A bipartisan group of 12 senators has urged the Transportation Security Administration’s inspector general to investigate the agency’s use of facial recognition, saying it poses a significant threat to privacy and civil liberties.

“This technology will soon be in use at hundreds of major and mid-size airports without an independent evaluation of the technology’s precision or an audit of whether there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect passenger privacy,” the senators wrote.

“While the TSA claims facial recognition is optional, it is confusing and intimidating to opt out of TSA’s facial recognition scans, and our offices have received numerous anecdotal reports of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) becoming belligerent when a traveler askes to opt out, or simply being unaware of that right,” the senators wrote. They added that in some airports the signage instructing flyers to step in front of a camera is prominently displayed while signs advising passengers of their right to opt out of face scan is “strategically placed in inconspicuous locations.”

To opt out of a face scan at an airport, a traveler need only say that they decline facial recognition. They can then proceed normally through security by presenting an identification document, such as a driver’s license or passport.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    A bipartisan group of 12 senators has urged the Transportation Security Administration’s inspector general to investigate the agency’s use of facial recognition, saying it poses a significant threat to privacy and civil liberties.

    To which the TSA probably said, “Well, duh!”

  • ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Does opting out do anything practical when you’re walking through a an airport with enough cameras to determine how many times you’ve farted in terminal A?

    Not that I disagree with the premise but …

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    And now scum like Trump are in control of the TSA. We should have shut it down when we had the chance.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Not that guy! That’s Saddam Hussein! Her him!

    Oh shit, sir, we’re really sorry! Didn’t know Saddam was already in the country! Here’s a complimentary peanut.

    • GenXLiberal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Totally agree, the TSA is more security theater than anything else. Time and again it has been demonstrated that they can be circumvented (sneaking guns or weapons past checkpoints.)

      As the above said reinforce cockpit doors and also repurpose the TSA positions into Air Marshalls, which would help avert any in-flight problems more than on the ground checks. Make it a requirement for airlines to help subsidize the cost (oh gosh! Not regulation!)

      Y’all may not remember pre-9/11 flights and (very) likely don’t recall airline regulations, where prices were fixed and airlines had to compete via other means (better food, perks, etc.) Heck, I barely remember airline regulation days and have to rely on my retired flight attendant aunt.

      Not perfect but better than the creeping surveillance state effort going on.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        where prices were fixed

        I don’t recall flight prices ever being fixed. They always fluctuated based on demand.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I think it can be simpler than that. Basically, require airlines to carry insurance against things like terror, and hold them criminally liable if their negligence allows an incident. Then air marshals can test their readiness anonymously and give them a grade, which insurance can use to set premiums.

        This creates a cost where it’s hopefully cheaper to follow best practices. They can choose to handle their own security, or pay another org to do that (and that other org would carry their own insurance).

        My goal here is to encourage innovation in safety that reduces actual risk instead of just being theater. The TSA doesn’t seem to actually care about safety and instead want to look like they do, and we need the opposite.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yeah I’m with you. Just reinforcing the cockpit doors is enough to take care of the majority of the problem.

      They can bomb a plane but they can also bomb a bus or a subway.

      As someone that was 6 when 9-11 happened, I think this country majorly overreacted and made the state itself one step closer to an authoritarian nightmare.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        As someone a bit older, but still in school, I agree. I knew people directly impacted, yet still think we totally overreacted.

        Reinforced cockpit doors, more air marshals, and ideally better training should’ve been the solution, not this crazy surveillance apparatus.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    the TSA has said the systems have a three percent false negative rate—how often they fail to properly match a person to their image in the database—which would equate to 68,000 failures daily if the technology was spread across all airports.

    Holy crap, so 1 out of every 30 times I fly, I get to fly under someone else’s identity that looks like me?

    Fuck that’s broke

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Claimed 3% false negatives according to the TSA, not actual false negatives, which are probably far higher. And what’s the false positive rate? How many people are going to get hauled off planes and harassed for no reason?

        • rektdeckard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’m not making an argument for the technology or the veracity of the claims, I was literally just pointing out the misunderstanding.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Got a lot of attitude when telling them I preferred to opt out. Signs posted everywhere informing you of the right and the agent felt so put upon when asked. To the point that I mentioned to supervisor and she tried to over apologize like she cares and was going to talk to the agent, but she didn’t give a shit. It’s an intimidation/peer pressure thing, also they do scan your face, and then you can ask them to discard after the fact… But how many of us think that data is actually “gone” after they’ve collected it?

