FBI Launches $1 Billion Nationwide Face Recognition System 188
MrSeb writes "The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun rolling out its new $1 billion biometric Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. In essence, NGI is a nationwide database of mugshots, iris scans, DNA records, voice samples, and other biometrics that will help the FBI identify and catch criminals — but it is how this biometric data is captured, through a nationwide network of cameras and photo databases, that is raising the eyebrows of privacy advocates. Until now, the FBI relied on IAFIS, a national fingerprint database that has long been due an overhaul. Over the last few months, the FBI has been pilot testing a face recognition system, which will soon be scaled up (PDF) until it's nationwide. In theory, this should result in much faster positive identifications of criminals and fewer unsolved cases. The problem is, the FBI hasn't guaranteed that the NGI will only use photos of known criminals. There may come a time when the NGI is filled with as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible — criminal or otherwise. Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license and passport photo in the country — and DNA records kept by doctors, and iris scans kept by businesses. The FBI's NGI, if the right checks and balances aren't in place, could very easily become a tool that decimates civilian privacy and freedom."
Thought criminal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, Goldstein! You just want to make sure that by the time the rats in Room 101 are done with your operative, Big Brother's facial recognition scanners will never be able to pick him up!
One more reason (Score:5, Insightful)
One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.
Au contraire, flood DoS, anyone?
Re:One more reason (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One more reason (Score:4, Informative)
sure, throw caution to the wind.
what's the worst that can happen?
(answer: nightmarish stuff. give it time and we'll learn. the hard way, no doubt, but we'll learn!)
Re:One more reason (Score:4, Insightful)
but we'll learn!
Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.
Re: (Score:2)
but we'll learn!
Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.
Ironically, these self-same people who think that the government would never abuse its power when it comes to handling terror are the ones who routinely scream about how the Goddam Gubmint is a thieving bunch of Socialistic power-abusers.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, throw caution to the wind.
what's the worst that can happen?
Room 101.
You mean room 641A? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, no one would ever want to harm you. Ever. Facebook is useless to me, anyway.
Seriously, stop living with fear and try just living.
Can you tell that the the FBI and the people obsessed with catching terrorists/criminals? And then can you tell them to stop wasting our tax money? Please?
Re:One more reason (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures.
Um.
If the FBI don't "give a shit..." why would they build a billion dollar facial recognition database?
I contend that there are people, powerful people, who do indeed "give a shit," and thus, so should the rest of us, yourself included.
Re: (Score:3)
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror but it sees everything."
Re:One more reason (Score:5, Informative)
There's only one juror 'ability' you need to know about: jury nullification. If you think the law is unjust then the accused is not guilty by definition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's not much choice in England. The 12 are usually selected from ~15 at random and that's that. A *huge* academic research effort recently completed by Cheryl Thomas (search and read!) has confirmed that jurors tend to be much less biased / against people's personal hobby-horses than both the tabloid and leftie media suggest - IOW English juries actually do pretty fucking well.
America has managed to take one of the best developments in justice that the world has ever created and fuck even that up. It is
Re: (Score:2)
I love this description.
Anyone will do... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that cops get points for arresting someone (catch the criminal).
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This database will help them rack up points by finding someone who vaguely matches. All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").
Re:Anyone will do... (Score:5, Interesting)
All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").
And conveniently over 90 percent of federal cases end in plea bargaining. And if you make the mistake of not taking the offer and get found guilty at trial, you can be virtually certain to end up with a harsher sentence and at a minimum, you want receive the "downward departure" for being cooperative which is standard in federal cases.
That being said, why wait until that phase to get the confession when you can just send in the private investigators from the start. PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.
Re: (Score:3)
PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.
The police can say anything they want to get you to talk. Miranda rights may have to be read, but that doesn't stop them from lying through their teeth to get the information they want out of you.
Re:Anyone will do... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This is the real problem. If you've been falsely accused of a crime, removed from your home, and locked in a cage, then you've been victimized just as surely as if you were kidnapped. In such circumstances you deserve justice against your aggressor.
Re:Anyone will do... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a case in Dallas some years ago like this. The guy worked as a window installer.
Some very dangerous criminal (I think the Unabomber, but I may be wrong) was caught because the police found a finger print on a letter that he wrote. Not the criminal's finger print, but the finger print of a completely innocent employee at a copying shop. Which lead them to the shop and from there to the criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure he did.
Of course, the police don't really care. They can still arrest him, in which case he'd better have an attorney and pay that guy and track down witnesses from years ago (all while living 1000 miles away) and all that in order to defend himself. And, if found Not Guilty, it's not like anybody's going to reimburse him. So there goes the kids' college education fund down the tubes.
But if he pleads guilty, I'm sure the DA will recommend a light sentence. After all, he has no prior arrests. H
Re: (Score:2)
So an explosion in the number of excessive use of force cases, as looks like person after looks like person is beaten, tazed and often shot for looking like a person the FBI are after, when the FBI send out the local steroid junkies. What's beating this billion dollar system ends up costing ten times as much in false arrests.
Re:Anyone will do... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.
