State Photo-ID Databases Mined By Police 205
Rick Zeman writes "Showing once again that once a privacy door is opened every law enforcement agency will run through it, The Washington Post details how state drivers license photo databases are being mined by various LEOs in their states--and out. From the article: '[L]aw enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities. Such open access has caused a backlash in some of the few states where there has been a public debate. As the databases grow larger and increasingly connected across jurisdictional boundaries, critics warn that authorities are developing what amounts to a national identification system — based on the distinct geography of each human face.'"
state dmv records mined by police (Score:3, Insightful)
every time someone gives a description of a getaway car, the cops look it up in the state DMV database. my car's data is in there. my privacy is violated daily because my car might be coming up in searches
Re: (Score:2)
I used to own a dark green Honda Accord. Apparently that model and color was very popular among fugitives from the law. On six occasions in three years, I was pulled over for no fault of my own. On two of those six occasions, I had loaded weapons pointed at me, and was ordered to put my hands out the window while the officers approached. On two others, the officer came to the window normally, but I noticed they had the snap closure on their holster open, and kept one hand on their sidearm at all times.
Needl
Re: (Score:2)
"Those murderers of YOU are not my problem to deal with."
That's a great point. After you die, you really don't care about why. You have no problem with killers running loose as long as they don't kill you. If they do kill you, then you don't really care.
Brilliant I say.
The sad truth is that relatively few murders actually get enough police interest to get solved. As long as the "you" is not a government official or fellow policeman. If they stumble onto the killer, sure, they'll lock him up. If the media makes notice because it's a pretty white girl or a compelling story, they might add an extra banana to the bounty and see if it encourages the monkeys to work harder. But usually not.
Oh? Do you expect more from your tax money fueled police force? Funny you should mention
Re: (Score:2)
I expect my tax fueled police force to react to problems and deal with them as best as they can within the law.
The key word being react. If the police are trying to find a blue or black nissan sentra or altima with NY plates in Massachusetts that will help them narrow down the options. Just because my car fits that description doesn't mean anything more than a closer look is needed.
Here is the thing about murders. a 100 people will call or talk to the police about it. 90% of them will lie to the cops
Re: (Score:2)
Re:state dmv records mined by police (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the concept that most people don't recognize. Most people say\think that its all good to protect the children or catch the terrorists. But what happens if you are in that database and some government entity unlawfully decides that your class of people, whatever it may be, needs to be disenfranchised, persecuted, or even killed off?
People will almost always say that those things can never happen here in the US. It happens in other places in the world but never here. The reason it doesn't happen here, for the most part, is because we have been, and must be, ever vigilant for these kinds of abuses and crush them when they start down that proverbial slippery slope.
Don't open the door to the possibility of it happening and it never will. By allowing this type of scenario to occur we are definitely opening the door.
Re: (Score:2)
People will almost always say that those things can never happen here in the US. It happens in other places in the world but never here.
It already has happened here. How many tens of thousands of innocent Americans did we imprison during WWII because they happened to be of Japanese descent?
Re: (Score:3)
From an earlier /. article: link [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That reminds me (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and have the distance between you eyes adjusted, lower your nose, change the bridge of your nose, and sink your cheek bones, flatten your forehead, pin your ears back, and lower them as well, change your jaw line. Photo recognition software could care less about hair color and beards.
Re:That reminds me (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, and have the distance between you eyes adjusted, lower your nose, change the bridge of your nose, and sink your cheek bones, flatten your forehead, pin your ears back, and lower them as well, change your jaw line."
One might think expensive, cosmetic surgery is the only option when mouthing off to a cop can net you the same results. Unfortunately, they probably take before and after pictures...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wager they don't sell much of that software when their competitors do so much better.
Re:That reminds me (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and have the distance between you eyes adjusted, lower your nose, change the bridge of your nose, and sink your cheek bones, flatten your forehead, pin your ears back, and lower them as well, change your jaw line.
Much of those can be fuzzed by avoiding a dead-on camera angle. My understanding is that most DMV's require you to look directly into the camera (and not smile), but you may get a camera operator who doesn't give a damn. The last time I had to get a DMV photo taken I was able to turn my head to the left and down with a big smirk. The ladies running the camera laughed their asses off at my picture, I really look goofy - and let it pass.
Any facial recog software is going to have to work extra hard to calculate things like distance between eyes / nose / mouth / jaw from that picture. I'm sure really smart software could interpolate a 3D model of my face - but the incentive for that kind of software to be applied is minimal when the vast majority of DMV photos are dead-on and expressionless.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice that you got away with it :-) I try to do that too.
