Big Brother At Work: FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives

[LouC]

RALEIGH, N.C. -- 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.

The project in North Carolina has already helped nab at least one suspect. Agents are eager to look for more criminals and possibly to expand the effort nationwide. But privacy advocates worry that the method allows authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.

"Everybody's participating, essentially, in a virtual lineup by getting a driver's license," said Christopher Calabrese, an attorney who focuses on privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.

AP / Belleville News Democrat
Click LINK (http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/963053.html)

Is this a good thing?

Is catching a few criminals worth having people put your mug into a virtual line up database?

Will this possibly catch innocent people who happen to look like a criminal?

Will protests and demonstrations be photographed by authorities, then face recognition technology used to scan and match crowd faces to DMV databases, so they can compile lists of who protested what, where, and when?

I am not a conspiracy nut but I also recognize there is always, with Government ideas, unforeseen policy drift.

[JediMindTrick]

Is this a good thing?

Is catching a few criminals worth having people put your mug into a virtual line up database?

Will this possibly catch innocent people who happen to look like a criminal?

Will protests and demonstrations be photographed by authorities, then face recognition technology used to scan and match crowd faces to DMV databases, so they can compile lists of who protested what, where, and when?

I am not a conspiracy nut but I also recognize there is always, with Government ideas, unforeseen policy drift.

Welcome to ten years ago.

This isn't new. My state has been doing this ever since DMV photos went digital. Anytime we need a photo lineup we use driver's photos. The state finds five people from the DMV database of similar looks to the person of interest and gives it to us.

If you don't like the idea then don't get a driver's license.

And the chance of catching an innocent who looks like a criminal is nil. Lineups don't work like they do on TV. In reality you have a known suspect and you have five plants who are utterly random. if the witness / victim picks out one of the others then it merely clears the suspect, it doesn't indict the person picked. We know that witness identification is virtually useless except when the witness personally knows the suspect (in which case we wouldn't be doing a lineup).

[LouC]

Welcome to ten years ago.

This isn't new. My state has been doing this ever since DMV photos went digital. Anytime we need a photo lineup we use driver's photos. The state finds five people from the DMV database of similar looks to the person of interest and gives it to us.

If you don't like the idea then don't get a driver's license.

And the chance of catching an innocent who looks like a criminal is nil. Lineups don't work like they do on TV. In reality you have a known suspect and you have five plants who are utterly random. if the witness / victim picks out one of the others then it merely clears the suspect, it doesn't indict the person picked. We know that witness identification is virtually useless except when the witness personally knows the suspect (in which case we wouldn't be doing a lineup).

States doing it is one thing but the FBI accessing State files is another.

Not getting a drivers license is an option.

Except it is not a very good one.

[JediMindTrick]

States doing it is one thing but the FBI accessing State files is another.



So lets see, local police agencies with virtually no oversight doing this is okay but the FBI, with tons of oversight, doing it is not. Alrighty then.

[BillBrown]

I don't have a problem with this.
Your DL picture was taken with your consent.

If the Feds were taking the pictures through my window, I would have a problem with it.

[LouC]

So lets see, local police agencies with virtually no oversight doing this is okay but the FBI, with tons of oversight, doing it is not. Alrighty then.

I never said I approved of this being done at the state level without oversight or with little oversight, that is a silly determination to make from what I said.

FBI oversight is fine and dandy if it is appropriate, constant, and thorough.

If there is policy drift who cares if the oversight is good if the new policy being overseen is bad?

There is potential for good in this but there is as much potential for bad.

[LouC]

I don't have a problem with this.
Your DL picture was taken with your consent.

If the Feds were taking the pictures through my window, I would have a problem with it.

See that is the thing, with face recognition technology advances they will be able to capture your image anywhere you go in public without asking and match it to the "volunteered" State photo ID's.

This is a potential advance for good but it is also one that can be abused.

[JediMindTrick]

I never said I approved of this being done at the state level without oversight or with little oversight, that is a silly determination to make from what I said.

FBI oversight is fine and dandy if it is appropriate, constant, and thorough.

If there is policy drift who cares if the oversight is good if the new policy being overseen is bad?

There is potential for good in this but there is as much potential for bad.

You stated "States doing this is one thing but the FBI accessing the files is another." There isn't much way to take that other than you think its okay for state agencies to do it but not okay for the feds. My point is that you have thousands of small law enforcement agencies nationwide that are basically autonomous and one fed agency that everyone monitors.

[BillBrown]

See that is the thing, with face recognition technology advances they will be able to capture your image anywhere you go in public without asking and match it to the "volunteered" State photo ID's.

This is a potential advance for good but it is also one that can be abused.

I think I beat the system.
I had a beard the last time I had my DL picture taken.
I don't now.
That'll mess up the chin size to nose ratio.

Maybe I can start a business renting fake beards outside the DL bureau. :)

[LouC]

You stated "States doing this is one thing but the FBI accessing the files is another."

Yes I did say that after you entered and stated "My state has been doing this ever since DMV photos went digital."

There isn't much way to take that other than you think its okay for state agencies to do it but not okay for the feds.

