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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Colorado May Map Drivers' Faces 105

Posted by timothy from the keep-shining-keep-smiling dept.
mongoose14 writes: "The DMV in Colorado wants to use facial recognition to map the faces of folks and prevent identity theft and drivers' license fraud. Apart from the suspected lobbying by the manufacturers of the hardware and software, the article at least raises the BB question. Also, AFAIK, face recognition was developed in the US (?)." An excerpt from the article reads: "First it was the photo-radar vans snapping pictures of Denver-area speeders. Now, some fear Big Brother's roving eye soon will be watching all of Colorado with the arrival of a new European import called 'face recognition.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colorado May Map Drivers' Faces More

Colorado May Map Drivers' Faces

Comments Filter:

  • colorado dmv (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... this has gone far enough... don't let them do it! fingerprints, socsec numbers, dna, credit cards, transmitters in dollars, ip addresses, cookies, doubleClick, atm cards, gps' in rental cars, photo intersections, directTV watching you watching me, microsoft telling me that i need a fuc*^**^king passport from them to use the internet, radar guns, heat sensing cameras peering through my walls, satellites reading my license plates, and now they want to "map my face?" no. no. no more.

  • Here's info on every state DL's : (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page4/fp-04-page4-w inners-losers.html Very informative

  • They did. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They did choose another government...
    but then 'the vote counting part' messed that up.
    :(

    But then again... if Bush kills enough mentally disabled, who's gonna vote for him next time?

  • It's illegal to reverse engineer my face! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
    AS RATIFIED BY THE STATES

    Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These
    amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
    freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
    redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
    be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
    manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
    shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
    describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
    Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
    nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
    criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
    private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
    district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
    informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
    process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
    and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the
    common law.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
    respectively, or to the people.

    B.O.R.T.

  • Geez folks, it's just Big Brother! (Score:3)

    by mosch ( 204 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @07:10AM (#102220) Homepage
    There's a large number of fundamental problems that I have with this system. If the DMV had a legal agreement that my facial mapping could only be used for identity verification, during the process of getting a new license, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with this scheme.

    The problem is that American governments feel free to sell every little piece of data that they're legally allowed to sell. I don't want to walk into a store and have them know who I am. Tell a marketing person that they could find out the name and address of every single person who walked into their store, and watch their eyes light up.

    This is a technology that's extremely prone to abuse, and they're not offering any evidence that they won't engage in these abuses at a future date.

    Nice troll btw, but according to a joint study between the American Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Cambridge University, Britain has higher rates of robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft than the United States. Additionally, Britain's crime rates are going up, while America's crime rates are going down. And this doesn't even touch Britain's high rate of home invasion. Guess that whole camera thing is working wonderfully, eh?

    --

  • > Mostly because unlicensed
    > drivers are a lot more likely to get people killed than an unlicensed
    > fisherman.


    Hey, that's anthrocentric. The *fish* doesn't feel that way. Report to your local PETA chapter immediately for re-education (and a yukky diet, too!).


    hawk, belligerent carnivore

  • I have no problem with the fact that you would prefer a card that does ten different things...you can have that card. I just don't want it forced on everybody else, including myself.

    Actually, several states, including New Jersey and Vermont still issue non-photo driver's licenses.

    In many states, a marijuana possession conviction can get your license revoked (I can think of Ohio and Virginia off the top of my head.) The posession can be just walking down the street smoking the joint--being away from a car...it may still result in license revocation.
  • The thing that is making me go insane is that there is a very simple cause and effect situation going on here, and law enforcement, politicians, and just about everyone completely fail to understand it.

    It's very simple. Security measures are added to ID cards (whether to make their security integrity better, or to collect more information on the individual to secure the database.) The perception is that the new measures greatly increase the security of the ID card. Therefore, new uses for that card manifest, or people trust it much more in situations that they wouldn't have done before. Effect--the cost to have a good fraudulent ID have risen, but so has the gains to be had with a good fake ID. For instance, Ohio introduced the photo license in 1969. So let's say you had a fake one in 1969...it did jack shit. Now so many uses have popped up, I may be able to walk into a bank with the right fake ID, and cash out a bank account. Perhaps it costs me $1000 to get a good fake license...but it would be worth it if I can cash out someone's bank account.

    In 1992 California upgraded to the digitized driver's license. The CA DMV marketed it as an uncopyable document, and with the driver's image and fingerprint archived. Big mistake...they raised the perception of trust too much. Suddenly there were significantly more fraudulent CA digitized licenses than there were fraudulent laminate licenses. How? People were going into DMV's and bribing DMV officials...the document was just too useful not to.

    Bribing of DMV officials goes on :

    http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.27.html#subj2

    And if you want quantity...just steal the equipment:

    http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.15.html#subj6

    Finally, they say that security is only as good as its biggest weakness. With ID cards the biggest weakness if the sheer amount of people involved. Millions of licensed individuals, thousands of DMV employees with access to the system, and hundreds of thousands of different checkpoints/uses. It is folly to expect any security in this system whatsoever. And what bothers me is that states wanna fingerprint, use facial recognition, iris scan, or whatever to secure something which is insecurable.

    My suggestion for peeps out there...move to Vermont or New Jersey--they still issue non-photo driver's licenses. :-)
  • Hell, I say we go further than that - let's kill all people on earth! People are getting murdered all the time, and there is no chance in hell we can stop all murders. Murder victims aren't more deserving to die than someone else, so if they're going to get murdered all should be subject to murder. It's all or nothing, guys!
    --
    Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com

  • >Wouldn't surprise me to find a digitized photo and possibly your social security number

    I suspect the 2D barcode on the back of my CO license is simply the data from the photo - the US Military IDs are the same way, so you get a good way of verifying that the photo is genuine (and a small copy of the photo under the birthdate makes it easier to spot alterations). The magstripe contains your DL# and expiration and probably your name. It's not like you can hold a whole lot of data on a magstripe. Slide yours through a reader sometime and see what comes up. The only place I've seen in CO that actually uses the magstripe is Safeway when you write a check.

