Slashdot Mirror


Facial Recognition Gone Wrong

An anonymous reader writes "John H. Gass hadn't had a traffic ticket in years, so the Natick resident was surprised this spring when he received a letter from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles informing him to cease driving because his license had been revoked. It turned out Gass was flagged because he looks like another driver, not because his image was being used to create a fake identity. His driving privileges were returned but, he alleges in a lawsuit, only after 10 days of bureaucratic wrangling to prove he is who he says he is. And apparently, he has company. Last year, the facial recognition system picked out more than 1,000 cases that resulted in State Police investigations, officials say. And some of those people are guilty of nothing more than looking like someone else. Not all go through the long process that Gass says he endured, but each must visit the Registry with proof of their identity. Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue."

257 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. It's a growing list by retroworks · · Score: 1

    As Whitey Bulger proved, it's not who you are, in Massachusetts, it's who you know. And now, who you look like.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:It's a growing list by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      in Massachusetts, it's who you know

      And here I was thinking the key question is whether your last name was "Kennedy".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:It's a growing list by tacktick · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing. Especially if some criminal stole your identity and picture.
      They should work on communicating with people better though.

    3. Re:It's a growing list by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please stop saying that identity can be stolen. If someone makes themselves look like you it is impersonation. If they use information associated with you to bamboozle the weak-ass authentication used by financial institutions, it is fraud.

      In neither case has your identity been stolen. A man's wife would not sleep with a different man simply because the second man had a bank account in her husband's name, and so on.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:It's a growing list by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing. Especially if some criminal stole your identity and picture. They should work on communicating with people better though.

      I think you'd have a hard time convincing John H. Gass

    5. Re:It's a growing list by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A man's wife would not sleep with a different man simply because the second man had a bank account in her husband's name

      I think you underestimate what some women would do for money.

    6. Re:It's a growing list by maxume · · Score: 2

      I was commenting about the authentication done by banks, not the expected behavior of the baser members of the species (I would clarify that I believe there are many men and women willing to nearly anything for very little).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:It's a growing list by lorddarthpaul · · Score: 1

      A number of years back, I had a friend whose personal effects were stolen. Thief apparently gathered enough information to head straight for the RMV and get a new license with their picture on it, causing untold problems, mainly because the thief was a pro, having done this many times. Every time they got into trouble, it would be blamed on who they said they were, not them. Luckily, this person was caught with the forged ID, but it took a long time for my friend to recover from all the damage. Would be interesting to see if this kind of face scanning would help catch such a career criminal.

    8. Re:It's a growing list by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Would be interesting to see if this kind of face scanning would help catch such a career criminal.

      TFA would imply otherwise, but it'd be pretty good at catching people who look like him.

      And that's nearly as good, right? I mean, an arrest is an arrest as far as meeting your quota goes.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:It's a growing list by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Which is reason enough not to let someone behind the wheel.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    10. Re:It's a growing list by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I believe there are many men and women willing to nearly anything for very little.

      Oh, just about 308 million of them, last time they counted.

      *ducks*

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    11. Re:It's a growing list by Lexical_Scope · · Score: 1

      In neither case has your identity been stolen. A man's wife would not sleep with a different man simply because the second man had a bank account in her husband's name, and so on.

      Clearly you've never watched that great documentary on identity theft; Face Off with John Travolta and Christian Slater

  2. Nice work. by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Massachusetts began using the software... to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue."

    Came up snake-eyes on that role, dincha?

    1. Re:Nice work. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Barring some research on the reliability of the humans previously used(or, if no checks were done, estimates of likely false negatives), it's sort of hard to say.

      It is well known that machine-vision is still rather dodgy outside of well-controlled applications(pick-and-place? the puny humans might as well surrender. general purpose object recognition in cluttered environments? not quite so good.); but it is also known that humans are quite fallible, and generally more fallible than they think.

      An anecdote, however Kafkaesque, can't really tell you much about "improve[d] reliability and accuracy". It can tell you that customer service sucks, or that a department is taking a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach; but it can't tell you whether they were doing more or less of that than before...

    2. Re:Nice work. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Hell they completely struck out 0 of 3. The only point that might be in question would be the fraud but I would argue that fraud was committed when the purchased the product since it doesn't deliver what it promises. If it can't correctly match faces how could it be expected to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and increase accuracy of identification. I will believe that facial recognition will work once we can get OCT that works on typed (not even hand written) text that has an accuracy of 100% until then software like this should be considered if junk if the false positives are greater than the true negatives, or true positives depending on how the matrix is defined.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Nice work. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2
      I would like to correct my previous post as I am not fully with it yet this morning and got my validation matrix confused.

      Hell they completely struck out 0 of 3. The only point that might be in question would be the fraud but I would argue that fraud was committed when the purchased the product since it doesn't deliver what it promises. If it can't correctly match faces how could it be expected to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and increase accuracy of identification. I will believe that facial recognition will work once we can get OCT that works on typed (not even hand written) text that has an accuracy of 100% until then software like this should be considered if junk if the false positives are greater than the true positives.

      This is especially true since there are negative consequences for the individual who was flagged as a false positive.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Nice work. by Entrope · · Score: 2

      The anecdote doesn't tell you much, but the state probably is not going to release any information on the false alarm rate among the software's detections. Doing so would reveal how much of a waste the money was.

