Remix.run Logo
morpheuskafka 4 days ago

I don't like TSA or the US security state, but I really find it hard to see why this has attracted so much attention. When you enter the airport, you're surrounded by cameras from numerous government and commercial entities, no doubt performing facial recognition. When you get to your destination, your photo will be taken by the destination country plus countless other surveillance cameras along the way. And unless you like long lines, you've already submitted fingerprints and yet another photo to TSA or CBP for precheck. Even if you didn't, all REAL IDs (except a foreign passport) require digital storage of the ID photo--that's what they are matching your face to at the checkpoint.

(During the pandemic, I had a job that let me--I mean, a friend of my choice--do my own e-verify/I-9 form. When you enter your passport number, the e-Verify system spits out a digital copy of the photo you sent it to prevent counterfeit or altered photos.)

I just don't understand how one more potato quality still capture of your face, that by definition is very similar to those they already have, changes the equation much.

akira2501 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You've precisely described the reason I will not fly commercial anymore. All of this surveillance has a chilling effect. On citizens, on business, on international trade.

Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.

Also, the thing you're ignoring, and perhaps why you fail to understand the problem, is you haven't bothered to ask what the false positive rate is. Would you enjoy being stopped and arrested by very cocksure police simply because a computer made a mistake and they refuse to believe that?

mschuster91 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Flying privately requires none of this. Which is how you know they're not serious about security but about control of the masses.

In Germany, there is no way you'll get on a commercial airfield without going through security, and if you're not a passenger but an employee or a pilot, you'll need a comprehensive background check.

Only exemption for now is ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car (or if you just compare kinetic energy, even less dangerous because they're barely half a ton in weight.

akira2501 4 days ago | parent [-]

> a commercial airfield

Your "commercial airfield" may actually be two airfields in one. This is not uncommon. There is a "commercial" side which is where public carriers usually work and there is a "private" side which is where individuals and often cargo works.

Aside from this there are plenty of private airfields in Germany.

> ultralight aircraft because these are about as dangerous as a car

The cool things about vehicles is you can put things in them. Things like explosives. The incredibly low tech version of this is currently in use in some parts of the world, and that is where you attach a mortar to a drone, then go drop it on a target.

EasyMark 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they are using more than just a 2d photo, these things are taking almost microscopic details in. I just pay the devil and ask for the personal treatment and skip these things. These are not potato quality and the government isn’t as backward at tech as you think. Remember when you’re dealing with cops there is nothing you can say or do that will be to your advantage in court , the same goes in real life. Skip all of these types of security theater as it’s possible. While I did not want to see the new regime change in Washington because of the high chance of economic and challenges to democracy, one of the things they might cut back on is stuff like this; a Harris admin certainly was not going to be.

pxeboot 4 days ago | parent [-]

At all the airports I have been through using this system, the device in use appeared to be a Logitech webcam. I doubt the resolution is higher than 1080p.

eesmith 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where is the line where you say "stop"?

People started complaining about cameras, and airport id checks, and facial recognition, and REAL ID, and incentives like PreCheck to support mass fingerprinting for a decade or three.

At some point the rubber band breaks, or at least one of the ropes snap.

chao- 4 days ago | parent [-]

For those of us that don't follow your train of logic, can you explain what it means for "the rubber band to break" or for "one of the ropes to snap"? Is there something specific you have in mind? Or is this a vague foreboding sense that something, somewhere will eventually go wrong?

eesmith 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

These are metaphors for common events.

You're working for a client who wants some changes, and more changes, and more changes, and is difficult to work with. At some point you may have to fire the client. As a simile, this is like a rubber band being stretched to the breaking point.

Or, the new boss is a very bad manager. Some people quit to move to another job. Each one is a rope snapping. If enough ropes snap - if enough people quit and are not replaced fast enough - then that department can no longer function.

To clarify further, "rubber band to break" is because a rubber band can be stretched and stretched, but not without limit. Once it has reached its limit, it breaks with a snap, and cannot easily be fixed.

For the metaphor "one of the ropes to snap", think of a cargo net carrying a heavy load. Each rope has a different tensile strength, and the load is not perfectly balanced. It's possible for a heavy load to break one rope, but the net still hold because the load shifts onto the other ropes, which have reserve strength. However, this should be a warning, because as more ropes break the less reserve there is, until the net is no longer able to hold the cargo.

I don't know what you mean by "eventually will go wrong" in this context where several senators say that things have already gone wrong.

consteval 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem with all these happenings is you're relying on the benevolence of our government. I would really prefer to not be beholden to how benevolent the government is feeling.

For example, President Elect Trump has plans to reinstate Schedule F and require loyalty tests for all government employees. If you post liberal content on your facebook, or maybe you fail the test even once, boom - you can't get a government job ever, because your face and identity is linked to your political leanings and those political leanings are now the Enemy of the American Government.

Or you could use this technology to automatically sort people, putting the ethnically-vague looking people into camps while they await rulings to see if they're illegal or not.

Of course this is all extreme, like fascist extreme. Suppose this doesn't come true, which is what we're all hoping for. Are you confident there will never be an evil government from now until the end of time?

If your answer is anything other than a resounding yes, then you should be opposed to these advancements on principal.

raxxorraxor 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't fly anymore if I don't have to because of this security theatre, so the one thing it has a positive effect on is perhaps ecological. Otherwise it is completely hysterical, a remnant of some US lawmakers that wanted to look though at some point. It has grown and grown and just is a caricature of sensible security policies.

That autocratic states readily pick up on it should give you pause, but instead of questioning the efficiency of a security apparatus, it is excused because the status quo is already shitty.

monksy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

God I hate this argument and this blunt misunderstanding of computer vision. (I've dealt with it so many times on reddit) Frequently I'm met with these arguments with some imaginative justification for this technology. At this point it's hard to be convinced that the arguements aren't an AstroTurf by security vendors. (Yes dang, I realize this is bad to make this accusation to say but I'm speaking generically and over a large group of people)

Additionally you threw in a false equivalency: But a ton of things are going on..you're useless in fighting it. On top of that you threw in an accusation that "if you don't then face longer lines".

The cameras that are above aren't good enough to do a confident identification of an individual. They're great for tracking where unique blobs go.

The picture they are doing a comparison against is a profile picture and consistent lighting. Additionally the old picture that is on your license is a much older photo. The thread here is that the people who are taking your image now are updating their models and maintaining the models of what you look like. With that they are able to retroactively and perform future lookups on different visual datasources about what you did. (Gas stations, stores, weed shop, adult toy store, walking down the red light district, being on a train, etc)