I opted out at Boston International Airport. It involved arguing with the TSA for about 5 minutes while holding up a 150 person line. Then the supervisor came over, told me that I "was required to have to have my photo taken" and opting out consisted of checking a box in the software to not save my photo. My alternative was to not get on the flight.
The whole idea of opting out is a scam. They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public.
Counterpoint, I have opted out at multiple airports including Boston without event. They all know opting out is a thing, they press one button to turn off the camera, I hold up a piece of paper over the cameras anyway just in case, and they have never said anything.
One reason to opt out even though everyone says “they already have your picture 1000 different ways” is that these cameras are not normal cameras, they are stereoscopic close-range cameras that take a 3D image of your face. That takes facial recognition accuracy up to 95%+, from 70% or less on a normal photo.
Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image
> One reason to opt out even though everyone says “they already have your picture 1000 different ways” is that these cameras are not normal cameras, they are stereoscopic close-range cameras that take a 3D image of your face. That takes facial recognition accuracy up to 95%+, from 70% or less on a normal photo.
Interesting, I'm fairly sure the cameras at one US airport I was (maybe Salt Lake City?) were just bog standard Logitech C920 like my previous webcam. Do you have more information on the cameras?
Single sensor face rec is already above 95% on surveillance cameras, which do not have ideal positioning, even when they are intended specifically for face rec.
> Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image
So what? Do you think that the thousands of cameras you encounter every day aren’t doing this already?
I think the aim for culture is to limit what we can do with these data, rather than to try to prevent collection of these data. Cameras are too plentiful and powerful to not expect your image linked to your identity. Especially for governmental, lawful uses like immigration screening.
> They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public.
They already have your photo if you have a driver's license or US passport or basically any form of government ID. The whole point is to compare it to what they already have.
So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here, but maybe I'm missing something. Is there something that these cameras record that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos?
(You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport, of course.)
The super duper classified high security no-flight list was shared internationally via a public ftp server with the username and password anonymous:anonymous.
A hacker that disclosed that responsibly got into lots of troubles for exposing that. [1]
So I'd argue indeed I assume that TSA and border control use the most incompetent and most lying way to solve anything when the control mechanism are privacy laws. They literally care 0% about that. If they say they delete something, I assume they keep a physical copy.
And I totally understand people worrying a lot about that, given the golden age of deep fakes we live in. Imagine what's possible 10 years ahead when that biometric data can be used to imitate and authenticate you.
> obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras
The whole “boiling the frog” meme is that nobody notices the rights being curtailed over time. I understand the whole “not in public” thing but there’s still got to be a point where the depth and/or breadth of information gathered is too much.
Privacy is a concern but it’s more a matter of conditioning. Every time you actively consent to it, you’re submitting to the conditioning and further enabling the system to move in this direction as a whole.
"They already have this info" is one of four forms of "privacy nihilism" commonly argued against the right to privacy. I forget all four, but one other one is "I have nothing to hide anyway"
It's not that they took my picture at the DMV to put it on my license. It's the idea that through this picture, they're going to decide if I can fly or not, and I have no process to challenge that determination.
> So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here
Why is the government allowed to decide if I can fly domestically or not?
> that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos?
Why is my biometric data required to fly? This is why I can't fly. I refuse real ID. I refuse a passport. These are not prescriptive rights the government has over my affairs.
> You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport
I've had no such trouble in Boston. In Denver, I got an annoyed agent, but no argument. They flipped through their TSA state ID binder and did the customary comparison, but no argument.
I actually have taken up the habit of wearing a surgical mask through security simply for this purpose, right up until I've opted out and they have my ID in hand. When they ask me to lower it I do, but not until I've opted out.
I had a similar experience with an annoyed agent, who also made sure to point out how I was holding everyone else up instead of just letting my picture be taken. The agent likely didn’t realize that showing that pettiness really reaffirmed my choice as to why the data collection is dangerous to begin with.
The surgical mask is an excellent low friction strategy. Even if the camera ("accidentally") gets a few snaps of your face, they will be (mostly) useless. And post COVID-19, you still see some people wearing masks on flights, so you don't entirely look like a crazy person.
> They flipped through their TSA state ID binder and did the customary comparison
Wait, what is this? I've never seen anything like that, normally they just check the name on the ID matches the boarding pass.
You're saying they literally had a book of all state IDs?
