Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FBI's New Eye Scan Database Raising Eyebrows

Posted by timothy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:06 PM
from the trust-us-we're-from-the-government dept.
mattnyc99 writes "The FBI has confirmed to Popular Mechanics that it's not only adding palm prints to its criminal records, but preparing to balloon its repository of photos, which an agency official says 'could be the basis for our facial recognition.' It's all part of a new biometric software system that could store millions of iris scans within 10 years and has privacy advocates crying foul. Quoting: 'The FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, which could cost as much as $1 billion over its 10-year life cycle, will create an unprecedented database of biometric markers, such as facial images and iris scans. For criminal investigators, NGI could be as useful as DNA some day — a distinctive scar or a lopsided jaw line could mean the difference between a cold case and closed one. And for privacy watchdogs, it's a dual threat — seen as a step toward a police state, and a gold mine of personal data waiting to be plundered by cybercriminals.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] DoJ Budget Request Details Advanced Surveillance, Biometrics 39 comments
An anonymous reader writes with a report about programs revealed in the Department of Justice's 2010 budget request, which includes $233.9 million in funding for an "Advanced Electronic Surveillance" project, and $97.6 million to establish the Biometric Technology Center. The surveillance project is designed to help the FBI "deal with changing technology and ways to intercept phone calls such as those used by VOIP phones or technology such as Skype. The program is also conducting research on ways to conduct automated analysis to look for links between subjects of surveillance and other investigative suspects." The Center for Democracy and Technology's Jim Dempsey warns, "It is appropriate for the FBI to develop more and more powerful interception tools, but the privacy laws that are supposed to guide and limit the use of those tools have not kept pace." The biometrics plan lays groundwork for a "vast database of personal data including fingerprints, iris scans and DNA which the FBI calls the Next Generation Identification," a system we have discussed in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:08PM (#24003263)
    There has never been a better time to invest in Ray-Ban!
  • Blah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2008, @12:09PM (#24003293)

    The DMV and the US government already have my picture (passport). Why should I give a shit if the FBI has it or has access to it?

    • Re:Blah (Score:5, Informative)

      by pilgrim23 (716938) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:57PM (#24004127)

      BBC did a documentary on biometrics a year or so back. Iris ID has been used in Dubai for soem time it said. Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

      • Re:Blah (Score:4, Informative)

        by sm62704 (957197) on Monday June 30 2008, @02:02PM (#24005165) Journal

        Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

        Marijuana doesn't dialate the pupils, although it can make your eyes red and droopy (maybe just as good). Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

        If you want your eyes dialated, you're going to have to snort coke or smoke meth or crack. Downers and narcotics like Heroin or Demerol will make your pupils constrict.

        • Re:Blah (Score:4, Funny)

          by xonar (1069832) <xonar@nOsPAm.smagno.com> on Monday June 30 2008, @02:23PM (#24005431) Homepage

          Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

          Marijuana doesn't dialate the pupils, although it can make your eyes red and droopy (maybe just as good). Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

          If you want your eyes dialated, you're going to have to snort coke or smoke meth or crack. Downers and narcotics like Heroin or Demerol will make your pupils constrict.

          Most psychedelics will alter your pupil size and are not physically addicting (besides Ketamine, woo yay). I know LSD and Psilocybin/Psilocin will dialate your pupils WAAAY more than coke/crack/meth. Though there's a SLIGHT possibility of it interfering with your daily tasks :P

        • Re:Blah (Score:4, Funny)

          by gnick (1211984) on Monday June 30 2008, @02:37PM (#24005675) Homepage

          Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

          Echo xonar's note on the psychedelics. A good healthy breakfast of funky fungus will blow your pupils to the point that the iris is difficult to find, let alone ID.

          However, it's not terribly difficult to recognize when somebody is on mushrooms/LSD/etc. If they're going to detain you based on your irises, having them missing is probably just as effective a way to get arrested as springing up a positive match.

  • too many movies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:11PM (#24003331)
    I think someone's been watching too many movies. Aren't modern day iris scanners bad for your eyes. Sending crazy bright light directly into a person's eye will obviously damage it if it's done enough times. So all that logging in every day at the government's secret lab stuff is pure science fiction. I think personally doing an iris scan once can destroy enough rods or whatever to make people complain. They shouldn't be using this system and expecting people to be scanned whenever they want them to be.
  • by mfnickster (182520) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:11PM (#24003333) Homepage

    > And for privacy watchdogs, it's a duel threat

    I guess they really threw down the gauntlet, huh?

