Facial recognition

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by RetiredGySgt, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,556
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,972
    FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives - Yahoo! News

    I do not see the problem with this. No one can honestly expect that their photo taken for DMV is protected from viewing as in every State the right for law enforcement to have access is a given.

    No one has a protected right to hide from law enforcement if they have broken the law. And this only effects criminals.

    If you have a problem with who is determined to be a criminal that is a separate issue entirely. And if the State is arresting people for non criminal behavior we have a bigger problem then facial identifying software being used by the cops.
     
  2. ncarolinadixie
    Offline

    ncarolinadixie dixie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    n. carolina
    Ratings:
    +66
    Good Mornin GySgt! I trust all is well with you and yours. I, like you, see nothing wrong with this at all. If it helps them find someone that needs to be found so be it. Another way to look at it is the benefit that will be gained in finding missing persons. It's always been my thinking that even children should have some kind of photo ID on file in the state they live in for identification purposes. It would, IMO, go a long way in helping find missing kids.
     
  3. strollingbones
    Online

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,624
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,962
    i wonder if they will look for dead beat parents?
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,556
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,972
    Not the FBI.
     
  5. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    Oh for goodness sake- The FBI of all people should know that facial recognition is NOT enough to gain a conviction with..

    THIS ^^^ Shows that it is crude field work, at best.. and here..

    ..Shows that all they can do is get someone who (based on a higher aesthetic probability) MIGHT be their suspect, based on a matching nose and chin, facial features, skeletal pattern, etc.. But that they still have to do a significant amount of field work, to even make their assumptions reasonable to a judge or grand jury..
    They don't even have STANDARDS in place for license photos, as you see here ^^^^, which is vague at best, not telling us whether they are saying there is no national standard as to how large the face should be, how many pixels, etc.. or whether they are discussing standards on how they decide when to do a photo search, even..

    IOW, Your driving permit is like a new social security card! AND although they claim that they want nothing to do with all these pictures of people who have done nothing wrong...
    ... they are still PROBING a system full of people who DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG, anyways.. So basically, everyone with a drivers license is subjected to a virtual line-up at any time.. Even though the FBI claims that these people in the line up (anyone with a license to drive, keep in mind) are not of interest to them.. Only the ones who LOOK like some criminal??? WTF!!! ... OK- While I am okay with the FBI going after the bad guys here.. THERE ARE PROBLEMS:

    Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.. And certainly not in finding terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list:

    I want our privacy back.. :eusa_eh:
     
  6. indianaboy
    Offline

    indianaboy Ultra-conservative

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Indiana
    Ratings:
    +12
    For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.
     
  7. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    You aren't required to have one.. unless you want to drive.. :lol:

    Considering that 98% of Americans DRIVE, that means that 98% of Americans are subjected to a line up, without even a warranted search..
     
  8. indianaboy
    Offline

    indianaboy Ultra-conservative

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Indiana
    Ratings:
    +12
    Well then maybe the whiney Americans who don't want to have their face recorded should buy bicycles.

    Want the privilige of driving? Pay the price.

    "Without even a warranted search"
    How exactly is this a search issue?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,556
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,972
    And you have no expectation of privacy when you consent to have your picture taken for a drivers license, pretty simple concept, ehh?
     
  10. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    Driver's Licenses haven't always been stored in some kind of computer database, Gunny..

    I remember when they would take a polaroid and glue it to the paper that they just printed your information on.

    Also, it has less to do with privacy rights to the picture, than it does to do with privacy rights in general-

    Most people have to travel several miles one way to get to work, school, the grocery store, etc.. Driving is no longer seen as a privilege of luxury, and is now seen more as a need. This is why the state laws have transgressed to the point that now, if you do certain things wrong that are even technical wrongs, like not registering or getting your plates and vehicles confused, can be arrestable offenses.. An arrest signifies that the public at large needs to be protected, because an arrest is "the people versus".. This means that in the grand scheme of things, driving privileges are starting to be seen as rights, in general.
    I may not be explaining this adequately enough, though-
    With all privilege comes responsibilities. Yes of course.. With all rights come responsibilities. Yes of course.. When a privilege starts to become a need, it does begin to become a right, as well. Rights are equivocal to needs.. Most reasonable people would agree to this..

    That said, the need to drive = the right to drive (just about, anyways- its not like felons and parolees are disallowed driving privileges based on criminal history, and I doubt that they ever will be, based solely on that status) so we need to determine what other rights a person should be entitled to, knowing that just about everyone has a need to drive, and is capable of it..

    With that understanding, I personally do not feel that anyone should be placed in a virtual line up for the purposes of making a criminal (statutory or higher law based, indicating the people versus so and so- "the people" meaning people who have had their rights infringed upon.. do you see where I am going here?) arrest based on a photograph. It is a little like asking people to open wide and do a DNA swab (or fingerprints) before getting their Driver's Licenses, and then the FBI coming in there and scanning everyone's DNA, or prints, to find a rapist, except in this case, faces and skeletal structuring can be so similar that false allegations can happen. If it was DNA, and fingerprints, however, it is a much better way to compare two people, and these accidents would not happen.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" does not include using "visual congruency" software against millions of innocent people who may or may not look like a particular perpetrator, and there should be some restrictons in this area of investigation, to keep the overzealous people who ignore this major facet of the justice system, and send innocent people to jail, just to wait for months or years for a trial, and deal with media problems and a lifetime of dealing with the devastation of having America's mainstream of people think they are guilty BASED ON A FRIGGIN PHOTOGRAPH. That is WRONG.
     

Share This Page