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

[jgerman]

Driving is a privilege

Heard this crap before. Driving is a right. Yes, if reason can be shown that there is a valid purpose for not providing someone with a driver's license it's fair enough to dissallow them one. However, in this, to use a horribly cliche phrase, not haveing a drivers license bars you from participating in a wide variety of activities in this country. The gorvernemt really has no right, IMHO to divvy out drivers licenses. I always here the argument: "The government pays for the roads". Bullshit, I pay for the roads, you pay for the roads, all of us pay for the roads.

Sorry for the rant but the whole driving thing with the government burns me up. Don't even get me started on the government mandated extortion that is mandatory auto insurance. ;)

Re:Undue Restrictions

[tongue]

That still doesn't change the fact that driving is a privilege.

Driving is NOT a privilege. It is a right. It is not, however, a constitutional right. The same rationale that says driving is a privilege says that privacy is also a privilege.

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.

Worthless unless it is adoped by everyone

[crimoid]

From the article:

The state also has also exercised the option to utilize biometric features with the new Digitized Driver License system given the need for greater security since September 11. It has become evident that the driver's license is now a critical identification document.

Thats all well and good, but unless someone checking the ID (ticket counter at the airport) has some means of utilizing the new features to positively identify someone the features become usless. The person checking the ID must then (as always) check photo ID.

You can implement all the new features you want, but unless everyone has access to card readers, scanners or whatever gadget is used to utilize biometric information the features don't amount to squat.

I don't see how this is much different than requir

[J. J. Ramsey]

Your picture is taken so that human beings can recognize your face. The main difference I see here is that computer software is used to recognize your face rather than humans. There are still some potential problems, such as the Connecticut DMV thinking the software is more reliable that it is, but I don't think it's quite the coming of Big Brother yet.

Re:So whats the problem?

[SecurityGuy]

Funny, I hear that's just what they tell identity theft victims under suspicion of fraud. What's wrong with it is that you very, very, incorrectly assume that large, impersonal bureaucracies don't regularly grind people up and spit them out. What's wrong is that some percentage of the data in these archives will inevitably be incorrect, and it's bloody near impossible to get it fixed if you're lucky enough to even find out about it before being screwed by it. There's the problem that putting all this information on a DRIVER'S license is irrelevant to actually allowing you to drive. Given the opportunity, this stuff *will* be abused, much like bars often, I'm told, scan drivers licenses where they're scannable, ostensibly to validate whether you're old enough to be there. The marketing database and record of your visits that they can do anything they'd like with is just a bonus.

Simply put, avoiding the potential for abuse is always a good idea.

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 ... ?

[BoyPlankton]

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?

I dunno about you, but if I was planning on committing a crime and I knew that my photo/fingerprints were on record, which they are, then I would just wear a mask and gloves to get past those obstacles.

While I understand your point of view, I don't think that the question should be "what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?" I think the question should be, "what crime did I commit to warrant being treated like a criminal?"

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.

It would also reduce alot of crime if the government implanted chips in our skin that relayed our exact location to a police computer at all times. That way they'd have no problem pinpointing who committed the crime. For some odd reason I believe that's a bad idea too.

Re:And your problem is ... ?

[startled]

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 a good point-- and that's why so many of these things get through. But what else is illegal? Distributing DeCSS, apparently. Giving a lecture on flaws in the latest digital watermarking scheme. In the past, it has been effectively illegal to espouse Communist values, or to be Japanese and not in a camp.

The more power you give the government, the more extreme these laws get. Maybe it'll be illegal to criticize the president, or write a program to copy bits without government-approved copy protection built in (but hey, now I'm just getting way outside the realm of possibility).

I'm happy to give up some power to a central government-- because, like you said, I much prefer a society without murder and assault. But it's incredibly naive to believe that the government will use any power you give it responsibly. There's plenty of corruption now-- and it increases the more power they get.

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

Re:And your problem is ... ?

[nels_tomlinson]

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%.

If we could do this kind of thing effectively, we would be able to ensure that only those favored by the government could rape, assault and murder your children, and that your children couldn't do anything about it, if they objected to these rapes, murders, and assaults. That's a great tradeoff, I think; give up all remnants of human dignity, and everything which makes life worth living, and get abused, enslaved, robbed and murdered by the very organization you gave this up to.

