Facial recognition

[JD_2B]

if you are not driving and a cop stops you on the street because a robbery just took place nearby and you meet the suspect's description, and the cop asks you for ID, it is NOT against the law for you to say NO, I am not showing you my driver's license...a cop, under those conditions, can not force you to show him your driver's license...it is PRIVATE....you get to choose when to show it to anybody...EXCEPT when a cop stops you when DRIVING, then the DRIVER'S license has to be shown by law.

Actually, it is probable cause- to be stopped and asked to provide ID, or even a search, all they need is probable cause. They can arrest you for not cooperating with them- Resisting an officer without violence.

But this all boils down to a warranted and just search for a particular person, with probable cause- not a search of the entire country (like satellite images of rooftops, in search of the one that is orange, where some suspected killer lives) by some bizarre process of elimination.. in which the "suspects" eliminated are not suspects at all..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do have the right to "imprison" someone- My kid. Happens every time he gets grounded. I dont even have to lock him away- he knows what it means to be grounded.

Do you have the right to lock up a fellow adult? I think not.

This is about due process- which the FBI is not using- therefore the privacy rights of millions of people who are not suspects are being infringed upon.

Once again for the slow, you have NO expectation of Privacy when you consent to have your picture taken for a drivers license. NONE, NADA, ZIPPO. EVERY State uses those photos for all kinda of things INCLUDING giving them to ANY other Law Enforcement agency that ASKS.

This is akin to the ridiculous argument that in a public place you have some right to privacy visa vie the cameras that are used for security purposes. You have NONE.

There is NO Constitutionally protected right being violated, not a single one. next you will be telling us that if Joe Cop sees you on the street and recognizes you via a photo on an arrest warrant you have a constitutional right to privacy too.

You do not want a picture used for this purpose? Don't get a drivers license and do not go in public. You give up your supposed right to privacy the minute you agree to have that photo taken. Don't like it? Then petition your State to change the law. That is the only power you have in regards that.

 

[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.

I agree with RGS on this. No one has the right to privacy in public (including virtuality) when trying to evade apprehension for criminality.

why is a driver's licence of the State PUBLIC? it isn't....it is private information that I CAN CHOOSE to show you if i want to fly, want to drink in a bar etc....?

You would be wrong. The License is available to be given to ANY law Enforcement organization that asks. Don't like that law? Petition to have YOUR state change it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

why is a driver's licence of the State PUBLIC? it isn't....it is private information that I CAN CHOOSE to show you if i want to fly, want to drink in a bar etc....?

You and your bud have it wrong. The DL is not protected from government snooping. Go read your law folks.

And, no, you don't have a right to complete privacy in public if you are a potential suspect running from the law.

But the millions of Americans they are searching that have drivers licenses and pics ARE NOT SUSPECTS or potential suspects Jake, are we?

Just as YOU are a suspect if a crime occurred and you matched the description, ANYONE with a Drivers license picture that matches the description of a criminal is a suspect. Pretty simple concept. BUT more to the point, they did not search an undefined area, as in the whole US. They had specific information the person was in North Carolina. And they searched North Carolina for him. PROBABLE cause for the search.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RGS has summed it well. You don't have a right to privacy in your government records if suspected of a crime, JD_2B and Care4all

 

[JD_2B]

No- you do not- I posted a lengthy post TWICE now in regards to this, which has AS OF YET to be responded to..

Don't call us the ignorant ones. The ignorant ones are the ones who are willfully and woefully ignoring that information, for a made up truth of their own. SCROLL UP. (Pgs 3 and 2)

 

[manifold]

So far both sides have offered up some pretty good arguments on this one.

I really don't know if RGS is right or not when he says there is no expectation of privacy here. That is certainly the case if you're already a suspect. But it's not really clear if that applies when it's a massive sweep of everyone in the database when obviously none of them have been identified as a suspect beforehand.

