Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Launches $1 Billion Nationwide Face Recognition System

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Privacy 188

MrSeb writes "The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun rolling out its new $1 billion biometric Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. In essence, NGI is a nationwide database of mugshots, iris scans, DNA records, voice samples, and other biometrics that will help the FBI identify and catch criminals — but it is how this biometric data is captured, through a nationwide network of cameras and photo databases, that is raising the eyebrows of privacy advocates. Until now, the FBI relied on IAFIS, a national fingerprint database that has long been due an overhaul. Over the last few months, the FBI has been pilot testing a face recognition system, which will soon be scaled up (PDF) until it's nationwide. In theory, this should result in much faster positive identifications of criminals and fewer unsolved cases. The problem is, the FBI hasn't guaranteed that the NGI will only use photos of known criminals. There may come a time when the NGI is filled with as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible — criminal or otherwise. Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license and passport photo in the country — and DNA records kept by doctors, and iris scans kept by businesses. The FBI's NGI, if the right checks and balances aren't in place, could very easily become a tool that decimates civilian privacy and freedom."

cancel ×

188 comments

Thought criminal (5, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 years ago | (#41266747)

The person who posted this story is a thought criminal. Report to the Ministry of Love immediately.

One more reason (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266777)

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

Re:One more reason (0)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 2 years ago | (#41266919)

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

If its pictures of you smiling into the camera while you cook meth then sure.... don't post them. But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures. Seriously, stop living with fear and try just living.

Re:One more reason (3, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41266963)

sure, throw caution to the wind.

what's the worst that can happen?

(answer: nightmarish stuff. give it time and we'll learn. the hard way, no doubt, but we'll learn!)

Re:One more reason (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267291)

but we'll learn!

Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.

Re:One more reason (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41267827)

but we'll learn!

Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.

Ironically, these self-same people who think that the government would never abuse its power when it comes to handling terror are the ones who routinely scream about how the Goddam Gubmint is a thieving bunch of Socialistic power-abusers.

Re:One more reason (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41267787)

sure, throw caution to the wind.

what's the worst that can happen?

Room 101.

Re:One more reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266973)

No, they'll use the self-taken gangsta' posse pictures to recognize your face when a store gets robbed, and use "the science machine said you did it" to force a plea bargain (assuming finding the real robber would take effort).

Juries are all too willing to listen to the nice man in charge and his magic science machine.

Re:One more reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267795)

Coincidentally, I've just been sent a jury summons for next month. I PRAY that they pick me... I've got a month to study as much about the laws and abilities of a juror as I possibly can. Unless there's others like me in there, I'll be the most knowledgeable one there. With any luck, being not particularly stupid, I won't easily be able to be swayed by fancy words and computer terms (not that I have the slightest clue what it's about, but who knows, it may involve computers).

So naturally, as much as I can hope, I doubt I'll be picked since it seems they always try to pick the stupidest, naivest, most gullible people to be on a jury.

Re:One more reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266991)

Yes, no one would ever want to harm you. Ever. Facebook is useless to me, anyway.

Seriously, stop living with fear and try just living.

Can you tell that the the FBI and the people obsessed with catching terrorists/criminals? And then can you tell them to stop wasting our tax money? Please?

Re:One more reason (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41267171)

But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures.

Um.

If the FBI don't "give a shit..." why would they build a billion dollar facial recognition database?

I contend that there are people, powerful people, who do indeed "give a shit," and thus, so should the rest of us, yourself included.

Re:One more reason (1)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#41267383)

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

Au contraire, flood DoS, anyone?

Re:One more reason (3, Informative)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 2 years ago | (#41267561)

Your mother just posted these hilarious shots of you with some nice hells angel bikers from when your car broke down. With your name tagged. Gee, I wonder if that will be entered into the database? I'm sure having you tagged as an associate of known criminals will aid you immensely.

Anyone will do... (4, Interesting)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#41266821)

The problem is that cops get points for arresting someone (catch the criminal).
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This database will help them rack up points by finding someone who vaguely matches. All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").

Re:Anyone will do... (4, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41267069)

All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").

And conveniently over 90 percent of federal cases end in plea bargaining. And if you make the mistake of not taking the offer and get found guilty at trial, you can be virtually certain to end up with a harsher sentence and at a minimum, you want receive the "downward departure" for being cooperative which is standard in federal cases.

