71–80 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the problem with these exactly?
They show you naked and invade your privacy
So what if they see me naked? I don't care. There's nothing harmful that can come from that information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They show you naked and invade your privacy
"Naked" is a real stretch. It's basically a black and white, lumpy x-ray viewed from a remote control room.
> Will we only wake up once we no longer have the choice to opt out? yes :/ Many commenters say that your data / picture is in the system already, which is fine, but your passport photo can be 10 - 15 years old and these systems record how you look now. That's the question if you are comfortable providing it. What you can't do anything about is CCTV and I think it's a safe bet that they are already equipped with faci…
Gatwick airport had a ton of facial recognition cameras last time I was there. They had a ring of leds around the lens that lights up in a rotating pattern, it really is difficult not to look directly into the lens due to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no 'given up'. There was no privacy to begin with. I don't see why crossing borders should be anonymous, as long as borders exist. Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash?
>Internal flight could be anonymous, but when is the last time anyone paid for flights by cash? Let me tell you about flying before 1996, kid. It was great. No ID presented, you just needed a paper ticket. You could actually buy and sell paper tickets on usenet (and people did), and you could wave to your family when you get on the airplane as you didn't need a ticket to be in the boarding area. I thought it was a di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed about the clickbaity title, but what they were trying to imply is still true. Here's an example of Jake Williams attempting to opt-out of Delta facial scanning and immediately being scrutinized for it: https://twitter.com/MalwareJake/status/1144789516684877824
He says there that the US is one of the few countries which doesn't do exit checks for immigration. Is that true? I hadn't thought about this. I know the Schengen zone does, as well as China and much of Latin America, but in my experience the UK doesn't. Does Australia/New Zealand/Canada (my feeling is that Australia doesn't)? What about Asian and African countries?
Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects privacy? Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that can be used to verify identity but not for facial recognition itself.
I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the environment anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true but the end game for governments is to have facial recognition everywhere. They start at the airport because "it doesn't matter, you are already giving your info out" and then we become OK with the idea so they start rolling it out for public transport and "it doesn't matter, you already do this every time you fly" It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of facial…
> It seems to me that the only way to resist is to take a very hard rejection of facial recognition entirely in any situation. Realistically the only way to resist is to develop an informed, engaged populace. There's a huge gulf between "facial recognition for crossing international borders" and "facial recognition for getting on the subway" - the former is obviously beneficial and the latter is obviously a massive o…
Its unfortunate that the idea of privacy is in such a downhill spiral, but the much more daunting question is, if privacy can so easily be abandoned, how will other stuff, like freedom of thought be treated in the future? What happens if technological development of surveillance could catch up some day? We are currently living in a society where no matter how horrific the methods, there are some who will find justifications to utilize them on other people. If the charges are heinous enough, human rights go out of the window. You only have to think of torture and look as far as Guantanamo. Differently put, in a society that preserves samples of eradicated plagues for possible future military uses and has no quarrels of threatening to torture the kids of enemy combatants, the research into and work on offensive capabilities with disastrous capabilities, like I would argue facial recognition is, is morally reprehensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably that's because I didn't travel to USA yet, but I don't understand why it's sad. Why the hell would you opt for a patdown? What must be the default then?
These: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going against implicit expectations of others and being the only one who does something is maybe the hardest thing humans can do. Opting out could risk holding up the boarding process, possibly missing the flight, unpleasant treatment by security and being pitted against the other passengers - all of it to opt out of something is clearly a dark pattern. All of this is very well understood by the people who designed t…
Yes I asked if I could get a pat down instead of the backscatter x-ray at Heathrow. Was made to feel like a criminal, questioned etc and put under pressure. And then to be told I don't have to get scanned but I can't get on my flight unless I do. There wasn't even an opt out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They show you naked and invade your privacy
I realize this is a very personal thing, but I've never had a problem with this. So what if they see me naked? I don't care. There's nothing harmful that can come from that information.