Of course this speaks to the legality/consititutionality of the matter. Setting aside whether it's "legal" according to current laws and constitutional interpretation and simply considering the rightness/wrongness of this based on my own principles I lean toward being ok with it. I don't really see the slippery slope danger here. They're just matching up faces in a database, they are not mining for any personal data of any kind about the people they're scanning. Again, legality aside, I just don't feel like my privacy is being violated if my license photo is among those scanned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "information" is not being ignored, but the analysis is being ignored because it does not address the problem but merely reflects the poster's opinion. No law prohibits law enforcement from doing this. If there is one, please post it.

 

[JD_2B]

So far both sides have offered up some pretty good arguments on this one.

I really don't know if RGS is right or not when he says there is no expectation of privacy here. That is certainly the case if you're already a suspect. But it's not really clear if that applies when it's a massive sweep of everyone in the database when obviously none of them have been identified as a suspect beforehand.

Of course this speaks to the legality/consititutionality of the matter. Setting aside whether it's "legal" according to current laws and constitutional interpretation and simply considering the rightness/wrongness of this based on my own principles I lean toward being ok with it. I don't really see the slippery slope danger here. They're just matching up faces in a database, they are not mining for any personal data of any kind about the people they're scanning. Again, legality aside, I just don't feel like my privacy is being violated if my license photo is among those scanned.

I appreciate your civility in this thread..

I also want to add that this situation is much akin to phone taps to find terrorists..

After all, they are only trying to find people who say things like "president" "bomb" nuclear" "hijack", etc.. RIGHT???

The rest of us are not targeted- even though this VERY message is now being scanned through some FBI computer as we speak..

Just because the government is "targeting" certain individuals, does not give them some kind of express authority to access everyone in the country's otherwise reasonably considered private information. I say that if my fucking chin matches up with some asshole terrorist's, and my cheekbones also happen to match up, then the Feds are prone to finding me, and framing me for anything they goddamned want, just to put my ass in some offshore prison long enough to build a fake ass case on me (or you, or any of us, for that matter!)

That is BULLSHIT. I have no problem whatsoever with them looking people up by their aliases and all that- and doing facial recognition that way, but they need to do a little more investigating before pinning something on someone who may very well be pinned for something, just by coincidence of how they look and the fact that they happened to recently move or whatever.

The FEDS seem to forget all about the incidences of twins, triplets, etc.. and the fact that even databases with warrant info on them explicitly say that positive identification cannot be established without fingerprints, etc.. I mean, come fucking on.. The FEDS dont get this??

PS- I am not saying "fucking" towards you, thats just how I talk, lol

 

[JakeStarkey]

If anyone's facial structure matches someone else's (a possibility, not a probability), then the process of investigation will eliminate one as a suspect. That is how the system works. No one has a constitutional right to not be considered suspect on circumstantial evidence. No law exists to prohibit what these virtual scans are doing, unless someone has already posted such evidence. Please do so, if anyone has it.

 

[JD_2B]

If anyone's facial structure matches someone else's (a possibility, not a probability), then the process of investigation will eliminate one as a suspect. That is how the system works. No one has a constitutional right to not be considered suspect on circumstantial evidence. No law exists to prohibit what these virtual scans are doing, unless someone has already posted such evidence. Please do so, if anyone has it.

But one's twin will PROBABLY still be considered a suspect, won't they?

Sorry, but facial scanning does not give anyone the right to imprison some killer's twin brother.

No law exists?? How about probable cause??? THAT is constitutional..

Amendment IV
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 want to speak with ANY judge who would approve of a statewide database search based on a software program that is "almost always" right..

 

[Mr. H.]

Facial recognition

Yup, she looks familiar.

Book 'em, Dano.

 

[JD_2B]

Facial recognition

Yup, she looks familiar.

Book 'em, Dano.

Thank you for brightening this thread up.. lol =)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So far both sides have offered up some pretty good arguments on this one.

I really don't know if RGS is right or not when he says there is no expectation of privacy here. That is certainly the case if you're already a suspect. But it's not really clear if that applies when it's a massive sweep of everyone in the database when obviously none of them have been identified as a suspect beforehand.

Of course this speaks to the legality/consititutionality of the matter. Setting aside whether it's "legal" according to current laws and constitutional interpretation and simply considering the rightness/wrongness of this based on my own principles I lean toward being ok with it. I don't really see the slippery slope danger here. They're just matching up faces in a database, they are not mining for any personal data of any kind about the people they're scanning. Again, legality aside, I just don't feel like my privacy is being violated if my license photo is among those scanned.

