Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

FBI Prepares Vast Database of Biometrics

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Dec 22, 2007 02:10 PM
from the left-my-irises-in-my-other-pants dept.
MacRonin sends us to the Washington Post for a story about the FBI's plans for a large biometric identification database. The Post also has a chart detailing the characteristics of the different methods of identification. We discussed the ethics of a similar situation a few months ago. Quoting the Post: "Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives. And in the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists. The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law."

Related Stories

[+] Science: Bioethics Group Raises DNA Database Concerns 150 comments
PieGuy107 writes "In its report, The Forensic Use of DNA and Fingerprints: Ethical Issues, the council recommends that police should only be allowed to permanently store bio-information from people who are convicted of a crime. Today, the police of England and Wales have wider sampling powers than the police force of any other country, and the UK has (proportionally, per head of population) the largest forensic database in the world. When the police first began using DNA, consent was required before samples could be taken. A succession of Acts of Parliament and legislative amendments has increased police powers of sampling; the police can now take DNA samples from all persons arrested, without their consent, for recordable offenses (an "arbitrary" classification), and retain the samples indefinitely regardless of whether the person arrested is subsequently convicted or even charged. In response to comments from the Home Office that retaining the DNA of people who were innocent at the time of arrest had helped to solve crimes they committed years later, the Nuffield Council stuck to its guns. "There has to be a limit to police powers," said Dr Carole McCartney, one of the report's authors. "DNA shouldn't be retained simply on the basis that it might turn out to be useful." She added that many of the statistics from the Home Office were "inconsistent, incomplete and confusing" and that much of its evidence consisted of anecdotal accounts of "horrible men caught with DNA"."
[+] EU Plans to Require Biometrics for Visitors 228 comments
bushwhacker2000 writes to tell us that the EU may soon be requiring travelers to provide biometric data before crossing into Europe. They are trying to soften the blow by offering "streamlined" services for frequent travelers but the end result seems the same. "The proposals, contained in draft documents examined by the International Herald Tribune and scheduled to go to the European Commission on Wednesday, were designed to bring the EU visa regime into line with a new era in which passports include biometric data. The commission, the EU executive, argues that migratory pressure, organized crime and terrorism are obvious challenges to the Union and that the bloc's border and visa policy needs to be brought up to date."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FBI Prepares Vast Database of Biometrics 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bayoudegradeable (1003768) on Saturday December 22, @02:22PM (#21792344)
    I can't get this ending line out of my head... "He loved Big Brother."
    • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jacquesm (154384) on Saturday December 22, @02:38PM (#21792492) Homepage
      I think the FBI simply wants a bigger haystack :)

      It really amazes me how everybody seems to think that more information is key, whereas I think that *better* information is key. Datamining really is an advanced way of searching for the needle in that haystack and if you throw tons of non-relevant data in there you've just made your job that much harder. The big trick is to try to increase the quality of the data without missing important bits. Trawling all the grandmothers credit card transactions is not going to increase the S/N ratio.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fyngyrz (762201) * on Saturday December 22, @03:05PM (#21792644) Homepage Journal

        From the story:

        The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.

        Orwell was an optimist. The slide into complete loss of privacy, personal liberties, and any chance at atonement for making mistakes, intentional or otherwise, is far more insidious then he ever dreamed — and it is going to be far more complete than he imagined. Our country stands for nothing; we are powerless to change anything; the politicians and their lapdog agencies run rampant. I am ashamed.

        From your post:

        if you throw tons of non-relevant data in there you've just made your job that much harder.

        The data is relevant, don't kid yourself. Your retina print, fingerprints, blood type, genetic details... what tracking these things in this way really means is a profound hardening of classes; felons will always be felons, that time you got caught throwing toilet paper on the courthouse will never, ever come off your record, your political affiliations in college will always, always constrain your future job opportunities and more.

        A society that cannot forgive is a society that is lost, as far as I am concerned. A society that marks people specifically so that it can class them has reached the approximate social level of pond scum. There is little - if any - difference between the stars the Jews were forced to wear and a database that marks an individual for an infraction they have long ago atoned for. If the thesis is that one can never atone for an error, mis-step or intentional antisocial act, then it is flawed to begin with.

