Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Technology

Watchdog Says FBI Has Access To About 640M Photographs (apnews.com) 79

Posted by msmash from the privacy-woes dept.
JustAnotherOldGuy writes: A government watchdog says the FBI has access to about 640 million photographs -- including from driver's licenses, passports and mugshots -- that can be searched using facial recognition technology. The figure reflects how the technology is becoming an increasingly powerful law enforcement tool, but is also stirring fears about the potential for authorities to intrude on the lives of Americans. It was reported by the Government Accountability Office at a congressional hearing in which both Democrats and Republicans raised questions about the use of the technology.

The FBI maintains a database known as the Interstate Photo System of mugshots that can help federal, state and local law enforcement officials. It contains about 36 million photographs, according to Gretta Goodwin of the GAO. But taking into account the bureau contracts providing access to driver's licenses in 21 states, and its use of photos and other databases, the FBI has access to about 640 million photographs, Goodwin told lawmakers at the House oversight committee hearing. Kimberly Del Greco, a deputy assistant director at the FBI, said the bureau has strict policies for using facial recognition. She said it is used only when there is an active FBI investigation or an assessment, which can precede a formal investigation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watchdog Says FBI Has Access To About 640M Photographs More

Watchdog Says FBI Has Access To About 640M Photographs

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:17PM (#58709222)

    640M photos ought to be enough for anybody.

  • 640M is about 2 per person in the US. That's not really a lot IMO. So, great; the FBI doesn't have a comprehensive photographic archive of everyone. Can't think of any good reasons they should.

  • You mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vylen ( 800165 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:32PM (#58709316)

    .. the government has access to government files...? No way!

    • .. the government has access to government files...? No way!

      That's not what they mean.

      What they mean is one government has access to 21 other governments files, probably in violation of both governments' constitutions.

      In theory/fascade.

      • probably in violation of both governments' constitutions

        That's silly, if the State's agreed to give it to them then the 10th Amendment guarantees it must be Constitutionally valid, unless you can find an outright prohibition in the text, and there isn't one.

        In theory

        That's not a theory, that's just derp.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:32PM (#58709318)

    Why would anybody find this surprising?

  • Others have pointed out the benefits of technology.

    The risks are obvious - it makes the "slippery slope" to a police state much more slippery.

    Is it worth it to put some more "friction" in the way of a future goverment to make it harder for them to transition into a police state in exchange for making law enforcement more difficult, more expensive, and less effective than it needs to be? If so, how much "friction" is appropriate?

    This is a valid question that should be discussed openly. Those who believe on

    • No nation has ever fallen down this mythical "slippery slope."

      Police states arise suddenly. Most countries allow for routine modification of their Constitution, if they even have one. When the leader asks for more power, some congress or parliament or 50%+1 referendum might just give it away. Those places are already ripe for a police state; nothing is banned or permitted by their Constitution other than on a temporary basis. They don't need to slide down any slope, dictatorship or some other police state i

  • First, they are easily changed. Second, unless something bad does actually happen to those that violate these policies, they are worthless. And third, these policies do not sound very "strict" to me.

  • I have more on my (Score:3)

    by CoolCash ( 528004 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:42PM (#58709380) Homepage
    Pron Drive.. sheesh amateurs.
  • "used only when there is an active FBI investigation or an assessment,"....
    A close relative who is a Special Agent told me an "investigation or assessment" is really anything they do. So in practical sense, there is no real limit to using any database, any time, for any purpose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Livius ( 318358 )

      "used only when there is an active FBI investigation or an assessment,"....

      A close relative who is a Special Agent told me an "investigation or assessment" is really anything they do.

      It's right in the name - Federal Bureau of Investigation. Naturally everything they do must be part of legitimate investigation, so no reason to worry.

    • Well there is a limit, an agent cannot use the pictures in place of Grinder. Beyond that it is like you said.
      It will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this. It is all public information, I don't think anyone expects privacy with their driver license info, when a camera takes a picture of them speeding, or when they arrested.

  • This has been part of Hollywood fiction lore for years and we're just now acting surprised?

    If the government has the data, they're doing the mining. Seriously, the surprise just makes me facepalm.

    Edward Snowden and others didn't reveal anything that we here at Slashdot didn't already know for years.

  • 'strict policies' (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    'very strict, in fact. we adhere to our policy absolutely and completely:'

    "we can do whatever the fuck we want with these photos and databases, and you can't stop us."

  • Just 640M? Surely it's a mistake considering the existence of FB/Instagram and other social networks. Must be something close to 640B.
  • The United States of China. Get ready for it.

  • FBI probably got them from China or Russia.

  • "Kimberly Del Greco, a deputy assistant director at the FBI, said the bureau has strict policies for using facial recognition."

    Let me tell you what those policies are:
    1) We have this resource, and you never will.
    2) We'll never give it up.
    3) We'll never be honest about what its scope is and how we use it.

  • Its called the internet... ?
  • Are we better served by the FBI having to ask DMVs to manually look for matching photos, or by letting them run automated searches across all the databases? What would we gain or preserve by denying them the ability to do the latter? Is it worth the delays and inefficiencies?

  • 640 million photographs. So they have only images of around 70000 teenagers aka selfies which is about 9143 selfies per person. Doesn't sound very useful.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Close