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."

31 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. hmmm by mace9984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Define suspects.

    1. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just by asking this question you became one...

    2. Re:hmmm by Thing+I+am · · Score: 2

      Anybody

      --
      That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
    3. Re:hmmm by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      You don't need to know that, just put your hand in this box please...

    4. Re:hmmm by Toe,+The · · Score: 2

      If you have fingerprints, a voice, an iris, or "more," why then you qualify!

  2. Truly a geek dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Truly a geek dilemma by mace9984 · · Score: 2

      Well stated. I think the tech is super cool. Not far from where I live there is a town that every single time I drive through it they have a "DUI" check. I'm talking "DUI" checks at 8am on Sunday mornings. These are exactly the types of places where these things will get abused. I could almost bet that every time I drove through there I'd have to "scan". If this becomes too popular, I could see things requiring a "scan" before you can use them (ex- your car requires a "scan" to be able to use it.).

    2. Re:Truly a geek dilemma by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      These two aspects are more closely related than you make them seem. There would be no problem with surveillance if we could trust the government not to pass Orwellian laws. You say that making the jobs of local police forces easier is a good thing? What happens when it comes time to enforce a law that prohibits you from voicing a particular political stance (such as communism)? You won't want their job to be easier then.

      A common argument made by law enforcement is the "limited resources" argument: even if they could technically arrest anyone, they do not have those sorts of resources, and therefore they will only go after people worth arresting. Such an argument becomes pretty difficult to make when you start talking about technology that enables the police to do more with less. If the job of two officers can now be done by one, then police resources have become less limited, and we should expect to see even more people arrested. Suddenly, those laws we passed years ago and said, "well, they will only go after the people who really matter!" have the potential to come back to haunt us.

      We already imprison more people than any other country; why are we talking about making it easier for the police to arrest people? I would count "making it easier for the police to arrest people" as a negative, not a positive, until we undertake a monumental effort of legal reform to reduce the number of things people can be arrested for.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Truly a geek dilemma by toastar · · Score: 2

      Yep, Sounds like the drug war.

  3. With reservations, this can be a good thing by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

    1. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personal experience when hunting for a job.

      When interviewing I'd be asked about my *arrest* record at many places (Fortune 100 companies on down), but not about convictions. Since I'm lucky enough to have no record in either department, I passed that test, but asked multiple HR droids why someone arrested but not convicted mattered, and got the response that was stated in my previous post.

      Essentially it is used as a filter so the HR people have fewer applications to sort through.

    2. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by hitmark · · Score: 2

      that corporate world is a fucked up world.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>I'll take the fingerprint scan.

      "No warrant.
      "No search."
      - ACLU of Washington DC. I'll let them see my drivers license if I'm behind the wheel or a car, but they have no right to start collecting my personal biographic data (prints/genes).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by Toe,+The · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that this sets a strong precedent for "guilty until proven innocent."

      Once you go down the path you outline, then what's to stop police from walking through a crowd of people saying "someone here is the person we're looking for, so all of you have to be scanned." You're not *required* to submit, but the few people who do have the nerve to refuse do then get hauled off for the lengthy process.

    5. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      It is illegal in the U.S. to ask if someone has been arrested. Any large company that asks if you have been arrested has a bad HR department and is probably one you don't want to work for. It is also setting itself up for a lawsuit.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by coyote_oww · · Score: 2

      The step that comes after the handcuffs and back of the car is the trip to the station, where you will be fingerprinted with INK, photographed from three directions, and provide one phone call before sharing a cell with the other local idiots. Getting only a fingerprint scan is clearly less intrusive.

      I think you meant to make the point that police shouldn't be able to fingerprint people they suspect of crimes. There a whole problem with that too - when DO police act on a suspicion? Only when they personally saw something go down? or can they believe "witnesses"? can they use some common sense? at some point, you have to trust your police, or not have police. The "let's not have police" thing works if you have a very small community that isn't externally accessible and everyone knows everyone. Otherwise, you're going to have various evildoers that need to be redirected/stopped/incarcerated/shot.

      In this, transparency is ultimately your friend. Biometrics (knowing who the actors are) is part of the transparency equation. It's not the only piece, you need transparent policing as well. But positively identifying victims, witnesses, and perpetrators is pretty vital. When an incident occurs, everyone should know all the actors (police, lawyers, and judges included).

      Further, are you proposing banning the creation of such devices? if not, they are going to show up in private hand, comparing to private databases. The battle to squash these devices and databases will look remarkably like anti-piracy battles today. My betting money is on the anti-privacy folks.

      *** I propose Coyote's coralary to Godwin's law: the first person to beg the question by imposing their assumptions about privacy requirements on the argument via Ben Franklin's pro-gun ownership quote automatically loses the argument, ***

    7. Re:With reservations, this can be a good thing by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BTW, no, I've never been arrested and never will be unless the far lefties get their wish and turn the U.S. into some form of oligarchy.

      I have to admire the political tribalism of the American people, who are so focused on the trivial public differences between the two wings of the oligarchy that the existence of the oligarchy itself is invisible to them.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  4. Did anyone... by cobrausn · · Score: 2

    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?
  5. Federal warrant search by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Federal warrant search by codegen · · Score: 2

      I mean, when the police stop you during, say, a traffic stop, they already run your tags and your name.

      What if you are walking? Bycycle? Sitting in a park? In most states, you only have to provide your name verbally (not physical id), and even then, only if the police officer has probable cause

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  6. No it doesn't by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    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
  7. Already working on the next gen by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. did I read that right? by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:did I read that right? by ItsLenny · · Score: 2

      The sad truth is even without this addition they could always find some reason to arrest you. I used to work for a police department and it was not strange to bring people in because they "resembled a suspect we were looking for". Then theres always "disorderly conduct" or "suspicious behavior" which are always at the discretion of the officer. Wonder when they're gonna install the telescreens........

      --
      ----------
      Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
    2. Re:did I read that right? by PPH · · Score: 2

      So a cop can see you walking down the street

      I didn't see the part about stopping random people on the street. This device simply provides biometric identification capabilities that can verify identity. Which you are already required to provide should you be stopped for cause.

      The people who have the most to fear from this are those with warrants already in the system who might otherwise provide a false name in order to avoid custody.

      The down side is that any police stop could result in your prints and biometrics being entered into their system for subsequent reference. There is no promise that these scans will be 'thrown away' even when a warrant check comes up negative.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:did I read that right? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I didn't see the part about stopping random people on the street.

      That's because it won't begin until this system is widely installed and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'.

      Does no-one learn anything from history?

  9. Military does this in Iraq by Old97 · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Military does this in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I'm glad that's working out well in Iraq.

      But, the police are not the military. Citizens are not the enemy.

  10. Re:I don't get it by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    Today he'd haul you in until your identity could be confirmed. His probable cause is based on who he thinks you are.

    Am I the only person who thinks that the solution to that problem is to raise the standard for probable cause, rather than making it easier for the police to check fingerprints?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  11. Could be worse by vawwyakr · · Score: 2

    At least its not anal probes.....

  12. an historical perspective by tohasu · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.