Technology

59651 readers

4244 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]

628

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

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

154 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

[–] Infinite 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

isn't politics and bureaucracy great.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 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.