I also suggest opening one's mouth a little while keeping the lips closed (thus giving the effect of elongating the head). Hey, it all helps.
Any other tips are welcome!
Re: (Score:2)
I also suggest opening one's mouth a little while keeping the lips closed (thus giving the effect of elongating the head). Hey, it all helps.
And you know this HOW?
Welcome to 1984 ... (Score:5, Interesting)
These guys are really trying hard to make sure 1984 and Brave New World actually come true.
Once they have it, they'll misuse it, and tell you it's for your own good.
Freedom has gone out of fashion, and now we're stuck with the surveillance society.
We knew this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather important to understand why this is in fact abuse, and not acceptable law enforcement behaviour.
I say the pictures were ment to provide easy verification that the driver's licence you're holding is in fact yours. Matching against databases was not in the original charter, so to speak, and in fact storing the pictures at all beyond display on the licence itself isn't either. It is this stretching of use beyond the original what is so deceitful and ultimately damaging to society.
This quite regardless of who does it (our watchers, for our own good, of course), with what intentions (the very best, for our own good, of course), the direct results (LE is happy with their new toy, for a while), and so on.
We probably ought to embrace the principle that data can only ever be used for the purpose it was gathered for, and nothing else. This seems, perhaps is rather draconian, but is the only way to be clear and honest about it, making it a better option than any of the alternatives.
Re:We knew this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, but the more likely outcome is that they decide that everyone needs to submit to this kind of identification so they're on file. If you don't have a drivers license, you still need to be cataloged in case you commit a crime.
School kids will have their biometrics cataloged under the guise of protecting them, and then that information will move into the police database so that as they become older we can be sure to catch them if they ever commit a crime.
I see this getting far worse, not better. Much much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitching [slashdot.org] about it. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I say the pictures were ment to provide easy verification that the driver's licence you're holding is in fact yours. Matching against databases was not in the original charter, so to speak, and in fact storing the pictures at all beyond display on the licence itself isn't either.
How else can you verify that the license was issued to the person holding it without keeping the picture of that person on file? It is relatively easy to forge a license with any picture you want, it is relatively hard to get your forged picture into the database.
You say it is ok to have the picture to verify that the license "is yours", but that involves more than just matching the picture on the license to the person holding it. Having a picture on the license match doesn't mean the name and address and
Re: (Score:2)
No but I think that it is sufficient for its purpose unless there are extenuating circumstances to investigate further. Because someone may forge a drivers license is not justification for using the data for anything else or for doing more than cursory inspections of said physical licenses for the purpose of a quick, near certain, identification. Because a small group of people may opt to violate the law does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures. That yo
Re: (Score:2)
...does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures.
You think that keeping the DMV photo online so the actual identity of someone can be verified is invasive, I do not. I think the ability of law enforcement to double check an identity using information that is relatively hard to forge is well worth the non-invasive nature of the process.
I find your attempted interrogation as to political/etc affiliations to be much more invasive than simply having my driver's license photo in the DMV database. I'm supposed to object to the latter but go along happily wit
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I, a private citizen, offered the chance for dialogue - a choice.
Maybe you just don't know what is and isn't invasive or private? The first you have no right to give up on unless you forgo your right to a state identification card or to drive a motor vehicle. The second is an invitation that you're free to decline.
You needn't decline it. I can see it would be a waste
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I understand that it is fun and convenient to ignore some of the words when you want to make a good rant, but you should please note that I was explicit in saying what the purpose of the photos I did not find invasive was. You might as well come up with some fanciful use like editing random people's heads onto other people's bodies in sex tapes as another use for DMV photos and then rant at me about how I said that such a use wouldn't be invasive or unacceptable. You'd be just as accurate and just as hones
Re:We knew this. (Score:4, Insightful)
From where I sit, the tea partiers are a bunch of extremely stupid, selfish, and short-sighted teabaggers. Sort-of the political equivalent of tin foil mad hatters. Hysterical and loud, but not the teeniest bit of funny.
Of course, they'll happily brand me a commie once they learn I'm from faraway yurp, where by and large the medical system is socialist yet costs half of what it does in the USoA without Obamacare. On things like gun control I can't really be arsed to care, you sort it out. But demanding the freedom to get crippled by medical costs should anything happen because you can't afford regular insurance, when less liberated countries do provide medical care to everybody and manage to do so without the crippling cost, that's just fscking stupid. Criminally so, especially for self-identifying christians.
