
I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy - lnguyen
https://www.wired.com/story/opt-out-of-facial-recognition-at-the-airport/
======
pelario
Very click-baity. Below the only part that actually relates to the title:

 _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.

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.

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._

The rest of the article is a (not very novel) discussion about the risks and
problems of facial recognition.

~~~
UweSchmidt
Going against implicit expectations of others and being the only one who does
something is maybe the hardest thing humans can do.

Opting out could risk holding up the boarding process, possibly missing the
flight, unpleasant treatment by security and being pitted against the other
passengers - all of it to opt out of something is clearly a dark pattern.

All of this is very well understood by the people who designed this system.

Articles like that and some of the comments in this thread at least give me an
idea what opting out would take.

~~~
dalore
Yes I asked if I could get a pat down instead of the backscatter x-ray at
Heathrow. Was made to feel like a criminal, questioned etc and put under
pressure. And then to be told I don't have to get scanned but I can't get on
my flight unless I do. There wasn't even an opt out.

~~~
misterprime
That goes completely counter to my experiences. From 2009 to 2017 I chose to
"opt out" every time. Here's what happened for me each time:

1\. They make you wait while they get someone to do the work.

2\. They offer to take you somewhere private (I declined).

3\. They tell you the routine ("I'm gonna go up your leg until I feel
resistance").

4\. They wipe their gloves and put them in a chemical detector.

5\. They let you go.

Only once did I have to get an extra exam where they detected some chemical on
me and had to do that whole wipe down + chemical test process on my carry-on.
It wasn't a big deal.

In 2017 I finally got TSA Precheck. So I've very rarely had to go through this
since then (flying w/ non-Precheck friend, flying at non-Precheck airport).

EDIT: My experience is from US only. I missed that the parent's description
was from the UK.

~~~
vinceguidry
His experience was in the UK.

~~~
sokoloff
I was able to opt out in Dublin at the secondary security point (where one
clears immigration in Dublin for US-bound flights, so I think that particular
scanner was operated at the direction of the US authorities).

I have not tried to opt out of a pure-EU/UK scanner, so your point is still
valid. I suspect Toronto may work the same way.

------
hazz99
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.

After going through security, I asked an official if I could've opted out.
They said yes, and said I could flag someone down.

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.

Airport security is full of dark patterns when it comes to privacy.

~~~
mb_72
What airport is this? At Adelaide airport arrivals I always choose to go
through the manual processing queue, i.e. the one non-Australian citizens have
to use. Half the time it's faster than the smart-gate system queue, and even
if it's not an extra 10 minutes after 26hrs + of traveling isn't going to kill
me.

As for departures, it wasn't obvious to me - like with you - that I could opt-
out. I'll give it a shot next time and see what happens. Am expecting some
annoyed and suspicious glances! :)

~~~
jen729w
I use the ‘smart’ gates at Melbourne regularly. You insert your passport,
stand in front of a camera, and one assumes that your current photograph is
compared to that of your passport. If they’re the same, you pass.

I fail to see the privacy implications. I’m already giving someone my passport
details – I must do that to enter or exit the country. That passport already
contains my photograph. What privacy am I losing by having my photograph taken
at the airport?

I say this as a very privacy-conscious individual. I block ads, don’t use
Facebook, etc. I fail to see the further loss of privacy in this case, over
and above the mandatory scanning of my passport.

~~~
tty2300
This may be true but the end game for governments is to have facial
recognition everywhere. They start at the airport because "it doesn't matter,
you are already giving your info out" and then we become OK with the idea so
they start rolling it out for public transport and "it doesn't matter, you
already do this every time you fly"

It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of
facial recognition entirely in any situation.

~~~
culturestate
> It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection
> of facial recognition entirely in any situation.

Realistically the only way to resist is to develop an informed, engaged
populace. There's a huge gulf between "facial recognition for crossing
international borders" and "facial recognition for getting on the subway" \-
the former is obviously beneficial and the latter is obviously a massive
overreach.

The idea that one will inevitably follow the other is only really plausible
because of the public's apathy, and it leads to situations where we throw the
baby out with the bathwater.

~~~
cf141q5325
I would argue against the first being obviously beneficial. The downsides of
having such a system in place in my opinion outweighs any current or
foreseeable benefit. One step further, I have yet to hear of a scenario where
facial recognition would be a positive application. In my opinion the complete
rejection is the right approach when it comes to facial recognition. Being
able to automatically identify a person without them noticing or being able to
prevent the identification in the future is in its very core dystopian. Its an
application to end privacy, no different to the old scifi idea of getting a
remotely readable identification chip implanted at birth. With the difference
of the hypothetical chance to remove your scifi chip surgically. With facial
identification the only realistic option is plastic surgery. We were lucky for
a while that the technology wasnt ready yet, but it is getting more and more
practical to utilize.

