Going against implicit expectations of others and being the only one who does something is maybe the hardest thing humans can do.

Opting out could risk holding up the boarding process, possibly missing the flight, unpleasant treatment by security and being pitted against the other passengers - all of it to opt out of something is clearly a dark pattern.

All of this is very well understood by the people who designed this system.

Articles like that and some of the comments in this thread at least give me an idea what opting out would take.

Yes I asked if I could get a pat down instead of the backscatter x-ray at Heathrow. Was made to feel like a criminal, questioned etc and put under pressure. And then to be told I don't have to get scanned but I can't get on my flight unless I do. There wasn't even an opt out.

That goes completely counter to my experiences. From 2009 to 2017 I chose to "opt out" every time. Here's what happened for me each time:

1. They make you wait while they get someone to do the work.

2. They offer to take you somewhere private (I declined).

3. They tell you the routine ("I'm gonna go up your leg until I feel resistance").

4. They wipe their gloves and put them in a chemical detector.

5. They let you go.

Only once did I have to get an extra exam where they detected some chemical on me and had to do that whole wipe down + chemical test process on my carry-on. It wasn't a big deal.

In 2017 I finally got TSA Precheck. So I've very rarely had to go through this since then (flying w/ non-Precheck friend, flying at non-Precheck airport).

EDIT: My experience is from US only. I missed that the parent's description was from the UK.

His experience was in the UK.

I was able to opt out in Dublin at the secondary security point (where one clears immigration in Dublin for US-bound flights, so I think that particular scanner was operated at the direction of the US authorities).

I have not tried to opt out of a pure-EU/UK scanner, so your point is still valid. I suspect Toronto may work the same way.

If you're flying with a non-precheck friend and they're willing to let you book their flights and they pay you back, they'll benefit from you having precheck and their ticket will include precheck as well.

My coworker simply taps his heart and says he has a "device". (It's actually a stent, but he never gets asked any further questions and never has to go through a machine.)

Similar story, and I’m going to go ahead and assume that the reason you wouldn’t be able to board was due to the flight departing very soon.

I _always_ opt out of backscatter machines. I’m British so I’ve flown Heathrow and Gatwick and Luton (etc), normally the process is painless. I wait a fair while longer than others, sitting/standing publicly as people pass me by and it feels awkward, but not enough to stop me.

I have never been denied boarding for my choice. But I make sure I have time to be harassed. Just in case.

The pat down is very humane, they tell you what they will do and they use the back of their hands a fair bit.

Then they brush the glove and put the cloth they brushed with in a scanner, then you’re free to go.

However, I’ve been to a couple of airports that have... aggressive.. security. Heathrow was one, they made me feel so small, as if I was causing trouble, implying I was hiding something.

Eventually I told them that I worked on the backscatter x-rays, and claimed that while they were safe for normal use, they were not safe for use with the added radiation of flying and that the world would be defaming it in a decade as, I said it was this generations asbestos.

They stopped pestering me then, since that incident it’s been my go-to response.

It’s not true as far as I know, but, it /is/ an added dose of radiation right before you get some more radiation, so it’s not exactly a complete fabrication.

Now they’re using millimetre wave scanners which are less radioactive, but have other considerations like the activation of moles on skin, or their relative ineffectiveness of finding handguns in underwear (as per TSA reporting) or 54% false positive rate (as per Germany’s report)

I ‘opt out’ always. Had a terminal security person tell me it’s just air (what in the actual funk!?). Fruitless attempts to explain that claim was entirely incorrect I just gave up. Got the pat down and move alongit’s a pain but flying is terrible in general. Finally I enjoy making the inconveniences along the way.

I guess they were also very surprised, because most people would rather not be touched by a stranger.

Huh, I do it every time. Never behind a privacy screen. Never bothered me at all.

The only shitty part is when agents let your stuff go through the scanners but you’re stuck behind the machines. I’m always trying to crane my neck to make sure no one walks off with a laptop.

Usually the TSA agents are very nice. I ask them about their days, how things are, and then I’m on my way.

I like to exercise my rights just to make sure they keep being available, and there’s not much better to do inside the airport anyways.

The sad thing is that even if you're not in the machine, the machine can still scan you -- as long as you're within a certain distance of it.

