Connecticut To Store Biometric Information 732
AugstWest writes: "I just got word that when I renew my driver's license, I will have to submit to allowing the CT DMV to store biometric information, as well as smile for facial recognition software from Viisage to be able to continue driving. I am so appalled, I don't even know where to begin. With all of the national law enforcement agencies opening up their databases to each other, is this the first step in taking a surveillance society to a tracking society?"
where's the line (Score:2, Insightful)
i don't know if this means one shouldn't need a license to drive (which seems a little reckless), but seriously, what stops Them from requiring a cavity search and your first born to get a driver's licence?
You don't have a right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:where's the line (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what withholds them.
Read the Federalist papers.
Worthless unless it is adoped by everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
The state also has also exercised the option to utilize biometric features with the new Digitized Driver License system given the need for greater security since September 11. It has become evident that the driver's license is now a critical identification document.
Thats all well and good, but unless someone checking the ID (ticket counter at the airport) has some means of utilizing the new features to positively identify someone the features become usless. The person checking the ID must then (as always) check photo ID.
You can implement all the new features you want, but unless everyone has access to card readers, scanners or whatever gadget is used to utilize biometric information the features don't amount to squat.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
the concept may be too subtle for you to grasp but I'll try anyway. Things change little by little. So if you were to compare the amount of freedom someone had during one time versus another. you would notice that the freedom was lost in very small increments. A law here a law there, requiring a license for this and a license for that. Over time those things add up to substantial changes.
That is why it is very logical to become upset whenever one of these little events happen. They are another click in the ratchet, another step in a direction we don't want to be going in.
And we are definitly going in the direction of less privacy and freedom. Going in that direction very fast. You don't seem too concerned about losing your rights, which is both sad and pathetic at the same time. Don't go the last mile to becomming a total loser by criticizing those who have enough common sense to try to defend the priceless things in life.
I don't see how this is much different than requir (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So whats the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply put, avoiding the potential for abuse is always a good idea.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:4, Insightful)
Heard this crap before. Driving is a right. Yes, if reason can be shown that there is a valid purpose for not providing someone with a driver's license it's fair enough to dissallow them one. However, in this, to use a horribly cliche phrase, not haveing a drivers license bars you from participating in a wide variety of activities in this country. The gorvernemt really has no right, IMHO to divvy out drivers licenses. I always here the argument: "The government pays for the roads". Bullshit, I pay for the roads, you pay for the roads, all of us pay for the roads.
Sorry for the rant but the whole driving thing with the government burns me up. Don't even get me started on the government mandated extortion that is mandatory auto insurance.
Re:ID Card (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't have a right... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a picture and a description ... (Score:4, Insightful)
As licenses get used increasingly for proof of identity we can only expect this kind of increase in the security of the id cards.
Up here in Ontario we've been doing this for years for drivers licenses and government health cards. So far there hasn't been any use of the data (that I know of) for anything other than printing the photo id cards.
The battle to be fought here is not to prevent these cards from existing, it's going to happen. Work on ensuring that the cards are only proof of identity and are not connected in every which way to every database in existance. Fight for an internally consistent card that only proves you are who you claim to be, then every other database can just look you up. Fight against the shared databases not against the cards themselves.
For instance the Canadian Federal government put together a big database [hackcanada.com] tracking all sorts of personal information about every Canadian tax payer -- they can do this with out without id cards.
The war for anonymity was lost on September 11th. Those of us concerned about privacy didn't get to the field. Fall back and fight for real privacy.
And remember folks, nobody listens to the people wearing the tin foil hats!
Re:ID Card (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems desirable to me to eliminate this prop of the police state completely.
Driver's license wasn't always required! (Score:4, Insightful)
A driver's license wasn't always required. The first states to require a driver's license were Massachusetts and Missouri in 1903. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that all states required road test and/or examination in order to get a license (reference [dot.gov]). Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.
Most people don't have any inkling as to how how much the world has changed in the last 50 years (or 100 years for those of you over 50). Politicians today can get elected on platforms that would have had them run out of town on a rail only 30 years ago.
In the future people watching old movies won't understand the terror implicit in the phrase "ver are your paperz!". They won't recognize that phrase as being fundamentally un-American.
Revisionist history will make sure they aren't even taught that things were ever any different. Revisionist history may not even include a mention of Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin [declaration.net].
If some people get their way [com.com] you won't even be able to teach yourself history. All that you will know are the "facts" The State has approved for your consumption.