      This kind of system tends to suffer badly as the database size grows, because the false alarm rate per comparison tends to grow with the number of templates (which is probably the number of people with driver's licenses), and the number of comparisons is proportional to the square of the number of people with driver's licenses -- so the number of false alarms is O(N*N*f(N)), where f(N) is some function that increases with N.

    5. Re:Nice work. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I share your skepticism about the prospects for facial recognition software. Humans are bad enough at it, despite millenia of evolutionary pressure, drivers' license photos aren't exactly masterpieces(and aren't updated all that often, certainly not as often as makeup or hairstyle or % bodyfat, even among people who are trying their hardest to keep those constant as they age), and computers probably aren't good enough.

      It always just makes me nervous to see arguments pro or con complex systems based on anecdotes. In this case, the argument-from-anecdote is probably coincidentally correct; but it shares the same intrinsic caliber as the "If it saves even one life" argument that would inevitably emerge to counter it.

      Unfortunately, as you say, I'm guessing that their fancy magic infallible computer will be opened to the scrutiny of independent subject-matter experts shortly after the earth is incinerated by the dying sun...

    6. Re:Nice work. by swalve · · Score: 1

      The computers don't care about that. They measure things like spacing between features. The recognition scanners often make *some* of the mistakes people make, ie, mistaking two guys of the same nationality for each other.

    7. Re:Nice work. by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue.

      Why am I not surprised? The system probably returns the first 'hit' in the database. Okay terrorists - new strategy: Change your name to something at the tail end of the alphabet.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Nice work. by Matheus · · Score: 1

      There are false accepts in any FR system. The question is where did they set their thresholds and are they updating them as their gallery changes. Coming from the largest forensic FR company in the business I'm glad this guy is suing as they are improperly using the technology.

      The probe data has to be absolutely terrible. Capturing random faces in a crowd of walking people (say in an airport terminal) presents enough challenges. Capturing faces from drivers in moving cars at bad angles with bad shadows pushes that so much harder. Your scores for a correct match are going to be dangerously low compared to potential scores for a non-match. The threshold you would need to set to have 0% FAR would eliminate a majority of your TAR and leave only the random accidental "Oh hey... they guy had his dome light on, it was forward illuminating and he was facing the camera at the time" shots.

      While we are exploring the world of Forensic quality FR (with arguably the most accurate algo out there) organizations abusing the tech make our jobs harder. The results from such an environment would maybe be enough to give someone probable cause to *investigate (if the crime were serious enough) "We're fairly positive that the suspect was driving in the area at the time of the hit and run... check his car for damage." NOT to outright convict as in the above story.

      Grr...

    9. Re:Nice work. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Heck, there's a guy in our office who looks like Obama, but he's never even been near Kenya.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Nice work. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      They werent scanning images from cars but did a scan on license pictures stored in their database. They than revoked his license assuming it was falsified, without actually verifing anything.

      Personally i would be launching one suit and then making it class action fraud for every citizen of the state. Since everyone got scanned and were considered crimminal first.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Nice work. by suso · · Score: 1

      Came up snake-eyes on that role, dincha?

      More like snake oil.

    12. Re:Nice work. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Heck, there's a guy in our office who looks like Obama, but he's never even been near Kenya.

      What about Hawaii or Boston?

    13. Re:Nice work. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Preventing terrorism is hard, so best to use this technology to catch scofflaw motorists instead.

    14. Re:Nice work. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Okay terrorists - new strategy: Change your name to something at the tail end of the alphabet.

      Damn, now they are going to suspect you as a terrorist if you have a name that begins with a letter in the last part of the alphabet and you will be mistaken as one if you have similar facial characteristics such as two eyes, a nose and a mouth.

    15. Re:Nice work. by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Getting to Paris is hard... - Robot Chicken.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  3. Guilty until proven innocent by yincrash · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kaprielian said the Registry gives drivers enough time to respond to the suspension letters and that it is the individual’s “burden’’ to clear up any confusion. She added that protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience Gass or anyone else might experience. “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege,’’ she said. “Yes, it is an inconvenience [to have to clear your name], but lots of people have their identities stolen, and that’s an inconvenience, too.’’

    1. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure using tax dollars and grants to use a system that illegally convicts innocent people without a trial or hearing is considerable different then a criminal stealing someones identity.

    2. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by indyogb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege..."

      So says the government(s). I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, automobiles), is a natural right. Also, it is nice that a system used to "prevent terrorism" is being used to suspend driver's licenses of ordinary, non-terrorist, citizens.

      Government(s) in the US are at flank speed ahead towards power and control. Even the court system is on their side (e.g. imminent domain for increased tax revenues from a few years back, recent rulings about police entering homes w/o warrants in IN, etc., etc.). In the end, it is all about the $$$. Where is it, who has it, and how can we get more of it.

    3. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by goldspider · · Score: 2

      So by their own admission, their error is comparable to stealing someone's identity. And they don't see this as a problem.

      Is there anything bureaucrats can't cock up?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Nofsck+Ingcloo · · Score: 2

      “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege,’’ she said. Yep, that "logic" is used to shred the Fourth Amendment and now to enable this junk. We've got to fix this bug. The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.

    5. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there anything bureaucrats can't cock up?

      Breathing. Otherwise they wouldn't live long enough to make our lives so difficult.