That being said, why wait until that phase to get the confession when you can just send in the private investigators from the start. PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.

Re:Anyone will do... (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41267889)

PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.

The police can say anything they want to get you to talk. Miranda rights may have to be read, but that doesn't stop them from lying through their teeth to get the information they want out of you.

Re:Anyone will do... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41267255)

They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.

This is the real problem. If you've been falsely accused of a crime, removed from your home, and locked in a cage, then you've been victimized just as surely as if you were kidnapped. In such circumstances you deserve justice against your aggressor.

Re:Anyone will do... (3, Informative)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#41267433)

There was a case in Dallas some years ago like this. The guy worked as a window installer. He moved somewhere in the North East. Some years later, the national fingerprint database went on-line and the local cops started running fingerprints that had been gathered at crime scenes through the system. The guy had been in the military, so his records were in the database and matched prints found in a burglary. The detectives working the case didn't care that there was a perfectly good explanation for his prints being at the scene. He ended up going back to Dallas, interrupting his family's lives until he could get it resolved. A plea bargain counts as a win; they didn't care if he was guilty or not.

Re:Anyone will do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267671)

There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.

Why would the problem of "vague matches" be any worse with this than without this? They can already find vague matches manually. The problem here would be that the match could be rather good even if erroneous. However, that is mitigated by the fact that most of the good matches found by the system can be eliminated rather easily by figuring out where the person was at that time.

The real purpose of a system like this is to get to the point where you can check your real evidence (fingerprints and DNA) against an actual suspect. It's not like they get to throw out the more precise evidence because they found a partial facial match. There may be a privacy issue with this, but you aren't describing it. The current system is more vulnerable to false arrest than this system would be. All we need now is enough of a match to convince a jury that the person in the image is the defendant. With a system like this, a defense attorney could determine just how many people match the image. That would make it easier to offer alternative options to a jury.

FB et. al? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266879)

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?

Missing cow ... barn door ... must close (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266951)

Silly! That was done, and quite thoroughly, years ago. The FBI just wanted to play with the same toys that NSA, MI6, et cetera have had for years.

Re:FB et. al? (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about 2 years ago | (#41267351)

What makes you think they don't already have FB's data?

Re:FB et. al? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267441)

FB ... FBI.

Coincidence? I think not!

Re:FB et. al? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267667)

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?

They already have our drivers licence photos, don't they?

public datasets (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266899)

During a 2010 presentation [biometrics.org] made by the FBI’s Biometric Center of Intelligence, the FBI said the technology could be used for "identifying subjects in public databases."

Hello, Facebok!

pixelhead (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41266927)

http://www.thelocal.de/lifestyle/20120823-44537.html [thelocal.de]

just read that today (a few minutes ago, in fact).

in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public (not sure the exact wording, but its essentially along those lines).

halloween is an exception but probably not even listed in the laws. technically, they COULD hassle you on oct-31 if they wanted to.

Re:pixelhead (1)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 2 years ago | (#41267011)

Well then I guess I'll have to leave my helmet off for the ride home tonight. Wouldn't want to upset the police!

Re:pixelhead (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41267013)

Since when is it illegal to hide your face in the USA?

Please link to the relevant law. In the winter where I live people regularly wear ski masks.

Re:pixelhead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267391)

Boy, winter comes early to Detroit!

Re:pixelhead (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41267527)

I have not checked all states and it probably does vary by state. but this is what I was able to find:

NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)

CA Penal Code Section 185.
It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification
in the commission of any public offense.
Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested
for, or convicted of, any public offense.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

that's 2 states, so far. but two biggies. ymmv. offer void where prohibited by law. order by midnight tonite!

Re:pixelhead (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41267585)

sorry, this is a better link and it contains a short summary by state:

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html [anapsid.org]

these states have 'issues', listed:

AL AK AZ AR CA COCT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

man, that's a LOT.

hope all that modded me down will reconsider your judgement..

and btw, I do NOT agree with this. don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

Re:pixelhead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267677)

Did you read it? Only the bolded states have info there: CA, DC, FL, GA, MA, MI, NC, NY, VA, WV

Re:pixelhead (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41267881)

Did you read it? Only the bolded states have info there: CA, DC, FL, GA, MA, MI, NC, NY, VA, WV

Wish I had mod points to give you.