What I really like is that the signs say they don't retain the image for more than a certain amount of time. Yes, most definitely the TSA does not retain it. But the Five eyes surveillance scheme? You can bet they do.
I feel like as a non-white person I would not try to fight these kinds of things. I want to be at my destination, not in a jail. I'll leave it upto the white people to audit their rights, it's less risky for them. I also have a cardiac implant, if they try to tase me I might even end up dead.
Penn Jillette made this argument, about this specific scenario, 20 years ago. Privileged people have an obligation to stand up and defend the oppressed, because they can afford to, but the oppressed cannot.
I was flying through JFK in the past year, JetBlue, and there they had these types of cameras at the boarding area, in addition to TSA. So instead of handing your ticket to the agent, scanning, go on plane, you self scan, there's a picture, and big gates open to let you on. How do you opt out of that?!? Also it was a disaster logistically because the machines were finicky, it moved super slow.
I had to go through that same system recently, and noticed that families with children - in the same, nornal boarding group - were all called to a line to the side of the face scanners that had the normal boarding pass scan system. Maybe you have to ask to be in that line? It was very confusing in the moment because a sign implied that line was for the 'premium' members (or whatever the preboarding group is called) and the face scanners were for regular boarding... (+ zero information about opting out)
To be fair every photo you have ever uploaded to the internet of
your face is also going through this TSA line 1000 times a day. Which is also horrifying.
In my opinion faces are really not very good ID. I think it could also be distracting from the wayyy scarier types of identifying you like the storing of DNA for simply being arrested... not even convicted of a crime... forever...
a bunch of unhelpful commenters will add that they anecdotally did not experience inconvenience.
this was the same play book with milliliter wave scanners, which are now proven to not be completely safe but who cares. at first you could opt out. then opt out was the same as mandatory patdown. then opt out meant an extra 30min wait by the xray scanner... etc. now its fully not an option.
meanwhile i bet the 911 hijackers would have zero problems getting pre check or whatever other private scamer is selling the no-scan boarding these days.
lastly, yeah, this is totally so they do not need a warrant to unlock your phone if you have face unlock. in the most plain and obvious Kafkaesque "he did provide the facescan willingly your honor. not once he opted out, which was always an option".
That's verifiably untrue, unless they've changed this in the last week or two, and you'll need to provide some documentation if that's the case. I've always opted out, and I've never had anyone try to tell me that I couldn't.
I fly at least twice a year, and often more than that. My flights are many times along the east coast of the US but also occasionally elsewhere in the country.
I have never gone through a body scanning machine. Not once.
It's such a challenge coming up against this stuff. So many people will (understandably) just accept it and go along with it. Surveillance is normalised. Data breaches of our most sensitive data are normalised. Companies simply giving all this sensitive data to law enforcement is normalised. Fighting back is hard if it even occurs to you that you can and should.
My husband's workplace tried to force him to enrol in biometrics along with the rest of his company. It was just for doing timesheets. We'd have fought it if it were for identity verification and security as well, but no, it was just for bloody timesheets. Giving away immutable biometric data to a crappy third party company who has data breaches every six months just for bloody timesheets just felt extraordinarily ridiculous and audacious. My husband did encourage his colleagues to consider not signing it but nobody gave it much thought (or was worried about being fired).
We recently needed to verify our identities to a financial institution and they pushed hard to use a (different) third party biometrics system instead of the good ol fashioned just not doing that. We needed to provide them with all the normal ID documentation anyway. Why the hell would we sign up for biometrics on top of that?
I suppose my point is that people generally choose the path of least resistance (understandably). Turning the tides on biometrics garbage being normalised, the default, and probably the only way in the future is something I can't really see happening.
One nitpick, was the timesheet biometrics like a cheap fingerprint scanner on the wall like they have at restaurants? Because I believe those work like smartphone fingerprint scanners, you enroll on the device and it’s just a hash. The bank example is probably a real image of the fingerprints like done for passports etc.
> Because I believe those work like smartphone fingerprint scanners, you enroll on the device and it’s just a hash.
"Probably X, but depends on the implementation" isn't very reassuring.
I, on the other hand, worked at a gym where members checked in with fingerprints instead of cards. Full scans showed on the till screen when people came in.
And I believe the hash is salted so that it’s only useful for that timesheet system. So an individual’s biometrics could not be extracted or reused for other purposes.
Of course, I’d like to see auditing of the device and data to confirm everything.