When the machines first started being used there was some expose on them where pics from the machine were leaked, and you could clearly see that even people waiting in line within about 10 feet of the machine or so were scanned, and you can clearly see their bodies appear in the images, just as you can those who were in the machine itself.

Now, being scanned outside of the machine probably doesn't give them as good an image as outside of the machine, and they won't get an image of both sides of your body, but nevertheless your body will be covered to some extent with radiation from the machine.

I've always opted out of the machines at the airport, and they've always made me wait in a chair within 10 feet or so of the machine. So I know I'm getting some radiation dose from it, but really don't know what to do about it.

Tell the TSA agents that they need to tell their doctors to aggressively screen for cancer. Standing next to these things for 40 hours a week for months has NOT been proven safe.

Hopefully, the cost of supporting this useless security theater will make it infeasible eventually.

The TSA got rid of all the backscatter x-ray machines, so the body scanners aren't using ionizing radiation anymore. This was the biggest health concern with the old devices, and I was really glad to see those gone.

The newer scanners use millimeter wave RF, which is non-ionizing and much safer. The primary concern with RF is classic thermal effects, which shouldn't be significant at low power levels.

There's still plenty of room for research on the topic, but no direct causal link to any health effects have been found with these systems at present.

(That said, the TSA agents are also standing next to the baggage x-ray machines all day. And I do still see backscatter x-ray body scanners in use in other countries.)

Fortunately and unfortunately, I nearly always travel with one or more young kids, which means I can't realistically do stuff like this that'll delay things (they have small bladders, little patience, and are curious). However, they usually have me go through the metal detector instead of the backscatter machine, so I tend to avoid that part of it.

Before our last trip, I read about the facial ID thing, and I was worried because my passport was expired (we were traveling domestic). Fortunately, it seems neither of the airports we went through were implementing it yet, so I'll have time to renew before it's a thing.

I just wish we can all come to our senses and realize that the TSA doesn't really make us safer and that it just makes everyone mad. Unfortunately, people just seem to put up with it.

> I just wish we can all come to our senses and realize that the TSA doesn't really make us safer and that it just makes everyone mad. Unfortunately, people just seem to put up with it.

Because people don't feel like they can make any real impact, and for those who can (our representatives), it's political suicide. The TSA is a giant waste of money but turning the front line of security back to airports would extremely easy to attack as weak on crime, inviting in terrorists, etc. (But who knows, maybe the sight of the TSA line makes terrorists give up in frustration because they're too busy to wait an hour or more just to hijack a plane.)

The TSA was implemented during the Bush era "economic stimulus" drama.

It was never about security, it was only ever about job creation. 9/11 was a convenient excuse to put lots of underqualified/underskilled people to work overnight.

For a politician to go against that now, they get doubly fucked on both the "made America less safe" and "got rid of thousands of jobs" fronts.

Are there regular studies examining broader public opinion on this? I have to assume that at some point it is going to shift, and suddenly scaling back (or privatizing) airport screening will be a no-brainer.

The problem is that it only takes some passive support to establish the system initially, but removing it takes the majority of people actively complaining.

Slight derail

> Because people don't feel like they can make any real impact

I'd say this generalization applies to a lot of topics that we're having with democracy. That people don't feel that it's democratic. I think there's this weird feeling where most believe we're both in a democracy and autocracy (which may not be untrue, but the less we try to fix it with democracy the harder we'll leave to autocracy)

> I just wish we can all come to our senses and realize that the TSA doesn't really make us safer and that it just makes everyone mad. Unfortunately, people just seem to put up with it.

Indeed. What makes us safer are 2 things:

1. Secured cockpit doors 2. Passengers

Now, if someone tried doing something bad/unsafe/terrorist, everybody would jump them, and stop them from doing the thing. That's how shoe-guy was stopped. The passengers about killed him.

It used to be the chokepoint was departure. Now the TSA shoves a chokepoint to "terrorize" at the lines in front the scanners. And wherever you move the scanners creates yet another chokepoint. I'm surprised someone of ill intent hasn't done something at the lines of people.

But in the end, there's little we can do. Ideally our politicians should reconsider their roles, but thats 'reducing security yadda yadda', and political suicide.

On #2, I think people may forget that prior to 9/11, the idea was to let the hijacker go where they wanted, as the passengers usually ended up safe due to cooperation. Even on the day of 9/11 itself, once passengers realized cooperating was going to get them killed, then fighting back gave them a higher chance of survival.

