Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pinellas Puts Facial Recognition in Patrol Cars

Posted by michael on from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

Isomorphic writes "Despite criticism by rights-advocates, the meltdown of a similar system used by the nearby Tampa Police (previous /. story here), and a zero-hit two-year track record, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office is putting facial recognition systems into 50 patrol cars. Even more ridiculous is the claim that the system is voluntary."

25 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. how long... by perlchild · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With Law enforcement demanding more and more tools, and tools that are more and more bigbrotherish each time, how long until we actually have laws that say people who mindlessly use tools without using their heads do jailtime equivalent to the judicial error they cause? (You accuse wrongfully someone of second degree murder because you didn't do a proper investigation, you do second degree murder time). Oh, and let's put it in the books that if a police union(or police department) tries to cover up something like this, not only do they commit a felony, but they share the punishment too.

    Maybe this way everyone will be happy. We'll be giving law enforcement tools, but they'll actually be afraid of using them(and messing up). Fear of messing up seems to be underrepresented IMHO.

    1. Re:how long... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      how long until we actually have laws that say people who mindlessly use tools without using their heads do jailtime equivalent to the judicial error they cause?
      Never. Incompetence is not and will hopefully never be against the law. If incompetence kills someone, it in and of itself will not be what gets an individual or group of individuals into trouble. It's the death or injury to some one that caused the trouble not the incompetence.

      Tools like this are actually a good thing! Do you know how many thousands of people are wanted or have a warrant out on them? If you have a warrant, you can be arrested. I doubt any police officer could mentally keep up with any but the most important felony warrants in their area. Police have always been allowed to look at citizens and compare who they come across with wanted/missing posters! This tool only makes that process more efficient. Usually local police don't care about other agency warrants if they aren't a felony. Do you as a citizen want some one that has a felony warrant walking around? I'd think not.

  2. what would probably make people safer by dcocos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would probably make people safer is if they took that money and applied to hiring a neighborhood officer who walked the area and actually knew and talked to the people in his area.

    1. Re:what would probably make people safer by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      That would have felt safer, not be/make safer. The British goverment is doing the same mistake. They have this slogan "Bobies on beat" which is exactly what you wrote. Does it reduce crime? No way. Bad guys just wait until the constable walks away. On the other hand, the perception of being safer has increased. With the same money, they could have employed someone to sit in a patrol car, ready for action or get some more helicopter time where they can actually follow the culprit when the guys on the beat can't.

    2. Re:what would probably make people safer by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      yeah but thats not the trend, basically buy techonology to replace the efforts of officers. This way they can cut back their budgets. So give us a couple years and all our speeding tickets are going to be electronically computer by sensors on the side of the road, and you whereabouts will be tracked 24/7

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    3. Re:what would probably make people safer by dcocos · · Score: 1

      The point I was making was that they shouldn't spend money on things that don't work, i.e. facial recognition systems that don't work, helicopter time if it works, is far better then technology that doesn't do its job.

  3. No mystery here. by Sevn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When something that is proven not to work keeps getting bought by a govt agency:

    * It's not their money. It's yours.

    * someone is doing someone else a favor, or cashing in.

    Follow the money.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  4. Expansion of Miranda rights by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have the right to wear this burka, if you choose not to wear this burka you will have facial recognition software troll through our database.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  5. Voluntary like the Income Tax? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Grant any power to government in order to control your neighbors, and that same power will be used to control YOU.

    In order to be free, you must guarantee the freedom of the least desirable member of society as well. Anything else is tyranny. If you don't think it is tyranny, it's only because your particular choices which define freedom for YOU haven't been restricted ....yet.

    Liberty is not safe, it is not comfortable, it is not easy.

    Slavery is very safe, and very easy. Just relax and give in. Do as you're told. Step out of the car and identify yourself when told. All very easy.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
    1. Re:Voluntary like the Income Tax? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No, voluntary as in they ask you for permission before running you through the database.

  6. Re:Since you emboldened every "YOU"... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

    In Soviet UK, that's called "Neighbourhood Watch Area", yellow & bright stickers. You can't move your house without some nosy neighbour disturbing you (been there, done that).

  7. From the article... by Grrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sheriff Everett Rice on Wednesday said his deputies are not [*] being instructed to search for criminals and that the photos would be taken only if there was "cause to arrest." ...
    Deputies are not [*] supposed to use the technology to take random pictures of people in public, said Rice. ...
    "We don't [*] force people," he added.

    * = yet

    <grrr>

    1. Re:From the article... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Sheriff Everett Rice on Wednesday said his deputies are not being instructed to search for criminals and that the photos would be taken only if there was "cause to arrest."

      If they arrest you, they already take your picture. If you appear on a wanted poster and are seen, you would hopefully at a min. be questioned if seen. If recongized, you'd be arrested and booked. During the booking process, guess what. Your picture is taken.