    More likely you still have a scan somewhere in system, now just with an added flag labeling you as a difficult

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      When I opt out, they keep telling me “we delete the photo after you leave.” Are you deleting the data of my face though? Fuck off with that noise, I ain’t fuckin fallin for it

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      We know for a fact that its not gone.

      What they say is that the TSA deletes it locally. They dont make any claim that other agencies that they send it to delete it. Read their claims carefuly.

    • Brodysseus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      That sucks. I’ve never had an issue opting out after finding out it’s possible, maybe done it 7 or 8 times. I smile and ask “is it possible to opt out of that?”

      I’m curious if something would happen if they told you no, when you do in fact have that right. I’m so anxious when I’m there (about nothing, just an anxious guy) that if they told me I couldn’t opt out I’d just fall in and let the thing scan me.

  • xodoh74984@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I’m very pro privacy, but I’m just going to say out loud that it’s not like US state and federal governments don’t already have photos of your face that can be used to track you. The alternative is to hand over your ID, the thing the government printed after capturing and storing a picture of your face.

    My pitchforks are saved for companies that track your location and interactions using facial recognition combined with social media posts. Or CCTV, of course.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I’m very pro privacy, but I’m just going to say out loud that it’s not like US state and federal governments don’t already have photos of your face that can be used to track you. The alternative is to hand over your ID, the thing the government printed after capturing and storing a picture of your face.

      Did you know the TSA is a public branch of defense that sits between the DOD and the NSA?

      I bet you didn’t know that whatever data the TSA collects they can sell to corporations and back to the government for “validations”.

      the key is corporations can buy your private data from the government.

      so yeah, this is a HUGE privacy issue.

      • snowsuit2654@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        They’re part of Department of Homeland Security. NSA is part of Department of Defense. So they’re actually not, unless you meant this figuratively.

    • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Also pro-privacy, here. I was unable to get a good answer on this on HN. It seems to me that replacing a human entering data into a computer at the checkpoint with a computer entering data into a computer at the checkpoint wasn’t much of a change. The whole checkpoint area is already bristling with cameras, as well.

  • Player2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Last time I refused it the agent was completely confused and dumbfounded despite having a sign saying it’s optional right next to them

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I opt out aggressively, but they make it so hard. Once I even approached the agent and the camera was directly already in my face, so I hold my hand up to try to block it and say, “I don’t want this,” but apparently they had already gotten my image before I blocked the camera and the TSA agent said “well, you’re verified.” So much for opting out.

    Another time, I was going on an international flight. At the gate, the airline is scanning everyone’s face. I quickly searched the internet about it and found some Reddit post indicating it’s not mandatory at all, but sure enough they’re treating it like it is. When I get to the front, I tell the guy, “I’m not doing this.” And he says “Well, it’s the only way to get on the plane!” I continue to protest citing their privacy policy, which I had learned about moments before. He kinda scoffs and waves me over the to gate desk.

    I walk past him and to the gate lady, she checks my passport and hands me a paper boarding pass. I already had a boarding pass on my phone, but ok. Well, then I walk past the guy who was scanning faces to board the plane and he doesn’t pay any attention to me. I realize then that I could’ve skipped talking to the gate agent all together and just boarded. Wow, these biometrics are so secure! That said, everyone else in line just did as they were asked like a bunch of sheep, some even smiling for the camera while their biometrics were harvested.

    • fireweed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Wear a face mask at the airport, and you’ll never get a surprise facial recognition photo again.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Really? The last few times I traveled it didn’t seem like it was an option. It’s been a while since I was traveling regularly though.

        • Pieisawesome@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          You have to ask.

          The alternative is usually a pat down.

          I had an ex who had an implant that required her to opt out of the full body scanner, she always got patted down

  • NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    If only there was some government organization in place that could propose and pass legislation to limit the TSA.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Any data released in what percentage are refusing it? This hardly seems necessary to make it mandatory - I’ve never seen anyone refuse it in my many hours standing in TSA lines. I’ve also never been asked if I have a preference, only told in a typical grumpy Tsa voice to look at the camera. There are cameras all over the damn airport - I don’t believe they aren’t capturing and potentially using recognition algorithms on other cameras as well.

    I think its great to see there are a few spines left on Capitol Hill interested in pushing back a bit though.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    They put up signs that the scan will be deleted after verification, but I am guessing that is a misdirection and a hash of the scan is saved like how fingerprint scanners work. Otherwise there would be no need for the scanners since a person is there to verify the scan already…