    Now which weapon should I choose... rapier and/or dagger?

  • En Garde (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quattro Vezina (714892) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:13PM (#24003355) Journal

    And for privacy watchdogs, it's a duel threat

    En garde!

  • by wisebabo (638845) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:17PM (#24003421) Journal

    how else would the scanner be able to read the eye?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2008, @12:19PM (#24003453)
    Once they get a DNA database everyone, you'll have to leave the house wearing gloves and protective clothing so you don't accidentally leave DNA on someone who happens to get murdered later.
  • by ckuttruff (1315571) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:24PM (#24003549)
    Anybody notice the mention of Lockheed Martin in the original article?

    Really? Is more outsourcing of sensitive government tasks the way to go? Have we learned nothing from experience...
    • Anybody notice the mention of Lockheed Martin in the original article?

      Really? Is more outsourcing of sensitive government tasks the way to go? Have we learned nothing from experience...

      The federal government outsources just about all of their sensitive science and engineering. Sandia National Lab [sandia.gov] is run by Lockheed Martin. LANL [lanl.gov] and LLNL [llnl.gov] are also run by contractors. Nothing new.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The federal government outsources just about all of their sensitive science and engineering. Sandia National Lab is run by Lockheed Martin. LANL and LLNL are also run by contractors.

        And that's why it's called the "military-industrial complex"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex [wikipedia.org]

        President Eisenhower popularized the phrase, but it's an old concept.
        Apparently even the fascists worried about the MIC.

        Nothing new.

        Well... the GP is obviously new here
        (no really, he is)

  • test subjects (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhines (82154) <john@jhines.org> on Monday June 30 2008, @12:27PM (#24003591) Homepage

    They should use the politicians that control the agency, and the upper level bosses in the agency, as the first test subjects. Not that they have anything to hide, but I'm guessing they wouldn't like it in this case.

  • by Aphoxema (1088507) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:28PM (#24003625) Homepage Journal

    Well, what about the people with no eyeballs? OR HANDS?! OR FACES!? OR EVEN DNA?! You think criminals are dangerous, it's the criminal zombies you have to be really afraid of! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  • by Thelasko (1196535) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:33PM (#24003703) Journal
    if I hadn't left an image of my retina at the crime scene!
  • Hold up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BlowHole666 (1152399) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:34PM (#24003719)
    Why do they need our Eye Scan Data? I do not leave my iris information at a crime scene. I do however leave my DNA and fingerprints. So what happens when the FBI DB gets hacked and some serial killer changes his Eye Scan with mine. The FBI has no way of knowing who is who. I know some of you may say that the FBI will also have pictures of me and witnesses etc. but it use to be that DNA was not trusted very much and now a person can be put away on DNA evidence alone, so it is all too soon till a person can be put a way or arrested just because their eye scan says they are someone they are not.
    • Re:Hold up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:55PM (#24004081)

      Nevermind someone hacking the FBI DB - what if some data entry monkey just screws up their data entry?

      "And now, entering data for serial killer John Doe, III" while having the record open for Jon Do, II. How will this be changed? Updated?

      I have a trivial mistake in my passport file (they have the wrong passport labeled as lost), and it is costing me 2 hours at immigration every time I fly. I have checked, and it is not possible to correct it. I fear to think what would happen with a more serious mistake. I'm pretty sure there'd be a lengthy trial involved, if not outright conviction and lengthy appeal.

    • Re:Hold up (Score:5, Funny)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Monday June 30 2008, @01:35PM (#24004785)

      I do not leave my iris information at a crime scene.

      Er... what *do* you leave at your crime scenes?

  • And? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thermian (1267986) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:39PM (#24003797)

    Technology has been moving this way for decades. There is even an argument that it's been moving this way for centuries.

    And so what? How much is this really going to effect us? Really? As things stand we have all our information stored by banks, hospitals, employers, and social networks. This is a natural progression.
    Anyone who thinks governments wouldn't do this obviously didn't pay attention at school. They've been doing this since they came into existence.

    This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here. All this is is a centralisation of information.

    As for me, I don't care whether they want this info or not. And as for the cybercriminal thing, you believe your bank/hospital/employer is any safer? Seriously?

    If this move would damn us, we've already been damned for some time.

    Next up, world doesn't end when this happens.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here.

      I agree. The concern over this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Having an iris or other biometric profile for criminals is no more invasive than having images of tattoos or mug shots in a computer database. It is simply the progression of technology.

