Connecticut To Store Biometric Information

AugstWest writes: "I just got word that when I renew my driver's license, I will have to submit to allowing the CT DMV to store biometric information, as well as smile for facial recognition software from Viisage to be able to continue driving. I am so appalled, I don't even know where to begin. With all of the national law enforcement agencies opening up their databases to each other, is this the first step in taking a surveillance society to a tracking society?"

Comments

Undue Restrictions

[akac]

Just curious - what happens if you refuse? I guess they would prohibit you from getting a driver's license, but isn't there some law that prohibits the states from putting undue restrictions on basic priviliges (driving is a privilege).

Next question would be if anybody would challenge this in a court of law.

Re:Undue Restrictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly person. Simply put some Elmer's glue on your thumb before you roll it. It doesn't take alot, then when you put your thumbprint down it won't show up the same.

It's also hard to spot, so chances are you won't have anything to worry about.

Re:Undue Restrictions

[cduffy]

Just because they say driving is a privilage, and treat driving as a privilage, does not make driving a privilage. Similarly, if for some class of people the ability to worship as one pleases were treated as a privilage, regulated and revoked as a privilage -- it would still be a right, and those people would be unfairly suppressed; and no matter how much one said "religion is a privilage", it would be not a whit less so.

Driving -- using the property one owns to move about over the property owned by not the government but the public -- is no less an expression of basic liberties.

Re:Undue Restrictions

[cduffy]

If driving is a right then we all should pay for road upgrades that make it so a blind person with a properly equipt vehical can drive themselves to where ever they wish to go, at any time of the day or night, no pre planning involved (except the same pre planing a sighted person would do, make sure you had gas to get there).

Bullshit.

There's a fundamental right to worship as one chooses. Does that mean churches should be government-subsidized?

There's a fundamental right to be able to move about freely. Does that mean everyone should get free plane fare?

There's a fundamental right to reproduction. Does that mean that those who can't get some should have state-funded in-vitro fertilization and (if necessary) surragate parenthood, with all the materials necessary paid for by the state?

Just because you have a right doesn't mean that I pay for you to exercise it. True rights are protective; those "rights" which indicate that someone should be given something for free are not truly rights but rather obligations -- if you have a right to free housing, it means I'm obligated to pay your rent. If I'm obligated to you except of my choosing, I'm not truly free.

I'm fully aware of the ID card thing -- I didn't have a driver's license until quite recently. That doesn't make me any more willing to accept the government or any other entity obligating me to carry ID or do anything else (other than honoring the protective rights of others) except with my consent.

And your problem is ... ?

[hobbs]

The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?

Let's look at this another way. I don't worry about the government knowing that I exist, how tall I am, what color my eyes are, or how many whirls and whorls my thumbprint has. I'm not a criminal. I don't plan on being one.

However, for those that do enjoy the occasional snatch & grab, if the police really had everyones fingerprints and pictures in a big database, don't you think that would reduce a lot of crime? And I don't mean just because they'd catch a lot more people - it would serve as an effective deterrent to crime, which seems to be in short supply nowadays.

So go ahead, fingerprint everybody. Take a DNA sample. If it means that 20 years from now, my children will be growing up in a society free of random murders, pedophilia, assault, and all the rest, I'm for it. That's idealistic, but I'll take just 20%.

Re:And your problem is ... ?

[maxpublic]

The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?

Hey, you're right. And since only criminals would object to having a tracking chip implanted in their arms, let's mandate that as well. After all, what do you have to hide? If you object you must be a criminal.

While we're at it, let's also ban any sort of privacy in communication. Only criminals want the ability to privately communicate with others, so why don't we just legalize wiretapping, opening mail, and loading surveillance software on everyone's computer?

Hell, let's go the full distance: let's put little cameras in everyone's home. After all, if we're good, law-abiding citizens we won't mind if government records what we do; only criminals would object to such measures. If anyone objects or starts spouting off about privacy - how 20th century! - then we'll know right away that those sorts are up to no good.

Yeah, this is surely the kind of world I want to live in. Definitely the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. After all, if it lowers the crime rate by some small fraction, if it's "fooor the chiiiiiilldrenn", then honest upright folks will embrace it without question. Only criminals would object, and those who object, by definition, are criminals.

