
Senators blast DHS facial scanning at airports - bickfordb
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/366076-senators-blast-dhs-face-scans-in-airports
======
madamelic
I hate the fact that US citizens are increasingly treated as enemy combatants.

I have a citizenship for a reason. You know who I am. I shouldn't not be
subjected to unreasonable search, I should be treated to an express lane where
they can simply scan my ID, see I am not a threat and let me go on my way.

~~~
ahakki
I have a suspicion that the TSAs unreasonable behaviour (unreasonable
adherance to protocol) is due to them being subject to random performance
tests where they actually _do_ send through enlderly women in wheelchairs with
contraband straped to their butt and automatically flag them for extra search.
Failing to detect the contraband in this case is probably punished in some way
so the agents are forced to throw all common sense out the window when
handling people[0] that have been flagged for additional screening.

[0] People like me. I get flagged every single time I enter the United States.

~~~
leggomylibro
Is it worth the human cost?

Anecdotally, my octagenarian grandmother outright refuses to fly anymore. Why?
Because about a year ago she had to go through a 3-hour intensive
screening/interview process which involved invasive searches because she had
used hair spray that morning.

Ridiculous. Knowing her, if she hadn't had a relative with her, she probably
would have wound up in the hospital. And that's justified because the agency
is afraid of failure?

No, they have already failed beyond redemption IMO.

~~~
nitwit005
Probably not. There's about 900 million passengers a year in the US
([https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts018_16](https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts018_16)),
so if you assume a 15 minute wait, you can estimate number of lifetimes lost
in line: ((((900,000,000 * 15) / 60) / 24) / 365.25) / 78.74 = 325.98.

Not to say we should have no security, but I suspect we're past the point of
doing more harm than good.

------
f2n
Invasive facial recognition in physical places seems to be the future. A
nightclub I walk by on my way to work has a sign up outside stating that
they're operating facial recognition cameras. At least they disclose it, I
suspect many more places aren't. We need legal recourse against this sort of
invasive spying by both private and public parties.

~~~
toomanybeersies
The facial recognition camera they use is an ID checking machine. They're
basically used to prevent liability for underage drinkers, and to keep track
of banned patrons.

They're not actively scanning your face in the club, and I question how good
the facial recognition actually is.

Regardless, it's a private establishment, you don't have to go there and get
your face scanned if you don't want to. You do have legal recourse, you can
choose not to patronise that establishment.

~~~
f2n
Sure, but there's no legal requirement for them to notify me that such
behavior is occurring. And in the case of this article, it's not exactly
something you have the option not to participate in. I guess my point is that
is should be be seen an an acceptable or reasonable or non-invasive thing.

~~~
toomanybeersies
It's quite obvious it's happening, they take your ID, and put it in a fairly
conspicuous machine.

I think it's fair to assume that anywhere that is recording video is running
facial scanning, as they have the capability to. If it's not a legal
requirement where you live for businesses (and government) to put signage
where security cameras are in operation, that's a concern.

------
stablemap
The referenced study:

[https://www.airportfacescans.com/](https://www.airportfacescans.com/)

------
mLuby
Article says this program is opt-in. Does that mean you can decline? If so, I
wonder how one does that.

I wrote to the CBP years ago when they instituted kiosks that took your
picture to "expedite customs" asking how to opt out. My question was lost 3
times, and finally the response was "there is no way to opt out."

------
saas_co_de
Using facial recognition tech is just common sense. Why would you not use the
technology available to you to enforce the law?

Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than
having humans analyze your face?

~~~
madamelic
>Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law?

Because I am a US citizen who under the US constitution is protected against
unreasonable search.

Being forced to have my face scanned to _leave_ __my __country is beyond
unreasonable.

I am not sure if it is in the constitution but being able to freely leave the
country should be a no-brainer. Leaving the country should involve no
paperwork or procedure for US citizens. Entering the country should involve a
rubberstamp procedure where they verify you are who you state you are.

I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry __if __it meant I could scan
my passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

~~~
selectodude
>I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry if it meant I could scan my
passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-...](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-entry)