The sad thing is that already anyone who points these things out is derided as a nut.
Re:Worthless unless it is adoped by everyone (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the government using 9-11 as an excuse to get the things we'd never have tolerated prior to 9-11. Nothing more.
Re:And your problem is ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno about you, but if I was planning on committing a crime and I knew that my photo/fingerprints were on record, which they are, then I would just wear a mask and gloves to get past those obstacles.
While I understand your point of view, I don't think that the question should be "what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?" I think the question should be, "what crime did I commit to warrant being treated like a criminal?"
However, for those that do enjoy the occasional snatch & grab, if the police really had everyones fingerprints and pictures in a big database, don't you think that would reduce a lot of crime? And I don't mean just because they'd catch a lot more people - it would serve as an effective deterrent to crime, which seems to be in short supply nowadays.
It would also reduce alot of crime if the government implanted chips in our skin that relayed our exact location to a police computer at all times. That way they'd have no problem pinpointing who committed the crime. For some odd reason I believe that's a bad idea too.
Re:I don't see how this is much different than req (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about Australia. A while ago they had to register a handgun with the country. People were upset, but the other side said "as long as you don't do anything wrong with the gun, why does it matter whether or not we have your registration?"
So, everyone registered.
Then, years later, the government used those registrations to go door to door and collect all the guns because they thought it would help decrease crime.
See, it's just the little things at first; the little pieces that eventually lead to something major. You're right, it's no big deal if we don't do anything illegal *now*, but how can we keep the government in check if they keep taking away our liberties?
P.S. - Crimes went up an amazing amount in Australia just the next year. Especially home breakins because the thiefs knew the homeowners wouldn't have a gun.
What's new here?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
But my question is, what is new here?
For example, in every state that I've lived and gotten a driver's license in, I was required to submit all of this information. I had to give biometric information, my NY state driver's licence has my height and eye-color, and other states have required my weight, and so on. Also, every driver's license I've ever had has a picture on it, which was digitized and entered into a database.
I can understand your position if you think that it's a violation of privacy for you to have to submit to a picture, and to give basic biometric information. I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from... But, if this is your position, then it must be true that the current situation was intolerable to you. Anyone who thinks that this new development is somehow different than the current situation is just having a knee-jerk reaction.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Driving is NOT a privilege. It is a right. It is not, however, a constitutional right. The same rationale that says driving is a privilege says that privacy is also a privilege.
The Right To Bear...Vehicals? (Score:3, Insightful)
But ask yourself...what would happen if the procedures that applied to cars were applied to cars? You want a gun? First take a mandatory training class. Now get a practice gun that says you can only use a gun within a shooting range for a year. Now fork over your complete life's history, DNA, fingerprint, whatever to become a registered gun owner. Now be required to get gun insurance in order to purchase a gun. Now get a ticket for not keeping your gun stored in the proper location. Now have your gun impounded and lose your gun license for getting too many tickets.
That's what we would have if guns were given the same treatment under the law as cars. Yet you won't see that happen. Even thought a lot of those things are probably a sensible idea! They are adding to the burden of gun ownership which directly violates the second ammendmant.
Now I ask you, which is more important, a gun or a car? Back in the 1700's, you have to pretty much to with gun. A gun could provide food for your family. A gun could protect you from robbers and highwaymen. A gun could protect you from wild animals. A gun could make sure that your newly formed government didn't decide to come and oppress you (or at least do so over your dead body). A gun put you on equal terms with the lawmakers...as long as the numbers of you outnumbered the numbers of them.
Today in the year 2002...which is more important, a gun or a car? A car provides me with a means to earn a living at a job that might be otherwise out of my range of trave...a car provides food for my family. A car gives me the ability to flee danger should I live in a remote area...a car protects me from robber. A car gives me a secure mode of transportation through dark and troublesome terrain...it afford me protection from wild animals I wouldn't have walking. A car allows me to escape from a situation where I am being persecuted...a car protects me from n oppressive government. A car puts me on equal terms with those in authority...as long as I keep driving until they stop following.
Everyone is fooling themselves into believing you don't need a car in today's society. Walk, ride a bike, take a bus. But if push came to shove, what of those options will save you from any of the terrors I mentioned above? Would we all sleep easy if cars were outlawed entirely and we were forced to use a public transportation system? Go only when and where they allow us to go? Allow our movements to be tracked from start to finish? This is the future that "driving is a privaledge" is heading us towards.