        None of which will stop, or even slow down, this trend. When every liberty is up for trading in return for a claim of improved security, when every freedom is deemed too risky to the body politic, when every over-stated threat causes the public to whimper and keep their children locked inside, the Rubicon has well and truly been crossed. Felons! Terrorists! Pedophiles! Pornography! Drugs! None of these "threats" do a fraction of the damage as the "solutions" America has come to, and is working towards.

        Orwell was indeed an optimist.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)

          by sgt_doom (655561) on Saturday December 22, @04:46PM (#21793274)
          Well said, Good Citizen fyngyrz, well said.

          It is interesting to note that Total Information Awareness (TIA) components were well underway long before the events of 9/11/01 in America. Whether the FBI renames Carnivore to something else, the way the TIA was stealthily renamed and distributed (the illegal wiretapping of the nation within the first month of the Bush administration, the privatization of intel operations [now spread beyond 70 private contractors with online inputs to the Bushies], the privatization of Comsat leading to the National Applications Office, the final dot in the array - the use of satellites to spy overall on the American citizenry) among a variety of components, with inputs from NSA, NGA, etc., everything is now assembled and in place for TOTAL CONTROL. The Corporate Fascist State has won, end of story.....

          [ Parent ]
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Want change? Vote Ron Paul in the republican nomination.

            Assuming he can be elected - which is a stretch - having gotten to the post, he'll be able to end the Iraq war. He'll be able to modify a fair amount of our foreign policy, this is an area t

          • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)

            by fyngyrz (762201) * on Saturday December 22, @09:50PM (#21794886) Homepage Journal

            How can you be so sure that one's political affiliations "will always, always" have an impact on their life? To use such strong words one needs facts, and I am really sorry, but you don't have any.

            Because they're looking to collect, and unify, all the information about each citizen. Fact: they're trying to use national ID cards to pin your identity down; Fact: they're trying to use databases to track your biometrics and link them to the cards; Fact: Our affiliations (political and otherwise) are being tracked by both government agencies and by commercial enterprises - and have been for years, just ask those poor bastards in 1950's Hollywood who got hauled up before McCarthy; this is nothing new. Fact: Watching these elections, what do we see but people's college behaviors and affiliations dragged up out of the blue? Hillary roomed with lesbians. Oooo! What about people who are trying to pursue normal lives and suddenly "wikipedia has a FELON as a CFO!", where the hell did that come from, and why is it even relevant? Did she screw up her work? No. Was she even accused of doing anything wrong? No. It's just past behavior being brought up to haunt current life and lock someone into a role they may very well have no part in. You can't be rehabilitated, you're low class and you will STAY low class. You don't think tracking is going on? Called Experian or one of its brethren lately? Seen your FBI file? Are you aware of the no-fly, no-buy, no-bank-account lists, all sans anything even remotely resembling due process? Think your email is private? When's the last time you transacted more than 10 grand at the bank? Do you realize that each of those transactions gets reported to the feds, and yes indeed, TRACKED? Talked to anyone overseas? Think that call wasn't monitored for keywords? Carnivore ring a bell? How about Echelon? Are you one of those clueless folk who think your SSN was used only for your retirement, as promised?

            Buddy, the only reason you're "really sorry" is because you've got your head deep in the sand. But I agree, you are one sorry excuse for an informed person. You can fix it, though.

            What's even worse, you base your argument upon speculation, which most of the time includes gross oversimplifications of societal matters.

            No, I base my arguments upon facts in the record. Current and recent behaviors and data; basically ince3 the early 1900s until today, you can see all manner of problems that are government related. Everything I talked about there is objective fact. There's plenty more where that came from, too.

            It is absurd to think that there is one unified entity which works toward a certain goal, and that entity includes everyone that is in charge of anything important for a society.