The thing with most politics in the USoA is that it isn't about your particular stance, but about whose side you're on, and then for great bashing of the other side. Again from here, it's indiscernible wtf you're on about, except that it involves lots of shouting and absolutely no brains. The tea partiers are a painfully worse lot in a bad bunch.
In that respect they're experts in making themselves deservedly unheard over their own din regardless of the merits of their points, if any. Experts in doing their points a disservice to the detriment of all, if you will. Which, by and large, isn't a bad thing given what can be discerned from their issues.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You cant just say "screw precedent, the constitution, and 230 years of history, my idea is a good one".
So what is the definition of, say, "interstate commerce" these days?
As purists go you appear to be rather myopically picky as to what to be purist about.
Its ironic you would say that after your disparaging remarks about people identifying as tea party, and your generally disparaging remarks towards conservatives in general. How have you NOT just made this an "us vs them"?
Ah, the American and his sense of irony. Yes, I said the tea party were a pretty bad bunch. The rest wasn't about "conservatives in general" in the sense you would understand it. It was about American politics in general. There are two strong hints for you to put together to arrive at that conclusion. If you think that's conservatives and conservatives (the
Re: (Score:2)
Its interesting you would call me myopically picky while knowing essentially nothing of my positions. I dont tend to agree with a lot of how interstate commerce is defined.
Which really reads "xenophobic and reactionary", for how is it not "the US vs. THEM"?
I dont recall attacking you, your country, stating support for any particular war, or anything else. Youre the one who complained about the "us vs them mentality", and then launched into a tirade about how xenophobic, reactionary, stupid, shortsighted, selfish, and I dont know what else various groups are supposed to be.
You might want t
Re:Welcome to 1984 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 1984
Is infinite and open access to information the core of "what's wrong" with society in 1984? Or is it the fact that the citizens have no control over their government, no freedom of speach, etc?
What's the technological difference between
- all citizens each day looking at photos of people wanted by the police for what we consider crimes, and calling the local detachment when we recognize someone
- a computer doing the above
- citizens calling the KGB because their neighbour said something snarky about the state
- a computer doing the above
> Brave New World
And I quote: "The vast majority of the population is unified under the World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy."
I strongly object to warrantless wiretapping, and I definitely want tons of checks and balances, and I want my elected representatives to share my values.
That doesn't mean that "databases" are inherently bad, or can't help us create a more effective just society. Like all tools, it depends on how you use them. Ever read "The Golden Age" by John C. Wright, or any of the Polity novels by Neal Asher?
Re:Welcome to 1984 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And I quote: "The vast majority of the population is unified under the World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy."
Yea, it's not actually a utopia, it's a dystopia. If you had read a little further from the Wikipedia plot description, you would have seen the great cost to people for this Brave New World:
Re:Welcome to 1984 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between 1984 and Brave New World is dystopia by oppression versus dystopia by apathy.
The true dystopian future is going to wind up being a little of both. Oppressive regimes that are impossible to overthrow, and apathy by those under their thumbs to actually do anything about it because they're living comfortable lives as long as they keep their heads down and try not to shake the tree too hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, FTL travel is more plausible than that any of that is achievable, even if it were desirable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is funny that you mention Brave New World. That is widely regarded as a classic of Western Literature. Yet A similar author who had much the same conclusion as Aldus Huxely(sp) is widely regarded as a lunatic and locked in jail now. Just reading his manifesto is likely to cause you to be looked at askance and called a cook. His name was Ted Kaczynski. Every single Newspaper (thought control organization) called his manifesto an incoherent work of a lunatic. Disregarding the fact he killed a few peo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These guys are really trying hard to make sure 1984 and Brave New World actually come true.
1984 is already here.
Once they have it, they'll misuse it, and tell you it's for your own good.
They already have it, they already misuse it, and they already tell you it's for your own good.
Freedom has gone out of fashion, and now we're stuck with the surveillance society.
Freedom was never in fashion, it was just a good marketing slogan, like "don't be evil".
Re: (Score:2)
hrm (Score:2)
In Capitalist U$A (Score:4, Insightful)
the Government watches you.
quick, everyone grow a beard & wear thick glas (Score:2)
This does not stop facial recognition but it does make it work less accurately. Major changes in beard style or glasses will not help a facial recognition systems accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
This does not stop facial recognition but it does make it work less accurately. Major changes in beard style or glasses will not help a facial recognition systems accuracy.
