People are free to choose their hair and hairstyles. The burden of not discriminating is on the government agency, which is funded and mandated (including, according to TFA, $100M for deploying the scanners) to not be discriminatory, including on characteristics related to race.
As u/tj-teej pointed out [0], the utilizers of this tech have the agency and means to improve or mitigate the tech, including prioritizing the training of algorithms to handle black hair styles instead of shunting it off to an edge case, conveniently burdening a demographic who has been historically limited in power and influence.
To think of it another way: in many parts of the U.S., Asians are very much a minority. Asians more commonly have narrower eyes which can interfere with face detection/recognition [1]. In the near and possible future, when face-detection becomes a "feature" in security tech as a means to expedite processing -- e.g. if your face is scanned and not found in a "Real ID" database, you're automatically put in a line for more invasive searching -- would Asian-Americans not have a legitimate case that the U.S. gov't has failed to improve their tech to the detriment of Asian-American citizens? Especially when it seems Asian countries have successfully mitigated the issue?
Actually, I knew a guy who used to smuggle drugs into nightclubs in his afro, so targeting people on the basis of whether their hairstyle is physically capable of concealing contraband seems quite reasonable.
If you don't like it ... then you are free to change your hairstyle ...
Then given the sacredness/importance of human life, relative to the value of someone's hair, there is no reasonable justification for not requiring every airline passenger to shave their head before entering security, if it reduces the probability of the scanner having false negative even by a small margin.
Come to think of it, there's no justification for allowing passengers to keep their clothes on as they pass through security.
Perhaps we should submit travelers to regular cavity searches, because I know someone who would smuggle contraband (including phones) into jail through a certain orifice.
I will never discriminate against someone for something they can't reasonably change. But discriminating against them for something they consciously choose is totally fine in my opinion.
Eyes are mutable. Double-eyelid surgery is cheap and common enough in South Korea for it to be a graduation present, and as many as 1/3 of young women have undergone cosmetic surgery [0]. But the overriding point is that Asian countries have developed face detection and recognition for their populations, because the utility and value of the software would be dubious without it. For the U.S. to not seek to invest in its own software would be open for a legal challenge.
As u/tj-teej pointed out [0], the utilizers of this tech have the agency and means to improve or mitigate the tech, including prioritizing the training of algorithms to handle black hair styles instead of shunting it off to an edge case, conveniently burdening a demographic who has been historically limited in power and influence.
To think of it another way: in many parts of the U.S., Asians are very much a minority. Asians more commonly have narrower eyes which can interfere with face detection/recognition [1]. In the near and possible future, when face-detection becomes a "feature" in security tech as a means to expedite processing -- e.g. if your face is scanned and not found in a "Real ID" database, you're automatically put in a line for more invasive searching -- would Asian-Americans not have a legitimate case that the U.S. gov't has failed to improve their tech to the detriment of Asian-American citizens? Especially when it seems Asian countries have successfully mitigated the issue?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19684290
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-passport-error...