It probably was one of those machines, thus was pretty low risk. The hashed data probably stayed on prem thus was pretty low risk. I don't know because when asked for literally any information at all beyond the three short paragraph 'privacy policy' provided (it had no information in it beyond 'we can do what we want; we are not responsible for anything' standard stuff and nothing else), including why they were refusing to allow my husband to use the other options provided on the same hardware like an RFID card or punching in a code, they refused to give any info. All of the stuff I asked to begin with were things usually covered in FAQ pages for such products, so nothing particularly sensitive and they refused. I also asked them for the model number of the hardware, clarifications about what the company's agreements with the vendor contained in relation to employee data, proper privacy policy, brief information on if they remediated their security issues after their last massive security breaches, whether they still ran on VB6, and some reasonably simple information again and they would not say anything. They expected (reasonably, it turns out) people to sign a three paragraph privacy policy without literally any of the information pertaining to the actual hardware, software, or governing contract involving their potentially extremely sensitive information. I don't care if the crappy scanners are about as high resolution as using the fingerprint features on a laptop and were salted and hashed, a workplace pushing that can actually just see me in court. It is not necessary. I don't actually care if it's one of the lower risk implementation options (for now!) because they shouldn't be allowed to demand any of this of staff in the first place in my not at all humble opinion. Even if they answered all my questions, and even if it were those lower risk implementations, he wouldn't have enrolled in it on anyway, because as they were told them from the start, privacy policies are as legally robust as pinky promises. Biometrics of any kind for bloody timesheets is mind bogglingly ridiculous.
I didn't really expect an explanation but I did ask why the business was prioritising something so expensive and seemingly unnecessary when they have three half implemented tech solutions rolled out across the country that would improve productivity massively if finished. I was being rude asking them that but I was curious, and they had continually responded to simple and clear questions and concerns about infosec with such garbage as 'but the whole company is doing it' and 'you're creating a lot more work for one of the ladies in the office because we're forcing you to use paper timesheets now instead of any of the logical options available to us. You should feel so bad at all the extra work you're making her do'. They couldn't even pretend to take the questions we asked seriously. They were the ones that kept interrogating for why he was never going to allow it; the only reason these questions were asked was because they kept pushing. It was such an insulting waste of our time. Hell no can they be trusted. Aside from management and HR being rude, threatening, and patronising (hardly unique), it's otherwise a pretty good job he enjoys.
Flying back to the US earlier this year in June, I declined to have my face scanned. The agent was rude and aggressive because I “didn’t tell him I wanted to opt out before he started.”
He went overboard in terms of harassment and intimidation but he did not win. Fuck that guy.
Also who cares whether the photo is immediately deleted? The metrics are what matter and those are kept.
It’s your right. But the agent is probably annoyed because it takes longer for them, you, and everyone in line.
It’s like your right to write a check or pay in nickels as well. But people get annoyed because you exercising your right and preference inconveniences them. Maybe also why people get annoyed by bicyclists going 15mph in a lane they legally get to use.
There’s lots of things that are correct and right but others don’t like much.
> But the agent is probably annoyed because it takes longer for them, you, and everyone in line.
The agent has probably been trained by law enforcement in "compliance tactics": shame, cajole, embarrass, and intimidate the person who's refusing to do what you demand of them so that they do what you demand.
The agent could have done what agents in more-civilized countries consider to be their job and continued to process the returning citizen as they were entitled to be processed. He chose -instead- to delay the returning citizen and everyone else by throwing a coercive tantrum.
Good for you. There is no shortage of assholes at the border. It's gotten to the point where when I encounter a polite one, I think "what's his angle?" Maybe he's just not a jerk projecting his sense of powerlessness onto strangers. Imagine!
That said, I don't envy their job. But it seems to be a systemic attractor of asshole.
I'll be honest, I don't mind if the federal government has my face information. I already have a passport and a driver's license, I live here, I pay taxes, the federal government already has all my information.
My issue is if any private company gets to use it or store it. I will never join Clear and I tell everyone I meet not to trust them.
What are they going to do with my biometrics? Waymo, cruise, etc are driving around scanning us every day. My fingerprint is used on my phone. My palm is scanned at Whole Foods.
Clear is the easiest way to fly and I’ll never go back (until it’s as packed as TSA pre…).
Where is Clear considerably faster than TSA pre-check? It’s the same wait for either nearly every time I’ve seen them next to each other. I’m sure it varies by airport though.