    As for your SSN, they CO DMV doesn't have that unless you give it to them, and they can't legally require you to. It's quite frightening the number of people that blindly give out their SSN to anyone who asks - I usually throw people for a loop when they ask me for my SSN, by asking them for a disclosure of what the intended usage is.

  • here in OH they are a pain in the ass about the SSN shit on the license. You can ask to have it not on there (it's "optional") yet they give you crap when you don't want it on there (at least here in NW Ohio).

    It is NOT illegal to have your SSN but I do NOT like it. In fact I refuse to give it out for any reason (video store rentals and shit). I lie when they ask and they *require* it.

    In PA they are using video cameras and stuff to supposedly map traffic patterns and what not. They claim that they will NOT use it to find speeders. I don't believe it myself, but we shall see. It's called VMS. Maybe you want to check it out on the web. I beleive that they have IP's that you can watch the live video feeds IIRC.

    I am glad that the Europeans feel safer knowing that someone is watching them from the skies, but I am not. I don't feel safe knowing that there may be a cop 20 ft behind me. It really doesn't stop someone from walking up and killing me.

    I am scared of anything that gives the gov the ability to watch over me. I am my own person, I can take care of myself. I don't need "big brother" watching me.

    That just my worthless .02
  • It's nearly upon us. These are just the rehearsals for the Brave New World. Watch out.
  • I think it was last year or perhaps the year before that Colorado (with some other states) was going to sell the digital pictures used for driver's licenses. That would have really sucked for some corporate database to have a photo on file ala Hollywood.

    What I find puzzling is what rights people think these possible cameras take away (Colorado is planning on using the system for identity of pictures for driver's licenses to prevent identity fraud). The right to break the law without anyone seeing you? I don't think it exists. As long as the cameras are used in a public place where no one has the expectation of privacy, I'm not concerned. I think I've been watched in public all my life.

    There is always the posibility of misuse (like storing the times when you are at certain locations, a database of who you talk to, etc.). But as long as that is restricted, there shouldn't be a problem. After all, we don't ban cars because of drunk drivers.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • <i> What I find puzzling is what rights people think these possible cameras take away</i><p><p>

    Can you say, "social security number"? <p><p>

    Once upon a time, this number had a very limited, well-defined use. Over the years, ongoing legislative brilliance led to its now endlessly-expanding function as common form of identification. Since this information is now easy to obtain, thereby making it easy for someone to steal your identity, our own government screwed us with this one. <p><p>

    The fact that several state governments were caught with their pants down when they discovered that DMVs were selling drivers license photos to a US company developing a face recognition system, is yet another testament to the notion that ANYTHING that gets into the hands of the government, can ultimately be used against you, or in ways that you never anticipated. Are we all going to bend over and let the same thing happen again?<p><p>

    Governer Owens (of Colorado) put the kibosh on this nonsense, and if he's smart, he'll do the same with this new face recognition technology. <p><p>

    It's not that I think criminals ought to be able to get away with whatever it is they want to do, it's that I don't trust the government *enough* to allow it watch over my shoulder 24/7 - or in any way that allows it to in any way "track" what I'm doing AS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. Nor should anyone.
  • The primary purpose of this system is to prevent identity theft, which is a rapidly growing type of crime.

    Statements like this aren't worth the time it takes to make them. The government has a very rich history of "repurposing" information as it sees fit, and almost always without our knowledge or consent.

    Contrary to an erroneous report on Friday by the AP, there are NO plans to begin photographing drivers in cars

    No plans YET, you mean.

    Mike Rosen stated that he thought this was an appropriate use of technology to combat this particular crime. He also stated that, while there are always concerns about potential future uses for these photographs, those nebulous future concerns do not lead him to oppose this technology at this time.

    I view Mike Rosen as the Rush Limbaugh of the Denver airwaves. Just because he can talk, doesn't mean that he always know what he's talking ABOUT. His opinion represents just one of many potential sources, and sometimes, the s/n ratio is on the low side. If he wants a police state, fine - let him move to China. He can broadcast his radio show from there via satellite and let us all know how wonderful it is.

    The ONLY fail-safe way to prevent abuses of this technology in the hands of the government is to ensure that it never gets implemented in the first place. Once the horse is out of the barn, it's out, and then there's very little that can be done about it.

  • http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm

  • I find it funny (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @06:26AM (#102232)
    how in the US (and Canada) the drivers license has become so much more than just that. IT's the universal ID card; we punish people for non-driving related crimes.

    Would we consider taking away someone's fishing license because they were charged with assault?
    Get real.

    A drivers license should be nothing more than your licence to drive a vehicle.

    Why does a driver's license need a picture, even? Heck... my fishing license doesn'thave one.
  • This all sounds very similar to Robert Ludlum's "The Prometheus Deception". It was a decent read, and the parallels that are drawn between one of the antagonists and Bill Gates are rather humorous. Next thing you know, we'll have a network of satellites that can pick us up no matter where are.
  • You obviously haven't renewed your CO license recently. I got mine renewed back in January, and you not only have to provide them the number, but you have to actually have your Social Security Card with you.

    They claim it's to track down deadbeat dads, but I suspect that's just a BS line to make people sound unreasonable for not wanting to give out their SSN.

    "What... you have something to hide?"

    Well, yeah, maybe I do, and maybe it's none of your freakin' business either.
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I think the issue here is the use of cctvs to search my person, with no warrant having been issued.
  • See the link below for an explanation of one recognition technology. I saw a demo from the company 4 years ago that would pick a face out of a crowd, label it, and follow the person in real time. Scary thing is that this company also makes software for processing drivers licenses. What data is getting put on that magnetic strip on the back of the liscense?

    http://www.viisage.com/market.htm
  • Nice projected use, identifying you as you enter a store, but this, like all biometric methods (even iris and fingerprint scans) are more useful for verifying an assertion of identity than for distinguishing you from the general population. If the number of people being checked is small, like in a restricted government facility or a workplace then merely using the equiptment is an assertion that you are in the database and that assertion can be checked. When a fingerprint is scanned a dozen or so points are identified and these are used as hashes into the fingerprint data file. In order to get a match a human compares the print found to those in the file that hash to the same bucket. Beware of anyone who tries to convince you that fingerprint identification is 100% accurate - telling apart fingerprints with the same features present is interpretation and subject to human failings. Where this face scan could get used for automatic ticketing is where the license plate on the car is the assertion of identity (i.e. the question is "Is the owner or someone in their household driving?") and an automatic camera system could sent the ticket to the appropriate individual. Don't loan your car to your identical twin brother if he runs red lights!
  • Colorado announced it had noticed a ten-fold increase in hackers selling fake licenses with digitally altered faces and then using them to ransack the true owners' accounts and credit histories.