Yes, they will. As weaknesses in facial recognition systems get discovered, they will get patched. Soon it won't matter if you grow or shave your facial hair, whether you dye or bleach your skin, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And, really, at this rate they'd just make it illegal for you to significantly alter your appearance without registering with the authorities.
Once the State decides it's they're right to watch everything you do, attempting to dodge that must clearly be a sign of bad intent. Clearly an honest person wou
Facial Recog not as great as people think (Score:5, Informative)
Ignoring the legal ramifications of this (for now)...
Facial Recognition is neat, I'll give it that. BUT it's not as accurate as people think. Against a small sample set (hundreds) OR with very solid source pics (both A and B) it's decent. But between poor surveillance images and the "margin of error" settings on the software you can end up with lots of false positives.
Add that to the huge DMV databases across the country, you're going to get a LOT of false positives. Sometimes too much data is worse than too little. Imagine showing all 30 matches of VERY VERY similar people to a witness who's already nervous enough. I know the cops already show them handfuls of similar pics: but the "similar" pics might be "chubby white-skinned guy" and not "chubby white-skinned guys that looks REALLY REALLY REALLY similar"
All of this noise is going to cause a headache. Even just adjoining states, you're going to have close enough hits. So what, you're going to have to investigate them? If you're basing off a picture you can't just say "Well he's 30miles away so let's consider him but NOT that guy who's 40miles away"
Sure you might say "Well we'll factor criminal background into this." But if you're basing on a criminal record, then well, why not just use the mug shots?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The false positive rate simply makes FR useless for identifying any Joe Random from a street scene.
You'd be surprised how often FR will match males to females and totally different looking people who happen to have similar measurements.
However, if a security cam at a bank robbery can facially match 300 different people to the crook, one of whom is Joe Random, and Joe has a record of robbery, you can be fairly certain Joe floats to the top of the list of people of interest.
It would be telling if every p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when they do a few simple joins and find all drivers that match some profile that are also associated with cars that also happened to be scanned by speed/red light/traffic cameras in the area of some crime?
Re:Facial Recog not as great as people think (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember watching a program about the police work done after the Boston Marathon bombing. They took the photographs produced by the FBI and ran them against facial recognition.
After a LOT of tweaking, they were able to get the actual photo of the actual bomber into the top 20 matches! By which I mean it was the 20th highest match out of a database of "samples" and not, say, all license photos. I think the entire sample size was in the thousands, so - not exactly a great example of facial recognition helping. And this was after they caught him, and after a lot of tweaking to try and "enhance" the photo they had off surveillance cameras.
If anyone ever wanted a great example of photo recognition not helping catch people or why PRISM is entirely useless, the Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example. Not only did photo recognition not help catch them, not only did having a giant database of phone calls not help, not only did declaring martial law and shutting down an entire metro area not help, having a notice from Russia saying "this man is a radicalized Islamic terrorist" didn't help!
or (Score:2)
Or they let it happen so they could justify obtaining even more power to instititutionalize their reign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think its fairly obvious the police know its not reliable.
Can you name even one CONVICTION where the only evidence was an automated photo match?
Can you name even one ARREST where the only basis was an automated photo match?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, just like DNA, the police get lazy and simply round up everyone who matches. Those people can then eliminate themselves from the investigation by providing an alibi. Being arrested tends to look bad though, especially if you are arrested for something particularly nasty. The cops don't give a shit though, they just want an easy life and higher solved rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Where do you live where this is the practice?
Doesn't happen around here. There is no "rounding up". In fact they go out of their way not to round up anyone unless they
have some pretty solid leads. False arrest suits are expensive. If they don't have enough for a warrant they would
be pretty stupid to drag everyone in for questioning.
You don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of false positives here (Score:3)
The state of the art in Facial Recognition software has a long way to go.
At best it can be used to give the police a list of people to look at, and certainly not a list of people to arrest.
There is a lot of false positives. I've tried several off the shelf packages, as well as the FR built into Google's Picasa. (surprisingly good).
Most of these have significant problems of false positives. My sisters look nothing alike, yet two of the commercial products and
Picasa always confuse them, presumably based on facial measurement.
A great deal of the false positives would be weeded out by the police just looking at the pictures, People are so much better at this than
machines.