If we can learn anything from history, it's that Lord Acton was right: absolute power absolutely will corrupt.

Ironically, criminals have relatively little to fear from this kind of thing. They seem to be able to ply their trade without much difficulty under all circumstances. Some of the dumb ones get hung when a police state decides to get rid of the competition, but the bright criminals just join the gang with the badges. We need to make sure that the cops don't become the gang with the badges.

I am not a criminal either, and I therefore object to being treated as if I were a criminal. You might think that increasing your safety by twenty percent makes it all worth while, and you might think that these proposals will deliver that. Think about this: if treating us like criminals really slowed the criminals down, then you would feel quite safe as a prisoner in a U.S. jail. Do you really think that you would be safer in prison than in your home? The incidence of violent crime is quite high in prison, and the folks there are really treated like prisoners. We could strip search you every day before you leave the house, and afterwards too, and you won't be any safer. But, we will have made the cops into the gang with the badges.

It's a picture and a description ...

[Titusdot Groan]

Wow, when I read biometric data I had images of fingerprinting, retinal scanning and a dna sample. Nope, just a picture and demographic data. Is this a slippery slope concern or just a massive over-reaction?

As licenses get used increasingly for proof of identity we can only expect this kind of increase in the security of the id cards.

Up here in Ontario we've been doing this for years for drivers licenses and government health cards. So far there hasn't been any use of the data (that I know of) for anything other than printing the photo id cards.

The battle to be fought here is not to prevent these cards from existing, it's going to happen. Work on ensuring that the cards are only proof of identity and are not connected in every which way to every database in existance. Fight for an internally consistent card that only proves you are who you claim to be, then every other database can just look you up. Fight against the shared databases not against the cards themselves.

For instance the Canadian Federal government put together a big database tracking all sorts of personal information about every Canadian tax payer -- they can do this with out without id cards.

The war for anonymity was lost on September 11th. Those of us concerned about privacy didn't get to the field. Fall back and fight for real privacy.

And remember folks, nobody listens to the people wearing the tin foil hats!

Driver's license wasn't always required!

[peter hoffman]

A driver's license wasn't always required. The first states to require a driver's license were Massachusetts and Missouri in 1903. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that all states required road test and/or examination in order to get a license (reference). Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.

Most people don't have any inkling as to how how much the world has changed in the last 50 years (or 100 years for those of you over 50). Politicians today can get elected on platforms that would have had them run out of town on a rail only 30 years ago.

In the future people watching old movies won't understand the terror implicit in the phrase "ver are your paperz!". They won't recognize that phrase as being fundamentally un-American.

Revisionist history will make sure they aren't even taught that things were ever any different. Revisionist history may not even include a mention of Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin.

If some people get their way you won't even be able to teach yourself history. All that you will know are the "facts" The State has approved for your consumption.

The sad thing is that already anyone who points these things out is derided as a nut.

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

Solution

[glowingspleen]

Just squinch your face up. Sure you'll have a wacky license picture, but you'll stay anonymous on the cameras...

Re:I don't see how this is much different than req

[meggito]

Yet...

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.

Re:So whats the problem?

[Darth Maul]

Think about Australia. A while ago they had to register a handgun with the country. People were upset, but the other side said "as long as you don't do anything wrong with the gun, why does it matter whether or not we have your registration?"

So, everyone registered.

Then, years later, the government used those registrations to go door to door and collect all the guns because they thought it would help decrease crime.

See, it's just the little things at first; the little pieces that eventually lead to something major. You're right, it's no big deal if we don't do anything illegal *now*, but how can we keep the government in check if they keep taking away our liberties?

P.S. - Crimes went up an amazing amount in Australia just the next year. Especially home breakins because the thiefs knew the homeowners wouldn't have a gun.

What's new here?!?

[Debillitatus]

I'm imagining that over the next few hours, we'll see the traditional /. backlash that we're expecting, hear the words "Big Brother" about a thousand times, etc.

But my question is, what is new here?

