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.'"

59 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Want to make money? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 3, Funny

    There has never been a better time to invest in Ray-Ban!

    1. Re:Want to make money? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There has never been a better time to invest in Ray-Ban!

      Or perhaps a company that sells novelty contact lenses.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. 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?

    1. Re:Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they're the ones with the badges and guns and the ability to detain you without trial and make you disappear?

      Just saying.

    2. Re:Blah by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      BBC did a documentary on biometrics a year or so back. Iris ID has been used in Dubai for soem time it said. Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:Blah by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

      Marijuana doesn't dialate the pupils, although it can make your eyes red and droopy (maybe just as good). Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

      If you want your eyes dialated, you're going to have to snort coke or smoke meth or crack. Downers and narcotics like Heroin or Demerol will make your pupils constrict.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Blah by xonar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also it pointed out that a way to defeat this is any drug that dialates the pupils. So; smoke a bong and smile ;)

      Marijuana doesn't dialate the pupils, although it can make your eyes red and droopy (maybe just as good). Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

      If you want your eyes dialated, you're going to have to snort coke or smoke meth or crack. Downers and narcotics like Heroin or Demerol will make your pupils constrict.

      Most psychedelics will alter your pupil size and are not physically addicting (besides Ketamine, woo yay). I know LSD and Psilocybin/Psilocin will dialate your pupils WAAAY more than coke/crack/meth. Though there's a SLIGHT possibility of it interfering with your daily tasks :P

    5. Re:Blah by gnick · · Score: 3, Funny

      Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.

      Echo xonar's note on the psychedelics. A good healthy breakfast of funky fungus will blow your pupils to the point that the iris is difficult to find, let alone ID.

      However, it's not terribly difficult to recognize when somebody is on mushrooms/LSD/etc. If they're going to detain you based on your irises, having them missing is probably just as effective a way to get arrested as springing up a positive match.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Blah by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Funny

      And if illegal amphetamines or hallucinegenics don't do it for you, then you could always try something really crazy, like eye drops.

  3. too many movies by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think someone's been watching too many movies. Aren't modern day iris scanners bad for your eyes. Sending crazy bright light directly into a person's eye will obviously damage it if it's done enough times. So all that logging in every day at the government's secret lab stuff is pure science fiction. I think personally doing an iris scan once can destroy enough rods or whatever to make people complain. They shouldn't be using this system and expecting people to be scanned whenever they want them to be.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:too many movies by 26199 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You seem to be talking about retinal scanners -- iris recognition is considerably less intrusive. I don't know about retinal scans being harmful, but I'm quite sure iris recognition isn't.

      (At least, in the superficial physical sense).

    2. Re:too many movies by computational+super · · Score: 3, Funny
      my eyes are still fine.

      Hey! I'm over here!

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    3. Re:too many movies by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're correct. Iris scans, as opposed to retinal scans, can be done quickly using only ambient lighting. And, with decent optics, they can be done at surprising distances. The only real limitation is the atmospheric effects you get from small air currents, thermals, etc. And, on a calm, cool day, those don't become an issue for a good way off.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:too many movies by Lordnerdzrool · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least it will give some of us an excuse for looking at a female's breasts when talking to her. I'm all for this now.

    5. Re:too many movies by digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or going outside when the sun is shining.

      What is this "sun" of which you speak?

    6. Re:too many movies by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Retina scanning is also fairly useless for ID, the retina changes over time, as bits of it die and regrow.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    7. Re:too many movies by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Funny

      You go outside!?

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  4. 'Duel' threat? by mfnickster · · Score: 4, Funny

    > And for privacy watchdogs, it's a duel threat

    I guess they really threw down the gauntlet, huh?

    Now which weapon should I choose... rapier and/or dagger?

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    1. Re:'Duel' threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Curses, foil'd again!

    2. Re:'Duel' threat? by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now which weapon should I choose... rapier and/or dagger?
       
      Ballot box

    3. Re:'Duel' threat? by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I'll take banjos, for $500.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    4. Re:'Duel' threat? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Funny

      BFG 9000 for me please.

    5. Re:'Duel' threat? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now which weapon should I choose... rapier and/or dagger?

      Ballot box

      I wasn't aware that you could vote for (or against) the FBI. But then, I'm not an American and there's much about your political system that I don't understand.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. En Garde by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 5, Funny

    And for privacy watchdogs, it's a duel threat

    En garde!

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
  6. well of course it's raising eyebrows... by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Funny

    how else would the scanner be able to read the eye?

  7. 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.

