JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face • Hacker News Board

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#131

Post by Vehemental » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:54 AM UTC

Applethief wrote: post #126

mikeash wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about catching visa overstays on their way out. It’s about identifying who’s still here. Take the set of people who entered, subtract the set who exited, and anyone who remains who entered too long ago is an overstay.

You're math is fantastic.

nobody has ever died in the united states, or crossed the border to Mexico or Canada without alerting the proper authorities. The Math will work out. I'm also quite sure everyone overstaying Visas will be very easy to find and in no way go by another identity.

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#132

Post by daurnimator » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:57 AM UTC

jacklewis wrote: post #43

Here in Australia we have automated passport control gates that scan a chip in our passport then takes a photo of our face (and I assume does some matching with our passport photo) before allowing reentry. It's quite quick and very convenient. Although I'm not aware of any airlines being able to use the system for boarding.

Note that is only for international travel.

In Australia, you don't need an ID for a domestic flight; and non-flyers are permitted to walk to the gate, no boarding pass is required to go through security.

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#133

Post by arcticbull » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:06 AM UTC

irrational wrote: post #128

jacobolus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents. But institutions like governments only “see” via data collection, and in general are happy to collect whatever is technically and socially feasible, and people involved in setting up databases seldom stop to think about the risks or trade-offs involved in collecting various types of data, or whether that data is me…

It seems to me that being opposed to someone breaking the law is not equivalent to being a sadistic xenophobe. Finding people who rob banks at some point and punishing them is of great interest to people fearful of robbers who like disrupting robbers’ lives for no practical purpose because they gain sadistic satisfaction from cruelly exercising power over other people.

I think the robbers argument isn't directly applicable because mere physical presence without committing a crime doesn't hurt anyone -- does it? I think Congress for all its flaws agrees, as simply being present and out of status in the US isn't a criminal matter, it's civil, and congress has repeatedly, and even recently, refused to change that classification.

You punish a robber ostensibly to stop them from robbing again, lest you end up the victim of a robbery. What does being the victim of someone's unlawful presence even mean?

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#134

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #83

Waterluvian wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion it's a really bad idea to foster an attitude of, "if you're not with us then you're against us." Some people don't mind these kinds of surveillance. You might staunchly disagree but you have to accept that it's a valid position.

> you have to accept that it's a valid position. What if I don't accept it?

[deleted]

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#135

Post by 4ntonius8lock » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:09 AM UTC

sunir wrote: post #85

mLuby wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct—it is reasonable for governments to require a photo of yourself to associate with your passport. But it is not necessary to take a new photo every time you interact with the government. That's overreach, or at minimum wasting taxpayer money on unneeded photo storage. And I'd wager the reason they're doing this is because while a human can make a decent determination of whether the photo matches the per…

What is the problem with a new photo being taken? You say it like it is obvious but you haven’t actually made your thinking known. Wasting taxpayer money in photo storage is a laugh. That isn’t the same category of argument as the idea that is is “overreach.”

Not the person you are asking, but as someone who shares a similar feeling of distrust to authority, I'll provide you with my point of view:

It's not just the picture, it's the databases and the veracity of mass data base mining that can come from it.

To better explain:

Right now powerful entities have files on me. My actives. And yours. The collection, use and sharing of these files between these powerful entities violate our rights, even if only in intent (though arguably more)

Right now these files are mostly loosely created, probabilistic based associations.

If you've ever used any ID verification systems, you'd understand this (think lexisnexis)

So, they sort of know, but don't fully. Good. Even if these entities have shown the desire to violate my rights, they can't do it well because of issues related to data collection. I like that.

So the way I see these advancements is... great, now these entities are getting mass fed pictures that are 99.999% a correct association. This could be used for facial recognition software tie ins to say, CCTV systems. As stated, you need more than one picture to increase accuracy.

I don't want them to have it.

Right now, their interest (in violating my rights for profit and power) and my interest (in staking claim to the rights my forebearers fought for) are oposite.

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#136

Post by 4ntonius8lock » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #88

mLuby wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct—it is reasonable for governments to require a photo of yourself to associate with your passport. But it is not necessary to take a new photo every time you interact with the government. That's overreach, or at minimum wasting taxpayer money on unneeded photo storage. And I'd wager the reason they're doing this is because while a human can make a decent determination of whether the photo matches the per…

They say they're not storing the new photos. Just matching them and discarding.

After Snowden you trust this?

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#137

Post by gorbypark » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #119

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Most relevant details, from the last link [1]: > It took her photo, comparing her picture to a preloaded photo databased of all the passengers with tickets on this flight, and then she got a check mark, indicating she was cleared to board. The whole process took about five to six seconds. > The Aruba experiment is expected to last somewhere between 45 and 90 days. > "We're basically capturing that picture at the boar…

I am not sure if passport photo is good enough for this. The mimimum requirement for face recognition is about 50 pixels between the eyes, and for reliable recognition it probably should be more. So the photo must come from somewhere else. For example, it could be taken when she passed the gates previous time.

I'm not sure what the resolution is (I tried it out a few years back), but you can actually pull your digital passport photo out of your passport using NFC. There's an Android app for it.

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#138

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #83

Waterluvian wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion it's a really bad idea to foster an attitude of, "if you're not with us then you're against us." Some people don't mind these kinds of surveillance. You might staunchly disagree but you have to accept that it's a valid position.

> you have to accept that it's a valid position. What if I don't accept it?

[deleted]

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#139

Post by elamje » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #63

ssss11 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's also always been pretty normal to have your photo taken by countries when passing through passport control. No not always, only recently. > I don't really see what the problem would be here? You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. Sounds like you either benefit from mass surveillance or have been conditioned to it.

> You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. No, not kidding. There's a legitimate government interest in identifying people entering and leaving a country. This isn't Facebook, or even cameras on street corners -- this is a government responsible for enforcing legitimate immigration policies at a legitimate location (the border) for a wide variety of reasons (safety, economic, etc.), which absolutely r…

I have to agree with crazygringo. In my home state there are cameras set up at border patrol stations near the Mexican border already filming video of my car and the occupants within everytime you come in from Mexico, and this has been the case for years.

This is nothing new, only new for people that don’t live near a physical border in the US.

The government clearly has missed a few people coming in and out on Visas. What is a way better than the current border protection method that also protects everyone’s privacy?

Re: JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her face

#140

Post by 4ntonius8lock » Fri, May 03, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #35

ssss11 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's also always been pretty normal to have your photo taken by countries when passing through passport control. No not always, only recently. > I don't really see what the problem would be here? You’re kidding right? There’s multiple privacy problems. Sounds like you either benefit from mass surveillance or have been conditioned to it.

In my opinion it's a really bad idea to foster an attitude of, "if you're not with us then you're against us." Some people don't mind these kinds of surveillance. You might staunchly disagree but you have to accept that it's a valid position.

Some people don't believe vaccines work and cause autism. Some people believe the earth is flat. Some people seriously believe we are ruled by lizard people.

Is it valid?

At some point we have to determine what is a minimum acceptable level of cohesiveness in though to take someone seriously.

I'm not saying anti-privacy people are in such extreme, but I don't like the 'everything a valid position in the post-modern relativist world'. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and some people might draw it further in or further out. But we all do it.