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?"
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.
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
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.
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.