52 Million Photos In FBI's Face Recognition Database By Next Year

Advocatus Diaboli writes "The EFF has been investigating the FBI's Next-Generation Identification (NGI) scheme, an enormous database of biometric information. It's based on the agency's fingerprint database, which already has 100 million records. But according to the documents EFF dug up, the NGI database will include 52 million images of people's faces by 2015. At least 4.3 million images will have been taken outside any sort of criminal context. 'Currently, if you apply for any type of job that requires fingerprinting or a background check, your prints are sent to and stored by the FBI in its civil print database. However, the FBI has never before collected a photograph along with those prints. This is changing with NGI. Now an employer could require you to provide a 'mug shot' photo along with your fingerprints. If that's the case, then the FBI will store both your face print and your fingerprints along with your biographic data.'"

Falsely accused

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember that the best defense against being falsely accused of a crime is to SHUT UP. Exercise your right to remain silent or in England and Canada reply no comment to every question. You do NOT want to waste your time doing battle with cops who couldn't care less if you are guilty or innocent. You are just a means to an end to them. They will elect whoever they think they can take down for the rap.

Even worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people aren't aware that thanks to a law passed by California voters, if you are arrested for a felony (or a possible felony) in California, your DNA will be collected and held in a government database indefinitely

Note that you only have to be arrested for what might be later possibly considered a felony for this to occur. You don't have to be convicted. Not even charged. Everyone who is arrested in California is arrested fairly and ultimately charged and convicted... right, Occupy Oakland people?

This has even been challenged and upheld [latimes.com] by the 9th district.

This law was passed by a 9/11-frightened public in 2004. Would such a law [wikipedia.org] pass now? I strongly doubt it.

These records are never expunged.

Re:Don't take the job

[joe_frisch]

You may have the luxury of choosing between multiple job offers, but many people don't.

Re:Falsely accused

[Jody Bruchon]

People also don't seem to remember that background checks don't catch high-risk people, particularly the ones that have never been caught or are risky due to behavior and attitude rather than past actions. They deny jobs to people who have strong incentives to walk the straight and narrow path while giving management a false sense of security about the big red unknowns. They way they are used assumes past transgressions (even if only a single one exists) are a guaranteed predictor of future actions, which would only be true if humans never, ever changed and learned and grew.

The thief with a squeaky clean record is a bigger danger than the guy with one trial for larceny; "squeaky" looks like he's a model employee, while "tainted" faces much harsher punishment if convicted of another crime plus the destruction of the rebuilt life he's working on, which is hard enough because even renting a house in the middle of nowhere tends to require "background checks" that ultimately deny him basic needs such as housing. Inability to rebuild a stable life opens the door to commission of crime, in many cases just to survive. Sadly, America has a punishment and revenge fetish, and until that changes there will be nothing done to solve these problems.