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.
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?
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
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.
I'm not seeing the connection. How can a Goo Goo Dolls song in any way identify me?
Nerd Rock In Progress
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
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.....
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!
Unscannable!
Freedom, also means having the right to commit a "crime" and maybe even a chance to get away with it.
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?
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.
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.
> Firstly, the fingerprints are not 'taken' but searched.
Pretty sure a warrant needs to be issued for the search part of "Search and Seizure."
> 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.
According to a review of NISTs' review, "the best of them are accurate more than 99 percent of the time." 99% is pretty inaccurate in my opinion for something like this. That could mean that 1 out of 100 people pulled over my be falsely arrested.
http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/fpvte03.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040716080142.htm
My voice is my passport. Verify Me.
Welcome-to-the-4th-Reich department!!!