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.'"

36 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!

  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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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

    4. 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.
    5. 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 digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or going outside when the sun is shining.

      What is this "sun" of which you speak?

    5. 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 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."
  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. 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...

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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?"
  12. 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".
  13. 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?

  14. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  15. 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 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?

  16. 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!

  17. 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.
  18. 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 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!!