The list the GP provided is simply a list of all the states in the USA. As stated on that page, only a small number (the ones you listed) are known to have anti-mask statutes on the books.

Additionally, the New York law listed by the GGP is all about groups of masked individuals. You could certainly argue about whether or not that's still a bad law; but it's not applicable to a single individual who chooses to wear a mask.

Re:pixelhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267089)

in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public

citation needed

Re:pixelhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267293)

No it isn't.
No they can't
You are a troll or a moron.

Re:pixelhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267437)

lol. sorry speaking from personal experience being charge and plead no contest to. It is the truth.

Re:pixelhead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41268001)

go to a protest in nyc with a facemask on count the seconds until some cops slam your ass and drag you into a cruiser.

Trust us. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41266937)

I mean, what could go wrong?

Privacy? (5, Interesting)

byteherder (722785) | about 2 years ago | (#41266949)

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
 
This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

Re:Privacy? (0)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 2 years ago | (#41267031)

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...

Re:Privacy? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 2 years ago | (#41267709)

If you think the Stasi or the KGB had anything remotely close to this, you're incredibly naive. The kind of computing power necessary to exploit this kind of database hasn't existed until very recent history. While there may have been databases in Stasi offices, how long does it take to look through paper files for a photo, compared to computer processing? The Stasi would have cum in their pants for modern surveillance capabilities.

Now Facebook is a different story, but it's still my choice whether I join it or not, unlike this system.

Re:Privacy? (1)

byteherder (722785) | about 2 years ago | (#41267875)

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...

I am sure the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestpo too, would have loved this but it just didn't exist at that time.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267193)

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
   

This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

And when the local police get their hands on it watch what happens. In many municipalities they already have an array of cameras on their cars to scan license plates. The next logical step are the face scanners. So when you're taking that walk to clear your head and decide to explore a little, don't be surprised when Jonny Law pulls up with a "Hey, Robert Scoble of 123 Maplewood Lane. It looks like you're a little far from home. Care to tell me about the burglaries that have been happening around here lately and why I shouldn't arrest you now?"

Yes, it will happen.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267263)

What are you worried about? This isn't anything Google doesn't already have, except for maybe the lack of DNA.

Good for them (2, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41266953)

First off the widely reported story is that the NGI will use public surveillance video and photos. The part about including DNA records from private practices is unsubstantiated. Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267165)

And when a pole with multiple cameras shows up in front of every residence in America it's all good since the cameras are on public property, right? RIGHT?

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267269)

Good luck. You can't see my house from public property.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267707)

sadly there's already a pole with a camera on it that can see the only door out of my apartment. it's only local pd watching it but since my city has had some links to terror activity i wouldn't be surprised to hear some fed is watching over the shoulder of the local cops stuck on camera duty. sure, i'm not a terrorist but it is a little sketchy to think the cops can know whenever i am at home or not. hey maybe it will save my ass when i need an alibi for a false accusation they can pull up the archives from that camera and see when i left! i mean dna samples seem creepy but dna evidence has exonerated a lot of innocent people some on death row so let's try to remember having all this data can benefit the innocent too.

Re:Good for them (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41267903)

That's easily solved by a $1.50 can of spray paint. Just make sure to stay out of the camera's field of view when you decide to handle it.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267229)

Yeah, that sounds real cute until the cameras are mounted to police cars and they scan every face in the surrounding area continuously. "Hi Mr. Jake Bailey of 432 Mockingbird Lane. I see you're a little far from home. Did you know this is a drug neighborhood? Oh, you didn't? I'm gonna need you to empty your pockets, citizen."

Re:Good for them (2)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41267305)

Ever heard of the fourth amendement? Obviously not.

Re:Good for them (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41267453)

Ever heard of the fourth amendement? Obviously not.

Ever heard of "reasonable suspicion"? I.e., where the cop says you appeared to be "staggering" and therefore he reasonably suspects that you're on drugs? Obviously not.

Re:Good for them (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41267493)

considering that the DC folks have been using the Constitution for toilet paper im sure that this could be used to ruin somebody in such a way that it can't be fixed.

