Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Databases Programming Security Software United States IT Your Rights Online

FBI's New Eye Scan Database Raising Eyebrows 229

Posted by timothy
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI's New Eye Scan Database Raising Eyebrows

Comments Filter:
  • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because they're the ones with the badges and guns and the ability to detain you without trial and make you disappear?

      Just saying.

    • Yeah. I always thought that the FBI had access to passport/driver's license/military ID cards already. Kind of makes you think "So?"

      • by rubycodez (864176)

        have you seen the current stinky low-res passport photos? anyone could look like anyone else with just makeup.

    • 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} {at} {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.

    • by sm62704 (957197)

      Your DMV photo actually looks like you??

  • 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.
    • Re:too many movies (Score:5, Informative)

      by 26199 (577806) * on Monday June 30, 2008 @12:18PM (#24003435) Homepage

      You seem to be talking about retinal scanners -- iris recognition is considerably less intrusive. I don't know about retinal scans being harmful, but I'm quite sure iris recognition isn't.

      (At least, in the superficial physical sense).

      • Re:too many movies (Score:5, Informative)

        by gnick (1211984) on Monday June 30, 2008 @01:07PM (#24004323) Homepage

        You're correct. Iris scans, as opposed to retinal scans, can be done quickly using only ambient lighting. And, with decent optics, they can be done at surprising distances. The only real limitation is the atmospheric effects you get from small air currents, thermals, etc. And, on a calm, cool day, those don't become an issue for a good way off.

        • by plasmacutter (901737) on Monday June 30, 2008 @01:18PM (#24004513)

          looks like all us "four-eyes" are going to have an extra modicum of privacy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            looks like all us "four-eyes" are going to have an extra modicum of privacy.

            Naw, you'll just get put on the terror list first.

            Think about it. You wear glasses because you are correcting your vision, possibly because you enjoy reading. While reading, you might be exposed to materials that are critical of plans to implement things such as iris scanners. Reading these critiques might cause you to begin thinking the government maybe exceeded its authority.

            This kind of "thinking" is a strict no-no. True

            • looks like all us "four-eyes" are going to have an extra modicum of privacy.

              Naw, you'll just get put on the terror list first.

              Think about it. You wear glasses because you are correcting your vision, possibly because you enjoy reading. While reading, you might be exposed to materials that are critical of plans to implement things such as iris scanners. Reading these critiques might cause you to begin thinking the government maybe exceeded its authority.

              This kind of "thinking" is a strict no-no. True patriots never question; they obey.

              even worse, I might repeat verbatim a book I read, thus committing the highest of crimes, copyright infringement!

          • by sm62704 (957197)

            What about us "three-eyes"?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Repossessed (1117929)

        Retina scanning is also fairly useless for ID, the retina changes over time, as bits of it die and regrow.

    • 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.

      It won't be any worse than staring at a computer monitor all day. Or going outside when the sun is shining. I've been doing both for decades and my eyes are still fine.

    • by sm62704 (957197)

      Sending crazy bright light directly into a person's eye will obviously damage it if it's done enough times.

      Dr. Odin* dialates my pupil and then shines a crazy bright light into it in order to see if the surgery was successful. I had this done numerous times last year after a torn retina, and twice so far this year after my vitrectomy [slashdot.org] for the detached retina.

      That eye's vision is back to better than 20/20. His "crazy bright light" hasn't seemd to have harmed it a bit, and without the "crazy bright light" befo

  • by mfnickster (182520) on Monday June 30, 2008 @12:11PM (#24003333)

    > 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.
  • The iris scans seem benign to me. I'm not entirely sure how they would scan the insides of your eyeballs without your consent, at least for now. What concerns me is the facial scans. I have a feeling that this is more than just pictures like on a passport. I'm thinking more along the lines of a virtual model of one's physical features, possibly built from various images into a kind of 3-D composite. There are a few problems with this. One is that you could be mistaken for someone else (obviously). An
    • by techpawn (969834) on Monday June 30, 2008 @12:27PM (#24003587) Journal
      You know how we have Godwin's law about Nazi Germany? Does anyone know if there is one about Orwell? I mean, it's fitting, but we'd be hitting it a lot lately.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by zappepcs (820751)

        Would that be Godwin's Orwellian corollary?

        "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

        As any discussion of the United States Government grows longer, the probability of a comparison to George Orwell's 1984 approaches one.

        In the event that you can invoke both Godwin's Law and the Orwellian Corollary, you score double.

        Adjunct to the Orwellian corollary: Any person correctly citing the corollary within earshot of said 1984-ish government will

      • by sm62704 (957197)

        techpawn's law: As a slashdot discussion of tech grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving George Orwell's 1984 approaches one."

  • Oh hey (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kjzk (1097265)
    The U.S. government and Popular Mechanics have been in bed together for quite some time now. Remember the desperate and failed attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories in one of their issues? It only generated more suspicion and exposed their tight relationship. This leaves me to believe that Popular Mechanics is probably glorifying this Police State tactic.

    Popular Mechanics is garbage. It's for people who want to pretend to be smart.
  • 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...
    • There's an investigative agency called Griffin Inc. that's been providing biometrics and other identification technology to the casinos around the country for years. Although originally designed to identify known cheats engaged in illegal activities, Griffin also has a tendency to try to paint those engaged in legal (but frowned upon) advantage gaming behavior with the same broad strokes.