Perhaps the Thread Title gives a clue of how to take it: Big Brother At Work: FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives.

FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, I did not set up to discuss what your state does.

I did not at any point say I felt States agencies doing this was OK.

State agencies doing this is one thing, I was posting a discussion about the FBI doing this which is another.

I figured it was apparent, especially with the Title, I was interested in discussion of the FBI doing this.

My point is that you have thousands of small law enforcement agencies nationwide that are basically autonomous and one fed agency that everyone monitors.

Perhaps in a future thread I will discuss those State agencies using face recognition technology.

[JenyEliza]

"Everybody's participating, essentially, in a virtual lineup by getting a driver's license," said Christopher Calabrese, an attorney who focuses on privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.


I don't often agree wtih the ACLU, but in this case I do.

This is a bad idea....and the ACLU is right to fight against it.

[chip]

See that is the thing, with face recognition technology advances they will be able to capture your image anywhere you go in public without asking and match it to the "volunteered" State photo ID's.

This is a potential advance for good but it is also one that can be abused.

Abused how?

[chip]

I don't often agree wtih the ACLU, but in this case I do.

This is a bad idea....and the ACLU is right to fight against it.

And why is this a bad idea?

[JenyEliza]

And why is this a bad idea?

Oh, I don't know. When *everyone* participates (as *everyone* does when DMV photos are used), then the chances of a mistaken ID increases hugely.

How would you feel if the police showed up on your doorstep one day and you were hauled off in cuffs for a crime you didn't commit--because YOUR DMV photo was used in a photo-line up and YOU were fingered for the crime? Hmmm. :think:

BAD idea. Very very bad idea.

[stodr]

Hmm I always thought this was happening for years.

I would think there is more of a chance of mistaken idenity without a photo then with.

[chip]

Oh, I don't know. When *everyone* participates (as *everyone* does when DMV photos are used), then the chances of a mistaken ID increases hugely.

How would you feel if the police showed up on your doorstep one day and you were hauled off in cuffs for a crime you didn't commit--because YOUR DMV photo was used in a photo-line up and YOU were fingered for the crime? Hmmm. :think:

BAD idea. Very very bad idea.

Id gladly go down and answer whatever questions were asked of me. You cant be convicted of a crime simply because your drivers license photo looks like someone who committed a crime. Besides. This has been used for years now. Maybe you have an example of this happening to someone?

[chip]

Hmm I always thought this was happening for years.

I would think there is more of a chance of mistaken idenity without a photo then with.

Stop it with the rational thinking, you should know better.

[LouC]

Abused how?

Oh I don't know?

Perhaps when overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants is OK since it is being done in the name of National Security.

Policy drift is what concerns me.

[chip]

Oh I don't know?

Perhaps when overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants is OK since it is being done in the name of National Security.

Policy drift is what concerns me.

Oh please.

[JenyEliza]

Oh I don't know?

Perhaps when overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants is OK since it is being done in the name of National Security.

Policy drift is what concerns me.

Yeah, policy drift concerns me as well.

It's not like the law of unintended consquences never comes into play. :doh: :rolleyes:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him if he wants to run off the cliff with all the other horses.

[JenyEliza]

Oh please.

Kindly elaborate, then.

A sarcastic "Oh please" does nothing to change views, enlighten others or state facts.

Go ahead.... we're listening.

[chip]

Kindly elaborate, then.

A sarcastic "Oh please" does nothing to change views, enlighten others or state facts.

Go ahead.... we're listening.

Im waiting for someone against this to "state facts", all I see is a bunch of "what if".

This has been going on for years, I asked for an example of your "what if" scenario and for some reason you havent been able to provide one.

Now I wonder why that is? :think:

[JenyEliza]

Im waiting for someone against this to "state facts", all I see is a bunch of "what if".

This has been going on for years, I asked for an example of your "what if" scenario and for some reason you havent been able to provide one.

Now I wonder why that is? :think:

Why? I'll tell you.

I don't want to play your games.

You're not here to honestly debate. You're here playing personality politics and I just don't have time to waste on those kind of games.

It's just that simple.

If you want us to see things from your view, then you'll have to tell us exactly WHAT your view is, rather than making simple sarcastic one or two word posts that do nothing to address the topic.

When you're ready to discuss things honestly....let us know.

Meanwhile, I'm not biting. I don't have time.

[chip]

Why? I'll tell you.

I don't want to play your games.

You're not here to honestly debate. You're here playing personality politics and I just don't have time to waste on those kind of games.

It's just that simple.

If you want us to see things from your view, then you'll have to tell us exactly WHAT your view is, rather than making simple sarcastic one or two word posts that do nothing to address the topic.

When you're ready to discuss things honestly....let us know.

Meanwhile, I'm not biting. I don't have time.



Too funny. When I ask for an example of what you claim will happen since this has been going on for years you say Im playing personality politics.

Convenient way to bypass having to defend silly paranoid "what if" claims.

My view has been clearly stated in this thread, try reading.

[JenyEliza]

And there you go....playing the personality politics...."try reading"....

I did. I'm done.

"Oh please" as a basis for changing my mind doesn't cut it with me.

[chip]

And there you go....playing the personality politics...."try reading"....

