
TSA tries out another biometric system - walterbell
https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/01/tsa-tries-out-another-illegal-biometric-id-verification-system/
======
gumby
What is the practical* justification / value of knowing the name of every air
traveler? Literally how is safety in any way increased (or any other benefit
obtained for that matter) for anyone, either traveler or non-traveler.

I can’t even reason about cost or burden to benefit trade offs without knowing
a benefit, and I have never seen any clearly stated. Just vague handwaves
(“obviously this makes us safer” or circular justification.

* I am not asking for legal justification, which is itself unclear as explained elsewhere on John’s site.

~~~
an_opabinia
It prohibits a secondary market for airline tickets without violating the law.

Otherwise, it is unlawful in most US jurisdictions and for most things to
prohibit ticket resales.

Sometimes the reason is really stupid. Like with liquids, it's as basic as
selling more concessions.

~~~
112012123
Well, the liquid ban was added because some terrorists were caught trying to
smuggle liquid binary explosives onto airplanes (with the plan to mix them in-
air, then detonate them). Some airports are repealing the liquid ban now that
they've developed screening machines that can accurately identify the contents
of water bottles etc.

~~~
bsder
> accurately identify the contents of water bottles

"accurately" \-- rolls eyes.

Put a small bottle of silicone lube in your carry-on and watch the slapstick.

Apparently silicone lube comes up as a totally unusual color on TSA carry on
screens. At least in Austin, TX--nobody recognizes it (I bet SFO wouldn't have
this problem).

I had 4 fairly small, young ladies mulling over a bottle that I had forgotten
about (normally my luggage is totally air travel optimized but I had been
doing a lot of driving travel with my wife and didn't do a good enough purge).
I was like, look, it's under the limits, but just throw it out. I'm not in a
hurry but I also don't want to be held up forever and miss my plane over an $8
dollar bottle of liquid.

In spite of the quite obvious labeling, one of the young ladies decided to get
a bit snippy and demand what it was. Erm. Okay. It's written on the side of
the bottle, but you asked for it.

So, I got to explain in excruciating and visceral detail in my rather
stentorian voice that small women like her and her cohorts often need a bit of
help when they attempt to have sex with someone who has an enormous dong like
mine. _THAT_ was the purpose of the bottle that has the words "sexual
lubricant" emblazoned on the side.

All four of the women blushed to the top of their ears. Quite a few people in
line chuckled. My wife rolled her eyes with her "I'm so put upon" expression.
They finally threw the bottle out and waved me through.

At the gate board, a Good Ole Boy Texan--hat, boots, and belt buckle-stopped
us with a full drawl "That was great and they so deserved that. How bout I buy
y'all a beer?"

It was a good beer.

~~~
ruffrey
The good ole boy’s name? Albert Einstein.

------
Nacdor
Looks like it's already working again but I'll just leave these in case.

Google cache:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5Rxq-4J:https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/01/tsa-
tries-out-another-illegal-biometric-id-verification-
system/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Text-only cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5R...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5Rxq-4J:https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/01/tsa-
tries-out-another-illegal-biometric-id-verification-
system/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

~~~
miguelmota
Getting a 404 on both links

~~~
dessant
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200902171741/https://papersple...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200902171741/https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/01/tsa-
tries-out-another-illegal-biometric-id-verification-system/)

------
saxonww
Isn't this just an actual use of the RealID for its (purported) intended
purpose?

Don't get me wrong: I don't like this at all, and I think the TSA is at best
worthless, but this seems like a complaint that the inevitable happened. And
resting a legality accusation on a form not having a paperwork reduction act
notice is kind of :eyeroll: even if it's true.

~~~
njarboe
You don't have to show ID to get past security at the airport. Lose your
wallet on vacation and you can still fly home. Tell them you don't have ID and
you'll get a special security check. How that will work in practice at
different airports and for different people with different TSA agents is hard
to say. Could be a answering a few questions, a pat down, and a quick chemical
test or something else much more involved.

~~~
saxonww
This has not been my experience, at least not flying domestically in the US.
In order to get to the gate, I have to get past TSA and the security
checkpoint, which involves presenting my boarding pass and ID to an agent.

If I've not checked-in electronically and have to get a printed boarding pass,
I've had to present ID and credit card at a kiosk or ticket desk as well.

~~~
Avery3R
They ask for it but you don't HAVE to present it. If you don't most airlines
will ask you identity verification questions, similar to those you're asked
when retrieving your credit report. If everything matches up your ticket will
get marked with SSSS[1] and you'll be sent through that additional security.

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

------
mmm_grayons
Unpopular opinion: The TSA shouldn't exist, at all. Three thousand deaths
doesn't justify curtailing the liberties of three hundred million. 9/11 was
used to scare Americans into accepting massive violations of our liberties. As
Rahm Immanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

------
gavreh
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200902162045/https://papersple...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200902162045/https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/01/tsa-
tries-out-another-illegal-biometric-id-verification-system/)

------
gregallan
This site is completely broken on mobile.

