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.
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
353 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
3200 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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 ...
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!"
And now scum like Trump are in control of the TSA. We should have shut it down when we had the chance.
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
3% false negatives, not false positives.
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?
I'm not making an argument for the technology or the veracity of the claims, I was literally just pointing out the misunderstanding.
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
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
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.
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.
Is this a requirement for domestic flights? In Texas they have these things but nobody uses them.
If only there was some government organization in place that could propose and pass legislation to limit the TSA.
Cool, can we end the TSA already? I'd much rather go back to how things were pre-9/11, with a few upgrades here and there.
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.
where prices were fixed
I don't recall flight prices ever being fixed. They always fluctuated based on demand.
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.
They would never divert that money to air marshals because those are seats the airlines won’t be able to sell. They’ll spend millions to lobby against it, ironically.
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.
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.
They knew what they were doing. It was an intentional power grab, not an emotional overreaction
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.
Fortunately I just change my face every time they take it
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.
Everyone knows this, regarding reselling the data
Maybe I missundertand what you mean but doesn't the other comment responding disagree?
It sounds like we need legislation that restricts government data being sold or cross referenced by private companies. I don't see that happening though as people cower when it comes to the term saftey.
Soon as someone says it helps track down murderers and rapists, many people will back it. I imagine the NSA/FBI/CIA would want deals with the private sector such as Ring and such to acquire possible matches that fit criminals they haven't found.
This creates an invasion of privacy, but many people would vote for it because they don't value their privacy over such. I think the questions come back to how we can keep privacy while searches like that are bound to be supported/occur.
In theory acquisition of data from private sector to government I think will always pass by voters. Whether I agree or not, but writing legislation that blocks any information being shared/sold by government to private sector I believe we can get people to support.
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.
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.
So following the same path as the full body scanners. Cool, cool cool cool.
The body scanners are optional
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.
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
Just say no. You're right they dont tell you its an option.
Last time I refused it the agent was completely confused and dumbfounded despite having a sign saying it's optional right next to them
I’ve refused it a few times now and every agent knew exactly what they needed to do.
That’s bad training. Also typical here
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.
I didn't know until today that you could opt out of it
Read all the signs at the checkpoint. They are important.
I'm visually impaired so it's entirely possible I missed them
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ted Cruz, lol.
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...
Or they could be outright lying, cops can do that, and I assume the TSA can as well.
view more: next ›