It's not just the government. Generally I think knowledge is very important, but as with any important value it butts up against other rights and values. In this case, the individual right to privacy ought to win out against a company or government's or neighbor's right to knowledge. Privacy, like speech, is one of those critically important rights that when violated en masse leads to catastrophic harm; in privacy's case that's through chilling effects, enabling more effective targeted enforcement of laws, and effective targeted propaganda campaigns. A lack of privacy reinforces and exaggerates any existing power structures and imbalances. For an authoritarian, this is fantastic. If you believe in democracy or egalitarianism it should be terrifying.
Is being in an airport actually considered private?
It's a public space, and you must show ID to gain access to the secured area. Additionally, you are subjected to baggage and carry-on inspection, as well as body inspection and metal detection, etc. There are cameras everywhere, monitoring and recording everything.
Presumably this system was designed to recognize individuals that may be traveling under false-identities, and are known "bad guys" - otherwise the nation-state security apparatus would have known about the attempted air travel well in advance.
The ability to abuse this system may be real, but it seems much more likely your rights would be violated well before you reached any facial recognition systems.
> Additionally, you are subjected to baggage and carry-on inspection, as well as body inspection and metal detection, etc. There are cameras everywhere, monitoring and recording everything
Well, yeah, all of that presents a privacy problem. Automation is taking it a step further, but if I had my way boarding a plane would be like boarding a train or bus. I could concede a fast-moving checkpoint that does some best-effort scanning for firearms and blades or whatever as people walk through a gate, provided the data is verifiably shredded as soon as scanning is complete. This safety paranoia is not borne of genuine danger. People walk into more crowded and critical areas than planes with firearms all the time in the US. The only thing stopping frequent mass-casualty deaths is that most people don't want to kill a ton of other people indiscriminately, not the TSA.
Securing the cockpit doors on planes is a good idea though.
>Securing the cockpit doors on planes is a good idea though.
Unless your pilot is having a particularly bad day.
I did recently see a video of a pilot that proposed to his girlfriend as she boarded his plane.
I bet all the passengers were thinking "Please, please say 'yes'", and were overly-happy both for the newly-engaged couple, and more for themselves that she did.
Eh, vetting pilots rigorously seems like it would 99% solve this. That and having more than one pilot in the cockpit makes rogue situations vanishingly unlikely, and that's the best you can do in any safety situation.
Generally we also don't trust the technology, not just the government. Unless you're up for being detained just because you look quite like some wanted person. Given enough samples, there is some guaranteed overlap.
Also technology provider is important. I doubt that government is able to self host face recognition. So the most common implementation would be microsoft (or any big corp good at lobbying in this part of the world) owning technology and data to preserve their vendor lock in. So there is high probability that those data will be used for other purposes (you can easily imagine standard corporate excuses if someone finds out).
"The government" did not implement, build, install, nor do they control or understand, these systems.
These systems are built and controlled entirely by third party private corporations who are only technically held to any kind of standards on privacy or security. In the absolute worst possible case, they receive a symbolic fine for breaking any privacy or data security laws.
Whether or not you trust "the government" is almost irrelevant. Do you trust whatever corporate entitiy has exclusive control over these systems? Do you even know who that is?
Please post the full street address of your home, your office, your favorite grocery store, and your top ten gas stations.
Have you traveled outside the country? Please share with everyone on HN the exact date and times, the street address where you stayed and the phone number of someone who can corroborate.
Can you think of any reason that this information shouldn't be shared publicly? Maybe post your phone number and we'll chat about it.
In the 70's, way before any internet databases and real-time data aggregation & automated analysis, you had to show ID to buy beer.
So what? What do you suppose that proves or justifies or excuses?
The ID served a valid purpose of controlling who had access to beer, yet did not track anyone's movements or habits or compile a profile on them or associate them with others into cohorts or allow anyone to presume to make any kinds of judgements or predictions about them.
The two things are not automatically and necessarily tied. It's a disingenuous lie to act like they are and use the one to justify or excuse the other.
Indulging in a little predicting myself, let me guess what comes next, "But showing ID for beer never prevented every single underage human from somehow obtaining beer." ? Wait it was unfair for me to assume that based on some data I just collected (your comment)?
When you go through airport security, they scan your license. They're already doing everything people in this thread fear... stopping facial recognition doesn't change a thing expect let people with false identities through. It literally changes nothing... They already are keeping tabs on who you are, where you are coming from, and where you're going. Cohort analysis is already done via group ticket buys, and camera monitoring.
It's not just the government. Generally I think knowledge is very important, but as with any important value it butts up against other rights and values. In this case, the individual right to privacy ought to win out against a company or government's or neighbor's right to knowledge. Privacy, like speech, is one of those critically important rights that when violated en masse leads to catastrophic harm; in privacy's case that's through chilling effects, enabling more effective targeted enforcement of laws, and effective targeted propaganda campaigns. A lack of privacy reinforces and exaggerates any existing power structures and imbalances. For an authoritarian, this is fantastic. If you believe in democracy or egalitarianism it should be terrifying.
Is being in an airport actually considered private?