Take a DNA sample. If it means that 20 years from now, my children will be growing up in a society free of random murders, pedophilia, assault, and all the rest, I'm for it.

Provide a single empirical cite which indicates that these measures will do any of this. Just one.

Max

Lawsuit?

[ZuG]

This is detrimental to those concerned about their privacy and what is done with data about them. Unless you live in a giant city, it is nearly impossible to make a living without a vehicle, essentially forcing you to either drive without a lisence or to give up.

For example, I live in a small (sub)urban area in Michigan. One of my roommates is just getting her life together (mental/emotional issues), and is starting to look for volunteer work in order to build up her resume to find a sustainable job. (She currently doesn't know how to drive, or have a drivers license). There are several volunteer jobs through the local Red Cross that would be perfect for her skills and abilities, but they are well beyond walking distance and the bus either does not go to those areas at all, or does not go often enough (once an hour or less) to make it possible for her to use. Thus, she is stuck with what she can walk to/ride the bus to.

Because of the situation, my other roommate and I have been trying to help her get a vehicle. But it's all a big catch-22. She can't (legally) drive a car until she gets her license and regristration, but she can't get a license and registration until she passes both a written and a road test, which requires her practing by driving a car.

So, she can't buy a car to practice, and she can't practice without a car. It's a big mess. The only forseeable way around it is to let her drive one of our cars illegally until she gets good enough to pass the road test.

While this doesn't have anything specifically to do with biometrics, it's the same catch-22. You can't work without a car, you can't have a car without a license, and you can't have a license without submitting to whatever they tell you to. Move to another state, I guess, but then what if more states pick up this idea?

The whole thing scares me on multiple levels. It has that nasty big-brotherish feel to it, plus making life very difficult for those concerned about personal privacy (myself included). Hopefully, it will get struck down in the courts, but I doubt it. Driving has been held as a privilage, and thus open to (almost) any restrictions the state likes. [sigh] Another restriction on our freedoms. What's new?

Watch as....

[loteck]

this post's mod drops like a plane with an afghani pilot.

There are serious issues surrounding the legalities of a drivers license. There is a strong relationship to between the drivers license and the SSN (social securit number), the latter of which is not required of you to possess (but good luck trying to live without one).

It comes down to definitions. Words like "travel", "automobile", "motor vehicle", and amoung the most important, "driver". IANAL, but you have to understand that when you enter into the realm of law, you dont just have "general meanings" for words. They are each defined very strictly, and are often redefined in various sections so as not to have any confusion as to where or to whom the law applies.

"Motor Vehicle" is an important one. Definition in Title 18 USC 31 - "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."

"Driver" is another one, definition from Bovier's Law Dictionary - "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."

You'll notice that both of these definitions include mention of the thing in question (a Motor Vehicle or a Driver) involved in some form of commericial business. The argument exists, in what may people think as extremists circles, that licensing, by law, is only required for those who wish to use the public roads for commercial use.

So notice you are getting a "Driver's License" at the "Motor Vehicle Division", and you are not getting a "Traveler's License" at the "Automobile Division". Traveler and Automobile.. very different defintions on those 2 words than on the previous 2.

So you have "extremist" views and you have people who try to debunk them (cant find a legitimate link right now, but they most definitely exist). The difference seems to be one group is actively reading the laws and applying them (how dare they), and one group is saying "these guys are idiots, OF COURSE everyone has to have licenses, thats how we've done it for YEARS, so it MUST BE RIGHT!!!"

So again, there are lots of issues surrounding the driver's license. As one previous poster put it, if you dont like the requirements to get one, dont get one. But then life actually becomes hard, and no one wants life to be hard...

--- Check out this guy who lives a (semi)normal life without a Social Security Number.

Re:Watch as....

[BCoates]

"Motor Vehicle" is an important one. Definition in Title 18 USC 31 - "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."

That makes sense, as that's a defintion from federal law, which has the power to regulate interstate commerce--so federal motor vehicle law generally only covers commercial vehicles. (i'm ignoring federal safety/environmental laws here, but those are usually just funding tie-ins to coerce the States into passing conforming state laws.)

You don't have to have a federal driver's licence, if such a thing exists it's only for semi-truck drivers and the like, not personal vehicles.

Looking at state law, this is from the California Vehicle Code:

415. (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, invalid tricycle, or motorized quadricycle when operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

"Driver" is another one, definition from Bovier's Law Dictionary - "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."