The only abuse of this I can see is if you are summoned to appear or hauled in kicking and screaming based ONLY on some
automated FR software match. But FR will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
So I feel confident that such pictorial drag-netting wouldn't be allowed by the courts. *Cough*. Sure I do.
Re: (Score:3)
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Please see PBS's Frontline: The Real CSI for an overview of some of the terrible shit that happened (and is still happening) thanks for forensic "science" — to quote from Twelve Monkeys, "Science ain't an exact science with these clowns." I've provided links to the aforementioned documentary below:
https://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258 [pbs.org]
http://kickass.to/pbs-frontline-the [kickass.to]
Re: (Score:2)
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.
Its just that the numbering system was only intended to allow a computer sort of likely
candidates for manual inspection, but because manual inspection takes some time
and training, some jurisdictions will go just by the numeric analysis, and further
they will accept fewer and fewer actual features to match, especially when partial
prints are all they have.
Defense lawyers delight in bringing in their own fingerprint expert and showing up
the state
Re: (Score:2)
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.
Whereas I gave you the benefit of the doubt, (and provided a source to support my position,) you've somehow definitively assessed the reliability of fingerprinting, and conclusively determined that I've been misled. As such, I provide the following sources discussing the poor reliability of fingerprinting (in chronological order, 2001-2013) so that others can steer clear and avoid being misled like I was:
Fingerprinting's Reliability Draws Growing Court Challenges [nytimes.com]
Will Fingerprinting Stand Up in Court? [nytimes.com]
Investi [newscientist.com]
The IRS recently proved abuse happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The IRS recently proved abuse happens (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the IRS targeting of tea party organization was also accompanied by targeting of organizations with Progressive in their name. And more left organizations were actually denied tax exempt status (which isn't hard because no tea party organizations were denied tax exempt status). And the IRS guy in charge was a Bush appointee. And Bush era IRS targeted liberal churches that dared to mention there was an election happening at the same time that conservative churches were beating the drums to elect Bush. And really the tragedy is that we let any groups that are not 100% dedicated to social welfare claim tax exempt status at all and/or hide their donors.
Love how conservatives continually claim to be persecuted and the facts tend to disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harassment
Domestic spying
Various types of espionage
Assassination
Illegal drug dealing
Illegal gun dealing
Torture
Murder of citizens in the
Little of this is new (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing how people seem to think that any of this is new and the outrage this is causing.
This, and other technology being recently being "outed" has been around since the early-mid 2000's. How do I know? I wrote a lot of it while working for a provider of software for public safety and law enforcement. It isn't secret - you can go to their website and read the features the software provides. Or, you can read any of the LE magazines out there to learn what the various public safety software providers are, in fact, providing to police departments across the country.
Facial recognition was still in its early evolution when we looked at it back in, I believe, 2005-2007. When I left in 2009, we still had not integrated facial recognition into our desktop software (and, we we a leading provider) - let alone mobile software - it just wasn't ready. Other vendors did provide OCR to work with cameras that could read a license plate into software that would then look up the license plate in NCIC and the local DMV. Some states allowed more judicious use when querying the DMV. But, access to NCIC and the criminal justice information systems required probable cause to conduct a search. Each query was logged and, if questioned, the person making the request better have had a valid reason to have conducted the search. A case in point - it is well known that Phila. Traffic and Parking Authority uses OCR scanning to looking up scofflaws by scanning the plates of parked vehicles. Are they hitting the DMV or just a parking violation database managed by the city? That, I am not sure.
However, whenever someone is/was arrested and booked, their images, prints, tattoo information, etc, was placed into our database - instantly searchable by keyword for the generation of a line up. Most photos weren't suitable for facial recognition back then. Traffic analysis is not new either. Our case management system would allow associations to be derived based on information reported in an incident report or booking report. By following the trail, other potential suspects could be quickly discovered. I can see how this capability could be used with phone call meta-data. Was it done? Maybe. But, if it did, it required a warrant.
As for facial recognition - it's possible that today's software is ready to process DMV photos. Some states were requiring that images pass certain checks (via software) before being allowed to be submitted into the system But, I am not sure they can, legally, request those images for retention on their local systems. If it's legal now (at least in PA), I would be highly surprised.
Perhaps, someone currently working in the field, could clarify the current state regarding access to NCIC, DMV and similar systems?
It going to get a lot worse soon... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was living there we called it the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.
Question (Score:2)
Facial Recognition (Score:2)
They wouldn't need that unreliable facial recognition software if the state legislatures required a 2D bar code be tattooed on everyone's face at birth.