    President Bush, on learning that both of his daughters had Colorado licenses said: Well, it's great to see that some states understand the need to get fake IDs.

    In a related event, it was also noted that Mickey Mouse is now a citizen of the state of Colorado, and is wanted for assault and battery on at least five charges at this time.

  • But then... (Score:3)

    by brianvan ( 42539 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @06:09AM (#102239)
    They would have a very hard time recognizing Michael Jackson...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • As a colo. resident Who has a few drivers license problems already. Colo. Should not be trusted. The state already requires Insurance for every vehicle Owned in the state. (wheather it runs or not) they require the insurance companies to submit a list of policys each month to verify. The local police deptartments have access to this list and can pull you over for just being on the list of "uninsured". A person with license plates from a states that does not require insurance is almast a sure thing that you will be pulled over. The state is already encodeing ALot more that just your DL # in the mag stripes on back. Bars and liquer stores have Mag readers to verify your Age. But accoding the the MVR "the mag stripe is just there for future use".

  • Hmmm the idea makes since but then what about Japan?
    They have gun control and while they have violent crime I believe it's less than the United States.
  • That's very interesting. Do you have a reference?

    He doesn't need one. It's true of almost all countries where guns are illegal or tightly controlled.

    When you take the guns from the good people, the bad people don't fear getting shot. The evidence is all over the world. But some people are too stuck on the bullshit propaganda about "protecting our children" that they never seem to notice.

    To keep this post on topic -- I say go ahead, profile my face. I've copyrighted my image. The first person who uses my facial details for profit without paying me royalties will find themselves in court. Even if it's not for profit, I'm sure there are other damanges I can claim ranging from invasion of privacy to mental anguish.

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
  • I figure you consider yourself smart?

  • Let's clarify a few things (Score:4)

    by LnkStern ( 79997 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @07:00AM (#102245)
    I am a Colorado resident, and I would like to clarify a few points I think some people are glossing over. A state government spokesperson who is extremely familiar with the program called into the local Mike Rosen radio talk show (a well known and popular Denver show) to discuss this system. Here are some of the points she clarified:

    1. The primary purpose of this system is to prevent identity theft, which is a rapidly growing type of crime. The most basic type of identity theft (criminal obtains sufficient personal information on someone to request a new copy of their driver's license) would be directly blocked by this technology (new photo does not match old photo). And, although she did not say this, I would imagine that if there are any "close calls" or other questions, the final decision would be deferred to a human operator.

    2. Contrary to an erroneous report on Friday by the AP, there are NO plans to begin photographing drivers in cars and comparing those photos to the drivers license database. This was not mentioned in the Denver Post article, but it appeared in the online version of the Denver Rocky Mountain News on Friday.

    Once again, the purpose here is to combat identity theft. Mike Rosen stated that he thought this was an appropriate use of technology to combat this particular crime. He also stated that, while there are always concerns about potential future uses for these photographs, those nebulous future concerns do not lead him to oppose this technology at this time. I agree with him on both points.

    Yes, it is possible to dream up many possible orwellian future uses for this technology. However, it is incumbent upon us, as citizens, to maintain knowledge of and vigilance over the actions of our elected officials to prevent future abuses of this and other surveillance technologies.

    Lincoln F. Sternn
  • As long as the government uses these cameras to scan for people in PUBLIC places, I don't see a problem. Instead of a person familiar with wanted criminals spotting a known felon in a crowd, a camera is doing it.

    Obviously, mistakes will be made, and people will be upset and inconvenienced. All this means is that the government is doing their job, for once.
    Interested in weather forecasting?

  • The problem is that many of our laws have been made to protect the stupid people who should be dying (Darwin and all that.) [...] An example: Currently laws in many states mandate seatbelt use. If instead seatbelt use was not mandated but the law specifically allowed insurance carriers to not pay medical costs of anyone in the car who was not wearing a seatbelt, that would allow people to make the stupid choice if they want to and force them to live with the consequences if they get hurt in the process.

    Of course, you're going to get a bunch of whiners talking about how we should coddle stupid people who would object to this. What do you expect from a generation brought up on Mr. Rogers and Barney? I'm sorry. It's a cruel world. It's supposed to be a cruel world. And overly crowded too; no room for stupid people.

    Thr problem is that someone in an accident will recieve medical attention, regardless of weather they can afford it or not. From that perspective, seatbelt laws are an attempt to reduce the burden placed on the rest of us who can afford medical attention.

    Some other things to keep in mind: What happens to children if their parents are killed? Again someone has to bear the cost of now raising them (e.g. an orphange). Additionally, the police and fire department would have to spend more time at the scene of an accident with serious injuries than at the scene of an accident with moderate injuries. They have better places to be too, right? Finally, what about the poor driver who is unlucky enough to run over the person that just got thrown out the car in front of them because that idiot did not have his seatbelt on? I think I'd prefer to not have to deal with that psychological trauma thank you very much.

    Nothing in life is simaple.

  • As someone who works in the field of computer vision, it is extremely annoying to hear statements like "Face recognition was first developed in the US." As with any field, face recognition is something that international computer vision researchers have worked on for a very long time and it is good to see it partially come to fruition at the present time.

    And yes, you can achieve good results from mere grayscale raster images of people's faces as long as you have a good template to compare with. However, face recognition is still an extremely difficult problem due to differences in illumination conditions, differences in viewpoint and scale, etc.

