Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States

FBI Bringing Biometric Photo Scanning To North Carolina, Via DMV 221

Posted by timothy
from the if-you-have-nussink-to-hide dept.
AHuxley writes "The FBI is getting fast new systems to look at local North Carolina license photos via the DMV. As the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos, they use the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. The system takes seconds to look at chin widths and nose sizes. The expanded technology used on millions of motorist could be rolled out across the USA. The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System is also getting an upgrade to DNA records, 3-D facial imaging, palm prints and voice scans."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Bringing Biometric Photo Scanning To North Carolina, Via DMV

Comments Filter:
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:19AM (#29732299) Journal

    NH gives you the option to have your picture removed from their database after they print your license. Too bad more states aren't that progressive. Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How do you know it's actually removed?

      Governments can't be trusted. Government software systems developed by expensive consultants often can't be trusted to work properly, even for their simplest functionality.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by daem0n1x (748565)
        I'm so glad private corporations exist, because they are sooooo more reliable. And their consultants are sooooo much cheaper.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service." Try doing that with the U.S. or State government sometime. There are three possibilities: (1) Suck the money directly from your paycheck. (2) Jail. (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.

          Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing thei

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by daem0n1x (748565)

            Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing their way through my front door, trying to run every piece of my life.

            Have you tried getting out and seeing the world? Corporate abuse and monopolies are all around. You can't ignore them, nobody can. And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.

            • by Shakrai (717556)

              And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.

              Sounds like an argument for keeping Government small and limited in the powers it can exercise. Otherwise Government starts to intrude into the marketplace and instead of a free market we wind up with monopolies backed by the power of the state.

              • by daem0n1x (748565)

                Why not the other way around? Ah OK, it's not compatible with the free-market mantra, that will bring prosperity and happiness to all the universe anytime soon. Thou shall not deny the Dogma!!!

                • by Shakrai (717556)

                  I don't think of myself as a particularly strong free-market fan. I'm just skeptical of government attempts to "correct" imbalances in the market. Given the choice between the evil of the free market and the evil of government, I'll choose the markets any day of the week.

                • Apparently you can not read. Let me repeat - "Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them." I hate corporations; I just hate government more. Even before corporations existed, governments were going-round killing people. Look at Nero and the old Roman Republic.

                  Anyone who believes they can trust government, after the thousands of years of history showing you can not, is a fool.

                  • by daem0n1x (748565)
                    Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments.
                    • by cayenne8 (626475)
                      "Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments."

                      I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't a few things that the government is good for.

                      Troubles is, aside from law enforcement, infrastructure, and defense...there isn't much left that you need or want govt. for.

                    • >>>Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments.

                      Yes but when one person killed another person, it was just ONE person that was left dead. When a government official sets-out to kill, he can kill millions thanks to the power he wields. That's why government can not be trusted with any real power, and needs to be restrained with limits (i.e. a constitution of enumerated powers).

                      As for corporations they too need to be restrained,

                    • by Gilmoure (18428)

                      Wait, you're saying that people kill people?

                      Wah?

                      You make it sound like people are at fault for all the ills of the world. Don' ya know that the sorrows of man are always to be assigned to something nebulous and far away, like the gods, or the devil, or government or corporations?

              • by cayenne8 (626475)
                "Sounds like an argument for keeping Government small and limited in the powers it can exercise. Otherwise Government starts to intrude into the marketplace and instead of a free market we wind up with monopolies backed by the power of the state."

                Hmm...now if only we could come up with a document, that would enumerate the limited powers of said small and limited government.

                • by jamstar7 (694492)

                  Sounds like an argument for keeping Government small and limited in the powers it can exercise. Otherwise Government starts to intrude into the marketplace and instead of a free market we wind up with monopolies backed by the power of the state.

                  Hmm...now if only we could come up with a document, that would enumerate the limited powers of said small and limited government.

                  Maybe I'm getting old, but I coulda swore I heard of such a document someplace. From what I understand, though, that particular contract

            • by mi (197448)

              You can't ignore them, nobody can.

              I lived the past 9 years without TV — watching it only in gym sometimes. Yes, we do have a TV-set — but no cable (our Internet comes via DSL). I think, I've ignored Timewarner/Comcast/whoever it is, whom the government gave my part of town as a monopoly.

              The GP's point is valid — ignoring corporations is far easier, than the government.

              The government's only acceptable role is ensuring, various corporations compete in providing a service or making goods,

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                Public schools, USPS, and highways are enough...

