Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Simply put, avoiding the potential for abuse is always a good idea.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Just squinch your face up. Sure you'll have a wacky license picture, but you'll stay anonymous on the cameras...
------
Let me give you the lowdown
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
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
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.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
--- witty signature
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.
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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.)
:-( 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.
:-)
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.
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.