'employed in' here most likely means 'performing the action of', not 'is hired to'. The language in that sentence is pretty crusty...

--
Benjamin Coates

I *implemented* WV's Facial Image DMV DLID system!

[bjanz]

Hi folks. Subject line is *fact*. I developed the central image server and was the lead engineer on Polaroid's implementation of the WV DMV DL/ID system. WV uses *both* fingerprint *and* facial image recognition. Fingerprints are optional, but the facial image recognition is used on *all* applicants. The FIR system can be *tuned* to reduce both "false negative" and "false positive" results. The facial image is stored - it's needed to print the license and verify the user for the next issuance. I'm willing to write an article on the subject, if there's any interest. Email me at bjanz@bit-net.com. And, if you're interested, I can provide names who will verify that I did indeed run the WV and Indiana projects. \burt

The illusion of "freedom" has served its purpose

[flacco]

This whole "freedom" concept was useful as long as we needed something to hold up to shame our communist enemies. Now that they are gone, this "freedom" pretense is expendable.

Line up for your tattoos, workers. Time to brand some cattle. Shut up and don't complain, or we'll ship your jobs to those former communist states where labor is real cheap.

Well, we're going to do that anyway, but no need to tell you now.

Europe

[ZaneMcAuley]

We already have photo's, signatures etc on our licences, they change nearly every year. We use a european model licence (and passport) for every member state. Soon it will include (if not already) a chip on it. So what. It makes my live easier when travelling around europe having this single model. To get this kind of technology accepted, they are marketing it using the FAST TRACK approach. i.e., you get through checks faster at airports etc if you have this that or the other kind of ID.

Rights/Disclosure

[Skrap]

A question which I don't think has been asked enough is "Do we have a right to know what is being done with our information?". When medical surveys are conducted, they survey-takers are required by law to disclose what information is being taken and for what purpose the information will be used. Shouldn't government be held to the same standard? I'd feel better about handing my info over if I knew that it wasn't going to be used to track my movements, or in some other underhanded way.

Are there any medical professionals out there who know the details of what is required of medical research in terms of informed consent of the subjects? Also, why that consent is required, and can that be applied in this case?

Just curious...

America

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point is enough enough ? As previous poster have said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Once a right is given up it is NEVER regained. Sure, If we had a system where every person was required to register their DNA/fingerprints, etc, sure it WOULD lead to a reduction in the crime rate, but surely that is something for the people to decide, not politicians. My point is where do you draw the line ? We could use statistical analysis to determine that as a individual there is a 80% chance that you will commint a criminal offence of some nature. By the logic of this arguement it would make sense to detain you BEFORE any offence was commited 'in the public good'.
Each step SEEMS sensible, but the end result is unpalitable. If we start down this route where do we stop ?

Spoken like someone who hasn't YET had ..

[crovira]

a fender bender with some idiot who was DWI.

Driving is a privilege and a responsability. Too many people kill and maim too many other people because they can't behave responsably.

You want to rant. I've got a cemetery full of ranters for you and hospital wards and prosthetic companies solely filled and supported by morons who think they can handle a few tons of hurtling metal when they are so mentally deficient they shouldn't be allowed to walk home alone at night.

Re:A New World

[circletimessquare]

The best we've come up with so far is pointing out the fact that these new gestapo-like measures won't actually increase our safety.

Two things:

1. It will increase our safety, but at the cost of our liberties. The question is, how to increase our safety without sacrificing our liberties. It is an honest question. A diatribe? Well, you are right, it was a diatribe too. ;-P

2. People are so damn quick to invoke Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. Uhh... no one is saying you have to wear a yellow star of david on your driver's license and the word "Juden." You are in knee-jerk territory again. I am asking for new arguments, not old ones. In addition, that is fear-mongering. FUD does not help you, since you are trying to fight FUD, which you are saying is being used to rob you of your rights. So why are you using FUD again? What purpose are you serving? Interesting how that works, doesn't it.

Hey, I've got it. We're being too honest. The other side - Congress, the FBI, etc. - aren't afraid to bend the truth a bit to set their arguments in a pro-safety light. We should be just as dishonest and sensationalist right back at them.

Oops, I guess you answered #2. Should have read your entire post first. Not much to say now, as you've heeded the call, and joined the dark side.