  8. ok, so what's next? by crashandburn66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The iris scans seem benign to me. I'm not entirely sure how they would scan the insides of your eyeballs without your consent, at least for now. What concerns me is the facial scans. I have a feeling that this is more than just pictures like on a passport. I'm thinking more along the lines of a virtual model of one's physical features, possibly built from various images into a kind of 3-D composite. There are a few problems with this. One is that you could be mistaken for someone else (obviously). Another is that this would only work with a very sophisticated camera surveillance system, or what would be the point? So this could mean that the government is planning to really step up their surveillance program. And of course they'll give us the same bullshit about fighting violent crime and terrorism, and people will eat it up. And then there will be cameras everywhere, like in China. That's what really scares me about this.

    1. Re:ok, so what's next? by techpawn · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know how we have Godwin's law about Nazi Germany? Does anyone know if there is one about Orwell? I mean, it's fitting, but we'd be hitting it a lot lately.

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  9. Oh hey by kjzk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The U.S. government and Popular Mechanics have been in bed together for quite some time now. Remember the desperate and failed attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories in one of their issues? It only generated more suspicion and exposed their tight relationship. This leaves me to believe that Popular Mechanics is probably glorifying this Police State tactic.

    Popular Mechanics is garbage. It's for people who want to pretend to be smart.

  10. Yes, where is this technology outsourced from?... by ckuttruff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  11. 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.

  12. I see where this is going... by Aphoxema · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, what about the people with no eyeballs? OR HANDS?! OR FACES!? OR EVEN DNA?! You think criminals are dangerous, it's the criminal zombies you have to be really afraid of! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  13. They never would have caught me... by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

    if I hadn't left an image of my retina at the crime scene!

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  14. Hold up by BlowHole666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do they need our Eye Scan Data? I do not leave my iris information at a crime scene. I do however leave my DNA and fingerprints. So what happens when the FBI DB gets hacked and some serial killer changes his Eye Scan with mine. The FBI has no way of knowing who is who. I know some of you may say that the FBI will also have pictures of me and witnesses etc. but it use to be that DNA was not trusted very much and now a person can be put away on DNA evidence alone, so it is all too soon till a person can be put a way or arrested just because their eye scan says they are someone they are not.

    --
    I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Hold up by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      I do not leave my iris information at a crime scene.

      Er... what *do* you leave at your crime scenes?

  15. 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 mpthompson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      I agree. The concern over this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Having an iris or other biometric profile for criminals is no more invasive than having images of tattoos or mug shots in a computer database. It is simply the progression of technology.

      For people who have no criminal convictions, I think there are legitimate concerns and that their biometric information should be kept out of such a database. It is important that there be an open mechanism so that people with privacy concerns can request their biometric records be purged if there is no legitimate reason for the government to have them. But if you are a convicted felon, too bad. Your biometric information is kept on record to facilitate future investigations.

    2. Re:And? by imipak · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually it's the other way round. A police state leads to centralised databases on guilty and innocent alike, not vice versa. Ask my sister-in-law (who grew up in the then DDR) or girlfriend (Brezhnev's USSR and Tito (and then Milosevic's) Yugoslavia.)

      Hmmmm.

    3. Re:And? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      What will lead to a police state? The US IS a police state. If you have secret police you have a police state, and it doesn't matter if you call them "secret police" or politically correct euphemisms like "plainclothesmen" or "undercover agents".

      Get rid of victimless "crimes" and you have no rational need for secret police.

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

      You think so?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. 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.

  16. Alternatives by boatboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK /.ers, if you're opposed to this, let's hear the alternatives. Describe a system that allows quickly tracking down criminals but protects personal privacy.

    1. Re:Alternatives by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There isn't. The system that allows you to instantly track criminals is the one that allows you to instantly track everybody. This is the definition of a police state.

      You know, I like some inefficiencies in my government. It makes sure that some dimwit who can't get a regular job doesn't get a Napoleon complex and institutes some harebrained regulation.

      Yes, it means some crimes go unsolved. I prefer that to some stupid crimes being solved.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Alternatives by ruin20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of the population doesn't believe we need increased efficiency in the tracking down criminals department. At least not the minimal amount that this system would provide. Since that need hasn't been identified, it's easy to say the cost isn't worth it. We don't need an alternative to this plan, because this plan is addressing a problem that doesn't need to be solved, tracking down repeat offenders IF they visit limited locations that have the capabilities provided in this system. Especially when the cost is allowing for Uncle Sam to get all the tools to build behavior profiles on anyone.

