This Is How the US Military's Massive Facial Recognition System Works (medium.com) 51
Over the last 15 years, the United States military has developed a new addition to its arsenal. The weapon is deployed around the world, largely invisible, and grows more powerful by the day. From a report: That weapon is a vast database, packed with millions of images of faces, irises, fingerprints, and DNA data -- a biometric dragnet of anyone who has come in contact with the U.S. military abroad. The 7.4 million identities in the database range from suspected terrorists in active military zones to allied soldiers training with U.S. forces. "Denying our adversaries anonymity allows us to focus our lethality. It's like ripping the camouflage netting off the enemy ammunition dump," wrote Glenn Krizay, director of the Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency, in notes obtained by OneZero. The Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency (DFBA) is tasked with overseeing the database, known officially as the Automated Biometric Information System (ABIS).
DFBA and its ABIS database have received little scrutiny or press given the central role they play in U.S. military's intelligence operations. But a newly obtained presentation and notes written by the DFBA's director, Krizay, reveals how the organization functions and how biometric identification has been used to identify non-U.S. citizens on the battlefield thousands of times in the first half of 2019 alone. ABIS also allows military branches to flag individuals of interest, putting them on a so-called "Biometrically Enabled Watch List" (BEWL). Once flagged, these individuals can be identified through surveillance systems on battlefields, near borders around the world, and on military bases. The presentation also sheds light on how military, state, and local law enforcement biometrics systems are linked. According to Krizay's presentation, ABIS is connected to the FBI's biometric database, which is in turn connected to databases used by state and local law enforcement.
DFBA and its ABIS database have received little scrutiny or press given the central role they play in U.S. military's intelligence operations. But a newly obtained presentation and notes written by the DFBA's director, Krizay, reveals how the organization functions and how biometric identification has been used to identify non-U.S. citizens on the battlefield thousands of times in the first half of 2019 alone. ABIS also allows military branches to flag individuals of interest, putting them on a so-called "Biometrically Enabled Watch List" (BEWL). Once flagged, these individuals can be identified through surveillance systems on battlefields, near borders around the world, and on military bases. The presentation also sheds light on how military, state, and local law enforcement biometrics systems are linked. According to Krizay's presentation, ABIS is connected to the FBI's biometric database, which is in turn connected to databases used by state and local law enforcement.
hey Krizay, here's a better analogy... (Score:1)
he's bragging about his participation in the decline of our civilization, phukkin dirtbag
Re: (Score:1)
or maybe I've been trolled by an AC, who cares
Re: (Score:2)
All groups seem to be out for their own self interest. Being that both sides are justifying violence, both sides are really the bad guys.
The real moral boundary isn't if we were the good guys, just if our response was more measured then the other guy.
Much of the violence is based on lies and hyperbole, and retribution is also based on an other set of lies and hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not fan of the military but what he's saying is that what you describe is not necessary if they can identify their targets.
Of course, that they would be willing to do so otherwise is concerning.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe I should just say what ole Krizay is doing is *salesmanship* in which any perceived benefits are played up while any negatives are ignored, dismissed and/or discounted
at such a grand scale and impact, we can't afford to swallow whole a biased representation of how things are; we need truth and we need facts even when ugly or unpleasant, things you won't find much of from phukkers like
That sure would be easier (Score:4, Insightful)
Things sure were simpler in World War 1, weren't they.
The US still has 58 active B-52 Stratofortress bombers, with each aircraft capable of carrying 108 bombs (500lb each). The 70 B-1s in the US inventory have a similar capacity, meaning in a single flight, using only these two ancient bombers, the US could bomb almost 14,000 buildings.
That's 14,000 bombs which each each aircraft flying only once. Using only these two 1950s-1970s area aircraft.
If the US wanted to "carpet bomb entire city", that sure would be a heck of a lot easier than the surgical strikes to get one guy at a time, like they did two weeks ago, killing ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. No need for biometric and DNA databases if they wanted to carpet bomb, just have all the pilots fly one mission and the war would be over in about a day.
Fortunately or unfortunately, in the 1970s US policy changed to trying "win the hearts and minds" of people in belligerent nations, rather than defeating them and getting it over with, like was done in World War 2. Looking the nations defeated in WW2, Italy, Japan, etc, I wonder if they ended up better off being defeated than they would have if there had been decades of war trying surgical strikes. I'm not certain either way.