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267243)

and by extension, the Government.

No, I don't. The government is theoretically controlled by the people, and hopefully people realize it's probably a bad idea to allow the government to have eyes and ears everywhere, and frankly, people who think this is a good idea are gullible idiots who have learned nothing from history's long line of corrupt governments.

In short, if the people don't want these automated systems, the government probably wouldn't have them. If the people didn't want the government to spy on them and actually did something about it, the government probably wouldn't do it. The majority just need to stand up for their rights.

and good

Good? *sigh*

Just go. Take the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all of your other garbage with you.

Re:Good for them (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about 2 years ago | (#41267473)

First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:Good for them (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41267335)

Yeah, I would be concerned about how good these systems are, and if they are really worth the money. Unless they do 3D face recognition (which is very expensive), the accuracy is really bad (especially for a system of this scale).

Re:Good for them (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#41267381)

Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.

A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.

It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.

It absolutely does lie in the source of the images you gloss over all the nuance by saying "legally obtained" - when in fact what matters most is WHY it was legally obtained. Being photographed for a driver's license is a far different thing than being photographed for a system that can be used to identify someone who isn't even in a car, much less driving.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267395)

You forget that most public observations are ephemeral, and that people violate several laws every day without knowing so. As it is, police can pull you over any time they wish and throw the book at you. If there were cameras recording nearly 100% of your daily life, records can be searched and throw an overwhelming barrage of charges on you.

I wonder if recent red-light court decisions such as California v. Khaled will be applicable in cases of public surveillance footage.

Re:Good for them (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41267509)

You forget that most public observations are ephemeral, and that people violate several laws every day without knowing so.

Not only that but practically any crime these days can be ratched upward in seriousness. I saw a case recently where a guy was using his phone to commit the crimes but he was only calling people in his own state so it wasn't federal. Or so you would think. The phone records were pulled and come to find out one of the calls ended up bouncing off of a satellite and was therefore "out of state". The feds picked it up.

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267485)

Incorrect. When a person goes out into the public, that person does not expect that everyone that crosses his path has a perfect photographic memory. A person that goes out in public, based on innate human limitations, expects that he will be largely anonymous.

The video camera and face recognition technology completely destroy that expectation.

It is time for the people to demand that *their* government halt such unexpected intrusions.

Re:Good for them (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41267711)

If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched

Being watched is not identical to being recorded.

In better times, when a cop saw you, at an event, he would have forgotten you after a few seconds, unless you did something that would make him remember you. The same for everybody else. You would not remember him either.

Now nothing is forgotten and that is an invasion of my privacy. And yes, I do expect some privacy in public. Public space mean to me a space where a lot of people are together. It does not mean that everybody suddenly has to give up all and any of their rights.

How would you feel if you need to show papers to the police every 15 minutes? This is even worse, because they do not even ask you to show your papers. The paper asking is just a way of identifying you and where you are, where you were and where you are going.

1984 was an uplifting story compared to what is going on.

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267791)

First off the widely reported story is that the NGI will use public surveillance video and photos. The part about including DNA records from private practices is unsubstantiated. Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.

I suppose you never even remotely considered the psychological impact of an entire society paranoid to step outside their front door.

No, I guess you didn't, because apparently you don't have a problem with me installing a webcam on YOUR mailbox. I mean, after all, it's public property...I wonder how long before I can capture something I could use against you or your family...oh, I forgot you don't think like that either...(too bad the asshats controlling the cameras do.)

I suppose to justify ROI here, the FBI thinks that the majority of the population will be "criminals" in the near future (and likely will be, as the privatization of prisons continue, and of course all those new shiny cameras capturing every single law you break..and you break a LOT...we all do, without even knowing it)

Allow this kind of bullshit to continue, and the future will consist of The Elite (1%), and the incarcerated or enslaved. Two groups. That's it. And the choices you make now will determine which group you're allowed to be in. Might want to consider that as you continue to vote your liberties away.

Re:Good for them (3, Insightful)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 years ago | (#41267951)

People don't sit around in the registry and pay a hefty fee to give an updated photo for the spy system, they do it to drive. Using those photos is an abuse of the public trust. I'll print out your post and mail it to you when you are death row because a guy without a license who looks you went into a maternity ward and raped all the babies to death.