While agree I find hilarious to say that you don't mind give data to government, because you are forced to and then complain of giving them to other companies.
You don't have to give your personal data to any company, while to government you are forced to do it. It's huge difference.
One interesting thing, in Arizona to get a "Real ID" drivers license that you can use in for flights, they make you use a face scanning app that runs on your cell phone. So sometimes they're getting the face scan done before you even go to the airport. I wonder if they can scan it at the airport no matter what, and just compare you to previous face scans? Hard to tell when these things actually happen.
I was flying home from dallas a few months back. They had a giant sign in the security line that said (maybe not verbatim) - We're trying out a new face recognition security system. This is completely optional. If you don't want to participate, just tell the agent "I'd like to opt out".
I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out" - she looks at me like I was speaking Algonquin. So I repeat "I'd like to opt out". Her - "What are you talking about??". So I point to the sign sitting two feet away from her and say "your sign says the face scan is optional and I can opt out???"
"Just say you want a pat down, we don't know what you're saying".
To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest...
>To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest...
It makes more sense if you think about it as a giant jobs program, but one that detracts from society instead of adding to it.
Don't get me started, our country makes my brain hurt. The Works program was considered so successful at eliminating unemployed folks, we killed it. Because why would we need to continue building roads and bridges, and fixing old roads and bridges, and giving people meaningful work to do vs. just handing out food stamps? That problem is solved... (Please note I'm not against food stamps/welfare programs, I just think having that be the ONLY option is detrimental to able-bodied folks that just want to feel like they're contributing to society but also can't find steady employment for various reasons).
>> If you don't want to participate, just tell the agent "I'd like to opt out".
> I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out"
Come on man, you're talking to humans that have a lot going on in their minds, including your security and everyone else's. They can't do perfect Bayes inference to figure out what's going on in your brain. What the heck are you opting out of? Democracy? Your marriage? Life itself? Realize none of those are positive indications of someone who's likely to be a safe traveler. Try to make things easier on them.
Just saying "I'd like to opt out" with no added context on what you're opting out of is really following the instructions like a computer would. It makes you look like the programmer in those jokes who buys a dozen loaves of bread because he was told "buy a loaf of bread; if they have eggs, get a dozen".
I used to opt out of everything, and get searched manually but now I have given up. I applied for clear, I let them take my pic, I do everything because at this point I know they already know everything about me. It's sad, it's 1984-come-to-fruition, but I am too old and tired to keep tilting at windmills.
Isn't it just literally taking a photo, like any digital camera?
To me "scanning" implies a 3D point cloud. Apple's TrueDepth camera, with a projected dot cloud, that it uses for Face ID -- that's scanning, as opposed to just a photo.
Are airports actually performing 3D scans now?
Or are they still just normal digital cameras, but people are calling it "scanning" because they want it to sound scarier than "photos"?
I still wouldn't call that "scanning", I'd just call it "two photos".
The quality/accuracy is not like an actual 3D scan.
But I'll certainly place it in an intermediate category... either "stereoscopic photos" or "spatial photos" if you want to use Apple's name for it.
I just think "scanning" should be reserved for, you know, the things we traditionally call scanning. That are more than just photos -- stereoscopic/spatial or not.
Uncle Sam is using your money so generally pays top dollar for the best stuff. A comment in the top thead, with “counterpoint” in it seems to confirm the 3d scan.
Readit News
The whole idea of opting out is a scam. They are 100% planning to force mandatory facial recognition on the general public.
One reason to opt out even though everyone says “they already have your picture 1000 different ways” is that these cameras are not normal cameras, they are stereoscopic close-range cameras that take a 3D image of your face. That takes facial recognition accuracy up to 95%+, from 70% or less on a normal photo.
Furthermore, they say they do not retain the image. That may or may not be strictly true. But they do not say they are deleting the eigenvector, facial measurements, a hash of the image, or any other useful derivatives of the image
Interesting, I'm fairly sure the cameras at one US airport I was (maybe Salt Lake City?) were just bog standard Logitech C920 like my previous webcam. Do you have more information on the cameras?
So what? Do you think that the thousands of cameras you encounter every day aren’t doing this already?
I think the aim for culture is to limit what we can do with these data, rather than to try to prevent collection of these data. Cameras are too plentiful and powerful to not expect your image linked to your identity. Especially for governmental, lawful uses like immigration screening.