Stop it people, for the love of god, stop it. A car and a gun are both useful tools, that happen to have the side effect of being capable of causing damage and carnage. But there is no deny the benefit they both provide to our society. The tables have turned...I can pretty much get along without a gun in the yer 2000...the same way someone who carefully arranges their life can get along without a car. But I'm sure glad that if the situation were to change...if my wife were being stalked, or some hoodlums were hanging around my neighborhood...I can count on the fact that I can be guaranteed a means of protecting myself. Why on earth shouldn't the same be true for a car?
- JoeShmoe
.
grow a beard and wear eye liner (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how long it will be before American Indian style war paint becomes both a fashion statement, a count measure and a act of defiance.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm curious; have you ever actually made a real effort to live without the use of a car? As someone who's been car-free by choice for about four years now, I'll be a bit presumtious and guess not.
While you've "Heard this crap before", so have I, from the other side of the fence. On a good day only about one in ten of the drivers on the road should be anywhere near a car. While I'll quickly admit the US is far, far behind most sane countries wrt cycling and transit programs, it's not in the complete stone age. You aren't barred from anything by not having a license. In many parts of the country, you're infact liberated by the lack of a license.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And your problem is ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good point-- and that's why so many of these things get through. But what else is illegal? Distributing DeCSS, apparently. Giving a lecture on flaws in the latest digital watermarking scheme. In the past, it has been effectively illegal to espouse Communist values, or to be Japanese and not in a camp.
The more power you give the government, the more extreme these laws get. Maybe it'll be illegal to criticize the president, or write a program to copy bits without government-approved copy protection built in (but hey, now I'm just getting way outside the realm of possibility).
I'm happy to give up some power to a central government-- because, like you said, I much prefer a society without murder and assault. But it's incredibly naive to believe that the government will use any power you give it responsibly. There's plenty of corruption now-- and it increases the more power they get.
Re:You don't have a right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the government has the troops, so they'd probably win, but it wouldn't be much fun fot the citizenry.
Put another way, rights is mystical gibberish used as PR by a bunch of 17th century radicals to justify the radical political platform that they created. And they swiped it from an earlier bunch of authoritarian bastards who said that god gave the guy with the biggest army the right to rule. (Notice how the sounds exactly like the line that the "Social Darwinists" try to push, only blaming Darwin instead of god. [That isn't a question, it's an instruction.])
The guys in charge always try to say that what they are trying to do/control/... is Right! Would you expect them to say it was wrong? They know good PR from bad PR. (Well, at least most of them do.)
Anytime someone starts talking about rights, try to understand what they are really saying. Someone is pulling the wool over someone's eyes, and you don't want the be among those played for a sucker.
Constitutional right has a definite (if arguable) meaning. Right as an unqualified abstract would only have a meaning if you could summon the god of your choice to come down and testify about it in public. (2nd or 3rd hand reports don't count.)
So if one person asserts that driving is a right and another denies it, there is no way to evaluate those claims. They're both just spouting hot air.
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:1, Insightful)
Must every newborn be insured on the day of birth against the possibility that they may cause damage later in life if they commit murder against another person? If so, every newborn should be required to carry murder insurance.
And how about insurance against rape? Every male (and every female) carry rape insurance in case they happen to rape someone in the future. This will surely help the victim in the time of need.
And how about walking on public street? We should buy insurance for that too.
And how about battery, swimming, or going to the grocery. These too are cases were you could cause damage to others and they should be compensated for it.
In short, we can have insurance for everything and the government should have the right to decide who should live and who (in effect) should die. Just more of the same like with their wonderful extortion theirs when they attempt to extort the population with "driving is a privilege", and if you don't pay this or that, the law will refuse to grant you license.
A New World (Score:4, Insightful)
A show of hands for how many people think we have eliminated the networks that planned September 11th? Am I scare-mogering? By invoking September 11th am I calling upon Fear, Uncertainty, Denial to serve the interests of those who wish to destroy our freedoms? Am I an apologist for the future Stalin/ Hitler/ Pol Pot in our midst? By my arguments am I destroying our freedoms in order to protect them? Knee-jerk territory my friends, knee-jerk reaction. It is almost eight months, no more (!), since September 11th, and y'all are going about your thought processes in complete denial, aren't you?