    6. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by alen · · Score: 1, Informative

      someone got up on the wrong side of the keyboard today

    7. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      However, they admit that the system is flawed and frequently picks people who have done nothing wrong. The solution would be to have a physical person investigate each incident the program is reporting. Instead the program is taken as infallible, even though its users know it's not, and innocent people are assumed to be at fault until that person clears their own name.

    8. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by c · · Score: 1

      > Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, automobiles), is a natural right.

      There's also the bit in TFA about the guy driving as part of his job. Many western jurisdictions have some concept of a "right to make a living"...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    9. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Take for instance, the situation where a cop needs to give someone a ticket for a broken tail-light. The ticket coming from the cop needs to carry a presumption of veracity, otherwise it would be very impractical for cops to ticket anyone.

      Are you aware that when a cop writes a ticket for a broken tail-light, that is equivalent to when a cop arrests someone for murder? In both cases, one must still choose to either plead "guilty" or "not guilty". In the case of the ticket, the penalty for pleading guilty is pre-determined and all one needs to do is mail in a check along with the ticket signed that you are pleading guilty. If you plead "not guilty", you need to provide some evidence that the police officer is lying about the broken tail-light, just as you would if the cop claimed to have seen you kill someone and you were pleading "not guilty".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't need a license to drive a car. You need a license to drive a car on a PUBLIC ROAD. You have an inherent right to drive. When you want to drive in a public place, you have to prove that you meet certain standards for the safety of other public road users (thus the driving test). A license is not a "gift" from the government, it is in fact a responsibility that the government has ensured you are a safe vehicle operator. Eventually this has turned into an additional source of revenue and now, apparently, a "privilege". Beware of people who say rights are privileges, they are the ones who would see you in chains.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by chomsky68 · · Score: 1

      I hope that one day Kaprielian gets mixed up the same way and is subjected to a full cavity search at the airport...

      --
      I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
    12. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by yincrash · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You have a right to a hearing, and you don't have to pay your fine before the hearing, or any fine at all if you are found innocent.

    13. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Jawnn · · Score: 3

      According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty.

      Welcome to the result of 10 years of Bush rule. (Yes that colossal waste of tax dollars and abuse of power that is called Homeland Security was created in the Bush era)

      TFTFY, 'cause, to be fair, the current leaders have done nothing but continue to rubber-stamp all those "patriotic" abuses and outright violations of our civil rights.

    14. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by goldspider · · Score: 2

      Therefore you have no rights while you are driving on a public thoroughfare.

      And people STILL dismiss "slippery slope" arguments.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    15. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      was created in the Bush era

      It was created by congress. Of course you know that, and are just hoping that nobody else actually understands how things work.

      I'm also curious what magical power you think that The Eeeevil Bush had, after leaving office, that allowed him to prevent a complete lefty/Democrat monopoly of power in the legislative and executive branches from altering the policy and funding of the agency you're whining about. If it was Eeeeevil Bush who controlled congress even though ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi actually ran that institution from 2006 until just recently, how exactly is it that he was getting his Eeeeevil work done? Really. Please provide the details, which should be fascinating.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by vlm · · Score: 1

      You don't need a license to drive a car. You need a license to drive a car on a PUBLIC ROAD. You have an inherent right to drive. When you want to drive in a public place, you have to prove that you meet certain standards for the safety of other public road users (thus the driving test). A license is not a "gift" from the government, it is in fact a responsibility that the government has ensured you are a safe vehicle operator. Eventually this has turned into

      an identification card, which if you think about it is pretty weird.

      I have had numerous government licenses over the years, amateur radio license, student pilot license (which at that time was just an instructor signed 3rd class med cert), fishing license, parking permit at govt facility, a security pass at an army base, and none of them had the overhead of being "identification".

      Probably time to separate the concept of driver license and id card.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by martyros · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that some people need to make masks that look just like Kaprielian, and probably her boss, and some of the local senators, and get "caught" by some of these cameras doing something that results in automatic suspension of a license. Then we'll see how long the "It's just inconvenient" attitude lasts.

      In Michigan several years ago they passed a law that allowed a policeman to cut up your driving license right in front of you if you were caught driving drunk. That law was struck down as being unconstitutional, because even though the cop was right there and could smell the alcohol on your breath and hear your slurred speech, a cop is not judge and jury; you still have a right to due process under the law. If that was unconstitutional, I can't see how this isn't as well.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    18. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by phiwum · · Score: 2

      According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty.

      I don't like the cavalier attitude of the statement either -- after all, this fella lost wages because he drives for a living.

      That said, this has nothing at all to do with the principle that, in criminal cases, the prosecutor must prove guilt.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    19. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by hattig · · Score: 1

      They sent the letter on the 22nd March, which may not have been received for a couple of days. The license was revoked on the 1st April. That is no way "enough time to respond" unless you're assuming that nobody ever goes on holiday or is away from home for more than a few days at a time on business.

      Give people a month to respond and then these costly (to the taxpayer) mistakes will happen less often, and there's little difference a couple of weeks will make in the case that the license is actually fraudulent.

    20. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by hattig · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's a right earned by proving ability to drive, and then not breaking the law (or being caught breaking the law) whilst driving - i.e., showing responsibility.

      You've earned the right, it is not a privilege , unless you start talking about poverty / affordability of driving / etc, which is a different matter entirely in this situation (although worth discussing in its own right in a country that is so reliant on car travel).

    21. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Therefore you have no rights while you are driving on a public thoroughfare.

      And people STILL dismiss "slippery slope" arguments.