Certainly it would be a lot *quicker* if the US spent about a week taking out every major building in Iran, then start fresh.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately or unfortunately, in the 1970s US policy changed to trying "win the hearts and minds" of people in belligerent nations, rather than defeating them and getting it over with, like was done in World War 2.
Coincidentally, that's the last time the US defended itself again anything resembling a military attack. If someone comes up to you and throws a punch (Pearl Harbor) and gets the crap beaten out of them (Japan, the Axis) that is quite different than if you cross half the school yard (half the world) to beat the crap out of someone (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan +++). It's like advocating a bloodied noses without considered if the recipient will be seen as the bully or the bullied.
Precise weapons are humane (Score:2)
Actually, the technological improvements allow us to do the exact opposite. Precise weapon is a humane weapon — it can take out the bad guys without destroying the rest of the city.
Less collateral damage, fewer people killed by mistake. A bullet, that checks your DNA before hitting you would be a good thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or perhaps see the other two comments and anyone else who read your comment that that's a terrible and confusing analogy. Because you made it about something that was closely related (and, as noted, in opposition to) the stated thing.
And no car analogy? You couldn't come up with license plate readers or red light cameras, or even jaywalking? How about something about click-through licenses from Microsoft or even a Star Trek reference to pattern buffers.
Shame on you. Shame on you sir!
Hey terrorists (Score:1)
Stand over there a sec...we need to scan your iris. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
*boom* .... I said scan, not wear...
Re: (Score:2)
The expensive system isn't close to foolproof (Score:2)
You know they won't don Mohammed masks, but wait until terrorists all adopt wearing Guy Fawkes masks...
This sounds like a narrow-use tool in a much larger tool chest. With that said, when the military starts marrying this tech to AI and some form "walking gait" technology (like what was presumptively portrayed in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation to protect a vault), they'll have something truly terrifying for its adversaries.
Oversight? (Score:5, Interesting)
I get why the military would want this, but what I don't get it why it's acceptable for there to be no civilian oversight. Such a system can be used to abuse the rights of US citizens and there should be oversight to ensure this does not happen. The military should not be above the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that it being illegal will stop it from happening. Just ask the NSA!
Re: (Score:2)
NSA? Just ask any "gun-control" lawmaker, why they're passing laws the Constitution explicitly bans them from passing...
Re: (Score:1)
Adding restrictions to gun ownership does not violate the amendment. But I agree this is the wrong approach - the amendment itself should be removed and guns banned outright.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. Disarm the very people that are quickly turning into digital serfs.
Re: (Score:2)
You are already serfs. Do you believe possessing guns changes that? Especially online?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, it does! I'm not even talking about the so-called "assault" anything — carrying mere knives is illegal in most places. brass knuckles [reference.com] too are either illegal outright, or require permits. New Jersey has outlawed slingshots!
Sure, try convincing 2/3rds of the nation... But until you succeed at that, it remains the law of the land — clear, unequivocal and expli
Re: (Score:1)
I know you mean well, and this is just my opinion....But, I don't think Girl Scouts and Forrest that works at the auto mechanic down the road should be considered above the law.
Technically or Ideally ??? No one is above the law, even my namesake.
(anyone find it funny that some conservative evangelicals say he is above the law, others argue which is more important, God's laws or man's. Others interject that their interpretation of the bible has God telling in the bible to follow man's laws unless they are
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Posse Comitatus Act, it's illegal to use this against US citizens (at least those in the US). But hey, if you wear a uniform in the US, you're probably above the law.
The drug, terrorism, and civil unrest exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act render it ineffective.
Further, when your law enforcement has military weapons, equipment, and training and uses them to enforce order rather than justice while ignoring the Constitution and violating civil rights, then the distinction between law enforcement and military is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:1)
I get why the military would want this, but what I don't get it why it's acceptable for there to be no civilian oversight. Such a system can be used to abuse the rights of US citizens and there should be oversight to ensure this does not happen. The military should not be above the law.