                You were giving positive examples here, right?
                • by eleuthero (812560)
                  um... no--the USPS is nearly bankrupt, public schools tend to be good only in suburban areas (schools in NYC itself versus the 'burbs tend to be ... less than good, and the same can be said of Dallas and its suburbs if not other cities), and the highway system is increasingly being taken over by independent toll companies (who, after a bit of digging, all seem to be owned by three companies across the entire country).
                  • by daem0n1x (748565)

                    If you keep exempting the rich from paying taxes and spend all your public money in useless defence contracts, guess what. You get shitty public services.

                    For the aforementioned rich it's not so big of a problem, they only care about public services when they're bidding for a good public contract. They can afford private education, private healthcare, private security, etc.

                    For the vast majority of the people, it's a disgrace. You can't realise that, either because you're a millionaire or you're brainwas

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                Ideologically Bush [politicalcompass.org] is much closer than Obama [politicalcompass.org] with respect to Fascism [politicalcompass.org]. Neither are really comparable to Hitler or Mussolini though, of course.

                Also, I hope you don't actually think anything on that site you linked is true. It's claims are the same type of scare-mongering as William Ayers [factcheck.org], and Obama's birth certificate [factcheck.org](implying Obama is a Black Panther and/or Muslim in disguise respectively, same as your link).
          • by drsmithy (35869)

            At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service."

            What do you do when all the companies providing the service you want behave in the same way ?

          • (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.

            If you're going to mention Vietnam you might as well add the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. Personally, I'd love to be shipped off to Vietnam........great beer, great food, outstanding beaches and the women are hot.

      • Keeping the pictures on hand does help to prove identity theft. Back in the 90's I sold a couple of cell phones to a guy who'd actually gotten some one else's nfo by rooting through his gym bag. The ID looked like a genuine ID from the DMV because it was. But being the criminal mastermind he was, he didn't realize the DMV would have a copy of the ID with his picture and the other fellows name. Awkward. By not keeping the photos, you'd make it much harder to prove it wasn't you.
        • by Shakrai (717556)

          By not keeping the photos, you'd make it much harder to prove it wasn't you.

          And you also keep your picture from being used for projects like the one described in TFA. I'll take the added "risk" that someone uses my ID to defraud a cell phone company.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        >>>Governments can't be trusted.

        I'm glad Hitler didn't have this photo-filtering technology in 1935. He would have skipped all the nonsense of registration and yellow armbands, and just gone directly to drivers' licenses to find and round-up all the Jews (and other enemies). This new efficient technology would have allowed him to succeed in his goal virtually overnight. Oh yes I know. Godwin's Theory. I don't care - history is history and those who ignore history are fools.

        Or just read the boo

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by z4ns4stu (1607909)
      In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times. If you don't qualify for a DL, you can still get a State-issued ID card.
      • by poetmatt (793785)

        that's pretty much standard worldwide, however that has nothing to do with what the OP is saying.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          That's not the case in Britain. Nor iin South Africa. Although it was for black people during apartheid. I guess I'll start calling your country the land of the less free every day?
      • by StikyPad (445176) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:39AM (#29732571) Homepage

        This is a common misconception, but you're only required to identify yourself if asked. Carrying a license is obviously required when engaged in the relevant activity (driving, hunting, selling alcohol, etc.)

      • In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times.

        [Citation Needed]

        • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:38AM (#29733339) Journal

          The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned those laws as illegal searches. You're required to provide basic information like your name, address, but not required to show a photo ID. You need not carry anything on your body.

          • by eleuthero (812560)
            The Supreme Court would have to do so in the end. How can an OK law be effectively prosecuted against a resident of Texas? If I go there on vacation, there is not a huge sign telling me that I have to have a driver's license or other ID with me at all times or I am guilty of law-breaking. Common sense would demand one if I were driving, but if I am stepping off a bus (which still does not require an ID for boarding), then I fail to see how another state could blast me for coming from a state that does not h
            • >>>then I fail to see how another state could blast me for coming from a state that does not have a similar requirement.

              "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." - One of the oldest legal precedents, and it basically means you are required to follow the laws of whichever state you're currently in. For example: Non-smoking laws inside a restaurant. Even if that's legal in Texas, it's not legal in most of the Northeast or Pacific states. If you have a kind judge he'll let you go, but he doesn't

          • by Gilmoure (18428)

            Wooooo! Naked Connecticut hiking this winter!

    • by daem0n1x (748565)

      Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?

      Maybe having a national ID card, like most of the world, would help to avoid that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Shakrai (717556)

        Maybe having a national ID card, like most of the world, would help to avoid that.

        Maybe if the rest of the world valued liberty over convenience we'd be better off.

        • by Herkum01 (592704)

          Considering the United States has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of incarceration in the world. I wonder if the USA really values liberty over persecuting people.