Keep in mind that "false arrest" means that the police did not have a valid warrant for your arrest, not that you didn't do it. As long as the police can show a valid arrest warrant and they didn't lie to the judge to get it, it's not false arrest--even if they made a mistake.
FB et. al? (Score:3, Interesting)
How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
FB ... FBI.
Coincidence? I think not!
Re: (Score:2)
How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?
About three years ago.
public datasets (Score:2, Interesting)
During a 2010 presentation [biometrics.org]made by the FBI’s Biometric Center of Intelligence, the FBI said the technology could be used for "identifying subjects in public databases."
Hello, Facebok!
pixelhead (Score:1)
http://www.thelocal.de/lifestyle/20120823-44537.html [thelocal.de]
just read that today (a few minutes ago, in fact).
in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public (not sure the exact wording, but its essentially along those lines).
halloween is an exception but probably not even listed in the laws. technically, they COULD hassle you on oct-31 if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is it illegal to hide your face in the USA?
Please link to the relevant law. In the winter where I live people regularly wear ski masks.
Re: (Score:1)
Boy, winter comes early to Detroit!
Re: (Score:3)
I have not checked all states and it probably does vary by state. but this is what I was able to find:
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or lik
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, this is a better link and it contains a short summary by state:
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html [anapsid.org]
these states have 'issues', listed:
AL AK AZ AR CA COCT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
man, that's a LOT.
hope all that modded me down will reconsider your judgement..
and btw, I do NOT agree with this. don't shoot me, I'm only the messenge
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read it? Only the bolded states have info there: CA, DC, FL, GA, MA, MI, NC, NY, VA, WV
Wish I had mod points to give you.
The list the GP provided is simply a list of all the states in the USA. As stated on that page, only a small number (the ones you listed) are known to have anti-mask statutes on the books.
Additionally, the New York law listed by the GGP is all about groups of masked individuals. You could certainly argue about whether or not that's still a bad law; but it's not applicable to a single individual who chooses to wear a mask.
Re: (Score:2)
so, lets just agree that its:
"greater than zero in most cases and sometimes less than 100."
deal? those that said 'no way' were not correct, but its also not correct to say that all states have this restriction and its the same in every state.
ie, this is NOT a total non-issue in many states.
I think it should be changed, but good luck with that. once a power is taken by the state, it does not come back, easily.
I'm not sure what made me look this law up, several years ago, but I really was surprised to find
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, think they consider mirrorshades to be a 'disguise'? How about a suit & tie, since all anybody ever sees me in are polo shirts and jeans?
Re: (Score:2)
what?
Re: (Score:3)
If that's the case, the mask is simply a misdemeanor add-on to whatever your initial crime is, which seem
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
Re: (Score:1)
Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the Stasi or the KGB had anything remotely close to this, you're incredibly naive. The kind of computing power necessary to exploit this kind of database hasn't existed until very recent history. While there may have been databases in Stasi offices, how long does it take to look through paper files for a photo, compared to computer processing? The Stasi would have cum in their pants for modern surveillance capabilities.
Now Facebook is a different story, but it's still my choice whether I joi
Re: (Score:2)
Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...
I am sure the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestpo too, would have loved this but it just didn't exist at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
And when the local police get their hands on it watch what happens. In many municipalities they already have an array of cameras on their cars to scan license plates. The next logical step are the face scanners. So when you're taking that walk to clear your head and decide to explore a little, don't be surprised when Jonny Law pulls up with a "Hey, Robert Scoble of 123 Maplewood Lane. It looks like you're a little far from home. Care to tell me about the burglaries that have been happening around here
Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And when a pole with multiple cameras shows up in front of every residence in America it's all good since the cameras are on public property, right? RIGHT?
Re: (Score:2)
That's easily solved by a $1.50 can of spray paint. Just make sure to stay out of the camera's field of view when you decide to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Paintball gun, then! Or fill a bunch of balloons with paint and take turns with your friends trying to hit the camera.
You might want to wear V for Vendetta masks in either of these cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and by extension, the Government.
No, I don't. The government is theoretically controlled by the people, and hopefully people realize it's probably a bad idea to allow the government to have eyes and ears everywhere, and frankly, people who think this is a good idea are gullible idiots who have learned nothing from history's long line of corrupt governments.
In short, if the people don't want these automated systems, the government probably wouldn't have them. If the people didn't want the government to spy on them and actually did something
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I would be concerned about how good these systems are, and if they are really worth the money. Unless they do 3D face recognition (which is very expensive), the accuracy is really bad (especially for a system of this scale).
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.
It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
It absolutely does lie in the source of the images you gloss over all the nuance by saying "legally obtained" - when in fact what matters most is WHY it was legally obtained. Being photographed for a driver's license is a far different thing than being photographed for a system that can be used to identify someone who isn't even in a car, much less driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.
Exactly this, any corporeal person obtaining this much information about you "in public" 20 years ago would have been eligible for a restraining order against them.
