Slashdot Mirror


FBI's New Eye Scan Database Raising Eyebrows

mattnyc99 writes "The FBI has confirmed to Popular Mechanics that it's not only adding palm prints to its criminal records, but preparing to balloon its repository of photos, which an agency official says 'could be the basis for our facial recognition.' It's all part of a new biometric software system that could store millions of iris scans within 10 years and has privacy advocates crying foul. Quoting: 'The FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, which could cost as much as $1 billion over its 10-year life cycle, will create an unprecedented database of biometric markers, such as facial images and iris scans. For criminal investigators, NGI could be as useful as DNA some day — a distinctive scar or a lopsided jaw line could mean the difference between a cold case and closed one. And for privacy watchdogs, it's a dual threat — seen as a step toward a police state, and a gold mine of personal data waiting to be plundered by cybercriminals.'"

10 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DMV and the US government already have my picture (passport). Why should I give a shit if the FBI has it or has access to it?

  2. It will inevitably lead to mistakes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once they get a DNA database everyone, you'll have to leave the house wearing gloves and protective clothing so you don't accidentally leave DNA on someone who happens to get murdered later.

  3. test subjects by jhines · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should use the politicians that control the agency, and the upper level bosses in the agency, as the first test subjects. Not that they have anything to hide, but I'm guessing they wouldn't like it in this case.

  4. And? by thermian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Technology has been moving this way for decades. There is even an argument that it's been moving this way for centuries.

    And so what? How much is this really going to effect us? Really? As things stand we have all our information stored by banks, hospitals, employers, and social networks. This is a natural progression.
    Anyone who thinks governments wouldn't do this obviously didn't pay attention at school. They've been doing this since they came into existence.

    This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here. All this is is a centralisation of information.

    As for me, I don't care whether they want this info or not. And as for the cybercriminal thing, you believe your bank/hospital/employer is any safer? Seriously?

    If this move would damn us, we've already been damned for some time.

    Next up, world doesn't end when this happens.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:And? by FeepingCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks for explaining (and demonstrating) the meaning of the idiom "slippery slope", as well as the story with the frog and the water.

  5. Re:Hold up by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nevermind someone hacking the FBI DB - what if some data entry monkey just screws up their data entry?

    "And now, entering data for serial killer John Doe, III" while having the record open for Jon Do, II. How will this be changed? Updated?

    I have a trivial mistake in my passport file (they have the wrong passport labeled as lost), and it is costing me 2 hours at immigration every time I fly. I have checked, and it is not possible to correct it. I fear to think what would happen with a more serious mistake. I'm pretty sure there'd be a lengthy trial involved, if not outright conviction and lengthy appeal.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  6. Please do Not by misterhypno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look Into the Laser With Your REMAINING Eye.

    The BIG problems with biometrics that rely on external facial features along with such things as facial bone structures is that they CAN be foxed rather easily by a good makeup artist as well as by plastic surgery.

    Scars can be added - and removed - both by clever applications of makeup and/or plastic surgery. The set of a person's eyebrow ridge can similarly e altered (for the purpose of fooling scans) using either technology as well. So can the set of one's cheekbones, jawline or even the confirmation of the ears (another unique body feature, like the fingerprint).

    Once again, the government goes down a path that is easily mucked up and that will produce highly questionable results.

    Thanks again, Washington, for spending more of our money on eye scanners and less on things like flood control programs, bridge inspection teams and systems to keep our ports safe from maniacs who just might try to blow one of them higher than up!

  7. Re:Yes, where is this technology outsourced from?. by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anybody notice the mention of Lockheed Martin in the original article?

    Really? Is more outsourcing of sensitive government tasks the way to go? Have we learned nothing from experience...

    The federal government outsources just about all of their sensitive science and engineering. Sandia National Lab is run by Lockheed Martin. LANL and LLNL are also run by contractors. Nothing new.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  8. Eyeglasses an advantage! by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    looks like all us "four-eyes" are going to have an extra modicum of privacy.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  9. Re:Alternatives by bit01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.

    Except when law enforcement and assorted bureaucrats and incompetents are the bad guys. Your automatic assumption that law enforcement are the good guys is telling. Do you think the percentage of bad guys in law enforcement is larger or smaller than the general population?

    I get annoyed with people advocating large databases accessed by large groups of people. Any large group of people will have good and bad in it. How do you deal with that? It's not as simple as you think.

    And what makes you think a database of millions of people and accessed by tens of thousands isn't going to compromised by organized crime approximately 30 seconds after it goes live? How will it affect witness protection programs? How will it affect the innocents who have erroneous data on their name? How will it affect innocents who have bad data deliberately put on their name?

    We could make law enforcement's job much easier but putting everybody's biometrics into a big database at birth and requiring everybody to have an operation putitng a GPS radio into them. Why don't we do that? It's a question of balance. Unfortunately, law enforcement's and politicians' idea of balance seems to be somewhat different from the general population's.

    ---

    DRM - Have you got big-corp-of-your-choice's permission to go to the toilet today?