      Sarcasm aside, that is the VERY argument the Supreme Court has repeatedly embraced in cases regarding the warrantless searches of motor vehicles. Because they travel on the road, vehicles are subject to an enhanced regulatory burden and decreased expectations of privacy.

      See California v. Carney, for instance, where the Court held that a man's parked motor home could be searched without a warrant, despite a 4th Amendment right to security against warrantless searches and seizures of one's home, merely because the motor home could function as a vehicle.

    22. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.

      Driving licenses exist because most people want to travel unmolested by a car ;). And so it is a privilege.

      You can still travel unmolested by car without a driving license, as long as someone else does the driving.

      FWIW it's still a very easy privilege to get. if you want to kill somebody, you do it with a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ex6dHzcgOE
      From what I gather the driver was "given a 12 month sentence suspended for two years, 200 hours community service, ordered to pay £500 compensation and banned from driving for three years."
      BUT do it sober or else: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314227/Drink-driving-nurse-sentenced-8-years-killing-grandmother.html

      --
    23. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      From this side of the pond, it seems that DHS is now the problem. Apologies for the slightly glib comparison, but tens of thousands of people's lives have cumulatively been wasted in the queues that are there* to stop people's lives being wasted.

      But like reducing sentences for criminals, politicians fear the pointy-finger of blame from the media if anything happened on their watch after the DHS was scaled down. It would be up to the populace to stand up and say "It's a risk we'll take."

      *queues have to be part of security theatre.

    24. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by cdogg4ya · · Score: 1

      I believe even though this is not necessarily out of state travel, we have been granted Freedom of Movement through the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution through Supreme Court rulings. Outside of that, I have a hard time believing that due process wouldn't be required as several times in the article it was mentioned that warrents were requested.

    25. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      RIGHTS ARE NEVER EARNED. That is an oxymoron. DO you not understand the very firm semantics of the term you are using?

      --
      Good-bye
    26. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Take for instance, the situation where a cop needs to give someone a ticket for a broken tail-light. The ticket coming from the cop needs to carry a presumption of veracity, otherwise it would be very impractical for cops to ticket anyone.

      You could do what traffic wardens do over here with illegally-parked vehicles - take a photo of the clock in the depot before they leave for a patrol, then take a photo of the car with the ticket on the windscreen. Digital cameras are cheap, and have reasonably accurate clocks. One quick photo and there's no question of whether you were or weren't parked illegally.

      This works both ways, because the ticket isn't enforceable without the photo. So, no sneaky writing tickets for cars that are parked perfectly legally, because then the photo won't match up.

    27. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      But like reducing sentences for criminals, politicians fear the pointy-finger of blame from the media if anything happened on their watch after the DHS was scaled down.

      No they don't- they're sociopaths. They don't give a gnat's fart about anything but themselves. Things like the DHS gives them the power to mess with people's lives. They *love* that shit.

      It would be up to the populace to stand up and say "It's a risk we'll take."

      Bah ha ha ha! Yeah, that'll happen! Seriously, what dimension did you just slide in from?

    28. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      She added that protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience Gass or anyone else might experience.

      You want a definition of Tyranny, this is it. Tyrants always use safety and security as an excuse to curtail the rights of the citizenry.

      We live in a tyranny, most just haven't realized it yet.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    29. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by umberleigh · · Score: 1

      The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.

      Yes. Let none of us be molested by cars.

    30. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      If you plead "not guilty", you need to provide some evidence that the police officer is lying about the broken tail-light, just as you would if the cop claimed to have seen you kill someone and you were pleading "not guilty".

      The trouble with both arguments is the presumption that if it's your word against the cop's, the cop wins by default. That makes life convenient for the cops, but it's not as if there are no bent ones out there or they're somehow immune from making mistakes.

      The cop should be required to provide evidence, beyond taking his word for it, that your tail light was faulty. It's not that hard to snap a photo or send a video from his dash cam.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    31. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Breathing. Otherwise they wouldn't live long enough to make our lives so difficult.

      I dunno about that. All the sabre-rattling about dismantling the EPA suggests they don't consider breathing to be much of a priority.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    32. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that logic, that system, employed by many states for traffic matters, is evil and wrong.

    33. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      So says the government(s). I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

      normal dumb sheep: "oh, ok. its a priviledge. thanks for telling me."

      thoughful citizen: "oh no you don't, you can declare pi to be 3 but that doesn't make it so!"

      which do we have more of, though?

      thought so ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    34. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      We've got to fix this bug. The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.

      after we re-take our country back, it will be.

      wait. what? oh, shiny thing! hey, what's that on TV right now? gotta go!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    35. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that when a cop writes a ticket for a broken tail-light, that is equivalent to when a cop arrests someone for murder?

      Actually a citation is legally different from an arrest. Not that this invalidates your point (it doesn't as far as I know, but IANAL... ), but I'm just pointing out that a ticket is not equivalent to an arrest.

    36. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I was once given a speeding ticket for going 89 on a highway in VA, during the middle of the day in the middle of the week - it was in a lesser populated part of the state so the road was virtually empty. 80mph+ in VA is considered reckless, so a court appearance was mandatory.

      I showed up, the judge asked the cop what happened. Cop told him. Judge asked what traffic conditions were like (I suspect he knew that was a long, boring stretch of road ;) The cop made a point of saying that the traffic was heavy. Judge asked me if anything the cop said was incorrect... and all I could reply with was " not in a way that I can prove, but my recollection is that there was almost no traffic at all". (Because I damn sure wouldn't have been driving fast if there were heavy traffic.)