    Anand
  • And it is true that most criminals are stupid. But it is legal to shoot a lot of them...
  • Is that You Love Big Brother?
  • Well hopefully with hostile laws toward stupid people, the stupid people will generally kill themselves off before they breed. It's useless otherwise. Darwin and all that. If they happen to breed then die doing something stupid, the children will have to work a lot harder under my regime to get a breeding license. But all children will be confiscated and raised by the state in my regime anyway, since allowing individual citizens to bring up their own children is obviously way too fraught with peril to be allowed to continue. I think it would be much better to raise everyone in a standard ISO compliant environment.

    What? You don't think I could attain power in the US? All I have to do is run against Shrub in the next election. You think the dems will put up anyone more appetizing? Five gets you ten they run Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton or someone like that.

    What? You still think I'm completely serious? You obviously haven't visited my web site. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out how much of the views expressed in these posts are actually serious (Hint, more than 0 percent)

  • Nothing that's killed me, so I must be doing something right. Have you done something that's killed you? The median IQ level exhibited by most ACs tends to be slightly lower than that of a retarded gerbil, so I'm thinking that in the past 20 seconds an AC has died somewhere in the world. Maybe someone pushed him onto the rails... Whoops! There goes another one!

    I do have a couple of benefits over your average plonker and over the average elitist. I realize that I am not an expert in all fields. That's why I hire a real estate agent when I want to buy a house and take the advice of the bank people when I do money stuff and they tell me there's a better way to be doing what I'm doing. I also do a lot of my own research before doing anything major so that I at least have a general idea of what's going on.

    Your average plonker has no clue and is usually bad at everything.

    Your average elitist is an arrogant fuck (Whereas I am obviously the model of humility) and will generally not take advice from anyone nor recognize that they might possibly know more about their field of expertise than he does.

    By the way, have you visited my web page? Go ahead. Click on my penis. I know you want to, and I want you to, too. That's why it's there.

  • They already take your thumbprint (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @05:59AM (#102253) Homepage Journal
    They already require your thumbprint when you get your license. On the back of the license is both a magnetic strip and a 3D bar code which I'm sure has that information embedded in it. I'd be interested to know what else is in there. Wouldn't surprise me to find a digitized photo and possibly your social security number.

  • Mod this one up (Score:5)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @07:13AM (#102254) Homepage Journal
    Dude has a point. The problem is that many of our laws have been made to protect the stupid people who should be dying (Darwin and all that.) Why are we protecting stupid people? Stupid people should just quietly bump themselves out of the gene pool, resulting in hopefully less stupid future generations. If anything, our laws should be overtly hostile toward stupid people.

    An example: Currently laws in many states mandate seatbelt use. If instead seatbelt use was not mandated but the law specifically allowed insurance carriers to not pay medical costs of anyone in the car who was not wearing a seatbelt, that would allow people to make the stupid choice if they want to and force them to live with the consequences if they get hurt in the process.

    Of course, you're going to get a bunch of whiners talking about how we should coddle stupid people who would object to this. What do you expect from a generation brought up on Mr. Rogers and Barney? I'm sorry. It's a cruel world. It's supposed to be a cruel world. And overly crowded too; no room for stupid people.

  • drinking underage slow down cowboy!
  • That's what they are there for :) The Cameras are for recording your license plate for violations, (speeding through the lane, using the lane with no tag to evade tolls) Pete
  • I remember this bit in the Princess Bride where Wesley says everyone will be wearing masks in the future because they're terribly comfortable. How long before the camera-in-every-intersection and face recognition madness makes it fashionable to wear a mask wherever you go?
  • In NH they do this, but you can opt-out and not have your licence picture kept on file by the state government.. I'm sure it's the same in other states as well.


    --

  • Re:They already take your thumbprint (Score:4)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @06:31AM (#102259) Homepage
    They don't require a thumbprint in NH. And they magnetic strip doesn't have anything on it except your license number (to save the cops from typing it in). That's all it needs anyway, the computers in the cop cars just radio that shit in and they get the most updated driving record info. That way they don't have to radio all that stuff in over voice so that people with scanners can hear your entire driving record. Also, in NH it's illegal now for them to put your SSN on your license.. The stopped doing it about 3 years ago, and before that they had an check box on the form for your license to not print it on your license.

    Of course NH seems to be a bit free with driving laws.. We also don't require a seat belt over 18 or a helmet on a motorcycle, also don't require car insurance.. Another thing we don't have lame emissions tests. (The only reason I call them lame is because the more serious offenders, like diesel and commercial trunks are usually exempt, so they just screw the normal joe that can't afford anything better then a 1982 shitbox that burns a little oil).


    --

  • ...we don't have lame emissions tests. (The only reason I call them lame is because the more serious offenders, like diesel and commercial trunks are usually exempt

    http://www.apnaguide.com/review/15937 [apnaguide.com]

    from that site:

    Diesels pollute more:
    NO!!!!!!!!!!! Diesel exhaust appears black because of unburnt carbon, which is ugly and irrtates. Petrol exhausts are transparent but have Carbon Monoxide which is colorless, doesnt smell....and kills!! Modern diesels are significantly cleaner than the petrols. The culprit in diesel particulate pollution is the Sulphur in the fuel, which, in India is 100 times more than in Europe (which is apparently planning on a further five fold reduction soon!)Go get the petroleum companies , if you think diesels pollute, the car makers are doing enough already!!When petrol can be supplied at "phoren" quality, why can't diesel? We probably need the Supreme court to get a gun on the heads of these cos before anything happens on this front!

  • So, which one of these amendments do these systems violate, in your opinion? If you believe that the Fourth Amendment protects against this, you're wrong. There are a number of precidents set for the government to capture unique personal information and later use that information for identification. Fingerprints, DNA, and now Biometrics are all things that are not afforded Constitutional protection. Using any of these things is not a search or seizure of your person. For example, if someone takes a picture of you, they're capturing light that has bounced of you.