      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    3. 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?

  17. Re:Iris gives away too much information by ageforce_ · · Score: 2, Informative

    somehow the link did not come through... http://www.springerlink.com/content/32p6733743573016/

  18. 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!

  19. 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.
  20. 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!!
    1. Re:Eyeglasses an advantage! by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Naw, you'll just get put on the terror list first.

      Think about it. You wear glasses because you are correcting your vision, possibly because you enjoy reading. While reading, you might be exposed to materials that are critical of plans to implement things such as iris scanners. Reading these critiques might cause you to begin thinking the government maybe exceeded its authority.

      This kind of "thinking" is a strict no-no. True patriots never question; they obey.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    2. Re:Eyeglasses an advantage! by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought the requisite income for owning a monocle meant you were controlling the surveillance system.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  21. Stop acting like this isn't a problem. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As things stand we have all our information stored by banks, hospitals, employers, and social networks. This is a natural progression.

    And this is ok on the face of it, but NOT the way these companies are being allowed to abuse it. Just because the abuse is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's ok.. that's like going back to the 1850's and arguing "slavery is the result of natural progression".

    And so what? How much is this really going to effect us? Really?


    Oh it doesn't hurt you at all as long as you're a conformist lemming who "has nothing to fear because he's done nothing 'wrong' ... " It doesn't have to be the government directly involved in the oppression, either. The dixie chicks happens on the micro level every day when the personnel manager is a bush-ite scumbag.

    as for other effects
    How about shortening people's lives with nagging telemarketing or killing wide swaths of the rainforest? I receive more useless paper in the form of junk mail each week from companies who buy this abusively shared information than I have ever used in a given year as a double major.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  22. Re:I must say... by sp332 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ugh, eye hate these puns...

  23. Iris Scanning Info by Ubiquitous+Bubba · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those who would prefer not to wallow in self induced ignorance, (both of you), here's a few links you might find relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_recognition http://www.findbiometrics.com/Pages/iris_articles/iris_1.html http://www.iridiantech.com/index2.php The rest of us may now return to mindless ranting. Enjoy!

    --
    After exhaustive research and excrutiating analysis, I've determined that Bubba is, in fact, everywhere.
  24. Re:Iris gives away too much information by Copid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    one is superstition, the other is actual medical fact.

    Only if you're hanging around in the 19th century. With very few exceptions, examining the iris doesn't give you any information about illnesses (although it can certainly tell you about problems with the iris). Iridology lives on the trash heap of medical history these days. Aside from the fact that it makes no sense from a physiological perspective, it also simply fails on evidence.

    As far as I'm concerned, anything that has no theory or data to back it up doesn't even approach the realm of medical fact.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  25. At first when I read this... by hyperz69 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I saw Rectal Scanner. I wasn't at all surprised, just prayed there was still room in the budget for KY!

  26. Re:Struck Down at the State Level in early 2000's? by Atrox666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It'll go a little further than last time. Rights are being lost a little bit at a time.

    You can measure how good a country is by how much they ADVANCE freedom and RAISE the MEDIAN standard of living. By this measure the US is a very crappy country and getting crappier. You've become a global embarrassment to your former friends and liability to freedom everywhere.

    I canceled my own trip to the US and went to Cuba instead. At least their citizens realize they live in a police state, there may be hope for them.

    Unfortunately at this point in North America all you can do is wait for enough idiots to clue in to the rise of the new fascism.

    When your founding fathers organized terrorist resistance they did not have to deal with flying robotic combat drones attacking them. Lets hope that when you finally have no choice but to open your eyes that it will still be possible to mount a meaningful resistance.
    To put it in perspective, for less than 100 years we've had the technology in place so that most people in North America can eat until they get full. The majority of your population are killing themselves with this simple non-offensive technology because they are not able to control their own actions and won't stop feeding their face. Now you want to give the technology to control and monitor every aspect of people's lives to these same fat stupid apes?

    Global corporate serfdom is what's at stake here and they are winning.

  27. Re:Yes, where is this technology outsourced from?. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    And that's why it's called the "military-industrial complex"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

    President Eisenhower popularized the phrase, but it's an old concept.
    Apparently even the fascists worried about the MIC.

    Nothing new.

    Well... the GP is obviously new here
    (no really, he is)

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  28. And Yet ... by bamwham · · Score: 2, Informative

    They can't keep a database of ballistic fingerprints of every handgun being sold. This would actually be useful with technology that is 20+ years old and could eliminate the lottery that law enforcement currently faces when they turn up a suspicious handgun.