Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/12/31/not-ready-for-takeoff.html
…
4 Likes
I want to stand outside an airport and hand out clown noses, could be interesting…
9 Likes
At that rate, 1,632 people flying out of JFK alone would be falsely flagged as potential criminals and subjected to additional screening.
Is that 1,632 per day? (It looked at first like 1,632 for all time.)
3 Likes
Yes, that’s it, that’s what you get for your tax dollars…
4 Likes
I came here to express my deep displeasure* with the use of the alleged word malfing.
You, sir, have made my initial pain all worthwhile. I thank you.
*NB not disappointment
4 Likes
Total idiots. They should have done a few cameras first to see how well they worked. Why do I suspect some sort of payoff?
1 Like
Can we get some info on the illegality of this? Which laws is it breaking specifically? Is anyone challenging it in court? etc. That is a big claim I’d like to know more about.
Facial recognition is shitty but getting better and better all the time. To me the issue isn’t how poorly it works, which technology will resolve in a matter of years, but rather the ethics of if we should be doing it or not.
4 Likes
Well, some say it may be an abbreviation of ‘malfunctioning’, but I’m sure Cory knows (a) that in which case it ought to be malf’ing (and either way it is the spawn of the devil), and (b) that it has another meaning (equally evil):
Malfing
Malfing: a depraved, necrophilic, sexual act that involves digging up a freshly buried female corpse that has decayed but whose body cavity has not yet burst and setting it on a table and placing one’s mouth on the vagina/vaginal/anal region whilst another jumps on the stomach of the corpse thus expelling with great force putrified organs/fluids into the mouth of the receiver to the enjoyment and pleasure for all those involved.
5 Likes
I’m IN! we get a bunch of folks to do this at every airport…
2 Likes
In order to challenge it in court, wouldn’t you need a plaintiff who was detained, or at least denied boarding, as a result of being a false positive, in order to have standing? Seems like there should be a lot of them, but the fact that we haven’t seen a case makes me wonder if there are humans reviewing it every time the machine registers a “hit”. Or maybe, they are just pulling people aside, asking a couple of questions and/or doing a secondary search of their carryon bags (happened to me once) and then sending them on their way, without doing anything that would give them standing to sue unless it is backed up by some other, human-found evidence.
ETA: also while Cory calls them “illegal” in the headline, the only thing he alleges is a violation of the required process to install them; nothing illegal with taking pictures or videos of people walking around in a public place.
4 Likes
Can sing bar of Alice Restaurant?
1 Like
like self-scanning while shopping. we didn’t really like it at first but eventually we became accustomed.
My parents recently travelled thru DFW Airport, and told me that when they went through security, they had to go down a long staircase, and as they walked down it (slowly, with the rest of the crowd), a “laser beam” scanned their torsos for bombs, and suspicious people were pulled aside at the bottom of the stairs.
I can’t find anything about it online, but this seems super dodgy to me.
So innocent people will be hassled while actual bad guys adjust their appearance to circumvent the control. What a great way to spend $1B of taxpayer money.
1 Like
Ah. Is there a law requiring a certain process that is required to install security cameras in public places like airports? I wasn’t aware of any such law and was curious which law made it illegal. I’d like to know more about that specific claim as it is a strong one and would likely apply to security cameras in other public areas. Is it a federal or state law? which law? what is the onus? etc.
Probably a laser pointer they shined at brown people so they could detain them with something official sounding.
I mean, it’s Texas.
1 Like
I read the source article, it mentioned a review process that DHS was supposed to go through before installing the cameras, but didn’t. It sounds like it is something specific to these cameras. Also from looking at the linked article, they are not your garden variety cameras, they are very conspicuous face scanners that you have to look directly at as you board, kind of like the ones they have at certain international entry points.
ETA: maybe the mandated review process was part of the legislation funding the program?
2 Likes
well that’s a lead, i’ll dig more when i have time. thanks!
1 Like