      Apparently the judge was not an idiot, and let me off with a "take a safe driving course, get no furhter tickets for six months, and this won't show up on your record". Probably because he was well aware of what traffic was like at that time of day. My otherwise clean driving record didn't hurt either.

      I was lucky in that case, because the judge had a clue. But I literally had no defense when the cop lied [under oath] about such a trivial thing as traffic - it was my word against his. His lie could have cost me 6 mos-2 years in prison under VA law.

    37. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it comes to oppressing citizens, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are happy to show their support. For instance, the original USA PATRIOT Act was passed with exactly one vote against it in the Senate (Russ Feingold D-Wisconsin), and been renewed with overwhelming bipartisan support on two occasions, with signatures from President Bush and President Obama.

      So you can't absolve either major party from blame here.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    38. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Actually... in many districts, at least in mine, in Florida (and at least 2 other states I know of), a tail light ticket is a "fix it ticket". Meaning you have to fix it, but the fine is considerably less than a usual moving violation. I believe if you fail to fix it, it becomes a more serious improper equipment thing and can affect your license.

    39. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      If you've got no right to drive, then I could easily see them taking away the licenses of felons, sex offenders, those on probation, those with traffic tickets, parking tickets, etc (selectively of course, wouldn't want a politician or businessman to be restricted of course).

      On the one hand, I can easily see that the blind and those with epilepsy with unpredictable seizures shouldn't be driving, but unless someone's specifically been convicted of a serious vehicular crime (drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter, etc) it's really hard to justify rationally why they shouldn't get a license. If they've got a facial recognition program identifying someone as a terrorist, shouldn't they be picking that person up for some intense questioning?

    40. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Bah ha ha ha! Yeah, that'll happen! Seriously, what dimension did you just slide in from?

      I think we all understand the realpolitik, but people-power is perhaps the most practical solution to the never-ending ramping-up of fear. Would love to hear other suggestions.

      The dimension I dwell in is called, with unintentional irony, 'Hope'.

    41. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      That's a bureaucrat who needs to be executed. Don't worry, we'll just send him a letter and give him a few days to clear up any confusion.

    42. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by srmalloy · · Score: 2

      It may be considered a split hair in Massachusetts, but it's a fact of life on family farms -- you don't need a driver's license to operate farm machinery like tractors on private property, which is why you'll still see children too young to get a driver's license out on the family tractor harrowing a field.

      Consider what a 'split hair' it is that motor vehicles operated on private property also are not required to comply with licensing, emissions, or safety laws, which is how the entire automobile racing industry avoids being saddled with equipment that would cripple the industry (Formula 1 cars required to have collision-rated bumpers, air bags, and meet fuel-economy standards, for example).

      However, I would be willing to bet that a clever enough lawyer would be able to make a case that, as the state has declared that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right, and that it can arbitrarily deny that privilege without cause, once the state has denied you that privilege, you are no longer obligated to pay for their upkeep. It would die in the courts, but it would be fun to watch.

    43. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      How does any of your rant dispute the tiny bit of what you quoted?

      Are you arguing that because Pelosi and crew haven't disbanded the DHS, the DHS must be ok? Are you arguing that because the Obama administration hasn't gotten rid of it, that it's now somehow entirely Obama's fault that it still exists? (government institutions have a lot of political inertia -- they don't disappear overnight.)

      Or are you just a butt hurt Bush voter that can't own up to the fact that the dude(s) you voted for really screwed the pooch and try to rationalize it by saying "the other guys do it too"?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    44. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by swb · · Score: 1

      Traffic cameras were ruled unconstitutional in Minnesota precisely because the owner of the car photographed was judged guilty until proven innocent. The Minnesota Supreme Court rightly viewed this reversal of the burden of proof as unconstitutional and voided the city ordinance that setup the cameras and made them refund the tickets.

      I wonder if this system could be challenged similarly.

    45. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Considering that in every case where a cop stopped me for a broken tail-light I was given several days to get it fixed and show up at the police station to show that it was fixed, I suspect that if a cop gave you a ticket for a broken tail-light without first issuing such a warning/opportunity, the judge would likely believe you over the cop (assuming you showed up for the court date in the car in question and the tail-light on that car was not broken on that day).
      The thing is that you have clear reasons to lie about whether or not you are guilty, unless you can present some evidence that the cop has a reason to lie about it, the default is correct. It does not have to be much, a third party who is willing to testify under oath that he has witnessed the officer harrassing you or swearing to get back at you is likely enough.
      The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default? Have you been in court in such a situation? Now, I think it is wise to act as if you believe that a cop's word will be taken over yours in a court of law, since it means that you will make the effort to obtain third party corroboration of your position in any disagreement with a police officer thus ensuring that it will not be his word against yours. However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have been stopped several times for broken tail-lights. In every case I was issued a warning that would turn into a ticket if I did not get it fixed within a set amount of time and show up at the police station to have an officer inspect it to confirm that it was indeed fixed. Since I complied with those instructions, there was no fine in any of those cases.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    47. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why drivers licenses are the de facto identification documents a state uses. If the point of a license were really what you say (i.e. proving that you meet certain standards for safety while driving on a public road), having two such licenses with your picture on it just means you've passed the test twice. Why should you get your license(s) revoked? Why should you even have to prove you are who you say you are when you take the test and get your license? I can understand not wanting people to get one under a fake name if their other one is suspended because they're a crappy driver. If they discover this kind of fraud, I totally understand revoking the driving privilege. But the majority of people who use fake licenses aren't doing it so that they can drive on public roads without passing a test, it's because they want to buy beer before they turn 21.

