Facial Recognition Database Used By FBI Is Out of Control, House Committee Hears (theguardian.com) 90
The House oversight committee claims the FBI's facial recognition database is out of control, noting that "no federal law controls this technology" and "no court decision limits it." At last week's House oversight committee hearing, politicians and privacy campaigners presented several "damning facts" about the databases. "About 80% of photos in the FBI's network are non-criminal entries, including pictures from driver's licenses and passports," reports The Guardian. "The algorithms used to identify matches are inaccurate about 15% of the time, and are most likely to misidentify black people than white people." From the report: "Facial recognition technology is a powerful tool law enforcement can use to protect people, their property, our borders, and our nation," said the committee chair, Jason Chaffetz, adding that in the private sector it can be used to protect financial transactions and prevent fraud or identity theft. "But it can also be used by bad actors to harass or stalk individuals. It can be used in a way that chills free speech and free association by targeting people attending certain political meetings, protests, churches, or other types of places in the public." Furthermore, the rise of real-time face recognition technology that allows surveillance and body cameras to scan the faces of people walking down the street was, according to Chaffetz, "most concerning." "For those reasons and others, we must conduct proper oversight of this emerging technology," he said.
Re: (Score:1)
It matched him to various citrus fruits.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that burkas are coming back in fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Captured in public (Score:5, Insightful)
These images were captured in public where you have no right to privacy.
It's not that simple. Anything really important rarely is simple.
That standard, along with many other standards, laws, Acts, court precedents, etc etc, were created in the past under a different reality, where entire technologies did not exist and therefor could not have been accounted for in the drafting of those standards, laws, etc. All such make assumptions about how thoroughly enforced it can/will be along with how often it is broken which result in various levels of punishment.
Most traffic laws and their fines/punishments were drafted and codified into law with the assumption that 100% enforcement or close was impossible, but new technology is allowing law enforcement to achieve a much higher enforcement percentage than was originally understood possible. License plate scanning technology is another topic that is beginning to bring this phenomenon to public attention.
Considering the typical US citizen commits on average 3 felonies a day, 100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
There needs to be new limits set on the ability of the government to adopt new technology for domestic law enforcement and information gathering/analysis/investigation without thorough public review and oversight. Perhaps a topic for an Article-V Convention of States.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Only 3 a day huh? I might should try to slow down a bit :o
Re: (Score:1)
These images were captured in public where you have no right to privacy.
It's not that simple. Anything really important rarely is simple.
That standard, along with many other standards, laws, Acts, court precedents, etc etc, were created in the past under a different reality, where entire technologies did not exist and therefor could not have been accounted for in the drafting of those standards, laws, etc. All such make assumptions about how thoroughly enforced it can/will be along with how often it is broken which result in various levels of punishment.
Most traffic laws and their fines/punishments were drafted and codified into law with the assumption that 100% enforcement or close was impossible, but new technology is allowing law enforcement to achieve a much higher enforcement percentage than was originally understood possible. License plate scanning technology is another topic that is beginning to bring this phenomenon to public attention.
Considering the typical US citizen commits on average 3 felonies a day, 100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
There needs to be new limits set on the ability of the government to adopt new technology for domestic law enforcement and information gathering/analysis/investigation without thorough public review and oversight. Perhaps a topic for an Article-V Convention of States.
Strat
No, we just need to re-evaluate and amend or repeal the asinine laws that were drafted to not be enforced.
If our laws aren't shit 100% enforcement should be a desirable goal. And "people don't agree with the law and keep breaking it and it doesn't seem to be doing any harm when they do" should be an indication that the law is crappy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the typical US citizen commits on average 3 felonies a day, 100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
That smells like you plucked it out of some place not-so-fresh.
It's an average. Are you really unaware of how over-criminalized our society has become? Do they not have Google on your Internet?
https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.pkXOubGx5
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day/
It's a book, check it out.
