Facial recognition

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

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.

 

[strollingbones]

i wonder if they will look for dead beat parents?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i wonder if they will look for dead beat parents?

Not the FBI.

 

[JD_2B]

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.

Oh for goodness sake- The FBI of all people should know that facial recognition is NOT enough to gain a conviction with..

In its search for fugitives, the FBI has begun using facial-recognition technology on millions of motorists, comparing driver's license photos with pictures of convicts in a high-tech analysis of chin widths and nose sizes.

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

Earlier this year, investigators learned that a double-homicide suspect named Rodolfo Corrales had moved to North Carolina. The FBI took a 1991 booking photo from California and compared it with 30 million photos stored by the motor vehicle agency in Raleigh.

In seconds, the search returned dozens of drivers who resembled Corrales, and an FBI analyst reviewed a gallery of images before zeroing in on a man who called himself Jose Solis.

A week later, after corroborating Corrales' identity, agents arrested him in High Point, southwest of Greensboro, where they believe he had built a new life under the assumed name. Corrales is scheduled for a preliminary hearing in Los Angeles later this month.

..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..

FBI officials have organized a panel of authorities to study how best to increase use of the software. It will take at least a year to establish standards for license photos, and there's no timetable to roll out the program nationally.

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..

Licenses "started as a permission to drive," he said. "Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."

State and federal laws allow driver's license agencies to release records for law enforcement, and local agencies have access to North Carolina's database, too. But the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. That means the facial-recognition analysis must be done at the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles.

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...

Unless the person's a criminal, we would not have a need to have that information in the system," said Kim Del Greco, who oversees the FBI's biometrics division. "I think that would be a privacy concern. We're staying away from that."

Dan Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, added: "We're not interested in housing a bunch of photos of people who have done absolutely 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:

The system is not always right. Investigators used one DMV photo of an Associated Press reporter to search for a second DMV photo, but the system first returned dozens of other people, including a North Carolina terrorism suspect who had some similar facial features.

(and)- emphasis added by ME

Lamm said investigators reviewing the galleries can almost always find the right photo, using a combination of the computer and the naked eye.

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

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, questioned whether the facial-recognition systems that were pushed after the Sept. 11 attacks are accurate or even worthwhile.

"We don't have good photos of terrorists," Rotenberg said. "Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that's where the good photos are. It's not where the terrorists are."

I want our privacy back..

 

[indianaboy]

For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.

 

[JD_2B]

For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.

You aren't required to have one.. unless you want to drive..

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

 

[indianaboy]

For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.

You aren't required to have one.. unless you want to drive..

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

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.

You aren't required to have one.. unless you want to drive..

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

And you have no expectation of privacy when you consent to have your picture taken for a drivers license, pretty simple concept, ehh?

 

[JD_2B]

For all the whiners... I must be ignorant of the law requiring all citizens to have a driver's license.

You aren't required to have one.. unless you want to drive..

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

And you have no expectation of privacy when you consent to have your picture taken for a drivers license, pretty simple concept, ehh?

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.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

"arrest based on a photograph"

So do you think that when someone goes in to try to identify their attacker via the PHOTOGRAPHS of criminals on file that, that shouldn't be allowed? How do you think they identify a lot of criminals now? They sit someone down with a book of PHOTOGRAPHS of known criminals and tell them to see if they can pick out the person they've reported for whatever reason. How would this be any different? This technology, facial recognition, is based on the same theory that fingerprints are. You have to have x number of "points" matching to be able to identify a person absolutely. Facial Recognition would work the same way. X amount of "points" would have to match to claim an absolute identification.

As far as the "privacy rights" of people's drivers license photo goes, a credit card and a nominal fee can get you just about anyone in this country's drivers license photo and the information contained on their license. It's not like this is going to create something that can't be done NOW by anyone with a computer and a credit card. Hell, you can look up criminal records for people in your state for nothing. I would think this is so for most states I should clarify. I know you can do that here in NC. Just go into the Dept. of Corrections NC website and you can pull up a persons criminal record if they have one in NC.