    I don't look forward to how wide spread this is gonna get and the extremes that it'll get taken to, but there's nothing unconstitutional about the practice.
  • You may be getting your wish. For example, Arizona just recently passed a bill popularly referred to as the "Stupid Drive Law" which requires that if a driver enters a flooded road and needs to be rescued, they pay for the rescue.

    I too wonder when it became government's responsibility to protect stupid people from themselves. Maybe they figure it's only stupid people that will volunteer to go fight in wars for the rest of us.

    Of course, most stupid people, if left to fend for themselves, will end up broke and starving way more often than accidentally killing themselves. Broke and starving people make for desperate criminals. Perhaps it's cheaper to protect them from themselves than to protect others from them.
  • Yes, of course; and the Railtrack privatization fiasco never happened, and those four people who we thought were killed in the train crash at Hatfield never happened...
    About five (or so) years ago, I read a book that compared violent crime in cities that were roughly equal in populations and other factors. The European countries had violent crime rates higher than comparable American cities, but crime in American cities was more lethal.

    I am amond the first to admit that there are severe problems in the U.S., including corporate influence on the political process, but I certainly do not think that we are alone.
  • It doesn't matter if you gain 200 pounds and go bald between photographs. Short of plastic surgery, the camera will recognize you.

    Is there really enough difference in the "basic facial structure" for a computer to reliably identify people from each other? Based on some 2-dimensional raster image? Huh...

  • The problem is that reconstructive or cosmetic facial surgery does occur. Not incredibly rarely, either. On the other hand, fingerprint-reconstruction does not. I wouldn't trust this tech at all.

    -= rei =-

    P.S. - Generally, what they get out of the strip is just your license number. Now, what's in their *database* that corresponds to that number is another issue ;)
  • This might start off a bit off-topic but the DMV here in good ol' VA was selling all of the drivers license information that they gathered. Officials claimed to be shocked! Shocked! that people objected to this attempt to painlessly raise money for the state.
    Just goes to show whether it's facial recognition or whatever I just don't think you can trust the gov't. Oh, and for all of those Euro's who are going to post "well, we've had them for a few years now..." Please, save it. You don't really know what's going on with all of that data that the gov't collects. Just wait until the next criminal outrage and you'll hear beaurecrats (sp): "well, we do have this pile of data...." This is one place where the slippery slope exists.
  • Wow, that's quite the statement!! A quick search on the Guardian turns up quite a few corruption cases, including Scotland Yard and one (an editorial piece) about screwing around with election districts...(here [guardian.co.uk] or here [guardian.co.uk]) There seem to be many more on the search page as well....As far as school shooting goes, you're right, for now it does seem to be an American problem but it's a matter of time until it happens over there.
  • I don't know where it was developed, but it's been out on the street here in London for at least a year (in Newham) randomly scanning the public for criminal matches (not with any success, I should point out. Perhaps they are referring to it's use in public as being European, rather than it's development.
  • I see a perfect use for this system that marketers would froth at the mouth for. Think of all the junk mail you get now. Almost all of that mail is sent at random to people hoping they'll buy stuff. Imagine if marketers knew who was actually going to what store. They would have a field day sending you all kinds of crap because they know that you had visted the store at least once.

    How might this happen? Easy. We already know that CO was willing to sell all their current DMV information. What would keep them from selling the facial recognition database? All the marketers would need would be the same cameras in their store and access to the DMV database and volia! they suddenly know everyone who enters their store and where they live!

    Its similar to what doubleclick wanted to do by linking thier ad info to the info online sellers had on you. Except this the info is almost being mandatorily collected.
  • And you can work and pay taxes at 16, but still can't vote for two years. Taxation without representation. Hmm, that sounds familiar. . .
  • I've never heard anyone say that they are 100% satisfied with the way our government is run. Big Brother is only getting more and more restrictive. I can't even sit in my own back yard and smoke a joint should I want to. The reprocussions of the government are too high. Five to ten years for smoking a freggin joint. Who does it hurt???? not a damn soul but myself. That should be my decision to make. It's crazy. Before I had turned 18 I couldn't even go outside past 11:00 PM till 5:00 AM. What would the government do? Throw me in jail overnight and give me a 50 dollar ticket. All because of a little bit of insomnia. it's stupid. I live in Denver and this news of them being able to track me and watch by my face is really disturbing. It will only allow them to enforce these these retarded laws with brute force. Once they have cracked down on the real criminals, they will turn to the everyday joe. nocking on your door to give you a ticket for lets say smoking a joint which they had caught on there cameras the day before. Or perhaps walking around in public past curfew. Any lame law they have. Our freedom is diminishing. If nobody likes it then why don't we get together and declare our independence once again. If there are no people willing to be ruled and controlled by the US, then there is no government.
  • Forgot about Dunblane [horseshoe.co.uk]?
  • How about if we just start letting the Government give roll call every night to see where we are? Or we can implant a tracking device in our heads and that way, we'd always be safe.

    It's not a matter of feeling more secure or not... it's a matter of invasion of privacy. I am willing to risk a dangerous situation while knowing that I'm not giving 100% of the information on myself. Take for example, if Governments wanted to map your brain patterns. This could be plausible eventually and of course would lead to them knowing who would be likely to commit a crime, etc, but I wouldn't want my brain patterns mapped simply because there are some things I want to keep to myself.
  • Blame it on the europeans... oh yeah, nice one. It was probably just that this particular solution they've choosen was developed someone in Europe.
  • Try wandering around Glasgow late at night. Not fun.

    Depends which part, doesn't it...?

  • according to a joint study between the American Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Cambridge University, Britain has higher rates of robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft than the United States. Additionally, Britain's crime rates are going up, while America's crime rates are going down. And this doesn't even touch Britain's high rate of home invasion.

    That's very interesting. Do you have a reference?

  • I heard on the radio and read from a book of several loopholes you can use to get out of any legal problems involved with these speeding ticket cameras, and I'd hope it would go for the face recognition too:

    first, you have the right to have your accuser present at your trial. So, demand that your accuser be present. It's a CAMERA. they sometimes try to bring in "professionals" or something, but it never works. The reason for having your accuser there is so you have the ability to cross examine/question him/her.