Re: (Score:2)
100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
To some of the more nefarious members of the Powers That Be, this might be a clandestine part of their agenda. In an era of environmental devastation, increasing income inequality, &c., some pretext for imprisoning vast swathes of the population might be exactly what many of the real people in power want.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think drivers license or passport photos classify as public.
or "they happen to be available to fbi" could be marked as public - which probably isn't.
a far larger problem is of course if you're using such a database and it has a hundred million faces and 15% fail rate, you're bound to make some mistakes.. of which few are going to be very serious indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
In Virginia it is a felony to wear a mask in public.
Land of the free.
Revision to way searches are done (Score:5, Insightful)
I think police should need a warrant to use facial recognition in many cases. I also feel that perhaps searches of electronic devices and online accounts need to strictly limit exactly what is searched for and disallow any evidence of any crimes not listed in the warrant from being used.
The 4th amendment is supposed to make it hard to prosecute certain kinds of crime. In my opinion, the police really have no business going after crime that isn't reported to them anyway, except for a few exceptions like murder.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think police should need a warrant to use facial recognition in many cases. I also feel that perhaps searches of electronic devices and online accounts need to strictly limit exactly what is searched for and disallow any evidence of any crimes not listed in the warrant from being used.
The 4th amendment is supposed to make it hard to prosecute certain kinds of crime. In my opinion, the police really have no business going after crime that isn't reported to them anyway, except for a few exceptions like murder.
The text of the United States Constitutions 4th Amendment:
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'm not sure I would go so far as say the police cannot use evidence they witness of say, stolen property, that is found d
Re: (Score:2)
I think police should need a warrant to use facial recognition in many cases. I also feel that perhaps searches of electronic devices and online accounts need to strictly limit exactly what is searched for and disallow any evidence of any crimes not listed in the warrant from being used.
I don't think that is realistic or even remotely reasonable. You know, people recognise other people simply by eye-sight; police officers do the same. We can use binoculars to see further away and thus enhance our vision, or we can use an infra red camera to see thing at night - and record it, and so on. There is a continuum from using no technological aid at all to using automatic recognition technology, so where should the limit be set? I think we have to weigh up the benefits against the costs. There is
It just means they are happy with it. (Score:2)
The FBI then needs to be Disbanded.
I am disgusted at anyone that puts security above freedom, One of the wisest men of our country once said, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Re: (Score:3)
No one ever said that.
Sure they did. Lumpy said it in the post just above yours. I'm not sure I'd call him one of the wisest men in the country, but hey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It just means they are happy with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which freedoms have you lost? Be specific. Have you had any of your Constitutional rights violated? Be specific.
And what's wrong with storing passport and driver license photos?
I know your posting as AC, and not expecting an answer, but these are VERY VALID QUESTIONS and I don't think you deserved to be modded down....
I don't know about you, but over the last decade or so, I personally feel that my right to be secure in my person is not exactly strong. Lets not even get started on my papers and effects. Maybe you haven't been paying attention?
Or maybe since they are using my face, without my consent, it maybe doesn't count as bearing witness against myself?
I know that's not as specific as you had asked, but I think its best to leave that to the student. Call it a story problem. Which specific freedoms am I talking about?
I feel my face is a pretty big part of my person. I feel like its mine. That's what we are discussing here. The storage and use of yours and mine faces (not likenesses) against our consent, for use in automated law enforcement tools. Let that sink in for a moment. Say it out loud.
Automated. Law. Enforcement.
When you find yourself implicated in a rape or murder simply because your ID card photo from 15 years ago shares some of the features of the real villain, and the closed-source-super-classified-no-oversight-working-just-fine-thankyou-FBI-computer-system put you on the wrong side of 15%, remember how worth it the convenience of not having to stand in line for hours at the DMV was.
It could be, automating our law enforcement is best answer to modern law enforcement problems (selective enforcement, racial profiling, corruption, etc.) but only if its rolled out 100% everywhere at the same time, and simply being accused of a capital crime no longer completely ruins your life - As it does today in modern America. 15% false positives seem like pretty good betting odds, right up until you start to think about whats at stake. Maybe if we can automate our legal defenses as well it will balance out, but criminal defense is a long shot from fighting traffic tickets.
This is real. Events over the past 5 years have put body cams on the front-line of enforcement. Automation is the next logical step. We NEED to talk about this. We need to talk LOUDLY, in public, to each other, to our elected officials, to our children, and to our law enforcers. We need to set some rules, enforce some old ones, and make sure everybody sees this coming, before its to late.
Keep asking valid questions AC, and it's OK to ask them behind that anonymous mask.... for now.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, fear-mongering works politically, at least in the USA. It's why we have inflated and impractical incarceration durations. Painting demons for the masses is psychologically easy to do compared the intricacies and nuances of explaining and protecting rights.
Re: (Score:2)
now youre just getting lazy.
Re:which states? (Score:4, Informative)
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
there is a reason for that (Score:5, Informative)
... are most likely to misidentify black people than white people.
Before you jump to conclusions about "racist software," I can tell you that the reason for this is very well known and understood: lighting and contrast ratios. Specifically, you get a much higher contrast ratio of faces with light skinned people from image sensors than do you for dark skinned people unless you have their face very well lit up. Simply put, camera sensors are a poor substitute for the human eye and this is one of the side-effects of that.
Re: (Score:1)
I can see nothing wrong with comparing a still camera in a studio to a video stream shot 15 feet away on a subway platform. Nothing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you jump to conclusions about "racist software," I can tell you that the reason for this is very well known and understood: lighting and contrast ratios. Specifically, you get a much higher contrast ratio of faces with light skinned people from image sensors than do you for dark
It holds true for really crappy cameras, like webcams with bad lighting, but most cameras over a few hundred dollars are actually pretty good at capturing contrast
I can see nothing wrong with comparing a still camera in a studio to a video stream shot 15 feet away on a subway platform. Nothing at all.
Which brings us back around to where we started. It appears they are quite satisfied to use cheap cameras setups that are good enough not to overly misidentify white people, and then stop there.
Re: (Score:3)
Which brings us back around to where we started. It appears they are quite satisfied to use cheap cameras setups that are good enough not to overly misidentify white people, and then stop there.
Simple facts - better cameras cost money, white faces are easier to identify on camera. The most logical conclusion is to use cameras that are good enough for a majority of the population. Or if we have a "social justice" bend we can conclude that the planners considered better cameras but decided that they preferred cameras that misidentify black people and the low cost was only a bonus. Get over yourself. This is probably shocking to those who think that there is a vast conspiracy to keep the dark man
Re: (Score:1)
What exactly are the accusations you are defending against?
I will add that bias is not necessarily conscious racism; it could be those who build the equipment and/or train staff on using the equipment are mostly used to dealing with people of a certain ethnic group. These are mistakes of familiarity, not "racism" per se. These kinds of mistakes have appeared in commercial enterprises before, such as manual photo processing labs.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are the accusations you are defending against?
I think you missed the keyword in there: before. If you didn't think it was coming, this is the internet, some people think the Earth is flat and the US government "did 9/11", so it's only a matter of time before someone claims the software is racist.
I will add that bias is not necessarily conscious racism; it could be those who build the equipment and/or train staff on using the equipment are mostly used to dealing with people of a certain ethnic group.
You misunderstand when I wrote, "have their face very well lit up," i mean that you need to have lights specifically for lighting their face. A bunch of pictures were from the DMV which isn't exactly a photography studio. A better solution might be to use po
Re: (Score:1)
I'm still not following. Do you mean "racist software" in the literal AI sense that the software is thinking like a racist human being?
You mean like a spot-light to the face? Then you get squinty photos. And awkward. One probably has to manually adjust the gamma levels instead, otherwise the background or clothing has too much effect on auto-adjustment. Either train the staff or have the photos sent to an adjustment lab to be tuned by
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not following. Do you mean "racist software" in the literal AI sense that the software is thinking like a racist human being?