~~~
kevinwang
Yeah, "reader view" works fine though

~~~
codazoda
Except on Google for Android I only randomly see the reader or simple option.
For this site, it's not there. This is a stupid "feature" of Chrome's.

Edit: Got it. If I enable simple view in accessibility features, the option
shows up for this site. The way it's implemented by Google is still dumb. This
should be in the menu.

------
altdatathrow
TSA was intentionally designed from day #1 to cause so much of a burden that
people would willingly give up absolutely everything with regards to personal
privacy in exchange for saving time.

~~~
eplanit
Removing a face mask for a few seconds so that a person or algorithm can
compare the person's visage to that of their ID is "giving up absolutely
everything with regards to personal privacy"?

~~~
altdatathrow
TSA has been around for nearly 20 years. It's not about a face mask.

It's about how if you wanted to bypass the excruciatingly slow and invasive
TSA checkpoints, you need
[https://www.tsa.gov/precheck](https://www.tsa.gov/precheck) or
[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-...](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-entry) which involve extremely thorough background checks. You
sacrifice personal privacy in exchange for saving time.

TSA has been a global people-tracking effort from the beginning through
security theater. This is simply the latest addition to their repertoire.

------
aphistic
I'm not sure anyone will see this because this post is over a day old, but
what can someone traveling really do about it? If you refuse they'll just
refuse to let you board your plane. I usually (especially now during a
pandemic) don't fly when there's no reason for me to, so refusing me access to
my flight is a pretty good way to make me comply, illegal or not.

About a month ago I had to be in court at a certain time and from past
experience (filing and getting paperwork to the court) I knew they'd make you
take off your belt if it had metal on it. That day I specifically wore a belt
with no metal on it so I wouldn't have to take it off, but it didn't make any
difference. The sign at security said "no metal objects" and then gave a list
of example items with metal on them, belt included, and that was what the
security agent pointed to when telling me I still needed to take my belt off.
I objected, telling her my pants would fall down if I did and that the list
was an EXAMPLE of metal objects, but the only response I got was that if I
wanted to I could complain to someone at some other time. Another agent chimed
in that they require you to take your belt off because "people could be hiding
a knife in their belt", as if that made any sense at all. Isn't that what a
metal detector is for in the first place? Anyway, I had no option but to take
off my belt or I just wouldn't get to court on time. I let my pants fall down
(I decided to do this earlier because I knew it was a possibility) and waddled
through security with my pants around my ankles.

So yeah, what could I have done in that case? Just miss my court date?

------
neil_s
I detest the TSA, and government overreach, but I'm failing to see the issue
here. Even before the optional photo system was introduced, they would stick
my ID in a scanner, this seems like the same thing but the work is outsourced
to me. Admittedly, I place less value on my privacy than the average HN
commenter, given I opted in to Clear which lets me bypass lines using
biometrics, a trade-off I was glad to make.

Then, people have raised the unrelated issue of why ID checks are needed at
all, and I can think of a couple, not sure of the actual reason: 1) Checking
that you're not on the no-fly list. 2) Checking that there isn't a BOLO out on
you, so that people with warrants, parole etc can't skip town easily.

The argument that it is to prevent secondary markets for tickets sounds hollow
- airlines do their own ID checks when printing the boarding pass and at the
gate.

------
dheera
> and remove their face mask

Having thousands of travellers unmask themselves at exactly the same physical
spot within seconds of each other [and inevitably breathe in and out a couple
times] sounds like a MASSIVE risk to me during COVID-19.

------
judge2020
Not illegal (even though it should be) unless they prevent you from flying
without it. Currently you can go through security with no identification at
all as long as you answer their questions and they can verify your citizenship
some way (which can add a few hours to your tenure at the airport).

~~~
ColanR
How would your citizenship be verified without identification?

~~~
judge2020
[https://www.fodors.com/news/travel-tips/navigating-a-
nightma...](https://www.fodors.com/news/travel-tips/navigating-a-nightmare-
how-to-get-through-tsa-without-an-id)

------
ericcholis
There's a number of companies that do this type of KYC for various online
transactions. AU10TIX is one such, that apparently does identity verification
for many airports in Europe.

------
beamatronic
Contractor loses a laptop full of this data in 3...2....1....

~~~
jcstauffer
I find that completely unrealistic...

It will almost certainly be found on an unsecured S3 bucket

~~~
Crosseye_Jack
My money is on a unprotected Elasticsearch server.

~~~
randylahey
Definitely a password-less, Internet facing MongoDB instance.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
How else will you get web scale security breaches?

------
diebeforei485
This is way overkill for domestic travel.