    48. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.

      In almost any traffic violation case, the only evidence is the word of the cop. What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word. Were you going "too fast for conditions"? The cop's opinion, not even a verifiable fact.

      The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?

      The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.

    49. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      I think that if the state of Massachusetts is OK with a few false positives, it should be OK with paying out a few tens of thousands of dollars each time a false positive dramatically inconveniences someone.

    50. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by jopsen · · Score: 1

      I'm sure using tax dollars and grants to use a system that illegally convicts innocent people without a trial or hearing is considerable different then a criminal stealing someones identity.

      What about fines? Not all fines needs to be brought before a court... If you don't want to pay your fine you don't pay, and you'll be dragged to court. I would assume that if your drivers license is revoked, you just ignore it, and then you're eventually dragged to court :)

    51. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word.

      The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.

      So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another? It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true. Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    52. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the result of 8 years of Bush rule. (Yes that colossal waste of tax dollars and abuse of power that is called Homeland Security was created in the Bush era)

      And what exactly has Obama done to fix the situation? Nothing. He's exactly like Bush.

      If you want to be fair, you should have said "11 years of Bush/Obama rule".

      And for anyone who points fingers at Congress: this stuff was all done while Republicans controlled Congress, under Bush. Then, Democrats took over in 2006, and were still in control during Obama's first two years. What changed under their tenure? Nothing.

      When it comes to civil liberties, there's zero difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

    53. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>You need a license to drive a car on a PUBLIC ROAD.

      You could probably build a 1000hp engine from the bodies of all of our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

      The only reason we put up with the bullshit notion that the government can block you from moving freely about the country (which is a basic right in a free country) is because the roadblocks they set were pretty low - pretty much any 16 year old with at least one eye, one arm, and one leg can pass a Class C driver's license test.

      But if the government starts abusing its power, and starts limiting freedom in a way abhorrent to the natural rights of man, they'll start running into trouble. The TSA has been pissing a lot of people off with its "We'll either grope you or photograph you naked" policy, and the fact that a federal judge found this to be apparently okay doesn't change the offensiveness of the scenario. Texas very nearly criminalized the TSA's actions, and the TSA itself has stated that what it does is sexual abuse (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/119102/tit-for-tatwoman-arrested-for-groping-tsa-agent/).

      Maybe people will continue to roll over on the bulldozing of their rights, but I expect pushback on these issues at some point.

    54. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Pelosi isn't a liberal, she just plays one. She's a corporatist, just like Bush, Obama, and just about everyone else in Washington.

      So (a Republican) Congress, in partnership with Bush, created DHS. Then, Democrats took over in '07. Then Obama took over in '09. What's changed? Absolutely nothing. What does this mean?

      Simple: there is ZERO difference between the two parties. They're both working for the same corporatist agenda. The only "difference" between the two is which groups they pander to. One preaches "small government", and then when in power expands the government and starts new wars. The other preaches "we'll fix the problems caused by the other guys" and when in power just follows the exact same policies; they also preach "better social programs" and then when in power sets up a new healthcare system that enriches insurance companies while not improving healthcare one iota.

    55. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another?

      Huh? I said no such thing. In fact, I just gave two reasons why the cop's word would be given more weight than yours.

      It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true.

      You drive past the cop with a radar gun. He pulls you over and writes you a ticket for 66 in a 55. It's his word against your's. Where is your evidence? What steps would you take to prove him wrong?

      Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.

      First of all, traffic offenses rarely, if ever, merit trial by jury. Second, by the time they are asking you questions as a prospective jury member, you have already been called for jury duty. And third, the questions asked are at the discretion of the lawyers, and whether they dismiss you from the jury is up to the challenges from the lawyers. It isn't automatic. Would a judge accept a 'for cause' dismissal based on a 'yes' answer to your hypothetical question? Maybe. Maybe not.

      For non-jury proceedings, the judge certainly will take the word of the cop over yours, unless there is something obviously incorrect or the judge has had previous issues with that specific cop. E.g., 'the traffic was heavy' and the ticket was written at 3AM on a back road.

      Did you read what was being said at all?

    56. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I love this part:
      protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience

      Last Friday, there was an auto accident on the 4-lane that I commute on. The cause, once again, was a policeman pulling someone over for a traffic ticket..on a busy road..during rush hour..."to protect the public". I have seen this SO many times. Why don't we have statistics on how many hours and how much CO2 was added to the air from stupid policemen stopping people in dangerous situations that leave hours long traffic jams in their wake, IF they are lucky enough not to get anyone killed?

      "Protecting the public" is local government speak for "revenue collection program".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    57. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by bigtech · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you're being serious, but you have conflated 'it's a privilege' with 'no rights while driving'. You need a license to drive and getting that license takes away some of your rights, but not all of them. The Supreme Court has upheld fourth amendment rights for drivers, e.g. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant That being said, I hope this guy sues the hell out of someone to get this fixed.

