Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 241 posts

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

#231

Post by ViViDboarder »

raxxorrax wrote: post #201
mschuster91 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can we get rid of this madness? Hold politicians accountable for what they are doing, from the local community to the President. Defend the freedom of the press, especially when Trump goes on a rampage again. Vote for someone better than him, vote for someone actually progressive. Convince family, friends and co-workers. Organize yourself and head on to the streets. For those willing to practice with arms, join…

Trump cannot be the problem, since these controls were already implemented. Blaming dickhead absolves the people responsible.

They don’t appear to be blaming him for the controls. They are saying you should protest his attempts to intimidate and build distrust towards journalists.

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

#232

Post by NotSammyHagar »

raspie wrote: post #155
Lost_BiomedE wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have yet to see another Stalin with all this new tech. Something I hope we never see. I wish Gulag Archipelago was history 101 at university.

New Stalin style dictatorships are unlikely to arise in developed countries. A gradual descend into modern-Russia style governance is much more likely. We have learned a lot about building stable power structures in the last 50 years. You don't need to have a death grip on everything in the country. A much softer touch is the technique of choice of modern oppressive regimes. Why disallow other parties when you can ju…

that feels more theoretical. Looks like they are close to failing in Venezuela, for example.

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

#233

Post by raspie »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #232
raspie wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Stalin style dictatorships are unlikely to arise in developed countries. A gradual descend into modern-Russia style governance is much more likely. We have learned a lot about building stable power structures in the last 50 years. You don't need to have a death grip on everything in the country. A much softer touch is the technique of choice of modern oppressive regimes. Why disallow other parties when you can ju…

that feels more theoretical. Looks like they are close to failing in Venezuela, for example.

Eh, I don't really think we're about to see a stable government in Venezuela, let alone a stable Stalin-grade dictatorship.

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

#234

Post by raxxorrax »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #231
raxxorrax wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump cannot be the problem, since these controls were already implemented. Blaming dickhead absolves the people responsible.

They don’t appear to be blaming him for the controls. They are saying you should protest his attempts to intimidate and build distrust towards journalists.

Fair enough. I just think it is counterproductive to frame that as a bipartisan issue. You would only get disappointed again if these kind of policies are implemented by whoever is responsible.

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

#235

Post by ghaff »

gumby wrote: post #214
ghaff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My one experience with losing an ID was that there was no real issue although it took 15 minutes or so to do a more thorough check. It was very professional. The Travelodge at the other end was a bigger deal though I was eventually able to check in there. ADDED: It appears that as of Oct 1 2020, this sort of exception will no longer be possible.

Do you have a ref? I haven’t seen any notice of change, though of course the actual law is classified.

https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs

It doesn't explicitly say "no exceptions" but the plain text is certainly that you will need appropriate ID (Real ID/passport/etc.) to go through TSA when Real ID requirement fully kicks in.

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

#236

Post by sombremesa »

gumby wrote: post #46
chatmasta wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that useful to identify someone who has overstayed their visa when they are leaving the country ? Sure, you then know not to let them in next time. But it seems like a lot of effort when there are so many people overstaying their visa and not leaving out of the airports. That said, even as a libertarian, privacy-conscious person, I'm not sure I have a problem with exit controls like this. It's important…

> It's important to know who is crossing the border, in both directions. Why? And if there exists an important reason to know that someone is exiting the country does that same criterion not also apply to exiting a state or city or neighborhood? I am not being sarcastic; I am genuinely unable to come up with a reason it's important to track who leaves almost any place, except in highly unusual cases (e.g. "OK guys, c…

North Korea has an exit visa, and the associated processes.

Obviously a great country to emulate.

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

#237

Post by sombremesa »

yellowapple wrote: post #104
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…

> CBP insists it'll discard photos taken of citizens, and only keep a database of non-citizens. So only non-citizens would be able to "use" the face-as-boarding-pass "feature"?

And you probably still need to have a boarding pass to get past TSA.

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

#238

Post by [deleted] »

unreal37 wrote: post #94
kruegel wrote: post #34

> Was my image, in the space of those seconds, sent to CBP, run through a database, matched to a name, and then sent back to @JetBlue? Actually, it was probably done in a fraction of a second.

Yes, that was a funny thing she tweeted. So surprised that a few KB of data was transmitted on a high speed network in under a second. :)

[deleted]

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

#239

Post by gumby »

ghaff wrote: post #235
gumby wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a ref? I haven’t seen any notice of change, though of course the actual law is classified.

https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs It doesn't explicitly say "no exceptions" but the plain text is certainly that you will need appropriate ID (Real ID/passport/etc.) to go through TSA when Real ID requirement fully kicks in.

The barrage of propaganda since the Gore match-if-to-traveler policy was enacted has been that ID is required but in practice it has not been enforced. As I mentioned, the actual law is classified so cannot be consulted not litigated in court so we’ll simply have to see

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

#240

Post by pixelbash »

xnyan wrote: post #107
pixelbash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent. It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing everything for the benefit of the people - and he might even be right. This situation is fine, the issue is what happens when that dictator dies. Similarly with mass surveillance, if used with restraint and for the right reasons it could be completely fine. The…

>It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator You lost me at this straw man. You are tossing around nebulous and vague concerns. Would it be fair to say your concern is potential abuse of your photos by a government entity?

I'd call it an analogy rather than a straw man. The formula is [now thing] is safe in [now context] but [future context] != [now context] so is [future thing] safe?

It's fair to say my concern is potential abuse of any system in a fluctuating context.

Post reply on HN