------
geuis
That site is unreadable on mobile.

------
iammru
Demented

------
briandear
> ... in many jurisdictions, orders issued by state or local health
> authorities currently _require_ all people in public places such as airports
> to wear masks.

This premise is ridiculous. The Raleigh airport specifically addressed this:

“ Am I required to keep my face covering on while processing through security?

Travelers should wear a face covering while processing through security. TSA
officers may ask an individual to adjust their face covering during the
screening process for identification purposes, which is permitted under the
executive order.”

[https://www.rdu.com/fly-confident-fly-rdu/face-
coverings/#4](https://www.rdu.com/fly-confident-fly-rdu/face-coverings/#4)

And from the actual North Carolina Executive Order:

“C. Exceptions. This Executive Order does not require Face Coverings for-and a
Face Covering does not need to be worn by a worker, customer, or patron who:
... 8\. Is temporarily removing his or her Face Covering to secure government
or medical services or for identification purposes.”

[https://files.nc.gov/governor/documents/files/EO147-Phase-2-...](https://files.nc.gov/governor/documents/files/EO147-Phase-2-Extension.pdf)

While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific
jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact
jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security
exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article
requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is
“illegal.”

As far as the conspiracy theory that collecting names and positive ID by TSA
is somehow nefarious — this information is already available through passenger
manifests from the airlines — airlines that themselves establish a positive ID
for every passenger, requiring ID to board a flight.

I am not sure what the controversy is. Every country in which I have ever
boarded an airliner does an ID check and shares manifest data with
authorities.

If we are going to claim this is illegal, then a reasonable person would
expect some proof of that, such as citing the actual statute relevant to the
jurisdiction that is being violated.

Is is interesting that many people opposed to this are supportive of
government run health care — a situation that doesn’t only give government
your name, but also access to your entire medical history. HIPAA (in the US,)
has numerous government exceptions, including the nebulous “public health
interest.” If we are worried about TSA positively identifying travelers, then
certainly we should all be fearful of positively identifying people under the
auspices of health care.

[https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-
professionals/privacy/guidance...](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-
professionals/privacy/guidance/disclosures-public-health-
activities/index.html)

~~~
elliekelly
> While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific
> jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact
> jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security
> exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article
> requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is
> “illegal.”

The beginning of the sentence you quoted has a link to the information you're
looking for but it seems the quote you've pulled has cut that off. The word
"noted" in "As we’ve noted previously" is a hyperlink pointing here[1] which
itself links to an example order[2] that doesn't contain any such exception.

[1][https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/06/08/tsa-to-take-mug-
shots...](https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/06/08/tsa-to-take-mug-shots-of-
domestic-air-travelers/#comment-3574618)

[2][https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/...](https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/ho_order_c19-8b_face_covering_revised_final.pdf)

------
camillomiller
But hey, let‘s ban TikTok.

------
_red
Covid is the new form of this security theater. Just saw local school
announced that parents should buy special mask with holes cut in mouth piece
so kids can play instruments in band.

Wish I was kidding...

~~~
ticmasta
The province of New Brunswick announced their plans for choir after "some of
the hardest planning and preparation of my career" (from the Minister of
Education). The master plan: "sing quietly"

~~~
newacct583
In fact there was a paper in just the last few days showing that voice volume
correlated strongly with aerosol particles emitted. That sounds like good
advice to me, likewise singing inside a mask. Obviously not singing at all is
safer still, but this still seems like it would be effective mitigation.

Even worse than "security theater" precautions are misunderstandings of the
threat model. Pandemic mitigation is _not a boolean function_. Do what you can
and choose strategies to sustain suppression, then stop. Find efficiencies
where they lie.

In a low-infection-count region, I don't see why you can't sing quietly in a
chorus with masks. It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant.

~~~
clairity
> "misunderstandings of the threat model"

> "It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant."

by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's making the same
mistake. most things we do on a daily basis are safe. being 0.001% less likely
to get infected is technically safer, but not practically so.

what's not relatively safe? gathering with random people breathing each
other's _direct exhaust_ for long periods.

now, you might think a restaurant is an example of that, but it's not. yes,
you'll be sharing exhaust with your tablemates, but you shouldn't be eating
with people you don't know/trust in _any indoor_ setting, not just in
restaurants. and with just a little precaution (i.e., distance), tables are
relatively isolated transmission-wise, despite the general misperception of
the risks of aerosol transmission (most people aren't infected, but when they
are, virus particles land nearby and fall apart relatively quickly).
restaurants aren't particularly unsafe. the same can't be said for bars and
clubs, which resist such safety mitigations by their very nature.

