Technology

59374 readers

6873 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

[email protected]

629

Traveling this summer? Maybe don’t let the airport scan your face. (www.vox.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Travelers can opt out of facial recognition at US airports by requesting manual ID verification, though resistance or intimidation may occur.
Facial recognition poses privacy risks, including potential data breaches, misidentification, and normalization of surveillance.
The Algorithmic Justice League's "Freedom Flyers" campaign aims to raise awareness of these issues and encourage passengers to exercise their right to opt out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For hundreds of years women couldn't vote and minorities were categorically segregated.

That's a strawman analogy. We're not talking about privacy as a whole. The discussion here is about the supposed right to privacy at, what amounts to, a government controlled entrance point into the country. You have to identify yourself no matter which technology is being used. There's no anonymity at an airport (from the government). Whether it's technology or a piece of paper, you are legally required to identify yourself.

I keep saying this over and over, but if you want to talk about digital privacy, focus your energy on smartphones and the internet. The impact for privacy violation and the impact for regaining privacy rights is the most effective there.

Only a subset of any population has any interaction with an airport and the privacy implications there are next to nothing (because there is no right to anonymity there).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The more you let a government stick high resolution 3d cameras in your face and shrug it off because you've already lost privacy the stronger their database becomes, the more complacent you become, the more willing you become to let them do it at the train station, the post office, the crosswalk, etc. The more willing you become to put your palm on their palm reader and retina in their retina scanner when they deploy that technology. I'm not dismissing better avenues to focus efforts, I'm acknowledging the increase in surveillance and potential for abuse in the absence of any proven benefit to the people that are allegedly protected by these changes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

But they don't need to do that track where you go and what you do. They're already doing that with smartphones. That was my point.

And for the record, they don't need 3D cameras for anything. A photo off of Facebook is enough. I worked in that field and developed that kind of software.