Because the military is not your friend, the oligarchs are getting ready for war against their own citizens and the citizens of the planet as shit goes south. You can hear it in their own words... Former national security advisor of the united states, Zbigniew Brezinski.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They're worried about us becoming informed, since most citizens are uninformed they can't challenge the corrupt powers that be... so the worlds rich and their corporations is militarizing against their own p
Re: (Score:2)
It's acceptable because the military is not my friend? That is a non sequitur.
Re: (Score:1)
It's acceptable because the military is not my friend? That is a non sequitur.
I'm saying that you don't grasp the state doesn't work for the people, it works for the rich. The state's whole purpose is to control and supress its non rich citizens. AKA you're the enemy.
One exampe, does the state work for us or corporations? One look at IP law over the last 200 years see's our rights to have access to our own culture has been removed by infinite extension by big business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I do grasp that. What you're talking about is why things are they way they are, and what I'm talking about is what is acceptable. Clearly they are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
I do grasp that. What you're talking about is why things are they way they are, and what I'm talking about is what is acceptable. Clearly they are not the same thing.
But you don't seem to get that requires a politically informed pubilc, that isn't america. America is the most indoctrinated on the planet. That's why I recommended listening to chomsky's lectures and getting some research on what the state has been up to. You can't hold people accountable if you don't have an accurate picture of the world because you've been misinformed by schools and the corporate state
See this:
https://youtu.be/glHd_5-9PVs?t... [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:2)
and what I'm talking about is what is acceptable. Clearly they are not the same thing.
The question is acceptable to who?
Nobody cares what you or I think - we are not rich enough to count.
Re: (Score:2)
I get why the military would want this, but what I don't get it why it's acceptable for there to be no civilian oversight. Such a system can be used to abuse the rights of US citizens and there should be oversight to ensure this does not happen. The military should not be above the law.
The President and Congress are the civilian oversight. That's why the Commander in Chief is elected by the people, and Congress, also elected by the people, stands as the check and balance.
Of course, if you have issues with the election process, that's another thing.
Re: Oversight? (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m not sure having civilians in the chain of command and there being oversight are the same thing. Are these parties capable of making this kind of determination about this technology?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Authority is not the same as oversight.
Acronyms (Score:3)
I'd like to volunteer to keep an eye on the Biometrically Enabled Watch Baseline System (BEWBS).
Do you Americans never get to see boobs? (Score:2)
Why are you so obsessed with them? They're just boobs.
Re: (Score:2)
that's nothing (Score:1)
Yawn.
If I were a foreign adversary, I would fire any reports who spent more than a half hour on this.
What can the likes of China do? (Score:2)
"If Wikileaks can obtain over a half a million of our reports, what can the likes of China or Russia do?"
I believe the Office of Personnel Management [wikipedia.org] could answer that question for you, sir.
Given the global behavior of the USA.... (Score:2)
... they will have to add pretty much everyone soon. Including their own soldiers. Then generals. And then it's over.
That is how revolutions happen. Soldiers and generals are humans too. They can see the will of the people. And all it takes is one general to secretly turn around and tell his soldiers. Then two. Then ...
Adversaries? (Score:2)
Glenn Krizay, director of the Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency has a strange definition of adversary since the database contains the information on allied soldiers who train with the US Military.
Re: (Score:2)
the database contains the information on allied soldiers who train with the US Military.
So who cares about them? Not Trump, for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
This would include the pilots who train with the US, people on ships in other navies doing exercises with the US Navy, and all sorts of other people from many countries such as the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And if the US wants to keep it's allies it had better start treating them better.
Amazing what you can find (Score:2)
If you go looking for a bit of information about it the system (I was trying to see if it really did store information about allies in it) what you are able to find. I found a page with a link to a PDF [dtic.mil] outlining the test results for an upgrade not ready to go back in 2014. It's approved for public release so I didn't hack into anything. I just found it by searching for the database name plus US militia in Google.
Misleading headling (Score:1)
The story does not describe how the system works, It describes what data is collected. It doesn't describe how the data is analysed, turned into information, dissemininated and actioned. I was expecting a story about image analysis, deep learning, GANs etc.
This is a cheap journalistic trick: instead of headlining your story descriptively ("Zuckerburg is the most hated tech CEO"), insert a word that implies insight, e.g. "How" or "Why". But then don't change your descriptive story to show how or why such-and