I appreciate your civility in this thread..

I also want to add that this situation is much akin to phone taps to find terrorists..

After all, they are only trying to find people who say things like "president" "bomb" nuclear" "hijack", etc.. RIGHT???

The rest of us are not targeted- even though this VERY message is now being scanned through some FBI computer as we speak..

Just because the government is "targeting" certain individuals, does not give them some kind of express authority to access everyone in the country's otherwise reasonably considered private information. I say that if my fucking chin matches up with some asshole terrorist's, and my cheekbones also happen to match up, then the Feds are prone to finding me, and framing me for anything they goddamned want, just to put my ass in some offshore prison long enough to build a fake ass case on me (or you, or any of us, for that matter!)

That is BULLSHIT. I have no problem whatsoever with them looking people up by their aliases and all that- and doing facial recognition that way, but they need to do a little more investigating before pinning something on someone who may very well be pinned for something, just by coincidence of how they look and the fact that they happened to recently move or whatever.

The FEDS seem to forget all about the incidences of twins, triplets, etc.. and the fact that even databases with warrant info on them explicitly say that positive identification cannot be established without fingerprints, etc.. I mean, come fucking on.. The FEDS dont get this??

PS- I am not saying "fucking" towards you, thats just how I talk, lol

Once again address the law. IN EVERY STATE the law states that license photos are available to be used, viewed and reviewed by other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies. Pretty simple concept. You do not like it? Change your State law.

And again no one gets arrested cause their photo matches. It is simply a tool to narrow the search down and OTHER things must be used to issue an arrest warrant on. Perhaps you need to reread the story? Because once again using your logic if a cop sees someone on the street that looks like the suspect, according to you that is not probably cause, using this as an example.

THE LAW is clear. NO ONE has an expectation of privacy when they consent to have their picture taken for a State ID or State Drivers license. Just as if you give your finger prints to the Federal Government,as I had to for a security clearance, there is no expectation that those prints will NOT, in the future, be used to find me if I break the law. Same with if you finger print your children with a State Agency.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If anyone's facial structure matches someone else's (a possibility, not a probability), then the process of investigation will eliminate one as a suspect. That is how the system works. No one has a constitutional right to not be considered suspect on circumstantial evidence. No law exists to prohibit what these virtual scans are doing, unless someone has already posted such evidence. Please do so, if anyone has it.

But one's twin will PROBABLY still be considered a suspect, won't they?

Sorry, but facial scanning does not give anyone the right to imprison some killer's twin brother.

No law exists?? How about probable cause??? THAT is constitutional..

Amendment IV
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 want to speak with ANY judge who would approve of a statewide database search based on a software program that is "almost always" right..

And there you go again, Facial recognition does not give the Feds any license to arrest anyone. READ the article. It is used to narrow the search down and OTHER tools are used to verify the identity and are required to gain an arrest warrant.

 

[JD_2B]

So far both sides have offered up some pretty good arguments on this one.

I really don't know if RGS is right or not when he says there is no expectation of privacy here. That is certainly the case if you're already a suspect. But it's not really clear if that applies when it's a massive sweep of everyone in the database when obviously none of them have been identified as a suspect beforehand.

Of course this speaks to the legality/consititutionality of the matter. Setting aside whether it's "legal" according to current laws and constitutional interpretation and simply considering the rightness/wrongness of this based on my own principles I lean toward being ok with it. I don't really see the slippery slope danger here. They're just matching up faces in a database, they are not mining for any personal data of any kind about the people they're scanning. Again, legality aside, I just don't feel like my privacy is being violated if my license photo is among those scanned.

I appreciate your civility in this thread..

I also want to add that this situation is much akin to phone taps to find terrorists..

After all, they are only trying to find people who say things like "president" "bomb" nuclear" "hijack", etc.. RIGHT???

The rest of us are not targeted- even though this VERY message is now being scanned through some FBI computer as we speak..