Its unfortunate that the idea of privacy is in such a downhill spiral, but the
much more daunting question is, if privacy can so easily be abandoned, how
will other stuff, like freedom of thought be treated in the future? What
happens if technological development of surveillance could catch up some day?
We are currently living in a society where no matter how horrific the methods,
there are some who will find justifications to utilize them on other people.
If the charges are heinous enough, human rights go out of the window. You only
have to think of torture and look as far as Guantanamo. Differently put, in a
society that preserves samples of eradicated plagues for possible future
military uses and has no quarrels of threatening to torture the kids of enemy
combatants, the research into and work on offensive capabilities with
disastrous capabilities, like I would argue facial recognition is, is morally
reprehensible.

~~~
culturestate
I believe "facial recognition for crossing an international border" is an
obvious benefit because, look, the world is not all sunshine and daisies and
it's important that we're able to validate that a person going from one
country to another is who they say they are.

You seem to be operating under the core assumption that because we as a
society allow facial recognition in that situation it will inevitably expand
to others, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first
place. If an educated and well-informed populace says "no, we will not allow
this technology to be used outside of these specific circumstances" and then
enforces that position at the ballot box, there won't be a problem.
Unfortunately most people just _don 't care,_ and no amount of technological
backtracking will fix that.

In other words, don't worry about the tech; worry about the people that make
the tech _matter_.

~~~
cf141q5325
I understand your point about the responsibility of a democracy but I do worry
about the tech, I would also be alarmed if someone developed a biological
weapon to extinct humanity, even if the usage was controlled by a democratic
mechanism. Just dont develop such dangerous technologies with no positive use
case. Dangerous being the combination of efficiency and scale-ability.

The argument also assumes that we will continue have democratic systems and
the population not voting for such systems to be implemented. The reality is
what ever means and information we currently entrust to governments later
versions will also have access to. Not to mention the export of these
technologies to "friendly" dictatorships. Its the old problem of census data
in the Netherlands. They had extremely detailed census data involving peoples
religious beliefs before the Nazis invaded and with the data available the
persecution of Jews was extremely efficient. The resistance targeted the
locations of these datasets but it didnt work good enough.

I also dont see how international borders need anything more then
fingerprints. They are also far more accurate and reliable. Facial recognition
has the only added benefit of being usable without the effected people
noticing. Thats not a positive characteristic.

To come back to the central argument, we do already have other means of
identifying people and facial recognition only differs in a few core issues
from existing mechanics. The core characteristics of facial recognition are

* No need for a cooperative, consenting subject

* Not alerting the subject being identified and no protection against being identified without noticing

* Unchangeable identification characteristic

We already have reliable easy to use systems for characteristic 1 and 3,
fingerprints, and I see how there might be a need for such systems at specific
locations. For example at a police station or border checkpoints.

Then we have facial recognition which is a lot less accurate and its only
additional benefit is point 2. Point 2 however has no positive use cases, its
a purely totalitarian instrument aimed at its scale-ability. For not only
being used in specific places but everywhere. You cant even make the argument
which makes nuclear weapons a worthwhile technology to have, the possible
usage for war against a foreign aggressor. Facial recognition is only
beneficial to keep a population suppressed.

------
maxheadroom
> _Is saving a few minutes worth handing over your most sensitive biometric
> information?_

The problem is that you've _already_ 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].

At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and
there is no opt-out for that.

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 _years_ and
it didn't seem to matter very much _then_.

[0] - [https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-
rea...](https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-real-id-
requirements/)

~~~
bighi
And they probably scanned his face one way or another anyway.

------
kbos87
“Until we have evidence that facial recognition is accurate and reliable—as
opposed to simply convenient—travelers should avoid the technology where they
can.”

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.

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.

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.

~~~
samirm
This is a very confusing comment. You seem to disagree with the premise of the
article, but then go on to agree with it, but also make a bizarre statement
about the impossibility of governments being able to track you?

~~~
larrik
I'm pretty sure there's a typo in there somewhere.

------
fractallyte
I was at London's Gatwick Airport last week, where facial recognition was
being trialed at the boarding gate for my flight.

On the way, multiple, large signs announced the trial.

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.

I was quite impressed. However, the trial was cancelled, and the machines
still retained their plastic wrapping. Oh well.

~~~
socksy
Sounds like GDPR having its desired effect

------
mytailorisrich
I don't understand the problem here.

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.

If so, it's pointless to request to opt out while boarding, really.

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.