For example, in every state that I've lived and gotten a driver's license in, I was required to submit all of this information. I had to give biometric information, my NY state driver's licence has my height and eye-color, and other states have required my weight, and so on. Also, every driver's license I've ever had has a picture on it, which was digitized and entered into a database.

I can understand your position if you think that it's a violation of privacy for you to have to submit to a picture, and to give basic biometric information. I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from... But, if this is your position, then it must be true that the current situation was intolerable to you. Anyone who thinks that this new development is somehow different than the current situation is just having a knee-jerk reaction.

The Right To Bear...Vehicals?

[JoeShmoe]

You know, I think everyone who takes the stance that "driving is a privaledge, not a right" is flat out wrong. I belive that driving is a right. I believe that it is just as important as the right to bear arms. The only reason that it isn't explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution is because the technology just didn't exist. The forefathers couldn't have conceived of a world where the government could somehow prevented them from using a horse.

But ask yourself...what would happen if the procedures that applied to cars were applied to cars? You want a gun? First take a mandatory training class. Now get a practice gun that says you can only use a gun within a shooting range for a year. Now fork over your complete life's history, DNA, fingerprint, whatever to become a registered gun owner. Now be required to get gun insurance in order to purchase a gun. Now get a ticket for not keeping your gun stored in the proper location. Now have your gun impounded and lose your gun license for getting too many tickets.

That's what we would have if guns were given the same treatment under the law as cars. Yet you won't see that happen. Even thought a lot of those things are probably a sensible idea! They are adding to the burden of gun ownership which directly violates the second ammendmant.

Now I ask you, which is more important, a gun or a car? Back in the 1700's, you have to pretty much to with gun. A gun could provide food for your family. A gun could protect you from robbers and highwaymen. A gun could protect you from wild animals. A gun could make sure that your newly formed government didn't decide to come and oppress you (or at least do so over your dead body). A gun put you on equal terms with the lawmakers...as long as the numbers of you outnumbered the numbers of them.

Today in the year 2002...which is more important, a gun or a car? A car provides me with a means to earn a living at a job that might be otherwise out of my range of trave...a car provides food for my family. A car gives me the ability to flee danger should I live in a remote area...a car protects me from robber. A car gives me a secure mode of transportation through dark and troublesome terrain...it afford me protection from wild animals I wouldn't have walking. A car allows me to escape from a situation where I am being persecuted...a car protects me from n oppressive government. A car puts me on equal terms with those in authority...as long as I keep driving until they stop following.

Everyone is fooling themselves into believing you don't need a car in today's society. Walk, ride a bike, take a bus. But if push came to shove, what of those options will save you from any of the terrors I mentioned above? Would we all sleep easy if cars were outlawed entirely and we were forced to use a public transportation system? Go only when and where they allow us to go? Allow our movements to be tracked from start to finish? This is the future that "driving is a privaledge" is heading us towards.

Stop it people, for the love of god, stop it. A car and a gun are both useful tools, that happen to have the side effect of being capable of causing damage and carnage. But there is no deny the benefit they both provide to our society. The tables have turned...I can pretty much get along without a gun in the yer 2000...the same way someone who carefully arranges their life can get along without a car. But I'm sure glad that if the situation were to change...if my wife were being stalked, or some hoodlums were hanging around my neighborhood...I can count on the fact that I can be guaranteed a means of protecting myself. Why on earth shouldn't the same be true for a car?

- JoeShmoe

.

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.

Re:I don't see how this is much different than req

[btellier]

The difference is that the authorities can't use a computer to see into your pocket and get all your personal information (name, address, SS#, etc), however they can set up video cameras everywhere, even in public. and scan your face and have all that info and more.

Do you think the government should know where you are at all times? That's what they're shooting for.

A New World

[circletimessquare]

A lot of these arguments I see here are wonderfully coherent arguments pre-September 11th. But unfortunately, they are all rather knee-jerk reactions after September 11th, because they are spoken in a vacuum that ignores the reality we live in today.