Just because the government is "targeting" certain individuals, does not give them some kind of express authority to access everyone in the country's otherwise reasonably considered private information. I say that if my fucking chin matches up with some asshole terrorist's, and my cheekbones also happen to match up, then the Feds are prone to finding me, and framing me for anything they goddamned want, just to put my ass in some offshore prison long enough to build a fake ass case on me (or you, or any of us, for that matter!)

That is BULLSHIT. I have no problem whatsoever with them looking people up by their aliases and all that- and doing facial recognition that way, but they need to do a little more investigating before pinning something on someone who may very well be pinned for something, just by coincidence of how they look and the fact that they happened to recently move or whatever.

The FEDS seem to forget all about the incidences of twins, triplets, etc.. and the fact that even databases with warrant info on them explicitly say that positive identification cannot be established without fingerprints, etc.. I mean, come fucking on.. The FEDS dont get this??

PS- I am not saying "fucking" towards you, thats just how I talk, lol

Once again address the law. IN EVERY STATE the law states that license photos are available to be used, viewed and reviewed by other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies. Pretty simple concept. You do not like it? Change your State law.[/quote[

Thats partially true, but the fourth amendment says not without warrant. They CAN look at various individual pictures and DLs, etc, but they do not own the rights to those pictures- they have to get permission first. They dont have grounds to look at everyones picture at once.

And again no one gets arrested cause their photo matches. It is simply a tool to narrow the search down and OTHER things must be used to issue an arrest warrant on. Perhaps you need to reread the story? Because once again using your logic if a cop sees someone on the street that looks like the suspect, according to you that is not probably cause, using this as an example.

Yeah it is true- they can't indict someone based on them looking like the suspect- they can based on fingerprints, though.

THE LAW is clear. NO ONE has an expectation of privacy when they consent to have their picture taken for a State ID or State Drivers license. Just as if you give your finger prints to the Federal Government,as I had to for a security clearance, there is no expectation that those prints will NOT, in the future, be used to find me if I break the law. Same with if you finger print your children with a State Agency.

Bullshit- the LAW of MANY state DMV's says that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Christ, Gunny- I posted this information twice now. It is not my fault that you are willingly ignoring these posts just to support an argument.

 

[Ryan]

JD 2B, I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that you do have a valid legal argument. What if any limitations would be placed on this data base search. Can protesters be IDed by the facial recognition soft ware? Would these searches be limited in some way, if yes how so?

Some other related issues could include the releasing political info. For example, releasing the lists names of those that donated to California's Prop 8 ban and were targeted by activists with different views.

Maybe information on gun-owners obtained in the state paperwork could be considered public information. Of course, rights and privileges are different issues.

I do not know if you have the winning legal argument but I would not sign on to this as fast as most on this thread that's what the Courts are for.

 

[JD_2B]

Well, see- the 5th Amendment does not offer protection from the State using one's body or identity as evidence to build a case.. But my argument was not meant to be a constitutional one based on this particular concept, and more on the grounds of the 14th amendment, in combination with the 5th amendment, and the due process clause..

Since the respective states must be held to keep secure one's papers and freedoms, then the access to the driver's license picture database itself is up for debate.

14-
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

5-
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


The FBI is not Congress, for one thing.. They don't get to make up their own laws and exemptions, just because they are a federal agency. It is my contention that in order for the FBI to have access to these photos, that they should always have a specific search criteria, to look for a specific person or certain specific known people. They should be held to have to get a warrant for such a search. The states department of motor vehicles do not have the authority to share access to our pictures and personal information, without there being due process first. Clearly, the FBI seems to be doing this without so much as a warrant.. Just a please and thank you seem to suffice here..

RGS seems to think that I am adamantly against the gov't having access to these records, which is just asinine, and not my stance at all. I AM adamantly against the government getting access to records without a warrant.

Oh and PS- gun registration is going outbound now. It is unconstitutional. My state does not allow for registration of weapons. Even when you get a Concealed weapons permit, no public record is kept on it. It is simply a personal permit that you have to keep on your body when you carry a deadly weapon. The state does not keep track, in honor of the 2nd amendment (and apparently, the 5th and the 14th, too)..