      I suspect that .gov will probably end up doing similar sorts of things with their own biometric database...
    • by gnick (1211984) on Monday June 30, 2008 @01:17PM (#24004497) Homepage

      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)

        by TubeSteak (669689)

        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)

  • part of the effectiveness of this technology involves expressionless faces. if you raise your eyebrows in an artifical wide eyed glare, the database can't effectively match you against...

    wait, what do they mean by raised eyebrows?

  • 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!
    • In this dark future only criminals will wear sunglasses, becuase if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide. Sunglasses will become the equivalent of the belaclava, a clear signal that your about break the law.

      Somewhere in here there is a Corey Heart joke

  • 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)

      by mpthompson (457482)

      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)

      by sm62704 (957197)

      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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098)

      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.

      • The system that allows you to instantly track criminals is the one that allows you to instantly track everybody.

        I don't see anything there that says the proposed system allows the instant tracking of criminals or by extension, everybody. This is simply making more information available to law enforcement to more narrowly define the list of potential suspects from information that may be gathered from a crime scene (i.e. closed circuit TV images and such).

        Yes, it means some crimes go unsolved. I prefer that

        • by Shakrai (717556) *

          A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully.

          And a much larger percentage of people engage in victim-less crimes like pot-smoking that don't spoil anything for the rest of us and they still find themselves on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. The Government still uses every single resource that it has to track them down and prosecute them. Meanwhile it doesn't use the resources it already has to prevent more serious crimes, like terrorism, yet it always wants more power and more resources?

          You'll forgive me if I'm not leaping at the prosp

        • since when have security cameras had that kind of resolution, and why do we need iris recognition when cameras pick up the rest of the body perfectly well?

          the only thing I see this being used for is to further nag you with ads and to track you and persecute you should your actions ever pose a threat to the political agendas of the wealthy who own the cameras.

          A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully. The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.

          Then you need to go to the people's republic of china, where they jail the one innocent man rather than let 1000 criminals go free. Our forefathers th

        • by LanMan04 (790429)

          A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully. The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.

          Ah, but who gets to define what a 'bad apple' is? I bet your definition may be different than the folks who will do the enforcing. And if the definition ever changes to include *you*, then you're screwed.

        • 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?

      • by boatboy (549643)
        Who gets to pick which crimes are stupid and don't deserve being solved? Seems a little callous to me. As I pointed out to the other guy, though, what's really stupid is that the same agency catches flack for being too slow and inefficient- at least in the political sphere from the exact same people.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ruin20 (1242396)
      A lot of the population doesn't believe we need increased efficiency in the tracking down criminals department. At least not the minimal amount that this system would provide. Since that need hasn't been identified, it's easy to say the cost isn't worth it. We don't need an alternative to this plan, because this plan is addressing a problem that doesn't need to be solved, tracking down repeat offenders IF they visit limited locations that have the capabilities provided in this system. Especially when the co
    • by imipak (254310)
      Is that a mandatory requirement? I'd say we've got along pretty well so far without some automatic system that "allows quickly tracking down criminals". If you believe your requirement is mandatory then why not embed tracking chips in people's heads so that the FBI knows who's where, 24/7? That would give you a couple of nines in your clear-up rate.
  • 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!

  • How did this get put in the "Developers" category? Seems more like a YRO item to me.

    I'm just sayin'..

  • I have a question for anyone involved in the field of biometrics or just human physiology-

    Are iris scans (or retina scans) useful after a person has died? If they are, how long do they remain useful?

    I would imagine that, being soft tissue, they would be the first ID technique to become useless, but I wonder exactly how long investigators would have.

    -b

  • For those who would prefer not to wallow in self induced ignorance, (both of you), here's a few links you might find relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_recognition [wikipedia.org] http://www.findbiometrics.com/Pages/iris_articles/iris_1.html [findbiometrics.com] http://www.iridiantech.com/index2.php [iridiantech.com] The rest of us may now return to mindless ranting. Enjoy!
    • For those who would prefer not to wallow in self induced ignorance, (both of you)

      HOLY CRAP! no wonder i'm so tired and have productivity problems of late.. Im running 500,000 sock puppet accounts on slashdot!

      so who is the other guy?!

  • 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!
  • 1. Wait patiently in line.
    2. Approach iris scanning machine.
    3. Beat iris scanning machine into pieces with wrecking bar hidden in trousers.
    4. Get arrested and sent to prison.
    5. Join the millions who died in many wars for the rights being shat upon by the administration in knowing you did something good for humanity.
    6. ...
    7. Profit! (Morally)
    • 1. Wait patiently in line.

      2. Approach iris scanning machine.

      3. Beat iris scanning machine into pieces with wrecking bar hidden in trousers.

      4. Get arrested and sent to prison.

      5. Join the millions who died in many wars for the rights being shat upon by the administration in knowing you did something good for humanity.

      6. ...

      7. Profit! (Morally)

      1. wait patiently for the motorcade.
      2. approach politician with outstretched left hand and concealed weapon in right
      3. shoot politician repeatedly
      4. get arrested and sent to the gas chamber (or shot)
      5. Join the millions who died in many wars for the rights being shat upon by the administration in knowing you did something good for humanity.
      6. ...
      7. Profit! (Morally)

      8. A big shout out to all the fbi agents who read this post.

  • I'm not scared of the FBI having this technology. It's a good thing that will help catch criminals. What I'm worried about is prosecutors attempting to site a facial or iris recognition by a computer as evidence. Good Scenario: Suspect X is wanted and probably fleeing the country. The FBI gets data feeds from cameras at airports and train stations. The system recognizes Suspect X at DFW airport. The FBI calls security and they pick up suspect X. Bad scenario: Say the prosecutor needs to show that suspect

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...