The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Senate's "Longer Lines, Less Security" Caucus
The Merkley-Kennedy Amendment Would Prevent Travelers From Choosing TSA Lanes with Face Recognition
There's a new proposal on Capitol Hill to improve air travel. On the one hand, it will slow down passenger screening and lengthen checkpoint lines. On the other hand, it will make you a little less safe.
Remarkably, the idea of combining slower TSA wait times with weaker security has bipartisan support from fourteen Senators, led by Sen. Merkley (D-OR) and Sen. Kennedy (R-LA). Naturally, they're not selling their proposal that way. Instead, they claim to be saving air travelers from themselves -- and from Big Brother.
They're wrong on all counts.
The Merkley-Kennedy amendment to FAA reauthorization will be offered in the next few days. If passed, it would prevent TSA from expanding its use of face recognition technology in place of ID checks.
This is remarkable. We've all gone through TSA checkpoints juggling a carry-on in one hand and a briefcase or purse in the other while using any leftover hands to hold wallets and present IDs to the TSA officer. Lacking four hands, each passenger spends time fumbling with these items at the checkpoint, guaranteeing an extra couple of minutes' delay; at a busy airport, that all adds up to much longer wait times for everyone
TSA's pilot project, Touchless ID, is far more efficient. I saw it in action at Atlanta's airport as a member of the Commission on Seamless and Secure Travel. Passengers walk up, stand on a circle, look at the camera, and are cleared in seconds. Even when the neighboring PreCheck line was backed up, the lane for Touchless ID never had more than one or two people in it. I've never seen happier people at a TSA checkpoint.
Maybe that's what worries politicians and groups like the ACLU, who have campaigned relentlessly against facial recognition. They're afraid they'll lose if they let ordinary travelers make up their own minds about TSA and facial recognition.
It sure looks like that's what Senators Merkley and Kennedy have in mind. Their amendment would flat-out prohibit TSA from expanding face recognition at its checkpoints -- in Atlanta or at an airport near you.
What justifies this ban? Well, advocacy groups claim that face recognition invades privacy and discriminates based on travelers' race. But neither charge is true.
Privacy fears are particularly overdone; the system I saw compared a picture the government already had (a passport photo) to a picture taken at the checkpoint and then discarded. And everyone who got in that lane knew what they were doing; the whole process is built on consent
Claims of bias based on skin tone or race, meanwhile, are years out of date. According to recent studies by TSA and CBP and by NIST, facial recognition systems demonstrate a negligible difference in accuracy when identifying members of different groups, as long as the systems use good algorithms, good lighting, and good cameras. TSA's sister agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), uses such a system already, and in daily use, it shows no significant demographic disparities, operating at an accuracy rate that consistently exceeds 98 percent.
What about security? It turns out that human beings are nowhere near 98 percent accuracy when they check ID. The technology is far better at matching faces than even experienced passport examiners. As for bias, it's worth remembering that handing decisions to human being doesn't eliminate that risk. If you want to be safer, and run less risk of bias, algorithmic face recognition is the better choice.
That leaves just one question for supporters of the Kennedy-Merkley amendment.
Why are you afraid to let travelers make their own decisions about face recognition?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
While I agree with Mr. Baker's general statement, I'd say this is not accurate, " . . . the whole process is built on consent."
You can't consent to something you don't fully understand and - right now - the general public doesn't fully understand all the pros/cons of facial recognition usage.
About 99.99$ of the public doesn't understand anything Congress passes. What makes this one so special?
About 99.99% of Congress doesn't understand what they've passed.
Most laws are not justified on the basis of consent. It's just a law and you have to comply with it whether you understand it or not.
However by Prof Baker's reasoning, this one is based on consent. But as apedad points out, that "consent" is not meaningful.
Politicians have difficulties conceiving of The People not falling prostrate with tears of glee at the benefits given to them by their betters. The Democrats even had a guy who wrote a book, “What’s the matter with Kansas?”, analyzing why the commoners there weren’t overjoyed to vote for them, given what they, the Democrats, assigned as their interest. Translate: Government handouts in one form or another.
The short, easy answer was there are other concerns beyond just money thrown at you.
I appreciate the irritating nature of long lines, security issues, and clumsily having to carry two bags while holding a wallet and passport.
But it’s ok to say no to creating another tower in the panopticon.
That leaves just one question for supporters of the Kennedy-Merkley amendment.
Why are you afraid to let travelers make their own decisions about face recognition?
Historical examples of loss of freedom orient around giving government too much power, which is then use to secure power against opposition.
It’s the opposite of Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come.
If you don’t build tools of tyranny, they can’t be abused.
Right.