            Yes. Why would you think that? Are you paranoid? It is a very large collection of traitors, bent upon sundering the constitution either knowingly or otherwise. They aren't an "organization", they are an unaffiliated collection of people with similar goals and similar methods. This doesn't make them any easier to deal with, in fact, it makes it considerably more difficult.

            Oh yeah, I almost forgot one thing. "Orwell was indeed an optimist." I mean, come on.

            You didn't "forget it", you just aren't together enough to see it. With your head as far in the sand as it is, this comes as no surprise. You should read 1984. Carefully. Then look around you and note the low level preparations going on. The camps [prisonplanet.com] built by the administration's bully-boys, Haliburton. The executive orders that revoke posse comitatus [concordbridge.net], you know about that, right? You know how the commerce clause has been mangled to mean "anything that COULD be be interstate comm

            [ Parent ]
      • Re:He Loved Big Brother (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22, @03:14PM (#21792688)
        Hopefully you're trolling, but sadly a lot of people actually believe that.

        What they fail to comprehend is that the "criminal" element is just as evenly dispersed among government jobs as among the rest of society. When you create a huge power differential between those holding certain government jobs and the rest of us, you are empowering the criminals on that side as well as the good people on that side.

        This is what happens when you try to pre-assign people "goodness" ratings based on what job they hold. You end up with a subset of vastly overpowered criminals (granted power by the laws themselves) and no net decrease in what we commonly regard as criminal behavior (killing, theft, fraud, etc.).

        The only sane way to assign arbitrary power to law enforcers is to maintain constant oversight of them, in a circular fashion -- the police watch the citizens, the citizens watch a police oversight body, and the police oversight body watches the police. That we neglect to do this is a serious mistake, and it results in a police force that behaves like it can get away with anything ethical or unethical (and often does).
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:He Loved Big Brother (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22, @04:23PM (#21793156)
          What they fail to comprehend is that the "criminal" element is just as evenly dispersed among government jobs as among the rest of society.

          As a member of the general public, I take umbrage with that statement. I'm convinced that there is a far greater representation of the criminal element in modern government (at least, in "elected" and appointed office) than in the rest of society. The same can be said of the business executive level.

          When you create a huge power differential between those holding certain government jobs and the rest of us, you are empowering the criminals on that side

          Exactly. And that is what I think attracts people with criminal tendencies to government office and to business executive. The power and potential rewards are so great as to act like a magnet to people with criminal tendencies.
          [ Parent ]
  • Somehwat scary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by proudfoot (1096177) on Saturday December 22, @02:23PM (#21792358)
    This is definitely something scary. Many employers might require you to hand over your prints to the FBI - but at the same time, you don't exactly want government to have everything on you if haven't committed a crime. Wasn't their a bill which was designed to prohibit enforceable gathering of biometric data by employers?
  • This is disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday December 22, @02:23PM (#21792362) Homepage

    The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.

    You can get arrested for anything these days and now the FBI is going to become your employers watchdog? I've seen some dickish, big brother behavior since 9-11 but this tops the suck pyramid.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, and if you're arrested by mistake or acquitted after trial, no one will care. They'll just see some entry in the FBIs database and assume the worst. I think there should be some way that someone who's been falsely accused to get some compensation for
      • Re:This is disturbing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday December 22, @03:35PM (#21792836)
        The thing is, this is less about national security than it is about risk avoidance.

        Companies that do business with people, and organizations that hire people, wish to avoid risk. In principle, this is just an extension of the way the American credit system works. There, your entire financial history is available to anyone that wants to decide if you can be trusted. It used to be, the deadbeat customer was a normal cost of doing business. In today's world, companies large and small have the credit bureaus to track us for them. However, at least there if you keep your nose clean and wait enough years, your past misdeeds will no longer haunt you. Expect that limit to be removed at some point, because obviously people that can't handle money well are threats to national security.