They already have your photo if you have a driver's license or US passport or basically any form of government ID. The whole point is to compare it to what they already have.
So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here, but maybe I'm missing something. Is there something that these cameras record that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos?
(You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport, of course.)
The super duper classified high security no-flight list was shared internationally via a public ftp server with the username and password anonymous:anonymous.
A hacker that disclosed that responsibly got into lots of troubles for exposing that. [1]
So I'd argue indeed I assume that TSA and border control use the most incompetent and most lying way to solve anything when the control mechanism are privacy laws. They literally care 0% about that. If they say they delete something, I assume they keep a physical copy.
And I totally understand people worrying a lot about that, given the golden age of deep fakes we live in. Imagine what's possible 10 years ahead when that biometric data can be used to imitate and authenticate you.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446673
> biometrics they already have
> obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras
The whole “boiling the frog” meme is that nobody notices the rights being curtailed over time. I understand the whole “not in public” thing but there’s still got to be a point where the depth and/or breadth of information gathered is too much.
It's not that they took my picture at the DMV to put it on my license. It's the idea that through this picture, they're going to decide if I can fly or not, and I have no process to challenge that determination.
> So I don't really understand the privacy concerns here
Why is the government allowed to decide if I can fly domestically or not?
> that is different from the biometrics they already have from your ID photos?
Why is my biometric data required to fly? This is why I can't fly. I refuse real ID. I refuse a passport. These are not prescriptive rights the government has over my affairs.
> You're also obviously already being constantly recorded by surveillance cameras in the airport
Do they also have my drivers license information?
I actually have taken up the habit of wearing a surgical mask through security simply for this purpose, right up until I've opted out and they have my ID in hand. When they ask me to lower it I do, but not until I've opted out.
Wait, what is this? I've never seen anything like that, normally they just check the name on the ID matches the boarding pass.
You're saying they literally had a book of all state IDs?
You're saying they literally had a book of all state IDs?
…unless you’re not a US citizen, in which cases we retain the image forever. You can’t opt out.
The system needs active backpressure.
https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/36lg/penn_jille...
Aren't tasers certified not to interfere with pacemakers and similar things?
Aren't tasers certified not to interfere with pacemakers and similar things?
see: https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2018/Your-Face-is-Y...
(your face isn't your boarding pass, your face AND your boarding pass is your boarding pass)
https://www.tsa.gov/contact-center/form/complaints
The process is optional and you were coerced.
https://www.tsa.gov/biometrics-technology/evaluating-facial-...
In my opinion faces are really not very good ID. I think it could also be distracting from the wayyy scarier types of identifying you like the storing of DNA for simply being arrested... not even convicted of a crime... forever...
this was the same play book with milliliter wave scanners, which are now proven to not be completely safe but who cares. at first you could opt out. then opt out was the same as mandatory patdown. then opt out meant an extra 30min wait by the xray scanner... etc. now its fully not an option.
meanwhile i bet the 911 hijackers would have zero problems getting pre check or whatever other private scamer is selling the no-scan boarding these days.
lastly, yeah, this is totally so they do not need a warrant to unlock your phone if you have face unlock. in the most plain and obvious Kafkaesque "he did provide the facescan willingly your honor. not once he opted out, which was always an option".
That's verifiably untrue, unless they've changed this in the last week or two, and you'll need to provide some documentation if that's the case. I've always opted out, and I've never had anyone try to tell me that I couldn't.
I have never gone through a body scanning machine. Not once.
Opting out still works just fine.
Wouldn't that be Orwellian? Which Kafka story did I miss?
Wouldn't that be Orwellian? Which Kafka story did I miss?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but if you have any links, that'd be cool to include.
As an aside, TSA Pre lines just have normal metal detectors. It's worth paying for it just for that IMO.
(It also frankly showcases that this is all dumbass security theater, but whatever)
My husband's workplace tried to force him to enrol in biometrics along with the rest of his company. It was just for doing timesheets. We'd have fought it if it were for identity verification and security as well, but no, it was just for bloody timesheets. Giving away immutable biometric data to a crappy third party company who has data breaches every six months just for bloody timesheets just felt extraordinarily ridiculous and audacious. My husband did encourage his colleagues to consider not signing it but nobody gave it much thought (or was worried about being fired).
We recently needed to verify our identities to a financial institution and they pushed hard to use a (different) third party biometrics system instead of the good ol fashioned just not doing that. We needed to provide them with all the normal ID documentation anyway. Why the hell would we sign up for biometrics on top of that?
