Slashdot Mirror
New FBI System IDs People By Voice, Iris, More
cultiv8 writes "Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects' fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center. 'It's a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,' Morris said. In later stages, NGI system also will be expanded to include the analysis of palm prints, handwriting, faces, human irises and voices."
Define suspects.
What could possibly go wrong?
FUCK YOU POLICE STATE
As a geek, I honestly don't know how I should feel about this.
The technology is cool. The potential for abuse is frightening. This could be wonderful for helping local police capture criminals more quickly who are on the run from another jurisdiction. The "Big Brother" aspect of this having the potential to lead to a database of biometric information on EVERYONE is frightening. Will they take the biometrics gathered when foreigners enter the US and add that to the database automatically?
*sigh*. After weighing the pros and cons, this one comes out with too many points against it. The potential for abuse is too high.
If faced with having to have an on-the-fly fingerprint scan by a police officer, versus being handcuffed, stuffed in the back of a patrol car, fingerprinted, mugshots taken, and all that other stuff because of a potential suspect match, I'll take the fingerprint scan.
With almost all employers these days, just an arrest for any reason on a record (even if charges are dropped) means no chance of ever finding meaningful employment [1], keeping out of the handcuffs is paramount to keeping any type of meaningful career.
[1]: A lot of employers view arrest records as more meaningful than convictions because, "a thug can buy themselves an acquittal, while if a cop considers someone guilty enough to pull out the handcuffs and do the paperwork, they are guilty in this company's book."
Actually think this was not going to eventually happen? These kinds of devices have been a staple of every sci-fi / dystopian / futuristic setting for as long as I can remember. Sure, they will probably start by placing restrictions on when they can be used. But eventually the device will be advanced enough to be able to biometrically identify a person from a distance effectively 'instantly' (netflix definition of instant here). At that point, just being in the vicinity of one of these devices will basically give your full identity to the person holding it. What protection is a simple 'usage restriction' against that? I get the feeling that the days of being in public and anonymous are coming to an end.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
not much reasoning required. if they look in your (innocent) eyes, there might be a feeling/moment, so that is hopefully avoided. freedom never said it would be fair, or safe?
Seems to me that it's just an easy, quick way to see if someone you've already detained has any outstanding federal warrants. One would assume they already do this, except back at the station with the suspect in custody and sitting in a cell. I mean, when the police stop you during, say, a traffic stop, they already run your tags and your name. Why not have the ability to run some biometric information as well?
Now, I do know that there are many issues with the accuracy of fingerprints, so I would prefer that they waited to roll this out until it was capable of the other forms of identification that aren't as open to interpretation or errors. And it would also be nice if the hand-held devices can only scan and check, and that storage can only be done back at the station/precinct/etc. That way the information for the database would only be gathered and stored upon booking and incarceration, rather than on simple detainment, suspicion, and questioning.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This project does nothing of the sort. They've successfully convinced the FBI that they can build something of that description. Headline should read "Salesman successfully convinces FBI to buy expensive, unproven system off the back of some big promises".
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The next generation of government ID will include penis/cup size, spleen measurements and two or three brain scans for good measure. But not ethnicity, that would be wrong.
Right now they are authorized to take your fingerprints if you are arrested. This was the tradeoff made when the whole fingerprinting thing came up in the first place, "you've already been arrested, you temporarily certain rights of privacy when arrested, in the interest of safety of the officers" was the original reason they were allowed to search your person. (and later, your vehicle) Then that was expanded to fingerprinting for the purposes of recordkeeping, and later for lookup in the database to see if you had any outstanding warrants etc. But this was all based on your being arrested and having forfeit certain rights as a result.
So now we're going to continue with the invasion of privacy, but just drop the justification entirely? So a cop can see you walking down the street and looking funny and can pull you aside and print you? If that doesn't say "papers, please!" I don't know what does.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Soon the government will be keeping hidef scans of your entire body. They'll know the exact length of your pubes, when you last shaved, and when you need a haircut. And the world will be humming with 'safe' scanners that irradiate people at the entrance to every public building they go to. ...
Years from now, someone will hug another person in public, and a thousand lonely people will riot. ...
Scanning isn't about safety, it's about control. It's about depersonalization and evoking feelings of powerlessness against an authority figure. They aren't searching for bombs by looking at naked pictures of you: They're trying to make you feel vulnerable and at their mercy.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This is a great idea. People think it is to get bad guys which is correct but it also is there to clear the good guys. Also, this will work differently than the fingerprint system at the police station. This device will not arrest you, it will look into who has been arrested already so if you have not legal issues, you are fine. An AFIS (automated fingerprint identification system) at a police station brings up a list of people that need to reviewed since prints from a crime scene can potentially be of bad quality. With a device like this a print would be of very good quality and it would say with 99% accuracy if the person if the right person.
This is also good to get people who are lying about who they are. If a reply comes back as John Smith but he said his name was John Johnson, there is probably an issue there that needs to be looked at in more depth. That is when he can brought to the station.
The US legal system takes to heart the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" not to be confused with "innocent unless proven guilty". This mentality leads to a slippery slope of removing civil libirties until they can make their case. You are guilty right? They just haven't proven it yet.
I have the right to remain silent, how are they going to identify me by my voice?
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
If you have a warrant out for someone, you go and get them - you don't just check random people in the street in the hope someone has an arrest warrant out on them.
And if you observed a crime in progress or otherwise have reasonable suspicion that someone's just committed a crime, you arrest them on that basis and take them to the station.
I can't think of a single legitimate use case for this tech in the field.
What if your like me and can easily change handwriting to about 4 different styles.
I'm not seeing the connection. How can a Goo Goo Dolls song in any way identify me?
Nerd Rock In Progress
the vast majority of us have far less potential to damage ANYONE, or anything, than those sent to censor/detain/kill us.
We've been doing this in Iraq and probably Afghanistan for a few years now. It's purpose is to minimize the impact on the local people by quickly determining whether we needed to take someone into custody or not. Before that we would round up everyone that seemed suspicious and cart them off for questioning. Most people were innocent. Everyone was pissed off and sometimes the bad guys got away because they didn't seem suspicious enough to the troops they encountered. Overall it has really helped our relations with the locals while actually increasing our effectiveness combating the bad guys hiding among them.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
"the days of being in public and anonymous are coming to an end"? YouTube. Ubiquitous cellphones/cameras. We have met 1984, and he is us.
great, police have more power to spy on people. Blue collar crime amounts to less than 10% of crime, when are the cops going to chase down corporate crooks who do most of the stealing?
Imagine if they combined the iris technology with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0&feature=related
I recognize people by their voices more so than any other human feature, and I have met a few people who I swear have the exact same vocal pattern.
Granted, I'm not a machine so I have my flaws, but I would be worried about how accurate this machine would be.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
At least its not anal probes.....
You'all 'll know yer in a police state when the guvment wastes money on this sort of stuff while leaving most of its citizens without health care.
Here you go.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Us_population
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It's interesting to read this discussion on the anniversary of a famous speech in American history (1775). “There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free ... we must fight! ... Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! ... Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Partick Henry to the Second Virginia Convention.
Yeah, and all you protesters, picketers, political dissidents, usual suspects, and everybody else!
We gotcha!
Most of the technology to do this exists and has for some time. The FBI's IAFIS program (automatic fingerprint identification system) has existed since 1999. Handheld fingerprint scanners that could be integrated into AFIS started appearing at least 8 years ago. The military is using iris scanners in the "war on terror/opium" (at least in Afghanistan (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/02/opium-wars/guttenfelder-photography) see the second to last photo in the series).
Nevertheless, the Slashdot heading should read "New FBI System *Could* IDs People By Voice, Iris, More" but there is no reason to suspect that any of this won't/can't/doesn't work.
Unscannable!
Freedom, also means having the right to commit a "crime" and maybe even a chance to get away with it.
Hopefully I can shed some light on this whole thing. I design these systems for governments, and it's not usually as militant as it seems.
Firstly, the fingerprints are not 'taken' but searched. If you are not booked, then your fingerprints are not saved, and the only record you were ever in the system at all is a serial number for that transaction in a log file somewhere that has no connection to you as a person whatsoever. You can't properly book from a mobile device.
Secondly, I would like to hear more about the "many issues with the accuracy of fingerprints" because in my career as an AFIS engineer, I have never had an issue. In fact, the only time I have ever even heard of someone in the industry having a false positive is when human interaction is involved. For these quick-response mobile systems, there is no human interaction. And the thresholds are set very high.
Third, unless you are an expert in the field of AFIS, I think there's hardly justification to call one an "unproven system" when they are used throughout the world, and quite effectively I might add. Although yes, they are expensive as hell.
How long before your touchscreen device recognizes your fingerprints, and then transmits audio/video and GPS coordinates to the authorities? I love big brother, as it were.
'It's a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,' Morris said.
And they spend money on this? This might have been hard in the old days, but now it's absurdly simple:
10 PRINT "Enter Citizens Name: "
20 INPUT X$
30 PRINT "TAKE INTO CUSTODY IMMEDIATELY."
40 GOTO 10
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
You can absolutely count on this: that every single advance in technology will be used in every way possible by the people in power to keep themselves in power and to keep the public subjugated.
"Big Brother, in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector, will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order... and the like." - Justice William Orville Douglas (1898 - 1980) United States Supreme Court
For a very good glimpse into the future, see The Last Enemy (Masterpiece Theater series).
The Lantern Project is a mobile fingerprint scanner already in use in the UK: NPIA I've seen it being used in the field on a reality TV show called "Police Interceptors" (yes, edited clips to make the Police look good)....the one time it confirmed a driver was who they said they were when they had no id on them. The other time the copper said, "no, you are actually Frank Smith, date of birth xxx", the suspect confirmed this and was arrested for outstanding warrants.
'It's a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,' Morris said.
Hey guys, don't worry. Just a quick little scan. Nothing to worry about at all. Just a quick scan. Won't hurt a bit. Just a quick scan. You know. No big deal. C'mon guys, let's try it out.
I worked as a defense contractor in Afghanistan and Iraq for about 2 years. My job was to architect the system of systems that would sustain a gigantic biometric database and matching engine known as BAT (http://www.biometrics.dod.mil/photo2.aspx). BAT ran on a bunch of WinTel servers across a proprietary web service with a few major matching engine sites geographically scattered throughout each country. Users would employ either a 'thick' matching and enrollment client consisting of a laptop, iris scanner, fingerprint scanner, microphone, and traditional camera, or a 'thin' matching device such as the one pictured in the link above (known as a HIIDE). The thin device carried a traditional CMOS camera, NIR camera for iris, small plate scanner for fingerprints, etc, as well as an internal watchlist of wanted individuals it would compare against on the fly. The clients could match internally or against the aforementioned large servers. Hundreds of thousands of records could be scanned through in a few seconds using the large cluster matching farms.
The tactic was to identify (enroll) all individuals encountered in raids, at IED strike sites, dead individuals, detainees, people who were questioned, or anyone who would voluntarily submit to an enrollment (in large 'identity dominance' operations). The goal being to simply amass data in the hopes that one day it would be useful. For example, someone has been observed at 5 different IED strikes around town, then shows up at the base looking for work? Let's say no. In a warzone this makes sense, here at home, ymmv. Found a mortar that didn't go off? Check it for prints and cross-reference. Cool stuff.
In turn this database disseminated across the world to partners and other agencies to be tied into domestic databases. Chances are the FBI is merely considering employing the HIIDE device domestically for similar identity dominance. This has had a nice effect in that suspicious individuals from warzones can then be stopped at US border crossings where the system is employed. The frightening aspect is the future. My employment in this field took place years ago, and there are surely more sophisticated systems in place.
As I was leaving I was shown a new technology that was housed in a simple white panel van, in the back of which was a gyro-stabilized camera rig with some sophisticated optics that was able to positively identify iris signatures (very accurately) from over 100 yards away. For instance, it was trivial to slew the camera across a crowd of protesters and identify individuals reliably, or simply catalog all participants. Needless to say this technology holds some truly frightening potential. Most likely, the minority report ads are *right* around the corner as we now have reliable iris ID'ing and directional audio down to a fairly reliable science. In terms of law enforcement, I wouldn't worry too much about the FBI having something along these lines. The CIA, however, has demonstrated -in my experience- that they are more than willing to do truly deplorable things at the drop of a hat.
The future's scary, get your CV dazzle on and find some IR-blocking sunglasses I guess.
Just a matter of time they will be at local Airport/Bus/Train Stations.
>"Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects' fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center."
"Suspects"?? Oh, so they will fingerprint anyone they want because it is easy and faster, and keep that data on file forever? If so, then so much for civil liberties. Every time they search the database, they will be searching your identity along with it. You could end up being a suspect in numerous other "crimes" simply because you touched something near one. This leads to having to "prove your innocence". And that is not even starting to address the issue of errors or frames.
This is evolving into a horrible idea. Fingerprints should only be taken from people arrested as a serious crime suspect, and they should be DELETED (which probably never happens) if the person is not convicted.
My voice is my passport. Verify Me.
Welcome-to-the-4th-Reich department!!!