        Make no mistake, the underlying sponsors of this unConstitutional boloney are corporate. From the extension of copyrights to longer credit histories to biometric tracking, this is all about the corporate world wanting to minimize its exposure to risk. The fact that it plays right into the hands of certain power hungry politicians and their appointed/unelected officials is just unfortunate for us.
        [ Parent ]
          • Re:This is disturbing (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Sunday December 23, @11:35PM (#21802826)

            You don't have to work for an employer who decides to use these new services offered by the FBI. That still meets your "survivability" criteria that you think I somehow neglected to take into account.
            Sigh. Another "rugged individualist" who doesn't understand how careers work in the real world economy. For any kind of professional career, people have to train for years to get into it. Most industries are designed and regulated so that it is nearly impossible to break into them as an entrepeneur. If you weren't in the industry when it was new or being newly regulated (for example, you weren't alive then), you don't have much of a choice but to work for someone.


            Also, real people, no matter who they are, are only good at a limited number of things. A person who is a whiz in chemistry may stink at things like real estate or home repair. You could start a home improvement company or become a real estate agent, but that's not really an option for most people. Plus, you would basically be asking someone like Einstein to drive a truck for a living (although people like you would probably get their jollies off of such a possibility).


            The point you are missing is that a decent society does not make the options:
            1. Work for FBI-shilling, oppressive company
            2. Throw away years of education and expertise, and go work in some field that you are not very good at and that you hate
            3. Starve

            Chemistry is a good example of what I am talking about. It takes years and a ton of work to get a masters degree in chemistry. You don't have much choice but to work for one of the big companies. Even if you want to start up a small business in one of the chemical areas, you still need some years of experience in the field. Otherwise, you won't know how the real business works, you won't have any contacts to get your business going, and so on. This is true in most professional and technical fields.

            Also, in cases like this in actual reality (as opposed to this bizarre one you have concocted from your imbecilic ideologies), there will be no employer that doesn't use and contribute to the FBI database. It will become an "industry standard" practice and there no company will see enough profit in not complying to justify abandoning (or never beginning) this practice. This sort of thing is common and only a drooling idealist would believe otherwise.

            [ Parent ]
  • How the... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Unlikely_Hero (900172) on Saturday December 22, @02:28PM (#21792404)
    How am I supposed to try and keep my irises private if they can be read without my knowledge?!
    What am I supposed to do? Get tin-foil-sunglasses?
  • where's my troll mod? (Score:5, Insightful)

    you will find that the majority of americans won't be disturbed by this. there are some who will use this as proof that most americans are morons. as if insulting the average citizen is supposed to win you any points in the battle against big/ intrusive government, oh great genius?

    no, the average american won't care, because the average american, when given news like this, doesn't see a big downside to this. when told the downside to this as displayed here in some posts, they will think the average slashdot poster has been watching too many paranoid hollywood movies

    now give my troll mod for not toeing the party line here

    yawn
    • Sad but true (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nursie (632944) on Saturday December 22, @04:04PM (#21793058) Homepage
      The average person will simply think the government is doing more to look out for *them*.

      A few false arrests and multi-year imprisonments because of a software bug or flaw in the biometric database? Just the price to be paid for security.

      That particular way of thinking sickens me, but it's quite prevalent. Many people (my mother included) would far rather see 10 innocents imprisoned than one guilty man go free. Because they're terrorists or something.

      I try to explain that I know have Iranian family on my father's side and next time it could be me that's falsely accused of associating with and aiding people (incorrectly) thought to be terrorists. But that doesn't seem to get through, that there could ever be a mistake. Somewhere in the back of a lot of folks minds there's this strong conviction that mistakes like that just don't happen, despite multiple high profile examples to the contrary, and even if they do, it doesn't matter because they don't think it can happen to them. Because why would it? I'm a good person, why would the government arrest me?

      At that point I usually give up trying to argue and go back to mourning the state of the world. No, it doesn't win me any points, realising that the average person is about as questioning of authority as a faithful puppy, it is unfortunately the true state of the world though.
      [ Parent ]
  • The same FBI..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by budword (680846) on Saturday December 22, @03:59PM (#21793026)
    The same FBI that couldn't put together an email system in 2 years with a few hundred million bucks. The good news is BIG BROTHER isn't competent, the bad news is that he has no idea he isn't competent. The big problem with that is that he carries a gun, and because the people he deals with on a regular basis are the only people in the world even more brutally stupid than he is, he never figures out he's a little slow. If it can be abused it will be. I bet the false positive ratio will be greater than 1000 to 1 with this baby. It won't catch many, if any, bad guys, but it will result in countless innocent people being "interviewed" by Bubba the $9 an hour security guard at the airport. Good luck with that. Time to leave the USA. The fascists have won.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      It's the major reason that I won't travel to the US these days.