There is a difference between explaining a situation and excusing a situation, so those of you who tend toward paranoid schizophrenia, please don't attack me personally if you reply, try to keep it above the belt and reply to the substance of what I am trying to say, and here it is:
The West has a problem. A huge one. Our current state of national existence is living under a threat to our security that has never existed beforehand in our history. Before September 11th, George Bush was seen as a buffoon. Now he enjoys wonderful ratings and is seen as a hero. Why? Human psychology, my friends. The USA, en masse, is rallying around the commander in chief. It is circling the wagons. You don't attack those who would defend you. The US Government was an overtaxing bloated bureaucratic anachronism before September 11th. Now, they are our saviors.
Again don't attack me, I am explaining the psychology in the US to those of you chronically out of touch with the reality we live in today- I am not excusing it, get it? Because a herd of buffalo, once it starts charging, has no intelligence, and will trample the fields that feed it just because somebody fired a few rounds by their flanks. Many decades hence, if we remove a lot of our own rights, there may be a lot of regret about our reaction to September 11th, but right now, we are in the thick of it. People are afraid.
So what am I saying? Y'all sound rather hollow, ok? Because you offer no protection from the kind of folks who committed September 11th. You invoke theories and possibilities of a police state, but the democratic tradition in this country is strong and deep, and the terrorists are REAL and in our midst, plotting our doom. You stand in the way of a herd of trampling buffalo, and you shout slogans that mean nothing to the mob before you, running over their own rights.
Folks, if you want to protect our freedoms, you have to find new arguments, that is all I am saying, and here is the kicker- you have to invoke those arguments that address the real problem: not our freedom, but our safety! I am with y'all, but I'm just saying: NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. YOU SOUND TIRED AND SHRILL. I agree with you that our rights are in jeopardy, and they need to be saved, but you are doing nothing to appease the approaching mob who will trample our freedom in the name of our safety, get it? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR FREEDOM THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Gee what a wonderful quote. Any volunteers to write this on a big banner and hold it up in front of a herd of charging buffalo? I didn't think so.
People are scared. They are covering their asses, they are not listening with their ears wide open and their minds in full-tilt. They are scared. You must invoke arguments that include their safety, because none of you do, and safety is what the herd of buffalo is worried most about.
Benefits of Biometric Information (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that in the present state of affairs, the overwhelming tendency is for governments and corporations to pigeon hole people and reduce freedoms, but the technology itself is not inherently evil.
If the biometric systems evolve into open systems, where people can see who accesses their information and when, then we will probably benefit from the technology. If there is a self-appointed elite group that controls the information, then we will be worse off.
A little story... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know if it happens much nowadays, but i've heard of lots of cases from all over the world of "living-dead" people... people wrongly considered dead by the coroner, striped of it's ids by the state and then appear in flesh.
Solution: you can make provisions to reinstate the ids and have fail overs in the system. Easy to implement even if almost nothing can be done regarding to lost propertie in the between. At least is easy to recover the ID.
b) Electronic IDs are more or less problematic
Can be duplicated easely, but also can be replaced as easely.
c) Biometrics
Can't be replaced or reinstated. Prone to ID theaft and NO SOLUTION if that happens! Actually you end up to 2 personnes equal (even if one is only digital and another is flesh and blood).
Placing a chip inside the skin isn't a solution because that can eventually be dublicatable and if not it will be robed! (yup chop chop nasty but will happen!)
cheers...
Mass Transit (Score:2, Insightful)
Get over it. There was a song about it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is that in the 'States, you have the perfect to privacy on your OWN property. In most other places in this world, you don't even have that. If somebody can see in, they can see in. That's IT.
You DON'T have ANY rights anywhere else.
You NEVER DID. Specially on some public commons.
Yes... You ARE being watched so don't be ashamed of anything you do and don't do anything you'd be ashamed of because you ARE being watched.
At least the system in the 'States is not preemptive. You CAN go out to rob a liquor store or murder the neighbor's kids. Its just that you can never again expect to get away with it. You WILL be caught.
An entire genre of crime fiction will become "passé." The rationale for the cerebration and observation of Sherlock Holmes will disappear when we can all go to the instant replay.
And surveillance cuts both ways.
Your rights will never again be blithely ignored by some bully with a badge who tries to re-arange your facial features with a door frame. (But then again YOU'll never again be able to blame somebody ELSE for your own stupidity.)
Get over it. There a 1.2 trillion dollar hole in the economy, a hole in the New York skyline and in downtown New York filled with damn near three thousand people killed there. And I was almost one of 'em.