    58. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I don't have any evidence. Of course, if I was driving less than 65 mph and went to court. I would ask for the records for the radar gun. I would also ask for the records of his training to use the radar gun. So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false. Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.
      I have never been questioned by a lawyer about jury duty because I have never been called for jury duty (and by the way, my answer to that question is "no". I do not trust a cop more than a private citizen. In most instances, if I was on a jury I would trust them less). However, I have received several summons for jury duty that included a list of questions to be answered and returned before the day I was supposed to report. I, also, received instructions to call the courthouse the night before I was supposed to report to find out if they wanted me to come in for jury duty (they never have). On each of those questionaires that question was there. I have been informed by several usually reliable sources that answering that question in the affirmative will result in the person not being called to even come in for the jury pool.
      My apologies, I thought you were the original poster who was complaining that a police officer's word would be taken over an average citizen's and that this represented a defect in our justice system.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    59. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Since the government can revoke your permission to drive under a variety of circumstances (and I think that we can all agree that intoxicated and blind people probably shouldn't be allowed to drive), by definition driving is a privilege, not a right. Your participation in driving on roads funded by the general taxpayers is essentially an agreement between you and society to enjoy and share the benefits of roadways for transit.

      Since the government can revoke your permission to [vote, keep and bare arms] under a variety of circumstances, by defintion [voting, keeping and baring arms] are privileges and not rights.

    60. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't have any evidence.

      And yet you claimed it would be easy to prove him wrong if he was.

      So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false.

      No, you have possible evidence that the gun was uncalibrated or that he didn't know how to use it. Neither proves his claim is false, only that his claim cannot be substantiated by radar.

      Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.

      In other words, it would he hard to disprove his claim and his word would be given more weight than yours.

    61. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court. So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.
      However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine, only that I, also, believe it likely that they would. Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did, which was the point of the original post I replied to.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    62. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by holmstar · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, the software only presents potential matches, and an actual human looks at the records of each individual and decides whether or not they are a legitimate match. Or at least that's the claim. I could easily see them getting lazy and mostly just rubber stamping the machine generated matches.

    63. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by holmstar · · Score: 1

      True, but in reality something like a broken tail-light would be so minor that the citing officer probably wouldn't show up for the hearing. If that's the case, and you have any sort of semi convincing evidence, then most likely you'ld get out of the fine.

    64. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court.

      "I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.

      So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.

      You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.

      However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine,

      I'm sorry, I don't have the time to cite every court appearance made by someone who is fighting a ticket who says "not guilty" against a cop saying "he did it" and the result was a fine and points. I'm certain that they must number in the billions by now. Each one is a case of the cop's word being taken over the average citizen.

      Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did,

      Since I wasn't trying to indicate why it is a bad thing, I didn't fail to accomplish that. You asked WHY a cop's word would have more weight than yours, and I told you. If you don' t like the answer, argue with the courts, not me.

    65. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by random_ID · · Score: 1

      Her statement is misleading - this is not a question of right vs. privilege, it is a question of due process vs. injustice.

      Also - her last sentence seems to be a tacit admission that the state is, in a small way, stealing people's identities.

    66. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      "I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.

      State law, in every state I am aware of, requires radar guns to be calibrated by an outside company that is certified to do this, so, no, the cop's word has nothing to do with that.

      You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.

      And you've ignored the fact that court's have repeatedly ruled that a cop's "estimate" of speed is not enough to issue a speeding ticket. If the cop is not properly trained to use a radar gun (or other speed calculating device), as recorded in a training record kept by the police department that is properly documented, and issues a ticket based on his "trained estimate", the court will certainly take my word as to what my speedometer said my speed was over his word as to what he estimated my speed to be. Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen, if you do not agree with that, why are you arguing with the person who challenged that position?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    67. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen,

      No, I did not. I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION about why one would think a cop's word would weigh more:

      The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?

      And I countered your nonsensical:

      However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.

      The next time you go into court for a ticket that says you were doing 66 in a 55 and say "not guilty" and lose, or any other moving violating for that matter, you will have personal experience with a case where a police officer's word, on it's own, was enough to convict you. Even something as simple as a parking ticket for parking at an expired meter. Until then, you'll have to do with the experience of hundreds of thousands of other people who have done just the same thing and gotten fined and points.

    68. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How does any of your rant dispute the tiny bit of what you quoted?

      Dispute? That facts aren't in dispute - I mentioned them directly. I used that quote to highlight what's really salient about your comment: that you've either got classic Bush Derangement Syndrome, which suggests a hate-filled mis-apprehension of reality, or you're deliberately invoking his name in order to lamely deflect from the reality that politicians you appear to like better aren't doing what you want them to do for you.

      Are you arguing that because Pelosi and crew haven't disbanded the DHS, the DHS must be ok?

      No, I'm pointing out that politicians and their supporters who spent years railing against Bush as being wrong about everything, all the time, and referring to him as distilled evil, a fascist, blah blah blah found themselves - when in complete control over the government and privy to the same sort of intelligence and reality that he was - doing the same things, for the same reasons.

      Are you arguing that because the Obama administration hasn't gotten rid of it, that it's now somehow entirely Obama's fault that it still exists?