      I don't want to be treated as a criminal before I've even left airside.

      Rgds

      Damon
      • Re:U.S.And them (Score:4, Interesting)

        by snl2587 (1177409) on Saturday December 22, @03:15PM (#21792700)
        And this is exactly what bothers me so much about the U.S. government these days. I'm an American, and even though I don't know you I wish you could visit the country without be treated like a dangerous felon.

        We (Americans) are really not all bad. As it turns out most of us dislike the current government, too. It's just that, well, we have a fairly large population of over-religious farmers who tend to vote for all the wrong people. And thus sh*t like this is allowed to happen.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:U.S.And them (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cooley (261024) on Saturday December 22, @04:02PM (#21793050) Homepage

          It's just that, well, we have a fairly large population of over-religious farmers who tend to vote for all the wrong people.
          That's funny, every demographic I've ever seen says that between 1 and 2 percent of the US population either lives on a farm or considers farming their occupation. One to two percent of the population has very little sway over the outcome of our national elections.

          You go ahead and keep telling yourself that "it's some farmer in the midwest" screwing it all up, though; especially the next time you drive through Florida.

          Right now on the US National political scene, it would seem that the default "heir" to the Bush/Cheney ideology of fear is Rudolph Giuliani. What city was he mayor of, again? Are there a lot of farmers living in Manhattan?

          Oh wait, I must have been confused; it's Illinois where a lot of farmers live, and their state has given us Senator Obama in the Presidential contender line-up.

          Please, if you're going to generalize about the American population, try to generalize in a way that makes sense. Here you're telling our foreign friend "hey look, we Americans are cooler than we might appear", yet then you generalize about "farmers". Nice.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:What ARE the Alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by snl2587 (1177409) on Saturday December 22, @03:41PM (#21792880)

            Other countries don't have terrorist problems (yet), and so they don't have to perform intrusive procedures.

            Under what rock have you been living?

            I am not convinced that we are any less safe now then we were a decade or so ago, just much more paranoid. It really says something when a nation of immigrants is deceived into thinking they need to bar foreigners.

            [ Parent ]
          • Re:What ARE the Alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by fyngyrz (762201) * on Saturday December 22, @05:05PM (#21793364) Homepage Journal

            A philosophical conflict? How about a conflict of overdramatized, highly unlikely fearmongering juxtaposed against the loss of civil liberties? The latter seems to be the specific problem.

            Living freely includes risk. The problem here is that many people have little or no understanding of the freedoms they had, how hard they were fought for and how unusual it is that they had them in the first place. Most troubling is the fact that they had no clue how easy it was to lose them, and now that they have been lost, recovery is much, much more difficult.

            As far as I am concerned, when a criminal - be they terrorist, mugger or politician disobeying the constitution - commits an antisocial act, that criminal should be held accountable for that crime. If the crime is large, the accounting should be large. If society can accept that the crime has been atoned for, then the criminal should get a fresh start. If society cannot accept this, then the criminal should be either put to death or imprisoned permanently. In no case should bystanders or citizens not even involved on any level be inconvenienced by actions nominally taken to ameliorate the criminal act. Sure, this approach involves risk. I prefer the risk. We are a better people when we accept risk in exchange for liberty than when we trade liberty for any illusion of safety gained by treating everyone as if they were a potential criminal.

            Your option three is the only honorable option.

            [ Parent ]
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      and perhaps even the unique ways people walk

      So we're going to see the Ministry of Silly Walks?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        (... the story of our world under the cold and emotionless eye of the almighty computers ...(not brilliant, but rather anticipatory and fits in here))

        Bah, I am comforted by Bradley's Bromide:

        If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a co