The 2016 Brussels bombing did involve explosives in the check-in area of the airport.

We are cut from the same cloth as I do exactly the same for the exact same reasons. I've 'trained' many a new TSA agent only because I assume it doesn't happen much. I would say half the time I opt out I am used to train a new agent.

I am stuck doing this for medical reasons, and it is certainly one of the most degrading experiences I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. It's very possible he's stuck doing it for similar reasons. Most machines in America aren't backscatter, but I still can't use them.

It's also a crapshoot - you may have an aggressive officer, or a friendly one. I've been patted down twice for absolutely no reason; not a second screening, the guy just went over me two times.

I keep wondering why we have chosen to sacrifice freedom for some small measure of security. More importantly, I don't really believe airport security stops much - it's security theater.

It's a jobs program.

It's a jobs program which humiliates innocent Americans and treats those who have committed no crime as common criminals without any warrant or probable cause. It's a violation of individual sovereignty without reason. Jobs are good, but the ends do not justify the means.

Wasteful jobs programs are not good.

X-ray data isn't as identifying as facial recognition. And quite honestly, you're so concerned about this, you've already lost the war since everywhere you walk, you're bound to be caught by a camera.

You need real legislation to fix this problem.

I was told at Heathrow flat out that there is no way to opt out, although they did the pat-down (etc.) in the end anyway

I'm always sad when I'm the only one opting for a patdown at the airport after Defcon.

> I'm always sad when I'm the only one opting for a patdown at the airport after Defcon.

I made the decision that I was okay handing over personal information one time to get TSA Pre if it meant I could skip the naked scanners, not have to take off my shoes, avoid patdowns etc.

Generally when I'm coming back from Defcon I have a whole lot of stuff with me that I'd really rather avoid having someone take a closer look at.

I still strongly respect people that take a stronger stance than I.

Probably that's because I didn't travel to USA yet, but I don't understand why it's sad. Why the hell would you opt for a patdown? What must be the default then?

New tech allows lasers to identify a person from a great distance, even from a drone, using a laser that can analyze a persons heart beat.

[1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/laser-identify-distance-heartb... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24111284

They're already gathering facial recognition biometrics, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've been doing gait analysis biometric identifiers (it's established tech). Adding heart rate would give them three separate identifiers that can be used to identify anyone in a crowd with practically complete confidence.

These: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

In the UK these are banned, and you can only use millimetre wave scanners with software interpretation, meaning agents can't see the raw (naked) images of you, just the software-identified anomalies layered on top of a stick figure drawing.

Most airports have moved to millimeter wave instead of x-ray: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner

What's the problem with these exactly?

The fact a stranger gets to look at me naked is undignified - like if someone was hiding spy cameras in gym showers, or walking up to people in public and pulling down their trousers.

From a Defcon angle, it's also an information security risk; even large government bodies have fallen victim to cryptolockers, so it's not like the government-grade IT security keeping the photos secure is impenetrable.

The 'reassurance' that I'm too ugly and unimportant for anyone to take particular interest in does nothing to restore this dignity :)

They show you naked and invade your privacy

And have not been used in the US for 6 years

(from the wikipedia article linked above)

> In the United States, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required that all full-body scanners operated in airports by the Transportation Security Administration use "Automated Target Recognition" software, which replaces the picture of a nude body with the cartoon-like representation.[3] As a result of this law, all backscatter X-ray machines formerly in use by the Transportation Security Administration were removed from airports by May 2013, since the agency said the vendor (Rapiscan) did not meet their contractual deadline to implement the software.[4]

Yep. I refused the backscatter scanner when they first came out because of radiation and nude scans, but now that they've changed that I think it's fine.

"Naked" is a real stretch. It's basically a black and white, lumpy x-ray viewed from a remote control room.

Not really. Have a look at some old images http://www.news.ch/US+Marshals+sammeln+Nacktscannerbilder/45...

That's the reason why there are more recent devices that hide the nudity and only show abstract figures with suspicious body areas highlighted.

But the airport visitors has no way of knowing what generation the software is, i.e. whether they are visible in the nude or not. Also, the unmodified images by still be stored on the device - who knows?

Would Obama, Trump, and their wives be happy to have their scans available for public viewing? If it's obvious they wouldn't, it should be obvious it's an invasion of privacy.

