You have the right to opt out of facial recognition tech. Here’s how.
  • 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.
  • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    14·
    4 months ago

    The last time I flew they did this, but there was a huge sign that said photos are immediately deleted after verification…is this not true?

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.worldEnglish
      201·
      4 months ago

      It’s discussed in the article. We can’t really be sure if they do, but they already store the measurements of your face along with other bits of metadata. They could reconstruct your face with it even without the photo. It’s a deceptive claim, because even if they throw away the camera video they still have your face for all intents and purposes.

    • Infinite@lemmy.zipEnglish
      27·
      4 months ago

      Just for example, that’s an easy way to save just the biometric signature and have very few people question it.

      • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
        23·
        4 months ago

        Also, bureaucratic lies can be technically true. They copy the photo from the original device to a database, then delete the photo on the device. So it’s technically true the photo was immediately deleted, it’s just also copied and persisted forever. And a bureaucrat will proudly stand in front of you all day and tell you they deleted the photo, and they will sleep well that night with not any concern

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          Judge would declare that unlawful on the spot but without malicious intent whoever did it would have qualified immunity since a judge hasn’t already ruled on that specific case so it’s a wash.

          • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            Unlawful to tell the truth? it was deleted, it’s true. What else may or may not exist is not part of this statement, we deleted the photo from the device within seconds of scanning it. 100% no perjury required.

            Your point about qualified immunity is so good, it’s a joke. No police officer from east side of Wichita has ever run someone over, back and forth until their spin was broken, using BF GoodRich KO3 tries before, so it was impossible for the officer to know that it was violating the law. The closet case law we have is when Officer Daniels ran over his ex-wifes lover in using his duty vehicle using BF GoodRich KO2 tires, and on the West side of Wichita - but that is such a different situation no reasonable peace officer could have known it was illegal using the KO3 tires.