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.

~~~
resonanttoe
The point this article misses entirely is that the Facial recognition system
is now at the gate which is ostensibly Delta’s territory.

It isn’t US Boarder Control running the facial control system, its Delta,
Southwest, or anyone else, which has implications about the privacy of the
biometric data, that up until this point hasn’t been collected by Airlines,
only Boarder entities.

That said, in order to boot strap this system, Delta et., al. would have had
to either; 1\. Build their own database of biometric and facial data that they
believe was reliable (unlikely) 2\. Get a full and continually updated copy
from CBP (Probably noisy) 3\. Use an API made available by CBP that acts as a
Biometric/Facial oracle.

I’ve heard rumblings that it’s 3, but I can’t cite anything to back that claim
up, so grains of salt.

~~~
mytailorisrich
My understanding is that biometric data are contained in your passport, which
is already scanned by airlines when you check in and/or board planes.

Here they are using this information to automatically check that it is in fact
you instead of having a staff member look at you and check against your
passport's photo.

~~~
resonanttoe
I’m not certain of the particular setup here (per airport thing) but I’ve
never had them scan my passport at the gate in a US Airport, only at
Immigration checkpoints for international travel and TSA.

This is especially true for domestic travel as well.

~~~
icebraining
But were you facially scanned?

~~~
resonanttoe
At Immigration: Scanned, no, Photographed, yes. (So depending on your
definition)

At TSA, They scan the first page of passport (or local ID) and usually Full
body scan. So in the strict sense of facially scanned no.

At the gate (until now), neither. They would scan the boarding pass and
eyeball the passport if international.

Again the point here is that in the first two instances these are Government
agencies doing the scanning. At the third, the Government no longer has
anything to do with it.

The question with this stuff is how and where are Airlines (private companies)
getting a database of biometric data and what are they doing with it?

~~~
morpheuskafka
They submit the data to the CBP database and get a result back. It will help
to validate exit reporting and ensure that the right people are being reported
as leaving the country on their I-94s

~~~
resonanttoe
Yes I suspect this, but the consumer has no way of verifying this. Similarly
it also means that the airlines have access to a Face Oracle and can build
their own database with confidence based on that result.

Neither of which are good.

------
Merrill
Maybe we'll get to McLuhan's global electronic village after all.

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).

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.

------
corodra
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.

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.

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".

Just two points that stood out to me.

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.

~~~
beatgammit
Wait, are you seriously insinuating that it's okay for the government to do
this?

Airline security worked fine before 9/11, and it hasn't measurably improved
with all of the bull crap the TSA is now doing. From what I can tell, we
haven't been attacked in the same way because:

\- passengers are more vigilant \- terrorist attacks are hard to plan and
execute as it is \- airlines installed locking doors for the cockpit

All of the rest of the stuff the TSA does is overreach. It's not equivalent to
complaining how much sugar is in cake while eating cake, it's closer to only
being offered sugary cake while in prison without being told there's a
healthier option available.

~~~
corodra
Did I say it was acceptable? Did I use those words? Did I not say that I do
not like where its going? At the same time, can I blame anyone for going
security overboard when multiple buildings are destroyed by kamikaze hijacked
airplanes? A first responder from that just recently died. So yea, still a bit
of a sore wound for people. This isn't like talking about Rome getting sacked.
Some of us still remember when the towers stood.

Passengers are vigilant. Ha! The one thing your average civilian is not is
vigilant. The internet is rife with bad folks doing bad things in crowds. And
most people do nothing.

Plus, look up the millennium plot. The news doesn't make a stink when things
go well. Lots of people have been stopped at airports and even before being
able to start. You only hear about the failures, because it makes for better
news.

Fact is, pandora's box was opened. We are in a new age where people get their
fame from doing big, nasty things. The Rolling Stone put the Boston bomber's
face on the cover for fuck's sake. Where rock star faces have been. I like
that on imgur, some people bucked that trend by periodically showing the faces
and sharing the stories of those that fought back. But guess what, someone has
to actively protect too. Yea, lots of issues with the TSA. They knee jerked
hard towards some super fucked up practices those first few years. You think
traveling with a really slavic last name was fun? I was always randomly put in
the special search line. Three times I got backroom questioned over my recent
travels. I still show up 3 hours early to fly out of habit.

But I also chose to roadtrip more often instead. Which was more fun anyways.

Maybe if the public could actually police themselves and evil was eradicated,
then we can do away with security in general. Until then, it's a response to a
problem where no one is offering a better one other than hugs and unicorns
that fart rainbows.

------
chucka9
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.

~~~
tantalor
Yeah, that probably invalidates your passport.

"Photos must not be digitally enhanced or altered to change your appearance in
any way"

[https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-
inf...](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-
resources/photos/digital-image-requirements.html)

------
benbristow
Even if you opt out of the boarding pass/passport scanner facial recognition
etc. you're still not technically opting out.