Re: (Score:1)
Incorrect. When a person goes out into the public, that person does not expect that everyone that crosses his path has a perfect photographic memory. A person that goes out in public, based on innate human limitations, expects that he will be largely anonymous.
The video camera and face recognition technology completely destroy that expectation.
It is time for the people to demand that *their* government halt such unexpected intrusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the fourth amendement? Obviously not.
Ever heard of "reasonable suspicion"? I.e., where the cop says you appeared to be "staggering" and therefore he reasonably suspects that you're on drugs? Obviously not.
Re: (Score:2)
considering that the DC folks have been using the Constitution for toilet paper im sure that this could be used to ruin somebody in such a way that it can't be fixed.
Re: (Score:3)
You forget that most public observations are ephemeral, and that people violate several laws every day without knowing so.
Not only that but practically any crime these days can be ratched upward in seriousness. I saw a case recently where a guy was using his phone to commit the crimes but he was only calling people in his own state so it wasn't federal. Or so you would think. The phone records were pulled and come to find out one of the calls ended up bouncing off of a satellite and was therefore "out of state". The feds picked it up.
Business Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please if somebody actually does this please use UV inks to make the picture not normal color inks
They said I was paranoid... (Score:5, Funny)
False positives are to be handled how? (Score:1)
Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?
Hell and blood, the police often have trouble knocking down the right door when they have an address:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Ex-Miss-Nevada-Sues-LA-Sheriffs-Deputies-Over-Raid-164060136.html [nbclosangeles.com]
How are they going to behave when this system wrongly identifies an innocent person?
Re: (Score:2)
Well they're not sending out an armed robot drone to kill the person identified by the software. It's not an irreversible process.
I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:False positives are to be handled how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?
Why would they want to do that? If they restored full citizenship to ex-cons and actually allowed them to lead productive lives as full-fledged members of society, drastically lowering the recidivism rate from desperate people that can't even get hired at McDonalds and see no choice but to go back to crime, then how are they going to keep all the prosecutors, judges, police, detention officers, wardens, etc. employed? I mean, for God's sake man, what about the stockholders for the private prison corporations? Who's thinking about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that restoring rights allows a not insignificant bloc of disenfranchised individuals to vote again. Scary to some in power to be sure.
Don't smile for your driver's license photo (Score:2)
There had to be a very good reason (Score:2)
"...decimates civilian privacy and freedom" (Score:1)
Registry Opt-out (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not particularly interested in this service. Where's the opt-out (do-not-fly) list signup?
In other news (Score:2)
Amateurs! (Score:2, Insightful)
We have had this in London for years.
Beware the state security apparatus .. (Score:3)
Actually, it's just a more efficient method for the police state to spy on its own citizens . Such methods the Stazi could only dream of. Without the threat of Islamic "terrorism" such methods would never have been acceptable by the population. A relevant question to ask is, who is going to protect us from you?
Re: (Score:2)
A relevant question to ask is, who is going to protect us from you?
That's simple, Anyone willing to take a stand and do so (AKA Terrorists).
"decimates"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
yes but the worst cases will be milionates!
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that word mean to "remove one-tenth of"?
decimate - n. : a session lasting only a fraction of the duration a partner typically desires for intercourse.
"I'm glad it was good for you, but I could use about nine more of those decimates."
Coincidence? (Score:2)
Look, the FBI doesn't need to build a database when Facebook/Instagram is so pervasive.
So... this comes to light just after Facebook closes on a 1B purchase of Instagram.
Where's that government money going again?
Whoa whoa whoa (Score:3)
Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license...
Let me stop you right there. You can imagine all you want, but I can't ever see the states ever agreeing to a shared ID database. Look at how many states refused to take part in the REAL ID [wikipedia.org] law. At least half the states have flat out refused to comply. Do you think that more than three or four would ever agree to spending state money on an FBI project?
Re:Whoa whoa whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you can choose to not join the shared ID database. Of course, you won't get any money from the federal government for law enforcement if you don't join. But, hey, it's your choice.
Kind of like how all the States suddenly decided to raise the drinking age to 21 because it was a good idea. It had nothing to do with Losing 10% of their Federal Highway Funding [wikipedia.org].
We can trust these guys, right? (Score:5, Funny)
Head Tilts & Christmas Trees (Score:2)
Nasrudin walked into a store one day, and the owner greeted him.
“Wait a second,” said Nasrudin. “Have you ever seen me before?”
“Never,” said the man.
“Then how do you know it was me?” replied Nasrudin.
Safety vs Liberty (Score:2)
- Benjamin Franklin
FBIFUD (Score:2)
Really there's any credibility to the claim after the .gov can't upgrade an ATC system, scrapped an FBI integration system that simply didn't work and there's any claim the FBI can float state-of-the-art image recognition platform?
Re: (Score:2)
I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.
Good, then you'll be easier to find. Put all the sheep in one camp and shave 'em all in one go. I think big Gov. will enjoy doing business with you.
Re: (Score:3)
I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.
And just what makes you thing that you are going to determine what's "wrong"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PS: Although you likely did not intend to refer to Tripwire [tripwire.com] -- a company involved in IT security -- in regard t