I did. I'm done.

"Oh please" as a basis for changing my mind doesn't cut it with me.

Thats not personal politics thats pointing out the obvious

Id gladly go down and answer whatever questions were asked of me. You cant be convicted of a crime simply because your drivers license photo looks like someone who committed a crime. Besides. This has been used for years now. Maybe you have an example of this happening to someone?

And "Oh please" was an appropriate response to the paranoid claim of

"overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants"

[JenyEliza]

Thats not personal politics thats pointing out the obvious



And "Oh please" was an appropriate response to the paranoid claim of

"overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants"

That wasn't my claim.....and I don't think "Oh please" is an obvious or appropriate repsonse when someone has asked you to elaborate.

Why don't you think there is any risk of that happening? What safety mechanisms are in place to prevent that? You haven't stated such....just "oh please". That's not really helpful in changing my mind on things.

[chip]

That wasn't my claim.....and I don't think "Oh please" is an obvious or appropriate repsonse when someone has asked you to elaborate.

:eh:

I didnt respond "Oh please" to someone asking me to elaborate. I responded "Oh please" to this silly notion

"overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants"





Why don't you think there is any risk of that happening? What safety mechanisms are in place to prevent that? You haven't stated such....just "oh please". That's not really helpful in changing my mind on things.

Its been going on for years and no such thing as you claimed has happened. You cant prosecute someone because their DL photo looks like that of a criminal it would be laughed out of court and its patently ridiculous to think that.....

"overzealous officials writing terrorist threat reports decide using a list of facial recognition names to profile the protest participants"

....is going to happen.

I dont care if I change your mind, you are free to fret about whatever "what if" you choose.

[RickRhetoric]

Your DL picture was taken with your consent.

If you need a driver's license in North Carolina, you must consent to having a mug shot.

And one innocent lady has already fallen victim to being mistakenly identified as a dangerous criminal. A squad of jack-booted police thugs, reminiscent of the Branch Davidian blitzkrieg in Waco, Texas, smashed her door, handcuffed and dragged her downtown. She was released after two hours of hostile interrogation.

[JediMindTrick]

If you need a driver's license in North Carolina, you must consent to having a mug shot.

And one innocent lady has already fallen victim to being mistakenly identified as a dangerous criminal. A squad of (nazi reference removed) police thugs, reminiscent of the Branch Davidian blitzkrieg in Waco, Texas, smashed her door, handcuffed and dragged her downtown. She was released after two hours of hostile interrogation.

Nazi references to police are not allowed on this board. I'd suggest you edit your post. And yes it is a nazi reference, I rarely report anything in the mod forum but this is one thing I have reported in the past for the exact phrase you used in reference to police and my complaint was upheld.

[DLaw911]

Is this a good thing?

Is catching a few criminals worth having people put your mug into a virtual line up database?

Will this possibly catch innocent people who happen to look like a criminal?

Will protests and demonstrations be photographed by authorities, then face recognition technology used to scan and match crowd faces to DMV databases, so they can compile lists of who protested what, where, and when?

I am not a conspiracy nut but I also recognize there is always, with Government ideas, unforeseen policy drift.Given the way I look if my face comes up a match, then I did it.

Seriously, it's just a tool. Like giving a thumbprint when you apply for a DL. Do you think they just throw those prints away? Frankly the day is not far from where everyone gets a DNA sample taken at birth (along with fingerprints). We're not far from there now. Many states get DNA sample whenever a person is arrested for a felony, but can get them removed if no charges are filed. I suspect that soon everyone arrested will be DNA tested and the results will be permanent. Frankly this does not bother me except to the extent that some cold case criminal prosecutions could be based solely on DNA evidence and statistically more than one person can share the same DNA (although juries are told a different story by prosecution DNA experts).

[LouC]

Given the way I look if my face comes up a match, then I did it.

Seriously, it's just a tool. Like giving a thumbprint when you apply for a DL. Do you think they just throw those prints away? Frankly the day is not far from where everyone gets a DNA sample taken at birth (along with fingerprints). We're not far from there now. Many states get DNA sample whenever a person is arrested for a felony, but can get them removed if no charges are filed. I suspect that soon everyone arrested will be DNA tested and the results will be permanent. Frankly this does not bother me except to the extent that some cold case criminal prosecutions could be based solely on DNA evidence and statistically more than one person can share the same DNA (although juries are told a different story by prosecution DNA experts).

It isn't the tool aspect of this that concerns me.

It is people in power abusing the tool, drifting the policy to uses for which it was never intended.

This literally can put a "face" on profiling.

I guess it is the fact the Social Security Administration gave my ID to another person that has me more than normally leery of the "Fed" and their great ideas.

[DLaw911]

It isn't the tool aspect of this that concerns me.

It is people in power abusing the tool, drifting the policy to uses for which it was never intended.

This literally can put a "face" on profiling.

I guess it is the fact the Social Security Administration gave my ID to another person that has me more than normally leery of the "Fed" and their great ideas.Doesn't DHS have cameras in public places that detect people's faces and compare with crme suspects and fugitives using facial recognition? I seem to have heard that someplace.