There's quite a few CCTV cameras in airports. They've most likely (definitely)
got some sort of facial recognition software connected to them.

------
kowdermeister
> Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out?

yes :/

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.

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.

~~~
ttsda
Gatwick airport had a ton of facial recognition cameras last time I was there.
They had a ring of leds around the lens that lights up in a rotating pattern,
it really is difficult not to look directly into the lens due to that.

~~~
dillonmckay
Wear an eyepatch?

------
quickthrower2
When you scan your passport a picture of your face is in the system anyway

------
geggam
Your concerns about privacy at this level are nice and warranted. They are
also a day late and a dollar short.

------
hereme888
"99% accuracy for male faces, but 35% error rate for women..."

The writer is cognitively biased for switching from accuracy to error rate in
a single sentence, to increase the accuracy gap.

------
pintxo
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.

By now I always carry a letter from the federal police (responsible for border
+ airport security) explaining that it's optional.

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.

------
arshbot
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.

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.

I'd argue that getting my passport scanned was quicker than waiting for the
machine go take your picture.

------
carlob
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.

It must be said that the non-European, non-biometric passport control can
easily take 30 minutes longer.

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.

------
ricardobeat
Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects
privacy?

Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can
be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.

~~~
raxxorrax
Definitely possible if standards are defined, but that is not the problem. The
real one is that we now have a security industry that needs to apply tech to
dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so
minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of
the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much...

I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am
just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the
environment anyway.

~~~
maxheadroom
> _...to dangers that in reality don 't really exist in the first place or are
> so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security
> hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much..._

I don't believe that this is true.

For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and
11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-
present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire
world witnessed).

Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is
paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct
to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil"
for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger -
certainly - ins't new, right?

------
kkotak
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.

~~~
ConcernedCoder
Imagine this: "Years from now, the party/person in power goes completely nuts,
and starts rounding people up in train cars to ship off to a final solution
facility... would you prefer to try to sneak out of the country when: A. only
your passport/papers identify you, or B. your face can be recognized from any
video camera in the country..."

~~~
mixmastamyk
Just a few weeks ago there was a thread on this site discussing how IBM census
taking machines made it all possible to identify the undesirables. Now it's
trivial.

------
qwerty456127
> I began to wonder: Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to
> opt out?

No. No ordinary people would care even when there will be no choice to opt
out.

------
doctorRetro
"I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Wasn't Easy"

"I had to ... speak with a Delta representative at their information desk ...
then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board."

That sounds relatively easy, actually.

------
morpheuskafka
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?

------
crankylinuxuser
>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.

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.

I may be a white guy (works 99/100)... But I can't just defend my own rights,
or all of our rights degrade.

------
buboard
For me it was easy. My strabismus seems to confuse the system

------
kyberias
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.

------
Skunkleton
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.

------
aj7
You opted into a list of people who opted out of facial recognition.

------
oceanman888
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.

~~~
simion314
What is your limit? What about handing over all your social accounts?
fingerprints, DNA , it seems that gradually if a thing can be done it will be
done. 2

~~~
OrgNet
Can you wear a mask while they do the passport scan? They need know how you
look like so they can match the picture with the passport... using a computer
or a human.

~~~
simion314
That is fine if it would be the same, but your biometric data is stored in a
database, I would be fine with scan the passport , scan the person, check if
it matches, if all is fine delete the biometric data and not put it in a
database.

If there is a good reason to keep this data in a database let me know.

~~~
OrgNet
How can they compare your appearance to a picture if they don't keep your
picture on-file?

~~~
simion314
The passport is in your hand, you place it on the table where it can be
scanned and compared with your face. If they have your face in the database
can you travel without a physical passport?

~~~
OrgNet
So you could just use a fake passport? Yeah to tell you the truth, I'm not
sure why a passport is required... Just like driver licenses and tag
registrations, they have all the information on their computers.

~~~
simion314
>So you could just use a fake passport?

Why do you think so? If a human can detect a fake passport why a computer
scanner can't detect it?

It even makes sense to do it like this: 1 the passport includes a picture of
you but it could include a hash of your biometric face

2 you go at the checkpoint, put the passport in a scanner and your face is
also photographed by a camera, the sash is generated and compared, then the
hash is deleted, the airport people just care that the passport is real(they
can check serial codes or chips if present in the passport, check the other
security areas of the passport) and the person using the passport is the one
in the passport.

Airports or air transport companies should not be in bussiness of collecting
bio-metric data. If NSA or the government of a country wants to create such a
database they should propose a law for it, when you get or renew your ID
card,passport then you would be added to the national database because such is
the law not because you are forced to chose between getting in the plane
faster or some unpleasant alternative way/

There is no