Business Opportunity (4, Funny)

BMOC (2478408) | about 2 years ago | (#41266995)

Selling T-Shirts saying, "I've got your false-positive right here..." with a picture of goat.se on the back...

Re:Business Opportunity (0)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 2 years ago | (#41267187)

Thanks! That takes care of Grandma's birthday present for next week.

Re:Business Opportunity (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41267595)

Please if somebody actually does this please use UV inks to make the picture not normal color inks

They said I was paranoid... (4, Funny)

arcite (661011) | about 2 years ago | (#41267005)

...walking around outside with a brown paper bag over my head. NOW who's paranoid? FOOLS!!!

False positives are to be handled how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267015)

Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?

Hell and blood, the police often have trouble knocking down the right door when they have an address:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Ex-Miss-Nevada-Sues-LA-Sheriffs-Deputies-Over-Raid-164060136.html [nbclosangeles.com]

How are they going to behave when this system wrongly identifies an innocent person?

Re:False positives are to be handled how? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41267125)

Well they're not sending out an armed robot drone to kill the person identified by the software. It's not an irreversible process.

I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them.

Re:False positives are to be handled how? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 2 years ago | (#41267695)

They probably do that in the middle east first to test it out. Then when the expected bi-kill rate is low enough they bring it here.

Re:False positives are to be handled how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267751)

"I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them."

Hahahahahahahaha. You've obviously never been involved in the legal system machinery. I wish I shared your faith in the system.

Re:False positives are to be handled how? (5, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#41267281)

Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?

Why would they want to do that? If they restored full citizenship to ex-cons and actually allowed them to lead productive lives as full-fledged members of society, drastically lowering the recidivism rate from desperate people that can't even get hired at McDonalds and see no choice but to go back to crime, then how are they going to keep all the prosecutors, judges, police, detention officers, wardens, etc. employed? I mean, for God's sake man, what about the stockholders for the private prison corporations? Who's thinking about them?

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267027)

So how is this in relation to Tripwire?

welcome to fascist america! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267109)

welcome to fascist america! Where everyone has an insecure/unauthenticated GPS tracking device shoved up their ass at birth. After all, its a small price for freedom right? If you arent doing anything wrong, then why would you care if we put this GPS up your ass? Dear gov't... I hate you... thanks.

Plastic Surgery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267197)

I predict a boom in this particular field....

reminds me of the german census that ibm helped on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267205)

which was then soon used to determine who was jew and the rest is history

Don't smile for your driver's license photo (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#41267261)

They need a dour look for the facial recognition learning algorithms.

Re:Don't smile for your driver's license photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267641)

Not true. At least not in CA. I'd heard that exact same thing but two years ago I renewed my license and I asked the person taking my DL picture if that was true. She laughed and said, "No, that's not true" so I'm a beaming fool on my current license!

There had to be a very good reason (1)

doug141 (863552) | about 2 years ago | (#41267273)

the DMV ended the generation's old custom of allowing people to smile for their drivers license photo.

"...decimates civilian privacy and freedom" (1)

Tinbuktu (2725245) | about 2 years ago | (#41267287)

In the event that such a circumstance comes to pass (or for that matter, has already come to pass), how in the world will you know? The glint off of their shiny new terahertz scanners [wikipedia.org] perhaps?

Registry Opt-out (1, Interesting)

Narnie (1349029) | about 2 years ago | (#41267295)

I'm not particularly interested in this service. Where's the opt-out (do-not-fly) list signup?

In other news (1)

darkonc (47285) | about 2 years ago | (#41267337)

Mark Zuckerberg's criminal record has quietly disappeared from the Criminal Record Database. No explanation was forthcoming.

Amateurs! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267355)

We have had this in London for years.

Don' really see the big deal (0)

jickerson (2714793) | about 2 years ago | (#41267363)

Firstly, this post is in no way an attempt to troll. I've seen a lot of backlash for the CCTV images used in the UK, etc, but don't really get the argument behind this. I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp. I understand that people have civil rights, but how is being put into an indexed database really violating your rights? The FBI already has the right to bring anyone in for questioning, so why is it unreasonable to be able to bring someone in if their image pops in a search? If an agent saw a criminal act captured on camera, and then passed someone on the street who matched the visual description, i'd imagine they'd bring them in for questioning as well. We already have a database for convicted criminals. Why should a person's image not be included in the search if this is the first crime they have committed? And for the record, I support the right to bear arms, etc. I just think that if this is able to catch one person who is about to become a repeat offender, then i'd gladly waive my right to keep my photo private in exchange for that one victim being spared.