A show of hands for how many people think we have eliminated the networks that planned September 11th? Am I scare-mogering? By invoking September 11th am I calling upon Fear, Uncertainty, Denial to serve the interests of those who wish to destroy our freedoms? Am I an apologist for the future Stalin/ Hitler/ Pol Pot in our midst? By my arguments am I destroying our freedoms in order to protect them? Knee-jerk territory my friends, knee-jerk reaction. It is almost eight months, no more (!), since September 11th, and y'all are going about your thought processes in complete denial, aren't you?

There is a difference between explaining a situation and excusing a situation, so those of you who tend toward paranoid schizophrenia, please don't attack me personally if you reply, try to keep it above the belt and reply to the substance of what I am trying to say, and here it is:

The West has a problem. A huge one. Our current state of national existence is living under a threat to our security that has never existed beforehand in our history. Before September 11th, George Bush was seen as a buffoon. Now he enjoys wonderful ratings and is seen as a hero. Why? Human psychology, my friends. The USA, en masse, is rallying around the commander in chief. It is circling the wagons. You don't attack those who would defend you. The US Government was an overtaxing bloated bureaucratic anachronism before September 11th. Now, they are our saviors.

Again don't attack me, I am explaining the psychology in the US to those of you chronically out of touch with the reality we live in today- I am not excusing it, get it? Because a herd of buffalo, once it starts charging, has no intelligence, and will trample the fields that feed it just because somebody fired a few rounds by their flanks. Many decades hence, if we remove a lot of our own rights, there may be a lot of regret about our reaction to September 11th, but right now, we are in the thick of it. People are afraid.

So what am I saying? Y'all sound rather hollow, ok? Because you offer no protection from the kind of folks who committed September 11th. You invoke theories and possibilities of a police state, but the democratic tradition in this country is strong and deep, and the terrorists are REAL and in our midst, plotting our doom. You stand in the way of a herd of trampling buffalo, and you shout slogans that mean nothing to the mob before you, running over their own rights.

Folks, if you want to protect our freedoms, you have to find new arguments, that is all I am saying, and here is the kicker- you have to invoke those arguments that address the real problem: not our freedom, but our safety! I am with y'all, but I'm just saying: NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. YOU SOUND TIRED AND SHRILL. I agree with you that our rights are in jeopardy, and they need to be saved, but you are doing nothing to appease the approaching mob who will trample our freedom in the name of our safety, get it? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR FREEDOM THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Gee what a wonderful quote. Any volunteers to write this on a big banner and hold it up in front of a herd of charging buffalo? I didn't think so.

People are scared. They are covering their asses, they are not listening with their ears wide open and their minds in full-tilt. They are scared. You must invoke arguments that include their safety, because none of you do, and safety is what the herd of buffalo is worried most about.

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.

i'll tell ya how to fight this..

[JimBobJoe]

This can work in most states. Most of the time the legislatures did in fact pass laws requiring that photos be on licenses. (New York is an exception, a photo is not required on a license, but the commissioner of motor vehicles can require a photo if s/he wants. And of course Vermont doesn't require a photo at all.)

Anyway, state legislatures however have generally not passed laws authorizing their DMV's to keep the photos in archive. (NJ and CO are however exceptions--the only ones so far I've found.)Most states have privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute.

I just took a gander through CT law, and I see the requirement for a photo license, but no requirement for digitally archiving the photo.

So here is the crux:

*a photo is required on a license by CT law
*no statute exists that says that the photo has to be archived
*since CT issued non digital licenses without archiving photos for many years, your argument can be that the DMV can carry out their duties without archiving all the photographs--in particular, yours
*i bet CT does have some privacy laws that prohibit the collection of data which is not authorized by statute, nor collecting data which is necessary to carry out duties required by statute
*with all the above, go file a mandamus action ordering the dmv commissioner to remove your photo from the database

If all the above is the case, I would ask you put some money into it and get a lawyer--to set up good precedence.

Here in Ohio, the same thing can be done (no money for lawyer right now though. :-( Better yet, here in Ohio, the legislature did require that photos from commercial licenses be archived...but not those from regular operator licenses. So here's it's even easier to argue that if the legislature did not authorize the collection, and the bmv survived fine without doing it, then it is not necessary to carry out their duties, and is a violation of Ohio privacy law.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on television, but I like to think that I know something about this topic. :-)