I actually find it kind of humerous that so many will jump on something like this with a display of supposed outrage over a supposed "loss of people's right to privacy" NOW when things like this have been around for a long long time. You can find out pretty much anything you want about a person with a little initiative and a credit card in most cases.

 

[lawbuff]

And you have no expectation of privacy when you consent to have your picture taken for a drivers license, pretty simple concept, ehh?

Similar to the expectation of privacy in a publicly displayed license plate #, there is none.

An officer can "run" a plate for any or no reason, as it is NOT a search under the 4th AM.

 

[lawbuff]

"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.

This reminds me of the old Bertillion system of identification, one of the first concepts I learned in Criminal law.

ID look alike is not the only factor. IF a victim swears it was the person after a DL photo is shown, further investigation is required to seal a case.

As in a lineup, to outcast any prejudicial effect, all members must be similar in nature/appearance.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

"It is a little like asking people to open wide and do a DNA swab (or fingerprints) before getting their Driver's Licenses,"

You do realize that a lot of banks and even groceries stores are requiring your finger print before cashing or accepting a check? Even with the showing of a photo ID. Do you see that as some kind of threat to our rights to privacy?

 

[Elutherian]

Man, I don't like this shit one bit. Sure, it seems reasonable now, but they keep getting more and more rights over our privacy. Eventually we won't be able to take a piss without a camera looking up at us through the damn toilet.

I judge it like this: If it ain't legal for me to do it, it sure as hell shouldn't be legal for the Government to do it. We're supposed to be keeping an eye on them, not the other way around.
Let's make a fingerprint, facial recognition database of all Government employees... now that don't sound like a bad idea.

 

[JD_2B]

"arrest based on a photograph"

So do you think that when someone goes in to try to identify their attacker via the PHOTOGRAPHS of criminals on file that, that shouldn't be allowed? How do you think they identify a lot of criminals now? They sit someone down with a book of PHOTOGRAPHS of known criminals and tell them to see if they can pick out the person they've reported for whatever reason. How would this be any different? This technology, facial recognition, is based on the same theory that fingerprints are. You have to have x number of "points" matching to be able to identify a person absolutely. Facial Recognition would work the same way. X amount of "points" would have to match to claim an absolute identification.

Those are known criminals.. The "usual suspects", so to speak. It is very different. You are comparing apples and oranges here.. They take pictures of known robbers (if there was a robbery) rapists (if the victim was raped) car thieves (if there was a car jacking) etc.. they narrow down THOSE photograph searches better than they do with people with NO criminal record, who simply DRIVE.

As far as the "privacy rights" of people's drivers license photo goes, a credit card and a nominal fee can get you just about anyone in this country's drivers license photo and the information contained on their license. It's not like this is going to create something that can't be done NOW by anyone with a computer and a credit card. Hell, you can look up criminal records for people in your state for nothing. I would think this is so for most states I should clarify. I know you can do that here in NC. Just go into the Dept. of Corrections NC website and you can pull up a persons criminal record if they have one in NC.

Yep- You can get mine, and I can get yours. You can do this if you have a justifiable reason, and most times, you have to have some reasoning behind looking at an INDIVIDUAL's license, etc, before they will allow you to do this. This is to avoid people abusing the system. Oh and not all states will let you pull criminal records for free, but criminal records are considered public record, also- so there are simply certain reasons you have to have to pull them, so as not to abuse the system.
And YES- you can get a person's address and all that through the DMV- but consider this- you are saying that the feds should have free and unrestricted access to use this tool ay way they choose.
Say someone is robbed and they SAY that the robbers looked like the people that live down the street, and that they have other friends and neighbors who also enjoy robbing houses. The feds could then just get all the DMV info for the people in that general area, and make "positive identification" using a blurry video tape (lets not play make believe here- we dont even know what Bin Laden looks like, for sure, lol- and there is a picture of someone who might be him, in the 10 most wanted list that the feds couldn't even adjust to look clear and concise, even if it IS him) of the people whom the victim and videotape could sortof see, on the basis of WHAT? Shit, really.. NOT prints, not anything..