    • by spinkham (56603) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:55AM (#29732789)

      Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases:
      "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"

      If you are being detained, stop and identify laws in about 1/2 of the states allow officers to demand identification. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes [wikipedia.org] Even in most of those states, you are only required to state your name, not provide documents or any further information besides your name.

      You new script is now:

      "I do not consent to a search" "I do not wish to answer questions without a layer present"

      See http://www.flexyourrights.org/street_stop_scenario [flexyourrights.org] for the slightly more complicated automobile case.

      Police officers script many of their interactions because of the legal requirements.. You should also.

      Note, much of this advice I've received from police officer friends. Endeavor to be polite, but don't give up your rights voluntarily. If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission. If they're asking, not telling, say no.

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:54AM (#29733525) Journal

        >>>Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases: "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"

        I think even that's too much. I prefer to give my name, my address (if asked), and then silence. I might say something like "According to my Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment I'm not required to answer," but most times I just keep silent.

        I've seen too many videos where people repeat "Am I detained" and "Am I free to go" as if they are having a verbal fight with the officer. No good can come of that. It merely escalates the tension of the encounter, whereas silence tends to be calming and de-escalate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by spinkham (56603)

          Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were required to say those things over and over, just don't say much else. Most police officers are decent enough people, and just trying to offend them doesn't do anyone much good. Endeavor to be as polite as possible, but don't respond to questions that start with "May I?" in the affirmative. Avoiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.

          Also, if you do end up sa

          • >>>voiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.

            Right. Which is why silence is the best policy. You can't make mistakes or accidently volunteer information if you're mouth is closed. Don't Talk To Police video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
            .

            >>>border crossings or airports. The courts have mostly held that you have pretty much no rights in those places.

            You still have ri

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        >>>If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission.

        What I hate is when they use a dog. The U.S. Constitution required an oath before a judge, and since dogs cannot take oaths, they shouldn't be able to establish probable cause either.

        • by Shakrai (717556)

          Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means? I have an issue with them using the dogs to get PC (a trained handler can make a dog "hit" on anything) but I do tend to think they should be able to use them if they already have PC.

          • >>>Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means?

            Sure. If an officer SEES a drug, then he has probable cause and can use whatever tools are available to help in his search. But a dog, or anonymous call from a neighbor, or any other non-officer should NOT be used for probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes, as afirmed by oath in front of a judge, can should be used.

            Else you have abuses like the Professor Gates cased (illegal entr

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      I'm glad Illinois kept my picture.

      The last time I renewed my license, I wouldn't have had to go down to the DMV thanks to a good driving record. However, I'd had eye surgery [slashdot.org] and for the first time in my life I had a chance to get the "corrective lenses" restriction removed. I was happy as hell when they took my picture, and also for the first time in my life the picture wasn't unflattering.

      Last April my wallet was stolen, and when I had it replaced they used the picture form the database. But it would be ni

      • You saying people with glasses are unflattering? Hmph. (walks off)

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          No, usually everyone's picture is unflattering with or without glasses, because by the time you get to the camera the bureaucracy has you throughly pissed off. It wasn't the lack of glasses that made it less unflattering (on my previous picture I wore contact lenses), but the fact that it was a light day there and I was in a great mood. And the DMV workers were not bad looking women and were actually NICE. Things sure got better at the DMV since Jessie White was elected.

          I was glad to ditch the specs because

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @12:27PM (#29734003) Journal

        I'm glad Illinois kept my picture.

        The road to 1984 is paved with convienence.

        What is convienent for you is also convienent for law enforcement & other government agencies to troll through.
        This is why civil libertarians fight against government & private databases at every turn.
        There is a balance between convience and security, but the balancing point is highly individual.

    • by relguj9 (1313593)
      The picture on my license is blurry and the lighting is terrible, there is a fat chance in hell any image recognition software out there could ID me. A person would be hard pressed to positively ID me with the picture there and me standing next to it.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:29AM (#29732435) Journal
    I think this was tried in Florida (as the article notes) back in 2002 but was killed instantly. It seems the trial run had focused on true positives meaning that they only reported numbers on when a person who was in the database was identified correctly. But overlooked the false positives, especially regarding someone who was not in the database being identified incorrectly as being in the database of criminals. Now, that ate up so much time it was instantly canceled. Of course, the FBI have figured out how to reduce this by combining many biometrics and it's now not okay to smile when you get your license picture taken where I live (planning for the future of biometrics, I suppose).

