> the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks
This WAS solved at the ballot box. The law written by our elected representatives requires airport security to allow a reasonable opt-out[1].
> DHS ensures alternative processing is available to resolve match or no match outcomes. The mechanism or process to opt-out and complete alternative processing may not impose additional burdens or requirements on the individual beyond what is necessary to complete the verification process.
Many of the responses in this thread are indicating that the implementation of this opt-out is excessively burdensome, such that opting out could easily cause a traveler to miss their flight.
We should all be concerned that the authority granted an extraordinary enforcement power over a functionally mandatory part of modern life ignores limitations that that we "made at the ballot box" because it finds them inconvenient.
> the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks
> This WAS solved at the ballot box. The law written by our elected representatives requires airport security to allow a reasonable opt-out[1].
Perhaps I did not express my thought cohesively, let me expound. By "solving" in this context, I mean with regards to data collection, retention, storage, and processing of sensitive personal information, biometrics specifically (quoting myself below):
> If I have strong data security and privacy concerns along the lines of "this will eventually lead to dystopian government interaction outcomes," the only place that is solved is at the ballot box and within the legislative and legal frameworks.
Current state, the event of you traversing a checkpoint is logged in a system of record, with a human proofing your credentials against your live face. These systems automate the proofing process. Your photo exists in government databases (state for state ID and driver's license, and federal for passports and global entry/CBP). Your event of travel is logged, and also provided ahead of flights to TSA/DHS via PNR data exchanges. My government, today, already has the necessary information to cause me harm without using facial recognition to compare my ID to my live face and PNR.
What material risk to privacy does swapping a human checking your ID with facial recognition incur in this context? And how does opting out materially improve your privacy posture? It very well may be that the opt-out is excessively burdensome, but if the opt out is ceremony and provides no actual benefit, then why do I care if it is excessively burdensome? Because someone believes the opt out process is providing a benefit when it, in reality, provides no benefit? That is a belief system challenge, not an objective risk to be assessed and potentially mitigated. Fear is a feeling, danger is real. If there is evidence that the opt out process materially improves someones privacy and data security posture, certainly, then it is worth expending effort to defend opt out use and overly burdensome efforts to exercise. Otherwise, I find it inconvenient to argue over the travel security checkpoint equivalent of an elevator close door button (in this context, the opt out process).
Fight for and expend effort on effective improvements in outcomes, not ceremony.
This WAS solved at the ballot box. The law written by our elected representatives requires airport security to allow a reasonable opt-out[1].
> DHS ensures alternative processing is available to resolve match or no match outcomes. The mechanism or process to opt-out and complete alternative processing may not impose additional burdens or requirements on the individual beyond what is necessary to complete the verification process.
Many of the responses in this thread are indicating that the implementation of this opt-out is excessively burdensome, such that opting out could easily cause a traveler to miss their flight.
We should all be concerned that the authority granted an extraordinary enforcement power over a functionally mandatory part of modern life ignores limitations that that we "made at the ballot box" because it finds them inconvenient.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/23_0913_mgmt...