      It would be very helpful if they had instant access to your driver lic. picture. Usually, they have to wait around for 15-20 min. while dispatch relays the request to records about basic DL info and if you are wanted for something. This system doesn't even recommend scanning everyone that passes it. I would. This program only wants to scan those that the police are have cause to arrest any way! Wouldn't you rather your picture be taken than arrested?

    2. Re:From the article... by Grrr · · Score: 1

      I agree with a lot of what you said. Certainly the rollout of this app, as intended, is a useful tool. Perhaps it's even worth it despite the abuses which will occur (whether discovered or not) in any situation where humans are involved.

      By throwing in all those specious "yets" I was thinking of two other things. I know of very, very few situations, where surveillance has permanently decreased.
      If there's a good reason to scan everybody entering a stadium or an airport or a mall... or scanning every license plate that passes by on the freeway - well, shoot, why not do it!? And in the analog age, I was more likely to agree with that.
      But that brings up my other concern - the Law of Unintended Consequences. Data gathered for one purpose is vulnerable to other uses - and like any data it can be stolen, copied (perhaps surreptitiously), altered or merged with other data in an attempt to achieve a completely different end.
      This is already part of the consequences of being arrested, true enough. But someone saying they have "cause to arrest" does not necessarily mean it's true.
      Why not go all the way and collect DNA samples from all people who are arrested? And then, really, why not get DNA from everyone who is detained?
      "Slippery slope" plus the undying nature of digital databases = big trouble, in the wrong hands.
      I really don't want to be present in any databases I can avoid. Part of the old order of things was that the powers-that-be wouldn't get to have my photo on file unless I was actually, uh, arrested (ignoring covert surveillance, just for the moment) or I provided it voluntarily (driver's license).
      The best-intentioned people can set up systems, collect data - and write laws - that are used to a more sinister effect later.

      (It would be interesting to know if peace officers are generally permitted now, by law or agency policy, to snap photos of whomever they wish while on duty.)

      All this to get to the last sentence of your post... and this may seem silly to you, but yeah, I can look back on interaction with the po-lice and remember a few times when I was ready to be arrested rather than allow an unwarranted search (this was obviously a while back!).
      And I'm not made of stone - it would probably depend on the circumstances, okay, and "probable cause" suer ain't what it used to be - but I'd rather be wrongly arrested than voluntarily be added to more databases. Doing what one believes to be right will get one in trouble sometimes. That's part of the deal.
      Living in the USA used to mean you still had the occasional choice about surrending your liberties.

      <grrr>

    3. Re:From the article... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      but I'd rather be wrongly arrested than voluntarily be added to more databases.

      As I understand it, they aren't adding any one that they photo to a database. They are checking the database for known people that they are after. I know alot of family members that have the same opinion as you. They'd also rather be arrested than have their photo taken by family members for the family photo. I'd be against storage of this data. The only time that I'd want to have storage of the data is if some one was arrested from it. It the photo taken by the officer and the photos that it matched should be flaged so the defendent's lawyer can get into action. To you're question about police photoing citizens, the obvious thought is that they video traffic stops. Remember the city has the right to video tape the officer while he is on duty. If you get caught on the city's video while he is patroling, he didn't do anything, it was just an automated system recording everything that he passed. The thing is almost all police supervisors wouldn't care about those day to day rides around town. The supervisors only care about when people are arrested (the citizen may complain) or there are complaints about the officer.

      Here is an idea that will scare you. Imagine if Wal-mart, Target, Sears or any other large department store you may visit has their interal video survillance hooked up to this system (or maybe a privately owned database just for companies of shop lifters) and was scanning all customers. You would never know unless a police officer arrested you. The police officer could be called by the company about a "possible" felon in the store that they'd like the police to remove. Some police agency generally would try to look good to the store and general public. They would if not busy send some one to check it out. If the store already had who they had printed out with all their info. The police would call dispatch to verify the info. Then follow store security to the person.

    4. Re:From the article... by Grrr · · Score: 1

      Yup, they may not be saving the photos (uh, yet), their motives may be unimpeachable and the higher-ups in the police department don't care at all about the photos of non-criminals.
      Again, it's the unintended "audiences" not initially anticipated that concern me more. Digital data, once captured, is so much more easily stored and indexed... more easily copied, merged...
      Manipulated.

      Are these photos in the public record? (Surely they're not all considered to be "work products of an investigation" ?!?)
      Will they ever become publicly available? Who can say?
      What industries might find them useful...?