For me, I'm already iffy about the whole thing when it's just me but the thought of putting my kids in one of these things makes me... very unhappy, in a bunch of different ways at once. But so does a stranger feeling them up. I'm not sure how/whether I'll ever be able to fly with them.

Some posters are claiming the screens don't show the raw images anymore, but what happens to those scans? Betting they don't discard them. Ever.

I realize this is a very personal thing, but I've never had a problem with this.

So what if they see me naked? I don't care. There's nothing harmful that can come from that information.

What's your opinion on deepnude?

Revenge porn is terrible, but I don't think that's relevant here. Can you think of a plausible scenario where a backscatter machine's data could be used against someone? They didn't save your face; I don't know what someone would look at. And that's if the machines actually saved any data, which was not supposed to happen.

>And that's if the machines actually saved any data, which was not supposed to happen.

And yet... https://gizmodo.com/one-hundred-naked-citizens-one-hundred-l...

I created fake nudes in high school about 20 years ago... It's always been on the table for an artist to fake them, the only difference in that and deep nudes are that a computer does them. Why is it just now bothering people? Because of the buzz word of deepnude?

In addition to the fact that a computer can create a photograph that is exceedingly realistic with exceedingly little effort, releasing nude photographs of anyone without their consent—fake or not—is a terrible thing to do to another person.

Your youth makes your actions forgivable, but not acceptable.

Radiation exposure is cumulative. It's a small increase in your risk of developing cancer but it's not zero.

Millimeter wave scanners pose essentially no risk of cancer since they're non-ionizing.

They can activate melanocytic nevus (moles) on the skin though.

And their effectiveness is, questionable (Germany reports 54% false positives, TSA reports handguns being concealed successfully in underwear, etc.)

Microwave ovens also produce non-ionizing radiation so I imagine that they would be safe to place one's full body inside as well.

non-ionizing means mostly harmless, but there is no guarantee. Proteins come in lots of shapes and sizes, and non-ionizing radiation can still resonate.

> What must be the default then?

Body scanners.

I opt-out every time. Only once have I even seen anyone else opt-out and that was leaving a tech conference in Vegas.

what do you mean by "after Defcon". Could you please elaborate what you're referring to?

> clearly a dark pattern.

It's not clear to me at all. Explain please.

A "dark pattern" tricks people into doing something they normally wouldn't do. In this case, to board your flight you may verify your identity in one of two ways:

1. Present your passport

2. Use the Facial Recognition software

They are tricking people into using option 2 by not informing them of option 1.

Just like Disney World - they scan your finger print upon entry to the park. When you ask to opt out, they're like "Well you're going to need to step out of line over here and give my manager some information.."

Assuming you're not being facetious, the optional "have your facial scan data uploaded to dubious parties" choice is not presented as optional, and implied consent is the default for all fliers.

This would be similar to an "opt-out" instead of "opt-in" checkbox on a "let us harvest your data" disclaimer, except that the checkbox is at 0% opacity so you don't know it's there.

Not to mention that you usually don't know about it until you get there, so you don't have time to look up anything about it to see whether you can avoid it. I read about it after buying my last ticket and learned about the passport thing, but that was because I'm interested in what the TSA does and follow security and privacy blogs.

Agreed about the clickbaity title, but what they were trying to imply is still true. Here's an example of Jake Williams attempting to opt-out of Delta facial scanning and immediately being scrutinized for it: https://twitter.com/MalwareJake/status/1144789516684877824

He says there that the US is one of the few countries which doesn't do exit checks for immigration.

Is that true? I hadn't thought about this.

I know the Schengen zone does, as well as China and much of Latin America, but in my experience the UK doesn't. Does Australia/New Zealand/Canada (my feeling is that Australia doesn't)? What about Asian and African countries?

I had to go through a Border Force checkpoint[0] with facial recognition and a fingerprint scanner on the way out of Tullamarine last year. There may or may not have been a way to opt out.

[0] they call it a "smartgate", presumably because it sounds less invasive than "biometric checkpoint", see https://www.abf.gov.au/entering-and-leaving-australia/smartg...

Canada does not, at least not while traveling to the US

Oh, it's "not very novel"? So it's completely unimportant then. That Western so-called civilization is sliding into a totalitarian dystopia while proclaiming it is protecting "freedom" is not an interesting topic of discussion, because... it has been discussed before!