Imagine how much effort that would save.
For your reading pleasure (sic) (Score:2)
Relevant...
https://www.nlets.org/mission-vision
Then read this...
http://psc.apcointl.org/2010/08/26/nlets-prism-transactions/
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if there is a relationship between this prism and the one in the news recently.
And is anyone surprised? (Score:2)
And is anyone surprised by this? I don't think so. It was the US that insisted on all passports having biometric information for face recognition already on everyones passport.
Passport. You know? that thing you need to travel into countries other than Canada. Yes there ARE other countries somewhere out there. But I guess as most US citizens won't need one, that's the reason why they're mining driver's licencse photo databases.
Do those photos also be ready for biometric recognition as the ones in the passpor
Seattle was one of two cities... coincidence? (Score:2)
Trapwire of course relies on facial recognition and other recognition. Seattle, Washington is in the same State of Washington that is mentioned in the posting title as being data-mined for faces from drivers' licenses and IDs.
Why not require a warrant? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not require a warrant to search the databases? I'm skeptical that this tool is going to be all that useful, but of course LE will always trot out success stories, like in the article. Maybe they'll solve an extra 10 crimes per year, out of how many? It's probably insignificant, but people will still call for its use because it solved one murder last year. So fine, allow the databases to searched if a judge issues a warrant. If they're going to use this on something serious like a major felony, then getting a warrant should be no big deal. At least it would stop the sort of harassment described in the article where a LEO, using his infinitely wise discretion, decides that someone "looks suspicious", and "asks" to take his picture.
Dude, with cameras springing up in every city the LEO won't even need to ask the citizen! "Hey Billy, run the face on camera J422 from 1431 hours for me. Thanks, bud!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
low earth orbits mining ... (Score:2)
oh, nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish this were still tongue in cheek: Your papers please.
Bah! We don't need your stinking papers! We've got it all digitally now. You were scanned and catalogued from birth.
Re: (Score:3)
You can vote cops out of office? Who Knew!?
Re: (Score:2)
You might be able to vote a Mayor or a Sheriff out of office.
But you can't vote a patrolman or a deputy or a detective out of office.
The top is replaceable. But largely powerless.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops are hired by the Mayor, but Sheriffs are elected officials with jurisdiction over city police.
You've never heard of Civil Service and Police Unions?
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be thinking about George Bush’s REAL ID act. The US currently has over 50 different standards for photo id. The idea is to get to a single standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act [wikipedia.org]
I am on the fence with this. If we are going to have a ID card it should be useful. But I do want strong oversight so it won’t be abused.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t think that is the case here. Here is a question – what is the best way to avoid a strong tyrant?
One option is to make centralized government ineffective. That was America’s first choice with the Continental Congress. There are two problems with this. The first is that you have an ineffective government. The second is that people will always be looking for a way around the issue.
The second option – and the one I prefer, is to have a strong effective government with a small wel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect I would have more privacy if there were one standard and limit agencies to monitor
Like the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you can't wear glasses when you have your photo taken..
/me: looks at drivers licence and Passport Photo.
Notices glasses worn in both, and both are very recent.
Calls bullshit on you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington state.
In Washington, and actually in most states, if your license says prescription lenses then you have to wear them
for your photo, othewise you have a choice. No glasses rules at all for Passports, other than no dark sunglasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, guys. You voted your politicians into office yourselves ;)
I didn't; I always vote Green or Libertarian, but not enough others value their civil liberties enough to join me.
Re: (Score:3)
Now this is what I have to consider if I want to apply for a driver's license? Choosing between the privilege of travelling and being a false positive in some FBI chase?
Travel is a right not a "privilege," governments' opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. Those propaganda posters in your local DMV are just that — propaganda. Free travel included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but considering how much weight even the Constitution has in this country, I don't expect the situation to change for the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal Aliens can't get a drivers license... so they are safe from these photo searches...
Except no. Google "illegal immigrant driver's license" and see that 8 states already allow it and CA already has a bill filed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the problem. So they run a picture through their software, for example from a CCTV camera. It brings up your face as a false positive. Now before the police come and arrest you (and any one else who was flagged, despite only one of them committing the crime) Someone will look at the pictures and say: 'Oh that's not the same guy. Lets look again.'
Assuming you don't have a doppelganger. Out of the 308M people in this country, you don't think that there are at least one or two who look very, very similar to you? Maybe it wouldn't fool your own mother, but I doubt that's who'd come to arrest you.