Look at all the unlawful and corrupt things the bureaucrats have done to use since the Patriot Act.
No one stops them. Why give them another tool to beat patriots with?
Do not build tools of tyranny, then they cannot be abused. This is a constitutional design principle undergirding much of the Bill of Rights, and the general idea government only has powers granted to it.
"unlawful and corrupt things"
What things? Specific things please.
"Even when the neighboring PreCheck line was backed up, the lane for Touchless ID never had more than one or two people in it."
Probably because not many people have signed up for it.
You dont have to look much further than the OPM data breach in 2015 to know the TSA should not have a database of passengers faces and names.
I love OPM! Saitama is a funny character!
Just another source of data for the criminals at the FBI and the rest of the lawless Federal agencies to illegally use to oppress citizens.
No thank you.
Just in case you're correct, here's something that can help you.
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Tin-Foil-Hat
How can you be so ignorant?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-patriot-act-must-end
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/ten-years-later-look-three-scariest-provisions-usa-patriot-act
Is this why you worship Government? Because you're ignorant of the horrible things these people get away with?
Man it must suck to be you.
You really showed him! That's the right way to refute anything you disagree with.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement-flat.png
How did you add multiple links in a single comment?!? Has Reason revoked that control since blocking all new and non-paid users from commenting?
There's a max limit. Too many and it marks it as spam and hides the comment.
As far as I can determine.
Since when did they block all non-paid users from commenting?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/
https://instapundit.com/
https://electionlawblog.org/
https://notthebee.com/
Looks like they might have increased the max link number recently, though I've previously noticed that they'll enforce it differencly for links that you pre-format with proper html.
Sorry, that was ambiguous. I meant "new and non-paid" as in 'the account must meet both the conditions of being new and being non-paid'. As I understand the new rule, all paid accounts can comment and (most) old non-paid accounts can comment.
But I never saw anything about loosening the links rule. This is great news.
Am I the only one admiring the masculine way Baker negotiates the TSA process?
Heh.
When returning from Ireland, we went through a US customs checkpoint in the Dublin airport. It used facial recognition.
We walked right through. No waiting in line. No fumbling for our passports. Very easy.
What the hell, why not.
Airports have been constitution free zones since 9/11.
Besides, two more WEF conferences and no more air travel.
It’s not at all remarkable except to statists like Prof Baker who willfully ignore all of history and blindly assume that government can be trusted with facial recognition software. It cannot.
Making pointless checks more efficient doesn’t make them any less pointless. If you want to fix the wait times at TSA, you should do things that actually matter to security – which, by the way, has nothing to do with anything that TSA does. Abolish all the security theater. Give us back our liberty and get the fuck out of the way.
Maybe I’m not imaginative enough, but what is the potential for abuse you see here? The current system is for a person to compare a picture on a piece of plastic to the person standing at the airport: this system would use a computer to compare a digital version of that same picture to the person at the airport.
Confirming travelers’ identities seems like one of the least pointless things TSA does, but generally I don’t disagree with you. But that’s not an option Sens. Merkley and Kennedy are putting on the table.
Can other federal or state agencies use the facial recognition database, or use limited to the TSA at aiports?
Well, that's a neat tactic: Make the normal line hell, and you can convince people to submit to Orwellian surveillance to avoid it.
Or we can just not fly.
Always good to have a choice, right?
This sounds like an industry mouthpiece presentation. That it is published by an ostensibly libertarian forum seems odd.
Maybe someone will try to argue it is "often libertarian" or "libertarianish."
Hope no one of the commentators here has a drivers license.
Or a Costco membership.
Because the privacy horses have already escaped
I'd trade TSA doing this for the ability to wear shoes and belts through screening.
And a promise not to do the obvious if somebody tries to sneak a suppository bomb onto a plane?
There is a legitimate argument to be made that society should not be so quick to adapt potentially buggy and error-prone technologies whose mistakes would have far-ranging consequences.
Elon Musk’s dismisses those who object to his crash-testing his automatic driving software on live human guinea pigs, saying they are Luddites and against progress. But in many ways, Mr. Musk is perhaps Exhibit A on why those who question massive-scale early adaption of these things might have a point.
I tend to agree with the privacy horse being out of the barn. The deletion of the on-site image and the systems 98% accuracy are sufficient to allay concerns. I’ll conclude by expressing surprise that no one mentions the TSA’s union (AFGE) as a possible genesis for this amendment. Doesn’t FACE-ID tech lead quickly to automated gates offering access to magnetometers? Surely airline lobbies will support give it’s extension to the boarding zones (already being tested).
Congress has given CPB authority numerous times. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-enhances-biometrics-non-us-travelers-entering-and-exiting-united