      For people who have no criminal convictions, I think there are legitimate concerns and that their biometric information sho

    • As things stand we have all our information stored by banks, hospitals, employers, and social networks. This is a natural progression.

      And this is ok on the face of it, but NOT the way these companies are being allowed to abuse it. Just because the abuse is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's ok.. that's like going back to the 1850's and arguing "slavery is the result of natural progression".

      And so what? How much is this really going to effect us? Really?

      Oh it doesn't hurt you at all as long as you're a conformis

    • Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by imipak (254310) on Monday June 30 2008, @01:32PM (#24004733) Journal
      Actually it's the other way round. A police state leads to centralised databases on guilty and innocent alike, not vice versa. Ask my sister-in-law (who grew up in the then DDR) or girlfriend (Brezhnev's USSR and Tito (and then Milosevic's) Yugoslavia.)

      Hmmmm.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here.

      What will lead to a police state? The US IS a police state. If you have secret police you have a police state, and it doesn't matter if you call them "secret police" or politically correct euphemisms like "plainclothesmen" or "undercover agents".

      Get rid of victimless "crimes" and you have no rational need for secret police.

      If this move would damn us, we've already been damned for some time

    • Thanks for explaining (and demonstrating) the meaning of the idiom "slippery slope", as well as the story with the frog and the water.
  • Alternatives (Score:4, Interesting)

    by boatboy (549643) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:48PM (#24003949) Homepage
    OK /.ers, if you're opposed to this, let's hear the alternatives. Describe a system that allows quickly tracking down criminals but protects personal privacy.
    • There isn't. The system that allows you to instantly track criminals is the one that allows you to instantly track everybody. This is the definition of a police state.

      You know, I like some inefficiencies in my government. It makes sure that some dimwit who can't get a regular job doesn't get a Napoleon complex and institutes some harebrained regulation.

      Yes, it means some crimes go unsolved. I prefer that to some stupid crimes being solved.

        • Re:Alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bit01 (644603) on Monday June 30 2008, @05:44PM (#24008639)

          The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.

          Except when law enforcement and assorted bureaucrats and incompetents are the bad guys. Your automatic assumption that law enforcement are the good guys is telling. Do you think the percentage of bad guys in law enforcement is larger or smaller than the general population?

          I get annoyed with people advocating large databases accessed by large groups of people. Any large group of people will have good and bad in it. How do you deal with that? It's not as simple as you think.

          And what makes you think a database of millions of people and accessed by tens of thousands isn't going to compromised by organized crime approximately 30 seconds after it goes live? How will it affect witness protection programs? How will it affect the innocents who have erroneous data on their name? How will it affect innocents who have bad data deliberately put on their name?

          We could make law enforcement's job much easier but putting everybody's biometrics into a big database at birth and requiring everybody to have an operation putitng a GPS radio into them. Why don't we do that? It's a question of balance. Unfortunately, law enforcement's and politicians' idea of balance seems to be somewhat different from the general population's.

          ---

          DRM - Have you got big-corp-of-your-choice's permission to go to the toilet today?

  • Please do Not (Score:4, Insightful)

    by misterhypno (978442) on Monday June 30 2008, @12:59PM (#24004175)

    Look Into the Laser With Your REMAINING Eye.

    The BIG problems with biometrics that rely on external facial features along with such things as facial bone structures is that they CAN be foxed rather easily by a good makeup artist as well as by plastic surgery.

    Scars can be added - and removed - both by clever applications of makeup and/or plastic surgery. The set of a person's eyebrow ridge can similarly e altered (for the purpose of fooling scans) using either technology as well. So can the set of one's cheekbones, jawline or even the confirmation of the ears (another unique body feature, like the fingerprint).

    Once again, the government goes down a path that is easily mucked up and that will produce highly questionable results.

    Thanks again, Washington, for spending more of our money on eye scanners and less on things like flood control programs, bridge inspection teams and systems to keep our ports safe from maniacs who just might try to blow one of them higher than up!

  • by hyperz69 (1226464) on Monday June 30 2008, @02:00PM (#24005135)
    I saw Rectal Scanner. I wasn't at all surprised, just prayed there was still room in the budget for KY!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          one is superstition, the other is actual medical fact.

          Only if you're hanging around in the 19th century. With very few exceptions, examining the iris doesn't give you any information about illnesses (although it can certainly tell you about problems with the iris). Iridology lives on the trash heap [wikipedia.org] of medical history [quackwatch.com] these days. Aside from the fact that it makes no sense from a physiological perspective, it also simply fails on evidence.

          As far as I'm concerned, anything that has no theory or data t