I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport

Re:I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Was... by r3bl on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @03:17AM (#20342289)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Was... by Vinnl on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @04:05AM (#20342505)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Was... by ptah on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @04:16AM (#20342549)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Opted Out of Facial Recognition at the Airport – It Was... by dalbasal on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @03:34AM (#20342369)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]