The airline isn't learning anything from this that it doesn't already know. Flight reservations are decidedly not anonymous, and the TSA already checks photo ID.

Yes, and I fully trust Delta to properly secure my facial recognition data such that the odds of any malicious actor getting such data are negligible. Large old "we are not a tech company" corporations and government agencies are just amazing at that :P

Don't worry, I'm sure they outsourced it to a 'we are totally a tech company', son-of-a-friend-of-a-guy-on-the-board's shiny new 'cyber' startup.

Nah just Indian outsourcing

Are tech companies better?

I don’t know why you are being downvoted.

There's a difference between having humans check IDs and storing facial [and other data] data in a database.

> storing facial [and other data] data in a database.

as long as they are only allowed to use this data to secure flights, and nothing else (including selling it).

Laws against tracking and selling of private data needs to step up in the USA (i would imagine this falls under GDPR, and you'd have to give consent in europe for this to happen).

Pictures of faces don’t do anything to “secure flights”.

You mean like the CBP database that stores a fresh picture of my face [and other data] whenever I enter the US?

The story is literally about nothing except the airline learning something that it doesn't already know.

Yep, and like most things there will likely need to be flagrant abuses and people getting hurt for any significant fraction of voters to even begin caring, let alone vote over it.

>More seriously, the amount of security theater going on at airports is getting out of hand.

it has always been out of hand. most of the security theater actually increases the threat surface of transit, making it easier for anyone with malicious intent to kill many people.

the fact that we have not seen attacks is proof that the terrorism threat is very far overblown... and yet the government needs no more excuses. they have their foot in the door.

welcome to our surveillance dystopia, HN -- you built it even when we warned you this would happen. predictably, nobody will volunteer to clean up the mess they have made.

Time to start wearing facial recognition resistant makeup and hairstyles

Would that suffice, in this case? Or they would give you problems?

Anything and everything could give you problems in an American airport. Whether it would work really depends on what recognition algorithms Delta or their affiliates use.

This isn’t about security, it’s about speed. They’re trying to speed up the boarding process.

Can you at least read the article before claiming it's about speed? This was a move pushed by the CBP to 'crack down on those who overstay their visas', this data will obviously be collected and stored by the government which should start firing off alarms in anyone's head.

How is that different than the current situation? You still have to present your passport at the airport. It will only change things for people flying with fake passports I guess.

The article says this is about speed in the very first paragraph.

> The airline said the biometric facial scanning is optional — a move that will shave off a few minutes off each flight

Ok, genuine question. Why should this start firing off alarms in anyone's head?

Because here I am, as a Libertarian/AnCap, and all I can think is: "What, they haven't already been doing this at secure locations for at least a decade?!"

With the amount of corruption I've seen in Africa/third-world, I would not trust any sort of official documentation coming from them. Biometric data allows an entity/government to tie down or verify a person's identity beyond the limitations of human-corruptible identification documents. And the only way to do that is to build a database to cross-reference and detect fraud.

The expanded scale raises concerns - avoiding secure locations that scan your face is less burdensome than refraining from public air travel, and a homeland security-curated traveller face db would have a wider reach than a secure site's records.

You question why "they haven't already been doing this at secure locations for at least a decade."

What is a "secure area", and what is required to make it secure?

I ask because I think it's an overly broad characterization which doesn't distinguish between the different types of security under discussion.

If you think the secure area is the flights, and the level of security you need is the ability to prevent certain types of weapons and explosives from entering the airplane, then what is the need for yet another layer of physical identity checking?

Why is there any need for identity checking? If you are known to have malign intent (but not enough to arrest you), and you don't have any guns, knives, explosives, etc. that can cause problem then why does it matter that we also have automated facial recognition combined with long-term record storage? Bear in mind too that some countries do not require any id for domestic travel, though still do require security checks.

On the other hand, if you think the "secure area" is the US border, then as a libertarian, what is the amount of intrusion that the government should be allowed to do on a US citizen in order to allow that citizen to traverse the border?

As the article points out, last year the TSA's views were 'if you don't like it, don't travel internationally by air.' Can not any border check be justified in the name of security? DNA analysis? Scanning of all data sources you have? Release of your passwords to any servers?

Which "secure area" do you mean, how might it be helped by having this sort of system, and what are the potential downsides?

As a libertarian, how does that change your views with respect to someone who is, say, a Nordic-style democratic socialist and decidedly not not a libertarian?

You’re not an AnCap if you think that third parties have the right to demand my identification by force before allowing me to receive services for which I have already paid.

If requiring identification to the airport "third-party" is part of the terms agreed to by both parties prior to the sale, then I see no problem with it as no force is necessary and everything is done according to what you agreed to initially. Don't want to do that? Fine, don't agree to the sale and then consequently don't fly. That's how it would work if all these entities were fully free-market and not a semi-right granted by government.

Further, it's not "by force" if it's a pre-requisite for being on private property, which would be the proper analogy if you want to discuss this in an AnCap context.