    BTW, I live just an hour north of denver, I just hate when BB hits close to home :)

  • nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

    That is key part... using one's face gainst one's self. To me is pre-testifing.

  • arrival of a new European import called 'face recognition'

    I remember seeing something on TV about the NSA developing face recognition software/hardware for log ins to computers so it can't be a totally imported idea to these (US) shores.
  • You're right. Just got my license renewed last month and saw the monitor "processing" my DL. Asked why they're doing that and the DMV drone said "So they can print a replacement easily". I expressed my displeasure, especially since it also digitized my signature and got an apathetic shrug in response.

    also, I remember a few years ago Gov. Ryan wanted to stop the state from selling DMV info and for his thoughtfulness was sued by the Marketing companies who buy the info. Ryan (and us) lost and Illinois is *forced* to sell the data. (sorry, can't find link - STFW)

  • Everyone who uses "Big Brother" to describe some minor step towards authoritarianism in our modern governments. You twits are crying wolf, don't you see? By the time they actually get around to forcing implants of reward/punishment chips in everyone's skulls, no one will have any interest any longer in your cries of "Big Brother! Big Brother!" It's not a solution, and people who haven't read 1984 don't care anyways (and the # of people who've read that terrifying prophesy is dwindling). Schools nowadays actively discourage reading of books like 1984 and Brave New World, because it produces moody, thoughtful children instead of happy, dumb, contented children.

    But my main point is, save the 1984-esque terms for when there's something that is truly monstrous, AND which there is a good chance that public sentiment could stop. THEN, if the use of the terms wasn't diluted by overuse, their use might actually attract some attention.

    -Kasreyn
  • I live in colorado and just recently got a drivers license. Compared to Washington state, the CO licenses have way more information associated with them. On the back you have a barcode like scan and a magnetic strip. At Safeway they swipe your license whenever you write a check. When you get the license the picture is taken on a computer and they scan your right index finger (or thumb I forget). They take your Social Security Number and you can choose whether or not to have it displayed on the card.

    This is different from WA where the pictures are taken on film (poloroid) and there are no fingerprint scans or magnetic strips.

    Now with facial re-cog. CO will have even more technology to track me all in the name of my safety.

    And now that /. has cookies I fear the black helicopters will be here in no time.
  • Your drivers license has a picture so that it can be more easily verified as yours. Other forms of ID would require that a cop fingerprint you or something every time he pulls you over. No, your fishing license doesn't have a picture on it, but theres no skills test involved in aquiring one either. Mostly because unlicensed drivers are a lot more likely to get people killed than an unlicensed fisherman.
  • No, it really is to track down deadbeat dads. A number of states have similar laws. If you're running to avoid payment, you don't get a license, which is perfectly reasonable - driving on public highways is a not a right, last time I checked.

    Honestly, given that a drivers license is the most common form of identification used in this country for damn near everything, requiring a unique identification before giving you such a license is a pretty reasonable request. I mean, without asking for either a birth certificate or SS# they have no way a of verifying who you really are. Is your name really John Smith or is it actually John Doe and you're applying for a license under a different name because the Judge yanked your old license after your 14th DWI? Or is it Jacob Smith establishing a new identity cause he's wanted for murdering little girls and cute puppy dogs? Yes, I know the Slashdot crowd is insanely protective of their privacy, all that data being collected about them, but you need a balance - certain information _should_ be collected and _should_ stick with you and without some form of unique ID that sticks with you such as the social security number, this is very difficult to pull off. Some things are my business. If you're a child molester, I should know that before I hire you at a daycare. If you have a history of DWI's and drug abuse, I have a right to know that before I hire you to drive a semi or fly an airplane. Your right to privacy must balanced against everyone elses right to know.

  • CCTV is not being used to "search" your person. Get real. If you walk down main street with a kilo of cocaine poking out of your pocket and a cop sees it and arrests you he didn't illegally "search" your person - it was publicly displayed. Now if they decide to x-ray you or put the camera in your living room, thats different.
  • Yeah come on guys lets not get our knickers in a twist. I'm also a Brit and have absoultly no problem with cameras scanning my face. I've not done anything so I don't care, this is for the greater good if you ask me. Replying to the first post Brit, I lived in Manhatten for a month and I felt completly safe wandering around drunk on my own late at night - hang on - maybe it was cause I was drunk that I felt safe ;-) Seriously though, I found New York just as safe as London - even Harlem. And it was a damn site more lively and better weather! I can't help adding (and I really shouldn't) that the americans are hoplessly enslaved to their flag. They talk of freedom this, freedom that, etc etc, i didn't have the freedom to have a beer on the beach, chill out with a splif, go dancing on ecstacy, sit out on the fire escape at night (yep, that's illegal in New York), or even J Walk (whatever that is)! A cop even stop me walking down a street with a can of beer in my hand at 3 in the morning on my way home from a club. It's illegal NOT to have a beer in your hand at that time in England.
  • So now people are crying about BB can see you?
    Well first of all if you think this is bad look at what they can see from the sky!
    Second this is like any other tool out there, it can be misused in the wrong hands like an olive fork.
  • I'm an avid backcountry adventurer, but sometimes I like venturing into the (way overcrowded) public ski areas. Therefore, I get the Colorado Pass, a cheap ski pass for several resorts here. Well, several years ago I got my picture taken for it and got one pass. This, I was told at the time, was to be a re-usable pass for all the years to come.

    However, this year upon renewal I find that we have to get re-photographed and get new cards. Why? The new cards will have better 'identity theft' prevention measures to them. They were pretty vague during the process. Well, I just got the new card and notice some interesting things about it.

    It would seem they are using some primitive facial recognition techniques. The photo is relatively dark, so it seems weird to be able to rely on it by normal visual cues because it is tough to make out my face. However, around various parts of the photo, and *only* at key junctures of my face and upper body, there are what at first appears to be visible photograph 'artifacts'. Theses appear no where else in the background of the photo, so they dont resemble the result of a poor photograph. They are black 'blotches' with white highlights around one of their edges. They appear at areas that define my face: two dots right at the end of my nose (one for each nostril), some dots around one of my eyes, a few tracing the top of my head and cheekbones, and several around my neck and shoulder area. The dots seem to be placed to be able to measure the overall width of my head, nostril width, eye height, facial bone structure, shoulder composition.