It's a public space, and you must show ID to gain access to the secured area. Additionally, you are subjected to baggage and carry-on inspection, as well as body inspection and metal detection, etc. There are cameras everywhere, monitoring and recording everything.
Presumably this system was designed to recognize individuals that may be traveling under false-identities, and are known "bad guys" - otherwise the nation-state security apparatus would have known about the attempted air travel well in advance.
The ability to abuse this system may be real, but it seems much more likely your rights would be violated well before you reached any facial recognition systems.
It's not the airport specifically, it's the use of automated facial recognition at all.
Many former Warsaw Pact citizens have lived under a surveillance state with a dossier on every citizen, and didn't find it particularly great.
Yet, most do not care about privacy and willing to use devices with spying software every day. Cars, smartphones, IoT...
XKeyscore
> Additionally, you are subjected to baggage and carry-on inspection, as well as body inspection and metal detection, etc. There are cameras everywhere, monitoring and recording everything
Well, yeah, all of that presents a privacy problem. Automation is taking it a step further, but if I had my way boarding a plane would be like boarding a train or bus. I could concede a fast-moving checkpoint that does some best-effort scanning for firearms and blades or whatever as people walk through a gate, provided the data is verifiably shredded as soon as scanning is complete. This safety paranoia is not borne of genuine danger. People walk into more crowded and critical areas than planes with firearms all the time in the US. The only thing stopping frequent mass-casualty deaths is that most people don't want to kill a ton of other people indiscriminately, not the TSA.
Securing the cockpit doors on planes is a good idea though.
Ironically what you describe was air travel in the 1980s-1990s, despite several high profile airline hijackings.
The hijackings didn’t make people go crazy.
Unticketed passengers even could walk up to the gate.
Identification wasn’t even checked while boarding — just a ticket was required.
How far we’ve fallen…
Identification often isn't ever checked when flying within Europe _today_. They just check your ticket.
That said you're certainly not getting near any gates without a ticket in Europe these days either.
>Securing the cockpit doors on planes is a good idea though.
Unless your pilot is having a particularly bad day.
I did recently see a video of a pilot that proposed to his girlfriend as she boarded his plane.
I bet all the passengers were thinking "Please, please say 'yes'", and were overly-happy both for the newly-engaged couple, and more for themselves that she did.
No, I don't have an answer to the door problem.
Eh, vetting pilots rigorously seems like it would 99% solve this. That and having more than one pilot in the cockpit makes rogue situations vanishingly unlikely, and that's the best you can do in any safety situation.
Turnout during elections one month ago was about 68%. It doesn't look like Czechs don't trust a government.
Generally we also don't trust the technology, not just the government. Unless you're up for being detained just because you look quite like some wanted person. Given enough samples, there is some guaranteed overlap.
Also technology provider is important. I doubt that government is able to self host face recognition. So the most common implementation would be microsoft (or any big corp good at lobbying in this part of the world) owning technology and data to preserve their vendor lock in. So there is high probability that those data will be used for other purposes (you can easily imagine standard corporate excuses if someone finds out).
If you don't trust the source how can you call what you received "knowledge?" Why is that weird?
"The government" did not implement, build, install, nor do they control or understand, these systems.
These systems are built and controlled entirely by third party private corporations who are only technically held to any kind of standards on privacy or security. In the absolute worst possible case, they receive a symbolic fine for breaking any privacy or data security laws.
Whether or not you trust "the government" is almost irrelevant. Do you trust whatever corporate entitiy has exclusive control over these systems? Do you even know who that is?
No, we're preferring privacy to pervasive surveillance.
Prefering government ignorance is the same as privacy.
Privacy would mean being able to fly anywhere without showing ID - which is not reality.
Please post the full street address of your home, your office, your favorite grocery store, and your top ten gas stations.
Have you traveled outside the country? Please share with everyone on HN the exact date and times, the street address where you stayed and the phone number of someone who can corroborate.
Can you think of any reason that this information shouldn't be shared publicly? Maybe post your phone number and we'll chat about it.
You probably use devices and tools that collect those data quite precisely. Banks, mobile career, cars...
We're taking about an airport... They know everything you just listed, and likely more. What an absolutely absurd argument.
In the 70's, way before any internet databases and real-time data aggregation & automated analysis, you had to show ID to buy beer.
So what? What do you suppose that proves or justifies or excuses?
The ID served a valid purpose of controlling who had access to beer, yet did not track anyone's movements or habits or compile a profile on them or associate them with others into cohorts or allow anyone to presume to make any kinds of judgements or predictions about them.
The two things are not automatically and necessarily tied. It's a disingenuous lie to act like they are and use the one to justify or excuse the other.
Indulging in a little predicting myself, let me guess what comes next, "But showing ID for beer never prevented every single underage human from somehow obtaining beer." ? Wait it was unfair for me to assume that based on some data I just collected (your comment)?
When you go through airport security, they scan your license. They're already doing everything people in this thread fear... stopping facial recognition doesn't change a thing expect let people with false identities through. It literally changes nothing... They already are keeping tabs on who you are, where you are coming from, and where you're going. Cohort analysis is already done via group ticket buys, and camera monitoring.
This literally changes nothing.
I already stole your left shoe, so, might as well just make it legal to steal right shoes.