Re:Don' really see the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267471)

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.

Then please allow the government to install surveillance devices in every room of your house. You should have no problem with it if you're not hiding anything.

The problem with people like you is that you believe government workers are perfect beings despite the countless malicious governments throughout history and the malicious actions of current governments. How gullible and naive can you be?

I understand that people have civil rights,

No, you don't. You don't understand it at all.

but how is being put into an indexed database really violating your rights?

Privacy. Ridiculous powers given to the government that are prone to be abused.

The FBI already has the right to bring anyone in for questioning

That's quite different than storing someone in a database indefinitely.

then i'd gladly waive my right to keep my photo private in exchange for that one victim being spared.

Safety is all you idiots care about. Have your TSA, your Patriot Act, your free speech zones, and all your other garbage if it means so much to you! However, get out of my country.

Re:Don' really see the big deal (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41267573)

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.

Good, then you'll be easier to find. Put all the sheep in one camp and shave 'em all in one go. I think big Gov. will enjoy doing business with you.

Re:Don' really see the big deal (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41267777)

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.

And just what makes you thing that you are going to determine what's "wrong"?

Re:Don' really see the big deal (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 2 years ago | (#41267729)

There is a difference from "exact match" and "best match". Getting arrested because you're the only guy with the same colour hair sucks.

Beware the state security apparatus .. (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#41267415)

"The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun rolling out its new $1 billion biometric Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. In essence, NGI is a nationwide database of mugshots, iris scans, DNA records, voice samples, and other biometrics that will help the FBI identify and catch criminals"

Actually, it's just a more efficient method for the police state to spy on its own citizens . Such methods the Stazi could only dream of. Without the threat of Islamic "terrorism" such methods would never have been acceptable by the population. A relevant question to ask is, who is going to protect us from you?

"decimates"? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41267427)

Doesn't that word mean to "remove one-tenth of"?

Re:"decimates"? (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#41267631)

yes but the worst cases will be milionates!

Re:"decimates"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267785)

That's the etymology. That's not what it means now.

DMV Photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267591)

Just wait until they start importing historical DMV photos into this database from all 50 states!

Re:DMV Photos (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about 2 years ago | (#41267811)

In my state you can opt-out of having your picture saved. The DMV worker tries to talk you out of it, but you can do it.

Coincidence? (1)

mcguirez (524534) | about 2 years ago | (#41267603)

Look, the FBI doesn't need to build a database when Facebook/Instagram is so pervasive.

So... this comes to light just after Facebook closes on a 1B purchase of Instagram.

Where's that government money going again?

The real problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267613)

"... The problem is, the FBI hasn't guaranteed that the NGI will only use photos of known criminals. There may come a time when the NGI is filled with as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible — criminal or otherwise."

No, I'd say the real problem is that the general public actually believes this bullshit. As soon as this damn thing goes online, they already know where to get "as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible"...rather fucking obvious for anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on Facebook.

I hate the mass ignorance our Government simply assumes exists over every citizen they wish to control...at least look us in the face when you lie to us.

Effing Police State (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41267805)

And may the ghost of Benjamin Franklin sodomize anyone stupid or disengenuous enough to disagree.

"In order the save the village, we had to destroy it."

Re:Effing Police State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41268003)

May the ghost of Benjamin Franklin sodomize anyone stupid enough to believe in Ghosts.

Apple device ID's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41267829)

No wonder they needed those Apple device ID's.

Whoa whoa whoa (2)

Altanar (56809) | about 2 years ago | (#41267841)

Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license...

Let me stop you right there. You can imagine all you want, but I can't ever see the states ever agreeing to a shared ID database. Look at how many states refused to take part in the REAL ID [wikipedia.org] law. At least half the states have flat out refused to comply. Do you think that more than three or four would ever agree to spending state money on an FBI project?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...