      We have no choice but to "trust" that a photo database has not been previously seeded with "false positives" to cast doubt upon it, and that the facial mapping algorithms or whatever are robust enough to make actual false positives rare (though what level of false accusation is acceptable, really, as a result of "B-but the computer says you're an escaped felon" ?) and that the people who just want to do their job and catch bad guys are not putting so much reliance on technology that they're "not seeing the forest for the trees".
      This guy was jailed for two weeks, even though the authorities previously had a quick and easy way to confirm the fingerprint mismatch in his case - and this poor guy spent two months in custody, supposedly because a judge maintained that "fingerprints don't lie" !
      Such things happened before a fingerprint database (just as inexcusable - this is not a matter of "accidents will happen", it's hubris) but the more an automated pattern-matching is end-to-end, the less chance human expertise and empathy and nonlinear thinking can prevent awful things like this. Given our Bill of Rights (even post-PATRIOT Act) the risk of false imprisonment should be even more miniscule than it is - decreasing as technology increases, if we're careful...!

      Rear-view mirrors don't lie, but that doesn't mean they can be trusted to reveal everything that's actually there.

      Now, videotaped traffic stops are a pretty good comeback. People's images are captured without probable cause - even if the officer is helping with a flat tire. But I don't know of a place (yet!) that requires people in the promixity of that constantly-rolling camera to hold still (submit) so a good, clear image can be captured. If suspects are being forced to do that now ("stand right in front of the bumper and hold still - you're on tape"), then I guess those municipalities won't be getting any of my discretionary spending.

      If the data exists, there's no way to prevent it from being stored.
      But if it never exists . . .
      (A weak analogy would be a file of credit-card numbers. Without a sufficiently powerful reason for keeping them in one "convenient" place, the risk of that information being stolen, exposed or altered will always exist, especially if they're on a net-attached server.)

      A case can be made (and invariably will be made ??) that's it's a doggone "waste" to collect information with taxpayer dollars, such as these photos, and then just throw it away, duplicate some of the effort on subsequent contacts with the same citizen, etc. etc.

      Wal-Mart, et al. - certainly there are many more photos being snapped daily (even of "us xenophobes") than we would care to know about. But no corporation (yet) has the profound, unique and immediate power over my freedom that peace officers do.
      A retailer which abuses their customers' trust will eventually be exposed, and hopefully will take a hit on the balance sheet as a result. A police department which is "bitten" by bad info (false positives) and/or negative publicity will either wise up or become known for their antics. I guess those who are sufficiently concerned about such things can move, or do more online shopping.
      And if this level of "cooperation"

  8. And when you say "No"? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is like searching your car. They have no probable cause, so they have to ask:

    "Mind if I search your car?"

    "You may not."

    "Refusal is probable cause that you're hiding something. Step out of the car and put your hands on the hood." They then search your car.

    If you don't like it, take it up with the judge (who happens to work for the same people the police do, and is rated by CONVICTIONS).

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  9. Article is misleading by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    The small airport at which the system is operating has never identified a wanted criminal. The system at the sherrif's office is much more useful and is used during booking during which matches occur every day.

    --
    Lasers Controlled Games!
  10. why don't we just... by bechthros · · Score: 1

    ...let them stay home? We've got automated radar guns, automated facial recognition, biometrics... Hell we could just give the cops pagers that go off when the computers are finished doing their jobs for them so they could show up to make the actual arrest. The rest of the time they could just sit in their Barca-loungers and we'll just mail them checks for doing nothing.

    This is different from welfare... how??

    --
    They will never stop until somebody makes the
  11. What Scared Me by Iainuki · · Score: 1

    This article used the phrase, "Officers should not . . ." far too often for my comfort. The point of legal safeguards on the police and judicial proceedings is to prevent abuses from occurring in the first place. I don't trust the police to use the system in the way the article says it was intended without real protection, as opposed to the toothless policy that seems to be in place.

  12. Digital "evidence" by JohnQPublic · · Score: 1

    Even scarier than the facial identification scernario, the article contained the following tidbit:

    [The SOP] also states that a field interview report must be filed if a picture is taken, and that cameras can be used to record evidence not usually collected by forensic investigators.
    I can't wait until digital camera "photos" of "evidence" that forensic investigators don't find interesting begin to show up in court. I will be very curious to see how the chain of evidence is preserved for a digital image, and to hear why the trained forensic investigators didn't see fit to take normal photos themselves.

    OK, now I'm gonna go put on my tin foil hat and shudder in the corner for a while.

  13. Re:Community Based Policing. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    First rule of naming laws. The name of the law must be the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what the law really authorizes.

  14. Face recognition systems countermeasure by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    In Japan it is common to wear a surgical-style face mask when one has a flu. Muslim women wear scarves over heads. Various cultures have various accepted ways to cover one's face. Why not pick and use some of them as a stopgap countermeasure?

    1. Re:Face recognition systems countermeasure by AlphaPB · · Score: 1

      Hm. It's perfectly fine to wear a ski mask while you run your daily errands. Until you get to the bank that is...

    2. Re:Face recognition systems countermeasure by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      This is why I call for a method derived from some culturally established way.

      Besides, when you are inside the bank, it doesn't matter much anymore - you have to identify yourself there anyway as there are no anonymous accounts anymore. :(