by samename on 10/18/24, 3:17 AM with 82 comments
by CarpaDorada on 10/18/24, 4:30 AM
It disallows the TSA from using facial recognition and requires that the TSA disposes of all facial recognition biometric information, including images and videos, obtained through facial recognition, no later than 90 days of the enactment of the act. Congressional acts prior to the enactment of the act are invalidated with regards to TSAs authorization of facial recognition use, and the TSA can use facial recognition only if authorized in future congressional acts. In section 4, it modifies law to exclude facial recognition for pilot licenses, those deemed threats to air security, and prevents the TSA from using the $20mm DARPA defense research grant for researching facial recognition means of defense. Additionally in section 5 it prevents the TSA from using facial recognition in implemented pilot programs, it prevents the TSA from cooperating with airport operators on the use of facial recognition, and prevents the TSA from issuing guidance to identify airport employees & law enforcement via facial recognition.
Cynic criticism:
1) The invalidation of former Congress acts with regards to TSA authorization of facial recognition use seems too polemic; would this pass as is?
2) Airport operators can still use facial recognition.
3) It does not define biometrics; nor what disposing means, and this may render this part ineffective, especially if derivatives of these data are not considered biometrics.
Overall what I'm reading this bill as, is that the government does not want the TSA to directly participate in this type of surveillance, but I think it leaves open the possibility of contractors to do so. It is still a good bill in my opinion.
by pkaye on 10/18/24, 5:07 AM
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/336...
by ein0p on 10/18/24, 4:45 AM
by bnjemian on 10/18/24, 4:57 AM
That said, the TSA is in some respects the lesser concern. Don't get me wrong, the TSA not having free rein with facial and biometric technologies is a good thing. But when companies like Clearview AI (https://www.clearview.ai) sell their facial recognition technologies to local police departments – technologies that were built on illegally obtained data and have a history of substantial racial bias – we have bigger issues. It's opaque, unregulated, invites a wellspring of social injustice, and doesn't past muster under any ELSI framework.
Government regulating government is important. But we, as a society, need to stop giving private companies like Clearview AI a pass on harmful, exploitative behavior – especially when they're run by founders like Hoan Ton-That who offer post-hoc rationalizations that amount to (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Well, if we hadn't done it, someone else would have, so why not us?'
We need a bigger bill that enshrines and elevates privacy for the modern world.
by cowpig on 10/18/24, 3:55 AM
by userbinator on 10/18/24, 4:45 AM
by ilrwbwrkhv on 10/18/24, 4:17 AM
by aduffy on 10/18/24, 3:43 AM
by edm0nd on 10/18/24, 3:31 AM
>Undercover tests conducted by the Department of Homeland Security have shown that the TSA's failure rate frequently ranges between 80% and 95%.
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini...
>An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials, ABC News has learned.
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...
by kelnos on 10/18/24, 3:41 AM
The facial recognition doesn't actually seem to save much (if any) time; the TSA people still run my ID through their little scanner thing. I don't have to scan my boarding pass, but I'd usually do that while they were dealing with my ID, and be done before they were anyway.
Clearly this is just a surveillance play. Or they think the facial recognition is going to weed out people using someone else's ID. Or it's a "cute" way to funnel tax dollars to whoever manufactures this tech.