- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
A bipartisan group of 12 senators has urged the Transportation Security Administration’s inspector general to investigate the agency’s use of facial recognition, saying it poses a significant threat to privacy and civil liberties.
“This technology will soon be in use at hundreds of major and mid-size airports without an independent evaluation of the technology’s precision or an audit of whether there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect passenger privacy,” the senators wrote.
“While the TSA claims facial recognition is optional, it is confusing and intimidating to opt out of TSA’s facial recognition scans, and our offices have received numerous anecdotal reports of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) becoming belligerent when a traveler askes to opt out, or simply being unaware of that right,” the senators wrote. They added that in some airports the signage instructing flyers to step in front of a camera is prominently displayed while signs advising passengers of their right to opt out of face scan is “strategically placed in inconspicuous locations.”
To opt out of a face scan at an airport, a traveler need only say that they decline facial recognition. They can then proceed normally through security by presenting an identification document, such as a driver’s license or passport.
Totally agree, the TSA is more security theater than anything else. Time and again it has been demonstrated that they can be circumvented (sneaking guns or weapons past checkpoints.)
As the above said reinforce cockpit doors and also repurpose the TSA positions into Air Marshalls, which would help avert any in-flight problems more than on the ground checks. Make it a requirement for airlines to help subsidize the cost (oh gosh! Not regulation!)
Y’all may not remember pre-9/11 flights and (very) likely don’t recall airline regulations, where prices were fixed and airlines had to compete via other means (better food, perks, etc.) Heck, I barely remember airline regulation days and have to rely on my retired flight attendant aunt.
Not perfect but better than the creeping surveillance state effort going on.
I think it can be simpler than that. Basically, require airlines to carry insurance against things like terror, and hold them criminally liable if their negligence allows an incident. Then air marshals can test their readiness anonymously and give them a grade, which insurance can use to set premiums.
This creates a cost where it’s hopefully cheaper to follow best practices. They can choose to handle their own security, or pay another org to do that (and that other org would carry their own insurance).
My goal here is to encourage innovation in safety that reduces actual risk instead of just being theater. The TSA doesn’t seem to actually care about safety and instead want to look like they do, and we need the opposite.
They would never divert that money to air marshals because those are seats the airlines won’t be able to sell. They’ll spend millions to lobby against it, ironically.
I don’t recall flight prices ever being fixed. They always fluctuated based on demand.