also, if singing softer is the _only_ mitigation, rather than distancing with
an awareness of vocal exhaust flow, then it isn't really much safer. avoiding
extended exposure to natural exhaust is the key, proper distancing being the
easiest (and often least inconvenient) and therefore most effective measure.

~~~
newacct583
> by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's making the
> same mistake.

Uh.. no it's not. SafER is a comparison, you can compare two quantities
without specifying their values.

As far as restaurants: indoor dining is the SINGLE largest transmission vector
right now. It's a known risk, there are case studies after case study showing
single infections propagating across a whole restaurant. Stay OUT of indoor
restaurants anywhere that isn't at a stable and low infection rate. Seriously.

Singing? My guess is that quiet singing with masks is safer than restaurants,
yeah. I might be wrong, but it's not because of a logic error.

------
voiper1
I had to stop reading because of the "S" in the font.

------
al3xandre
Those things are basically standard in other (developed ;) ) parts of the
world. Like in Singapore you just skim through immigration in 30sc by flashing
your passport and fingerprint/face. Never get any queue... quite enjoyable.

While I agree that entrusting this data to a third party provider is not
ideal... I also don’t think that hiring people to look at your passport, and
then your face before letting you in the country is the future... seems a bit
archaic no?

~~~
URSpider94
The point the site is making is that this is primarily for DOMESTIC travel
within the United States. I'm not a strong proponent of this point of view,
but many people are highly opposed to any kind of ID check for travel within
the borders of the US.

------
WilTimSon
"Illegal" seems like a huge overstatement, especially since the COVID crisis
isn't going to last forever (do I have to say 'fingers crossed'?)

If they're stressing the illegality by saying the TSA doesn't have proper
authority to do this, well, I'm no expert on US politics but I'm pretty sure
they'd get that authority sooner than anyone would even think of changing this
system.

~~~
eesmith
They stress that the TSA doesn't have the authority, not simply because of
COVID. Eg, "we believe that in the absence of OMB arrproval [sic], assignment
of an OMB Control Number, and a valid PRA notice including that OMB Control
Number, the pRA provides an absolute defense against any sanctions for
declining to have data from an ID card or passport collected by the TSA."

The site links to an article of Form 415, which points out that the TSA has
not had OMB approval for that form for 12 years, so "sooner" and "changing
this system" are both long time scales.

------
stuff4ben
I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes?
Being "illegal" because you have to remove your facemask is stupid as well.
I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather
frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others.

~~~
disown
> I don't know why it's a big deal to identify yourself when flying on planes?

Yes, why? Why do you have to identify yourself to fly on a plane? Do you have
to identify yourself to travel on a light rail? Take a taxi? Cross the street?
As long as you pay for the ticket, that should be enough. Don't you think?

> I'd rather have this than some underpaid, high school graduate who'd rather
> frisk all the pretty ladies that come by or racially profile others.

Ah the noble virtue signal. Another epidemic running rampant throughout the
country. If people didn't have to identify themselves in the first place, they
wouldn't have to be frisked at all. Don't you see that giving in on the id
part was just the first step towards getting frisked? How about no id and no
frisking?

I understand the need for id on international flights, but not domestic
flights.

~~~
LatteLazy
>Yes, why?

Because 1 person can kill the 100s of others on board really easily. That's
not true of any other means of transportation.

Edit:

People keep suggesting you could achieve the same result by:

* Blowing up the security queue \ lobby etc

* Blowing up a train\bus etc

* Blowing up a stadium

But this doesn't seem to be true. It's actually a lot less true than I
thought.

A 747 carries 450+ people. An Airbus A380 carries over 850 people. A terrorist
can kill them all with a single bomb. Plus people on the ground if they're
over somewhere populated.

Compare that to the 7/7 bombings: 4 bombs, all large, detonated on very
crowded trains (and one on a bus). They managed to kill 56 people total.
Partly this is because jets are full of jet fuel, partly it's because anyone
who survives ground attacks gets medical attention. Partly it's because you
don't have to free fall 30k ft as well.

If the same 4 bombers took the same 4 devices onto planes, they'd might well
have killed 1000s of people.

It's a surprising difference in effect. I hadn't realised it was this big a
difference. But it's very clear. Blowing up a crowd or a ground based
transport system is much less lethal than blowing up a plane.

~~~
tpxl
1 person can kill 100s of others in the airport lobby really easily.

~~~
occamrazor
Not so easily. E.g. after the Brussels airport attack the Zurich airport has
increased the number of security gates open at any time and reduced the
density of people queuing. I don’t think I have ever seen in the lat couple of
years more than 100 people packed together. (Other airports are much worse and
have lots of people in packed queues, but Zurich shows that it’s a problem
that can be solved)

~~~
tpxl
I agree, if you notice this problem and decide to solve it. I have seen queues
in London theaters that had higher density in front of the theater than inside
it, which kind of doesn't make sense if you want to discourage people form
bombing large amounts of people.