I feel your pain.
Now smile for the camera and shut the fuck up.
i'll tell ya how to fight this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, state legislatures however have generally not passed laws authorizing their DMV's to keep the photos in archive. (NJ and CO are however exceptions--the only ones so far I've found.)Most states have privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute.
I just took a gander through CT law, and I see the requirement for a photo license, but no requirement for digitally archiving the photo.
So here is the crux:
*a photo is required on a license by CT law
*no statute exists that says that the photo has to be archived
*since CT issued non digital licenses without archiving photos for many years, your argument can be that the DMV can carry out their duties without archiving all the photographs--in particular, yours
*i bet CT does have some privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute, nor collecting data which is necessary to carry out duties required by statute
*with all the above, go file a mandamus action ordering the dmv commissioner to remove your photo from the database
If all the above is the case, I would ask you put some money into it and get a lawyer--to set up good precedence.
Here in Ohio, the same thing can be done (no money for lawyer right now though.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on television, but I like to think that I know something about this topic.
Re:Lets be FAIR (Score:3, Insightful)
Our founding fathers knew that a democracy would often vote in insane laws, especially in times of crisis, and that without the checks provided by the Bill of Rights, the difficulty in getting amendments repealed, and the Supreme Court to uphold those rights, that their newborn democracy would be prone to all sorts of stupidity supported by an ignorant voting populace. If you want to violate the Bill of Rights, you can do so through the amendment process - a long, difficult, drawn-out affair that gives plenty of time for people to calm down and for critical review to go over the amendment with a fine-tooth comb.
But outside the amendment process what the 'majority' wants doesn't matter for shit. And that's a good thing, too, as the 'majority' would do a number of incredibly moronic things given the opportunity to pass laws without the checks of the Constitution and a Supreme Court to uphold it. Even with the amendment process people will still pass brain-dead laws - a prime example being Prohibition.
If you want the kind of security you seem to be begging for then repeal the First and Fourth Amendments. Go ahead; if you're an American it's your right to give it a try. But trying to do an end-run around the Constitution, much like the anti-gun freaks constantly attempt, is just plain evil.
Max
Max
Re:And your problem is ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we could do this kind of thing effectively, we would be able to ensure that only those favored by the government could rape, assault and murder your children, and that your children couldn't do anything about it, if they objected to these rapes, murders, and assaults. That's a great tradeoff, I think; give up all remnants of human dignity, and everything which makes life worth living, and get abused, enslaved, robbed and murdered by the very organization you gave this up to.
If we can learn anything from history, it's that Lord Acton was right: absolute power absolutely will corrupt.
Ironically, criminals have relatively little to fear from this kind of thing. They seem to be able to ply their trade without much difficulty under all circumstances. Some of the dumb ones get hung when a police state decides to get rid of the competition, but the bright criminals just join the gang with the badges. We need to make sure that the cops don't become the gang with the badges.
I am not a criminal either, and I therefore object to being treated as if I were a criminal. You might think that increasing your safety by twenty percent makes it all worth while, and you might think that these proposals will deliver that. Think about this: if treating us like criminals really slowed the criminals down, then you would feel quite safe as a prisoner in a U.S. jail. Do you really think that you would be safer in prison than in your home? The incidence of violent crime is quite high in prison, and the folks there are really treated like prisoners. We could strip search you every day before you leave the house, and afterwards too, and you won't be any safer. But, we will have made the cops into the gang with the badges.
Re:A New World (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Undue Restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like the rules, or the country go someplace else.
I have the right to complain, and continue living here, I have the right to try and change things, and continue living here. I have the right to point out that certin parts of the current system are bullshit, are unfair to specific groups, and are rife with corruption, and guess what I still get to live here. The rules are not written in stone, they are malleable. Your attitude is what allows the corruptness to spread, and for your rights to be taken away.
No Government Required (Score:2, Insightful)
I dump these images into a computer, turn it on, and start fishing. I make a hit, and have my police nab the guy. I get lots of publicity, and become famous.
This only needs to happen once, and everyone will be doing it. I'm only looking for bad guys, so this can't be a bad thing, right? Where do we draw the line now? Is is alright to ban anyone seen being thrown out of my stadium before? How about somebody else's stadium? How about scouts from other teams? This could be a slippery slope, and there isn't anything we can do about it.
I live in a high rise apartment building. I have a window facing a park...