    The photo pretty much *sucks* in really proving that is you...at least to a lift operator who looks at it (barely even, they just quickly scan them) while you are wearing full hat and goggles. So I figure if there is a suspicion, they will take you in some room and point a camera at your face. This will then compare the dots taken then, with the pattern from the card (no doubt in a database somewhere) to make sure it is really you (apparently the big problem is casual sharing...is that like casual piracy?...where you give it to your friend to use tomorrow, etc).

    So, there you have it, big brother is already scanning us for use of the ski slopes. The Colorado DMV procedure is a bit different however, at least according to first readings. We wont even get scanned by the new machines, at least not initially for those of us with licenses already. Their technology will be able to scan my existing photograph and interpolate from there. Then when I go renew in another five years I'll get scanned with the new machine to make sure it is me. I'm thinking of getting some facial putty and spirit gum. I want to 'alter' my cheekbones and nostril placement to see if I can throw off the new cameras. Then on the way to interrogation, slip the makeup off...or something like that.

    -a non productive mind is with absolutely zero balance
  • We've had public video cameras with facial recognition over here in Europe for a few years now, and it's never been a problem for us. In fact, I'd think that most Brits would tell you that they feel MORE secure knowing that the cameras are there. If you're not doing anything you're not supposed to, why would you need to worry about being watched in public? I, as a law abiding citizen, know that the cameras only exist to benefit the common man, and keep the streets safe from hoodlums and thuggery.

    Of course, we tend to trust our government a bit more than you Americans on the other side of the pond, so maybe that's why you're opposed to the cameras. If I were living in a gun crazed, liberal nation such as the US, I'd certainly want the government to patrol the streets in order to keep me safe. In Britain, I can walk down the streets of Soho late at night without having to worry about being mugged or killed. I've never carried a gun and feel no need to.

  • "Oh, and for all of those Euro's who are going to post "well, we've had them for a few years now..." Please, save it. You don't really know what's going on with all of that data that the gov't collects."

    As a European, I can honestly tell you that I trust my government to handle my personal information in a responsible manner, and protect myself and my family from criminals. I think most Brits will agree that we have no reason to be paranoid, because our government is truly representative of the people, unlike your capitalist regime which is almost entirely controlled by big business. Because of this, it is in the best interest of government officials to look out for their constituents if they wish to remain in office.

    Perhaps you're right to be paranoid. You're hopelessly corrupt politicians care more about lining their fat pockets than the citizens they were elected to represent. That's why you never hear about militant separatist cults or school shootings over here, when you're culture is being eaten alive by violence and moral degradation.

  • I should point out that not all of us Brits are in favour of CCTV. Nor do we all blindly trust our gvt as much as this bloke obviously does.

    Do you honestly think that there is no probability of these cameras being abused by the police? Do you honestly think that these cameras won't be used by a tyrannical gvt in future (or now)?

    As for gun laws in this country, don't even get me started on them.
  • I live in western washington and I have noticed several busy intersections where cameras have been placed on top of the horizontal poles that hold the traffic light. I assumed that it must be common practice to tape intersections but never bothered to check up on it. If it's supposed to only happen in Denver does that mean the cameras I've seen are just webcams (there's sure a lot of them for that, they're on almost every block in many areas) or have police departments in lots of areas started to do this without getting the OK first?
  • The US can and has stopped EU corporations from merging too (EU and US have agreements to control multinational corporations and both give eachother the opportunity to screen and block mergers elsewhere). If the EU should stay out of US business, then US should do the same with EU business. Personally... I think it's good that they both screen mergers, the multinational corporations are running out of control.

  • The article states that one of the main reasons the system is being implemented is to deter identity theft. While it is a [financially] damaging crime, it is not very widespread. While it does injure someone's credit record, the SSA has a policy of providing new numbers to credit fraud/identity theft victims. So, who does this law most benefit? Banking corporations who issue credit cards.

    Additionally, identity theft investigations are the responsibility of the Secret Service, due to their interstate nature. Is Colorado just trying to become more buddy-buddy with the SS? 'Remember their attitude toward servants...' - Illuminatus Trilogy.

    Can they honestly not concoct a better excuse? Disturbing to consider the real motivations at work....

  • Do you suppose that the State of Colorado will use Microsoft FaceScan? No doubt this will be bundled with other software packages in the Tyrant2000 suite. The "good" and "progressive" governments, who are only interested in public order rather than despotism, will of course use the open source alternative, GNUFace.

  • Personally, I don't think it's so bad having a universal id card. I would much rather have one card in my wallet that describe the 10 things I'm licensed to do than 10 individual cards.

    And the fact that the drivers license is continuing to evolve into the universal id card makes a lot of sense. I'm sure at some point we'll just start calling it an id card.

    By the way, can you give an example of a crime that is non-driving related for which your driving privileges are suspended?


  • And what do the statistics show? I don't pretend to know, but I would not be at all surprised if there was a high positive correlation between 16 year olds that were arrested for drinking that then later became 17 year olds that were involved in a DUI accident and/or death. This certainly matches my personal experience with the teenagers I know.

    Of course this is an unfortunate burden to those teenagers that are mature enough not to mix drinking and driving, but the point is that teenagers are not trusted to be this mature. If they were, then the drinking age would be much lower.

    Here's a positive way of seeing it: If you have ever complained about being treated like an average idiot teenager, then this law is for you. It doesn't simply use age as a crude determination of whether you are mature enough to drive. It also takes into account other factors involving your behaviour, namely, whether you were dumb enough to have been arrested for drinking.

  • By the way, can you give an example of a crime that is non-driving related for which your driving privileges are suspended?
    If you're a minor in California, truancy will get your priveleges revoked. (this was on the written test)
  • I suppose it's the guise of "We're doing this to protect your CHILDREN, because we want to PROTECT them from all of those evil perverts out there" that gets the stuff actually in place (playing on the fears of the paranoid) and it winds up being use for other purposes (selling photos/etc to insurance companies)...and that's what would bother me.