    Does anyone know what the rates are for false positives in this new system? How much time is wasted double checking results?
    • now not okay to smile when you get your license picture taken where I live (planning for the future of biometrics, I suppose

      I live in California and, to my knowledge, no such restriction applies on our license pictures. Nonetheless, when I renewed my license recently to have my motorcycle certification added to it the lady at the counter in DMV explained to me (after I flashed a reckless grin for the picture) that they preferred pictures where the person being photographed wasn't smiling. She said it made identification purposes smoother. Now, this young lady was, in my opinion, nowhere near attractive, but, in the most enthusi

  • Write your governor, state representatives, federal representatives, and your DMV to let them know how you feel.

    Especially if you are a resident of NC. I for one would be pretty pissed off if I was forced to participate in a (virtual) line-up.

  • Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:31AM (#29732463)

    Ignoring the Big Brother/Police state implications for the moment : how well does this technology actually work? How accurate could the measurement of chin width/nose size be if you only have a single photo to make measurements from? With a large uncertainty in your data, I would imagine that there would be many collisions in the database.

    It doesn't seem likely that a camera could be set up somewhere in the state that could recognize any North Carolina resident with a driver's license. More likely than not, there would be thousands of hits for each face that walked by the camera, even if the subject wasn't in the database.

     

  • had the NC DMV told the FBI to kindly go Cheney itself when issued the request? Seems they are under no obligation to share, but chose to do so. Now I wonder what the NC DMV is getting from the Feds in return...

  • ...but they can't see through my tin foil mask!

  • I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
    The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:39AM (#29732567) Homepage

    They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people. And the AP reporter picture came back as a possible terrorism suspect. You want to end up in an FBI report associated with a terrorist? Even if they clear you out later?

    Hopefully they figure out the mistake before you end up where ever they'll be sending terror suspects after GTMO closes.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:54AM (#29732775)

      You assume that it's possible to be cleared out at all. This is highly unlikely, and probably impossible

      1-off events don't exist when it comes to criminal investigation. Welcome to the system, CITIZEN!

    • So nose size and chin widths - isn't this just going to be screwed up for those with mustaches and beards - sort of good for catching almost everyone but Osama binLaden?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356)

      They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people.

      In the real world, federal criminal investigations don't play out like Columbo.

      There can be hundreds of possibilities at least worth considering.

       

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I am not normally an alarmist, but the fearmongers of the past 8 years have helped make this happen. This is the beginning of a police state.
    As seen above, there is more money and time spent investigating innocent people than actually capturing guilty. This IS guilty until proven innocent.

    • by jcr (53032)

      This is the beginning of a police state.

      No, this [wikipedia.org] is the beginning of a police state. The federal government has always sought to take power not granted to it in the constitution.

      -jcr

  • by Ukab the Great (87152) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:01AM (#29732859)

    It will recognize threats to society like terrorists, illegal aliens, and UNC fans.

  • disturbing... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ZenDragon (1205104) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:29AM (#29733209)
    All this information collection as of late is getting a bit disturbing. I work for a bank and I had managed to go 28 years without being fingerprinted, until this year. I have nothing to hide nor fear but I definately do not like having my biometric information floating around out there. I could care less about my social security number and all that, its just inforamtion that can not be directly tied to me. However as a law abiding citizen I take issue with ALL of my information being documented. Part of the patriot act required that every employee working for a bank get finger printed, background checked, photographed, etc. Thanks GWB Lets just make it easier for somebody to steal identities. Seems like the cold war all over again except this time its the government ploting a war against its own citizens.
    • Re:disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:58AM (#29733587) Homepage Journal

      Seems like the cold war all over again except this time its the government ploting a war against its own citizens.

      Those who do not understand the lessons of history... The cold war was a war waged by the industrial capitalists of the US and the USSR against the citizens of both nations. The people who benefited most were the robber barons of the military-industrial complex. Some of the workers therein benefited as well, except that the resulting damage to both economies (the extent of which is not yet fully accounted for in this nation) is harmful to them as well in the long run.

  • How long until the FBI does the same kind of end-run around the law by tapping into DMV biometric data? Right now the government can only obtain a person's fingerprints upon being arrested for some reason, but if the FBI adopts the same policy for DMV biometrics as for DMV pictures it could end up with a database of every licensed driver's biometric data without actually keeping such a database itself.

    It seems to me they shouldn't get away with such a thing on a mere technicality of the law.

  • " As the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos, they use the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. "

    Perfect example of a government entity CIRCUMVENTING checks and balances installed for a REASON.

    Maybe this reason needs to be reiterated in such terms that the fucking FBI can understand it...then close the loophole that allows this circumvention.

  • Shock G's alter ego Humpty will never get caught by this system. Perhaps we all need to adopt these [google.com]

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.

Working...