I suppose my point is that people generally choose the path of least resistance (understandably). Turning the tides on biometrics garbage being normalised, the default, and probably the only way in the future is something I can't really see happening.
"Probably X, but depends on the implementation" isn't very reassuring.
I, on the other hand, worked at a gym where members checked in with fingerprints instead of cards. Full scans showed on the till screen when people came in.
Of course, I’d like to see auditing of the device and data to confirm everything.
I didn't really expect an explanation but I did ask why the business was prioritising something so expensive and seemingly unnecessary when they have three half implemented tech solutions rolled out across the country that would improve productivity massively if finished. I was being rude asking them that but I was curious, and they had continually responded to simple and clear questions and concerns about infosec with such garbage as 'but the whole company is doing it' and 'you're creating a lot more work for one of the ladies in the office because we're forcing you to use paper timesheets now instead of any of the logical options available to us. You should feel so bad at all the extra work you're making her do'. They couldn't even pretend to take the questions we asked seriously. They were the ones that kept interrogating for why he was never going to allow it; the only reason these questions were asked was because they kept pushing. It was such an insulting waste of our time. Hell no can they be trusted. Aside from management and HR being rude, threatening, and patronising (hardly unique), it's otherwise a pretty good job he enjoys.
He went overboard in terms of harassment and intimidation but he did not win. Fuck that guy.
Also who cares whether the photo is immediately deleted? The metrics are what matter and those are kept.
It’s like your right to write a check or pay in nickels as well. But people get annoyed because you exercising your right and preference inconveniences them. Maybe also why people get annoyed by bicyclists going 15mph in a lane they legally get to use.
There’s lots of things that are correct and right but others don’t like much.
The agent has probably been trained by law enforcement in "compliance tactics": shame, cajole, embarrass, and intimidate the person who's refusing to do what you demand of them so that they do what you demand.
The agent could have done what agents in more-civilized countries consider to be their job and continued to process the returning citizen as they were entitled to be processed. He chose -instead- to delay the returning citizen and everyone else by throwing a coercive tantrum.
That said, I don't envy their job. But it seems to be a systemic attractor of asshole.
Border guards in other countries are often very polite.
My issue is if any private company gets to use it or store it. I will never join Clear and I tell everyone I meet not to trust them.
Clear is the easiest way to fly and I’ll never go back (until it’s as packed as TSA pre…).
You don't have to give your personal data to any company, while to government you are forced to do it. It's huge difference.
I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out" - she looks at me like I was speaking Algonquin. So I repeat "I'd like to opt out". Her - "What are you talking about??". So I point to the sign sitting two feet away from her and say "your sign says the face scan is optional and I can opt out???"
"Just say you want a pat down, we don't know what you're saying".
To say their training on this being "optional" is lacking is quite the understatement... You have signs telling people what to tell the agent, verbatim, and the agent acts like they have no idea what you're talking about... speaking of big government at its finest...
It makes more sense if you think about it as a giant jobs program, but one that detracts from society instead of adding to it.
> I get to the front of the line, tell the lady "I'd like to opt out"
Come on man, you're talking to humans that have a lot going on in their minds, including your security and everyone else's. They can't do perfect Bayes inference to figure out what's going on in your brain. What the heck are you opting out of? Democracy? Your marriage? Life itself? Realize none of those are positive indications of someone who's likely to be a safe traveler. Try to make things easier on them.
Just saying "I'd like to opt out" with no added context on what you're opting out of is really following the instructions like a computer would. It makes you look like the programmer in those jokes who buys a dozen loaves of bread because he was told "buy a loaf of bread; if they have eggs, get a dozen".
They've won.
Isn't it just literally taking a photo, like any digital camera?
To me "scanning" implies a 3D point cloud. Apple's TrueDepth camera, with a projected dot cloud, that it uses for Face ID -- that's scanning, as opposed to just a photo.
Are airports actually performing 3D scans now?
Or are they still just normal digital cameras, but people are calling it "scanning" because they want it to sound scarier than "photos"?
The quality/accuracy is not like an actual 3D scan.
But I'll certainly place it in an intermediate category... either "stereoscopic photos" or "spatial photos" if you want to use Apple's name for it.
I just think "scanning" should be reserved for, you know, the things we traditionally call scanning. That are more than just photos -- stereoscopic/spatial or not.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment