This statement seems pretty poorly thought out. I think the argument that's being made is actually that there should be comprehensive privacy legislation, not that the TSA's use of facial recognition is bad/dangerous.
I see three risks being pointed out:
1. "the potential privacy and bias risks" -> however it doesn't expand or explain these risks. I'm on team privacy in general, so I definitely worry about this, but I think it's almost comical that any description of this risk is absent.
2. While facial ID is currently optional, "there is no guarantee that will remain the case" -> this is a textbook slippery slope argument, which means they're arguing not that the current practice is bad but that someday they might start doing something bad.
3. "the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID" -> another slippery slope argument that has even less to do with the TSA. This would require a major effort by the rest of government, so this is more a "watch out for that big cliff over there" argument than a slippery slope argument.
After all that, I think the topic sentence of this statement should be"
> This is [bad] because the United States lacks an overarching law to regulate the use of facial recognition to ensure the necessary transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect our privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.
The slippery slope argument is a pet peeve of mine. It is a real, valid concern - in fact when this strategy works people often switch to calling it boiling the frog, which is not usually contested for some reason (even though it is the same thing)
Slowly making changes is a normal strategy at this point, saying anything less than the worst case is a "slippery slope" is no longer relevant imo. It is a valid risk that should at the very least be a point of discussion
Right. "slippery slope" is a fallacy only when the slipperiness of the slope is taken for granted. In this case there is plenty of evidence that this slope is in fact slippery.
Since I'm bashing on fallacies here, I'd also like to call out the naturalistic fallacy as a frequently abused one.
If your ancestors managed to survive in the natural environment, and there is something novel in the synthetic environment, then the synthetic alternative does in fact deserve more scrutiny because you have less evidence about it.
"Natural doesn't mean safe" type reasoning only really applies when the natural and synthetic thing are being put in equally novel situations--which is a pretty rare setup. Like, how often do you consider eating a plant which nobody has ever eaten before?
> The slippery slope argument is a pet peeve of mine.
Do you mean that an argument which consists of a claim of an inevitable slide to a bad conclusion from a certain starting point is your pet peeve? Or that a rebuttal to such an argument, which consists of pointing out that the former may be a slippery slope fallacy, is your pet peeve? It gets confusing because the key phrase of the former is "we're on a slippery slope", while the key phrase of the latter is "that's a slippery slope fallacy."
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. However as you say, when incremental changes are regularly used as an effective strategy to obtain a larger objective it becomes a valid concern.
The logical fallacy still holds even if the majority of all policy utilizes the incremental strategy, but only because there are edge cases that invalidate the argument.
The problem for people outside of the strategy room, is that we don't know whether there is a broader objective or not, and even when a broader objective is realized it's almost impossible to prove that the end result was the original intent.
Even absent a broader objective we should still look to history and understand that government only ever increases its own power, only ever reduces the liberty of the citizen.
Government actions move in one direction, to yell into the void "well that is a slippery slope fallacy" as if that means we should simply ignore all of the lessons history has to teach us about giving up liberty for perceived safety is crazy to me.
I am not sure what value there is in proclaiming a slippery slope fallacy or how that it a rebuttal to the very real historical record.
I agree with you. My point was that using slippery slope to discredit an argument is frustrating because it is practically impossible to know in advance whether the incremental change is part of a bigger objective, and yet we also know that the strategy can work and has been used in the past.
It's part of a broader objective because many of these projects are fueled by both private organizations and public for-profit organizations. Yes, this is indeed part of a broader objective to sell more of this technology. Lots of ARPA money out and about right now.
> The problem for people outside of the strategy room, is that we don't know whether there is a broader objective or not, and even when a broader objective is realized it's almost impossible to prove that the end result was the original intent.
In some cases, folks are open about their broader objectives. Sometimes, we DO know their broader objectives, or at least we COULD know if it was widely (properly) reported.
In all other cases, we have no way of knowing the objectives of politicians and bureaucrats _tomorrow_, so we shouldn't presume they will have good objectives -- or rather, that we would think their objectives Good.
Never give the government power that you wouldn't want the most hostile political adversary to have.
>2. While facial ID is currently optional, "there is no guarantee that will remain the case" -> this is a textbook slippery slope argument,
And? Years ago you could say the same thing if OP complained about the TSA starting to use biometrics. And you would be disregarding their very real concerns, especially when they would have been right about them. I believe this is also the case now. OP has a valid point.
> you would be disregarding their very real concerns, especially when they would have been right about them.
Which TSA concerns were they right about and what dates?
Matching pictures doesn't indicate a person smuggling items onboard, and the hijack avenue ended on 9-12 when in-flight procedures changed. Ramp workers and flight crew, and even TSA, go around the TSA screening and can smuggle anything that somebody holding their family hostage at home tells them to carry.
They are piloting this at an airport near me. When I asked if I could opt out the employee said “no”. It was only later I was told that I could (upon returning home and looking it up)
FaceID as government ID is not a good idea, and it’s fine to start somewhere in my opinion though of course I would prefer outlawing biometrics entirely as identifiers.
Every article I've read about the TSA's program included the journalist either being denied an alternative to the facial recognition process or being pressured to do it. In an environment where being late for a plane could cost people their travel plans, coercion is pretty easy.
I fly a lot. I always opt out, usually in Atlanta but I think in other airports. There are signs up they say you can opt out.
This is both in the precheck security line and when boarding international flights.
It was an issue once with a Delta employee who didn’t know I could opt out. And once with border control in Ireland (where ICE has a presence). There, the ICE employee manually verified me but still insisted I get a photo taken.
Otherwise, it’s not been an issue to opt out so far. The staff might be a little annoyed, but it goes just as fast.
As an opposite point - the airports I've been to have been pretty easy to opt-out, though they usually have snippy comments about "saying it up front".
That being said, did your airport not have signs talking about the pilot, and it being optional? I would of pointed to that if I was told no.
It was very early in the pilot process, and I was trying to board an international flight. There was little or no signage, and the TSA staffer told me I could not opt out when I asked. Not a great experience. Since Senator Markey has been harping on this it has improved.
Even GDPR only applies to private entities, and the same polity who did that have used their willingness to regulate data handling and software architecture to, if anything, minimize end-user privacy vs. the state.
I see three risks being pointed out:
1. "the potential privacy and bias risks" -> however it doesn't expand or explain these risks. I'm on team privacy in general, so I definitely worry about this, but I think it's almost comical that any description of this risk is absent.
2. While facial ID is currently optional, "there is no guarantee that will remain the case" -> this is a textbook slippery slope argument, which means they're arguing not that the current practice is bad but that someday they might start doing something bad.
3. "the very real possibility that our face eventually becomes our default ID" -> another slippery slope argument that has even less to do with the TSA. This would require a major effort by the rest of government, so this is more a "watch out for that big cliff over there" argument than a slippery slope argument.
After all that, I think the topic sentence of this statement should be" > This is [bad] because the United States lacks an overarching law to regulate the use of facial recognition to ensure the necessary transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect our privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.