Agreed. What is the privacy concern of allowing face recognition if you are letting them scan your passport?

Maybe you don't want new data points on your face in a database.

Not sure if this happens in smaller airports, but if the passport scanner is automated, they already take a picture of you.

they have a copy of a static image that they likely already have access to. very different to a high res alternate image, from a different angle, with a different expression, in different lighting

It's only static if they aren't using AI to analyze the tons of images they have of you from security cameras etc. Google Photos can learn and search for faces of a person based on one confirmed face a person. I'm sure Facebook can as well. There's no reason to believe the Government or TSA is or isn't doing this.

The ePassport gates in at the UK border both scan your passport and take a picture to confirm that it is indeed you. Since they already had my picture in the database from the passport I did not consider this an invasion of my privacy, and (for now) they are opt-in instead of opt-out.

Wait, what do they take a picture of, your passport or you?

You scan your passport, lean in for a picture of your face, and hand a receipt to a person on your way out.

Yes, except instead of a receipt the gate just opened and I went through.

Both.

It would make sense if that were true, but they already have his face. All he's really opting out of is them matching the one in their database when he's standing there. Maybe there's some value in that, but I agree the real value is not giving them your face to begin with and it's too late for that by the time you get to the gate... they've already got it.

There are already cameras everywhere though.

Exactly, they already have your face in the system. Opting out isn't going to change that.

Airports are likely already using facial recognition anyways. PDX had these installed not too long ago: https://www.dormakaba.com/us-en/solutions/products/entrance-...

What makes these interesting is they're getting stereoscopic imaging with multiple camera angles of video. That can potentially be used for some invasive tracking.

The distinction is nonsensical to me from a privacy standpoint. Your passport includes a picture of your face, anyone scanning your passport looks at that picture and your face to verify the passport is "you". I'm sure whatever is recorded by either process is essentially the same: a person with your face was in a particular place at a particular time.

In particular, they did not say what was "not easy" about it. Where there delayed significantly?

She just had to walk around a bit, presumably because the people at the gate weren't familiar with what to do when someone wants to opt-out.

I guess that qualifies as "not easy", because it's a meaningless statement that can be justified by the slightest inconvenience.

I think "easy" should at the very least include "you're notified that it's even possible".

requiring opting out is a huge barrier as shown in behavioural economics and definitely makes it "not easy" especially if no one else is seen to be doing it

You can define it (imo) in two ways.

One is by legible criteria: how long does it take & such. The other way is: how likely people are to do it. That's how a UI design would be measured. How many more people sign up if I remove the "age" field from a form. How many fewer people become organ donate if you need to register online vs tick (or untick) a box on your lisence form?

The first way is how a regulator or judge would see it. The second is often the one that matters to how things develop practically. Eg how gdpr-ish consent actually affects realities of user control over their data.

A common pattern is to concede the first, and rely on the second to make it irrelevant. Opt out is available, but the "UI" design ensures that it's rare.

> I didn't hear a single announcement alerting passengers how to avoid the face scanners.

> To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board.

While I agree that it's made as easy as possible to go with the flow, and communicated less clearly than I'd like that you can avoid it, I think that this (the article's presentation, not your post) is disingenuous. I flew from DTW to SYX about 6 months ago, and saw signs (though no announcements) clearly indicating that you could opt out. I simply told the boarding agent when I came to the front of the line that I wanted to opt out; there was no need to leave the line.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I don't know for sure that this works, because they were trying to speed up very delayed boarding and had given up on the facial scanning anyway, so they just waved me past without appearing even to notice that I asked.)

I don't see anything click baity. It was, indeed, not easy to opt out. And this is for someone that knew they could.

" To figure out how to do so, I had to leave the boarding line, speak with a Delta representative at their information desk, get back in line, then request a passport scan when it was my turn to board"

That is a process that is not easily discoverable. And the "opt out" isn't announced as an something that even exists.

I wish you would summarize every article on HN because as one of the only articles I read this week (since as you mentioned it really was click-baity), my interpretation was pretty much the same.

even for a clickbait headline, "It Wasn't Easy" seems overkill.

I opt out of the body scan every time and it sounds like the face scan is easier.

Summed up my thoughts on this right here. Reading the article it doesn’t exactly detail what the headline explains and, as you said, selves into the ethical debate surrounding its use. Sigh.