I actually find it kind of humerous that so many will jump on something like this with a display of supposed outrage over a supposed "loss of people's right to privacy" NOW when things like this have been around for a long long time. You can find out pretty much anything you want about a person with a little initiative and a credit card in most cases.

HA sounds very stalker-ish to me..

Yes- if you want to find out everything publicly known about ONE person, a specific individual, you have that right, if it is for good reason, and not stalking, anyways.. In most cases, you have to get consent from that person to get a background check, etc.. Unless you rummage through their garbage or personal things, and find their social security numbers and all that, to get to that information.. You can't just go through all IRS records with certain auditing software to see who has the most inconsistencies and find frauds.. And you can't go through DMV records with photo software to find facial landmarks and put innocent people in danger of losing their freedoms.

The addresses and photos of everyone in the state that are contained in the DMV database are not things that the average citizen can just waltz in and ask to take a look at. Because of this- The FBI is abusing it's power.

Any power that the government has, and the general public has NOT, is an abuse of power. In this case, it is an invasion of privacy, and an unfair and unjust way of finding possible (or probable) suspects.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

"HA sounds very stalker-ish to me.. "

Nope, just fact. And your justifications made in that pretty bold and enlarged print mean nothing. It still amounts to the same thing. The FBI will use photos they can access from DL photos to identify a criminal just as photos are used to identify a criminal in a police station. I guess you think background checks for employment are stalkerish also huh? The point is, everything you whining about being a violation of a person's privacy is easily attainable today. And NO, you do not have to give a reason when utilizing one of the many search sites on the computer. You only have to give your cc number so they can get paid. The owners of these sights don't give a fat babies butt WHY you want the information. I made it very clear that I didn't know how many states allowed access to criminal records but that NC for a fact does. It's what we used primarily at my last job because it was free. To check other states we used an outside source for a nominal fee. And all it took to get that was the SS number of the person we were checking out. No explanation needed, just pay the bill. Again, it's a whole lot of whining and complaining now over something that has been going on for a long long time. Technology advances everyday. Remember, 25 years ago DNA tests were pretty much never used. Now all they need is a strand of hair out of a hairbrush. Facial Recognition is just another advance in technology. No sense in whining about it. It's going to happen whether you like it or approve of it. Just give it some time.....you'll hear about some other NEW and "invasive" thing they've come up with. Technology doesn't stop because someone doesn't "approve".

 

[indianaboy]

I judge it like this: If it ain't legal for me to do it, it sure as hell shouldn't be legal for the Government to do it.

Any power that the government has, and the general public has NOT, is an abuse of power. In this case, it is an invasion of privacy, and an unfair and unjust way of finding possible (or probable) suspects.

So it shouldn't be legal for the government to imprison criminals? Because I sure as heck can't lock people in my basement for violations of the law.

If you don't like the idea of surrendering power to the government, buy a private island. Our government does a lot of unconstitutional and wrong things; this isn't one of them.

 

[Elutherian]

I judge it like this: If it ain't legal for me to do it, it sure as hell shouldn't be legal for the Government to do it.

Any power that the government has, and the general public has NOT, is an abuse of power. In this case, it is an invasion of privacy, and an unfair and unjust way of finding possible (or probable) suspects.

So it shouldn't be legal for the government to imprison criminals? Because I sure as heck can't lock people in my basement for violations of the law.

If you don't like the idea of surrendering power to the government, buy a private island. Our government does a lot of unconstitutional and wrong things; this isn't one of them.

This is why I disagree with the very institution of Government. Special Rights... it's like Fuedal Europe, just centralized.

 

[Care4all]

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has this power ret gy sgt?