  • I don't think that we should pass another law that will benefit insurance carriers. They have enough already. As you suggest, and as Heinlein eloquently put it, stupidity is self-correcting:

    Stupidity is the only sin in nature. Judgment is swift; the punishment harsh. And there is no appeal: You live and you learn or you don't live long.

    A better solution would be to engineer personal transportation that doesn't require people to be strapped in for safety. But hey, I have stock in several insurance companies and three of the Big Four automakers; pass any laws you want. :)

  • I remember watching something on the History Channel about how they used to map body measurements to identify convicts in Leavenworth. They abandoned this technique for static ID for fingerprints because they had two convicts with the same name and the exact same measurements in the joint at once. Not to say it wouldn't be somewhat useful in ruling out people in a crowd of suspects... But to absolutely try to ID some one based on this technology would still bring up enough errors to make it a waste of time. What am I doing up this early on a Saturday?
  • All your face are belong to us!

  • yay! (Score:1)

    by hyehye ( 451759 )
    Less control over my own personal information! Human beings have several methods of identification, and the face is one of the most valuable, personal, and important. My face is mine, as is my DNA, and to hell with anyone who wants a copy. This is bad news, guys.
  • Unfortunately, one factor you're forgetting is that we're all one of those "stupid people" from time to time. I forget to wear my seatbelt on occasion. Or I'll leave a piece of soap in the bathtub to slip on.

    You're like one of my friends who says she "hates everyone" and "everyone is stupid". Well guess what: everyone is stupid to everyone else. We're all stupid in general. That's just human nature.

  • ... a lawmaker trying to push tougher punishment on identity thieves became a victim of identity theft himself. The thief was caught because the state has a database of every driver's photo. The guy actually tried to get a licence in the lawmaker's name. Hence, the state having everyone's picture available can have it plusses.
  • The danger, critics say, is that the technology could eventually be expanded to monitor the comings and goings of ordinary Coloradans.

    How do we know they don't already do this at places like toll plazas? Several mid-atlantic states have EZPass, New England has something called Fastlane (or something like that). And how do we know they haven't put any OCR tools into the cameras at tolls to track license plates? Ever notice those cameras positioned close to the ground?

  • OK, i don't know if that can be done in PA. I'm from NJ, and know about this story because it was in the Phila Inquirer. I do know that PA uses the photo to send you a replacement license if you lose yours, but in NJ someone can go to a DMV pretending to be someone else and get a fake-id easily.
  • Somebody here mentioned that facial recognition is the result of research going on world-wide. Most likely the NSA is simply working with other researchers outside NSA, and possibly outside the US, on this topic. I saw the same CNN special about NSA that you're talking abut. I think they said that they do indeed share research results with the research community working with biometrics, with the ultimate goal of simplified user authentication.
  • Those are for red-light runners. They snap your pic if you enter on a red (not if youre in the zone when it turns red). Trust me, I live in Boulder (so I'm in Denver very often), and between Boulder and Denver (and all the small cities in between) I would bet you would have a very difficult time finding a metro area more concentrated with photo-law-enforcement equipment. Basit
  • The motives for surveillance are different in the States than in Europe. It is true that we Americans don't trust our government, especially with the current administration. But our government doesn't trust its citizens, either. The degree of the US government's mistrust of the people they govern is probably much greater in the US compared to European counterparts. Of course, US citizen's accessibility to guns and a strong civil rights code are probably to blame for this. The net result is that a lot of us feel that our government (US) has sinister intensions. It's tough to shake that feeling; it's tough to shake the feeling that surveillance techniques are advanced for the purposes of prosecution rather than protection. The current administration is like a step-parent that hates the children that it unwillingly inherited through a marriage to power. And I don't trust the current administration to use surveillance for my own good. Funny thing is that I didn't realize how strongly I felt about this... Oh, well, what's a few karma points?
  • Government of the people, by the people, for the people. So why is it so often that the government does not value the people's freedom? No matter political affiliation, politicians have the gall to increase their power and the spin doctors to get reelected, and few Americans have the time, energy, or discernment to hold them accountable. And why is that? We're too busy eating our Big Macs and watching soaps to critique our government!
  • Actually, I WANT to go to school, I WANT to learn, I just GREATLY ABHOR learning all about the rights my forefathers died for in gov't class and THEN walking into the hall and seeing them violated (uniforms, metal detectors, purse searches, etc.) without justification (my school is and was one of the more peaceful in the country). If you want us to learn about our rights, maybe you should let us use them! (coughhypocrisycough) The point is of COURSE we have to go to school. Duh. Somehow my peers had better get some knowledge crammed into their thick skulls. But that doesn't mean we have to have these excessive rights violations, any more than adults do in their daily lives.

  • It's only fair! (Score:3)

    by tsarina ( 456482 ) on Saturday July 07, 2001 @07:39AM (#102313) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps all citizens SHOULD have their privacy infringed. Students have their rights violated all the time! We can't vote, but we can be put to death! We are legally obligated to go to an institution which can violate our civil liberties with abandon (school). Perhaps all should be subject to such an environment. After all, students aren't any more criminals than the general populace; we just get more media attention. So if crime justifies these right infringements all should be subject to them. It's all or nothing, guys!
  • Not to sound like an apologist for big brother, but these systems have lots of legitimate uses. Some actions are just not acceptable (rape, murder, car theft). So systems that could watch the streets and identify the person who committed such acts would be a huge deterrence. And if its not deterrence enough, then the perpetrators are caught.

    So the question arises, what is an acceptable trade for security? What is a valid use of such a system? I don't like the scanning of crowds, I don't like the idea of the government (or anyone else) monitoring what I'm doing. However, a system that could pull-up footage to investigate a crime would help everyone... except the criminals.

  • It's true [viisage.com]. Check this [viisage.com] for the specifications. It also appears Viisage [viisage.com] has been quite busy [business.com] in this department lately!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close