~~~
sailfast
I could not disagree more. Trading liberty for safety is not something we
should ever do. Risk mitigation is different than giving up rights. They can
be done at the same time without compromising anything. “No slippery
slope...yet” isn’t really a thing you want to rely on.

I am personally furious every time I fly because these rules do little to
protect us. I’m glad it is giving someone (you?) some peace I guess, but the
cost is too much to bear.

Outside of rights, do you have any idea how much this costs taxpayers and how
insanely run that organization is? I’d say it fails many, many rational tests.

~~~
refurb
_I could not disagree more. Trading liberty for safety is not something we
should ever do._

What is your stance on field sobriety testing?

That’s a pretty clear example of trading liberty for safety.

~~~
marshall007
Field sobriety tests are only issued once the officer has probable cause based
on suspicion of intoxication. I don't think anyone would disagree that
suspicious behavior within an airport warrants detainment and questioning, but
in that case no one's liberties are being compromised.

~~~
FireBeyond
And in some cases, suspicious behavior has included:

* reading math textbooks while Indian

* wearing a turban

* praying

* talking to spouses in a non-English language

and worse.

So I guess we just disagree on the definition of "suspicious behavior".

~~~
sneak
Terry v Ohio makes pretty clear the criterion for detaining someone against
their will. Too bad all of our rights go out of the window at airports.