There is no point in pondering what nut-jobs think, so stop wasting your time on it.
You mean like a spot-light to the face? Then you get squinty photos.
Look at how they do photo-shoots for models and you'll understand because that kind of lighting is what's needed.
One probably has to manually adjust the gamma levels instead
A) that won't help
B) the computer vision software already filters images in multiple ways to get the optimal contrast.
Either train the staff or...
The staff where? All staff everywhere? We're going to make cops into photographers now? Also, what about video camera footage? There are two sides of the equation and your introductory suggestio
Re: (Score:1)
Models are used to harsh lights. They learn not to squint. It's part of their job.
If so, they need better cameras, such as cameras that take photos under multiple different exposures and/or has a high brightness sensitivity range. Software and/or remote human experts can then select the best exposure and/or tune levels. In the end you probably still need a huma
Re: (Score:2)
If so, they need better cameras, such as cameras that take photos under multiple different exposures and/or has a high brightness sensitivity range. Software and/or remote human experts can then select the best exposure and/or tune levels. In the end you probably still need a human to adjust them; AI is still sketchy.
I hope you saved up your pennies to buy everyone new cameras, both still and video because nobody is going to want to pay for that.
Re: (Score:1)
Commercial iPhones optionally take multiple exposures for a single "snap" so that one can skip blinking subjects, for example. Just do similar for exposure time.
And I realize suddenly replacing all that equipment would be quite expensive, but at least make the next batch of cameras better than the last batch so the ratio of good cameras in production gradually goes up over time.
Re: (Score:2)
And I realize suddenly replacing all that equipment would be quite expensive, but at least make the next batch of cameras better than the last batch so the ratio of good cameras in production gradually goes up over time.
Contact your local representative if you want to change the world a little for the better but don't expect them to be sympathetic. Beside, I only use my global psychic projection powers for evil. ;P
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect (Score:2)
...the FBI's facial recognition database is out of control, noting that "no federal law controls this technology" and "no court decision limits it."
And that's just the way they like it, with no pesky "rules" or "laws" to hamper their activities.
The reason for the racial misidentification (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, with darker skin, shadows aren't as noticeable, so the shadows that would otherwise allow measurement of eyebrow prominence or jawline will also be much harder to identify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But you know the Govt will crush you nonetheless.
They will take all power and wealth from you.
They are already doing it.
You need to get rid of them.
Yes....get rid of the government. That will surely calm things down and make everything run smoothly. *cough*
The term keep and access (Score:2)
The FBI has access to a lot of other databases to search for images. The databases do not belong to the FBI so are not considered part of the FBI.
A lot of color of law words and terms are used.
The US face collection is public, mil, private, social media. The talking point on such access is always that the FBI only has criminal photographs in their repository.
Not
Re: (Score:2)
The reboot of Hawaii Five-0 depends on Steve McGarrett and Co. looking up a TON of info on suspects on their fancy touchscreen computer. Knowing how each jurisdiction is essentially its own Tower of Babel I doubt that something like that actually is doable these days, but the possibilities are in place as demonstrated by this article.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the new data is from CCTV upgrades that keeps images for many months.
Private security uses CCTV or walks out in front of their building and takes a photo. The photo is submitted to the city or state.
The city or state then offers further database access to get federal funding.
Its not a federal database, its not really a city or state funded database if questions are ever asked. A hidden public private partnership that allows a lot of access a
Out of control? Who's fault is that really? (Score:1)
Face Recog + Location Meta (Score:2)
On its own face recog is pretty crap due to high false positive and often poor quality input footage. But if you trying to identify someone from footage of a specific location and have the location metadata to isolate a pool of potential matches first, and then use face recog to narrow down that list, you have a good chance of id'ing a perp if they are on grid.
Re: (Score:2)
That means that 70% of journeys are recorded. Stick that data together with facial recognition
If you add mobile phone data, GPS data from Google to that, sheesh I could tell you wh