Colorado May Map Drivers' Faces

mongoose14 writes: "The DMV in Colorado wants to use facial recognition to map the faces of folks and prevent identity theft and drivers' license fraud. Apart from the suspected lobbying by the manufacturers of the hardware and software, the article at least raises the BB question. Also, AFAIK, face recognition was developed in the US (?)." An excerpt from the article reads: "First it was the photo-radar vans snapping pictures of Denver-area speeders. Now, some fear Big Brother's roving eye soon will be watching all of Colorado with the arrival of a new European import called 'face recognition.'"

Comments

Geez folks, it's just Big Brother!

[mosch]

There's a large number of fundamental problems that I have with this system. If the DMV had a legal agreement that my facial mapping could only be used for identity verification, during the process of getting a new license, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with this scheme.

The problem is that American governments feel free to sell every little piece of data that they're legally allowed to sell. I don't want to walk into a store and have them know who I am. Tell a marketing person that they could find out the name and address of every single person who walked into their store, and watch their eyes light up.

This is a technology that's extremely prone to abuse, and they're not offering any evidence that they won't engage in these abuses at a future date.

Nice troll btw, but according to a joint study between the American Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Cambridge University, Britain has higher rates of robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft than the United States. Additionally, Britain's crime rates are going up, while America's crime rates are going down. And this doesn't even touch Britain's high rate of home invasion. Guess that whole camera thing is working wonderfully, eh?

--

Re:Geez folks, it's just Big Brother!

[swillden]

according to a joint study between the American Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Cambridge University, Britain has higher rates of robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft than the United States. Additionally, Britain's crime rates are going up, while America's crime rates are going down. And this doesn't even touch Britain's high rate of home invasion.

That's very interesting. Do you have a reference?

I find it funny

[mindstrm]

how in the US (and Canada) the drivers license has become so much more than just that. IT's the universal ID card; we punish people for non-driving related crimes.

Would we consider taking away someone's fishing license because they were charged with assault?
Get real.

A drivers license should be nothing more than your licence to drive a vehicle.

Why does a driver's license need a picture, even? Heck... my fishing license doesn'thave one.

But then...

[brianvan]

They would have a very hard time recognizing Michael Jackson...

Let's clarify a few things

[LnkStern]

I am a Colorado resident, and I would like to clarify a few points I think some people are glossing over. A state government spokesperson who is extremely familiar with the program called into the local Mike Rosen radio talk show (a well known and popular Denver show) to discuss this system. Here are some of the points she clarified:

1. The primary purpose of this system is to prevent identity theft, which is a rapidly growing type of crime. The most basic type of identity theft (criminal obtains sufficient personal information on someone to request a new copy of their driver's license) would be directly blocked by this technology (new photo does not match old photo). And, although she did not say this, I would imagine that if there are any "close calls" or other questions, the final decision would be deferred to a human operator.

2. Contrary to an erroneous report on Friday by the AP, there are NO plans to begin photographing drivers in cars and comparing those photos to the drivers license database. This was not mentioned in the Denver Post article, but it appeared in the online version of the Denver Rocky Mountain News on Friday.

Once again, the purpose here is to combat identity theft. Mike Rosen stated that he thought this was an appropriate use of technology to combat this particular crime. He also stated that, while there are always concerns about potential future uses for these photographs, those nebulous future concerns do not lead him to oppose this technology at this time. I agree with him on both points.

Yes, it is possible to dream up many possible orwellian future uses for this technology. However, it is incumbent upon us, as citizens, to maintain knowledge of and vigilance over the actions of our elected officials to prevent future abuses of this and other surveillance technologies.

Lincoln F. Sternn

They already take your thumbprint

[Greyfox]

They already require your thumbprint when you get your license. On the back of the license is both a magnetic strip and a 3D bar code which I'm sure has that information embedded in it. I'd be interested to know what else is in there. Wouldn't surprise me to find a digitized photo and possibly your social security number.

Re:They already take your thumbprint

[Sc00ter]

They don't require a thumbprint in NH. And they magnetic strip doesn't have anything on it except your license number (to save the cops from typing it in). That's all it needs anyway, the computers in the cop cars just radio that shit in and they get the most updated driving record info. That way they don't have to radio all that stuff in over voice so that people with scanners can hear your entire driving record. Also, in NH it's illegal now for them to put your SSN on your license.. The stopped doing it about 3 years ago, and before that they had an check box on the form for your license to not print it on your license.

Of course NH seems to be a bit free with driving laws.. We also don't require a seat belt over 18 or a helmet on a motorcycle, also don't require car insurance.. Another thing we don't have lame emissions tests. (The only reason I call them lame is because the more serious offenders, like diesel and commercial trunks are usually exempt, so they just screw the normal joe that can't afford anything better then a 1982 shitbox that burns a little oil).

--

Mod this one up

[Greyfox]

Dude has a point. The problem is that many of our laws have been made to protect the stupid people who should be dying (Darwin and all that.) Why are we protecting stupid people? Stupid people should just quietly bump themselves out of the gene pool, resulting in hopefully less stupid future generations. If anything, our laws should be overtly hostile toward stupid people.

An example: Currently laws in many states mandate seatbelt use. If instead seatbelt use was not mandated but the law specifically allowed insurance carriers to not pay medical costs of anyone in the car who was not wearing a seatbelt, that would allow people to make the stupid choice if they want to and force them to live with the consequences if they get hurt in the process.

Of course, you're going to get a bunch of whiners talking about how we should coddle stupid people who would object to this. What do you expect from a generation brought up on Mr. Rogers and Barney? I'm sorry. It's a cruel world. It's supposed to be a cruel world. And overly crowded too; no room for stupid people.

It's only fair!

[tsarina]

Perhaps all citizens SHOULD have their privacy infringed. Students have their rights violated all the time! We can't vote, but we can be put to death! We are legally obligated to go to an institution which can violate our civil liberties with abandon (school). Perhaps all should be subject to such an environment. After all, students aren't any more criminals than the general populace; we just get more media attention. So if crime justifies these right infringements all should be subject to them. It's all or nothing, guys!