      Who said anything about "fault?" I don't consider it anyone's fault that we do things like check airline passengers for guns and explosives, or allow ourselves to record which foreign cell phones are calling which groups of numbers in the US, etc. If there's a fault, there, it's on the part of the fraud schemers, the bombing planners/financiers, the people with explosives in their clothes, and the like. But sure, let's (for the sake of argument) say that no security operations are necessary, and thus the existence of TSA units that do things like check identity at our borders, or look for explosives in shoes are a thing of the past since nobody will be a problem that way, ever again. Then yes: it is Obama's fault that those activities are still being pursued. Because he can cease those activities, or modify TSA procedures and in-the-field policies with the stroke of a pen. And you know that, but you're pretending that somehow Bush is still dictating day-to-day policies at airport security checkpoints so that you don't have to come to terms with the reality that Obama, also, has come to recognize.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    69. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster). Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer. If you have, then perhaps, you have support for your argument that a cop would win by default. Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    70. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster).

      That's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. You got the ticket and got convicted on the basis of his word alone. Unless you were stupid enough to say "guilty" and not even try to get a reduced charge/penalty. Even then, you are in court only because of his word.

      Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer.

      Which is it, have you gotten tickets for going 65 in a 55 or not? When you say "Ok, once or twice" that implies you got ticketed for it, not just a warning. If you got those tickets, what other evidence did the cop provide? If you are going to say "radar", then you're back at the cop's word against yours, since there is no other record of the radar reading than his word that it read "65" when it was pointed at you. (Free clue, a tuning fork of the appropriate frequency will make a traffic radar read 65 MPH. That's how the Michigan State Police used to (and probably still does) calibrate their speed radars.)

      Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.

      You asked your question in a public forum that can be read by anyone, and answered by anyone. The answer was pretty much global: cops are officers of the court and trained observers. You lose.

    71. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't have any evidence.

      That's his point. If you were going 55 in a 55 and got pulled over for going 65 in a 55, you will be found guilty on the basis of his word against yours. There is nothing you can do to prove your innocence. And you will be presumed guilty, and nobody will listen or care that your car indicated 55, even if you had your speedometer calibrated.

      My apologies, I thought you were the original poster who was complaining that a police officer's word would be taken over an average citizen's and that this represented a defect in our justice system.

      The cop's word will be taken over yours. I see this as a deficiency. There is no "evidence" presented for a traffic ticket, even when they were misdemeanors in TX (since moved to infractions like just about everyone else). If you got a trial by jury, the jury would resent the fact they wasted a day to hear a traffic case and would vote against you. If you got a trial by judge, the judge would believe the cop and not you. For a system that claims "presumed innocent" and has a burden of proof on the prosecution, there is no presumption of innocence or burden of proof for many court cases where it is the word of the cop over the word of the defendant.

      And what annoys me most is that it shouldn't be hard to make the radar guns with a sight attached and that sight showing video of the image that the speed was recorded from. Perhaps even using a CCD that was tuned to receive radio waves in the range of the gun used so that you could get a visual representation of what was actually recorded. Instead, a cop says "I recorded you going 65 in a 55" and there's no evidence at all that the person pulled over was going 65. There's just the word of the cop over the word of the defendant and the defendant always loses.

    72. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And you've ignored the fact that court's have repeatedly ruled that a cop's "estimate" of speed is not enough to issue a speeding ticket.

      Yes, it is. They just word it differently than saying "I estimated his speed to be XXX." They say "I paced him." Or "I measured the time it took him to pass the two white lines and calculated his speed to be XXX." Those are cop's estimates of speed because they are not measurements of speed, but are valid in court. I was given a ticket once because the cop "figured I had to be speeding." I wasn't. And yes, I did beat it in court, but it cost me more in lawyers fees than paying the ticket (another thing they count on).

      the court will certainly take my word as to what my speedometer said my speed was over his word as to what he estimated my speed to be

      He states "I measured his speed to be XXX with my properly calibrated gun I am properly trained to use." They then waste time proving that the gun was calibrated and the training is valid. But nobody every indicates that any reading of speed was taken from that gun against your car. It's the cops guess that you were the cause of the number that popped up (if that number ever did pop up), and that guess will be taken over your word, even if you have a calibrated speedometer and swear that you were traveling only 55 and not the 65 the officer claims. Your word will never be believed if it directly contradicts the cops in the absence of any other evidence.

    73. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by swalve · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, but the veto pen is a mighty tool when you have half the government representatives going around signing pledges and carping that they Will Not Back Down, and Will Not Compromise.

    74. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by swalve · · Score: 1

      Isn't a driver's license just a state ID with the privilege to drive attached to it?

      I'm not sure how it would be possible to classify driving as a right (even if it is) when you have to have a mechanism to keep people from doing it. Rights are mostly inviolable, but the right to drive is no where near that. I hate the idea that any way of moving about that isn't walking is no longer a right, but it does serve some important purposes.

    75. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      Guilt and innocence don't enter into it. The guy was never threatened with arrest, just revocation of his driver license. That doesn't even count as a civil penalty.
      Now if he kept on driving, got pulled over, and was issued a ticket for unlicensed driving, THEN we start getting into issues of guilt and innocence.

    76. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      So you have no problem allowing people who have *never* driven before to get behind the wheel of a car and drive around the streets where you live?
      Nice combo. Natural selection + unintended consequences = impressive death rate.

    77. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically
      > protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

      The Bill of Rights and the SCOTUS would beg to differ. I would hazard the guess that you are under 29 and haven't heard this "privilege" phrase before. You also have no constitutional right to privacy, did you not know that too?

      > Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case,
      > automobiles), is a natural right. :-) Is it also your natural right to drive a Ferrari, and date supermodels?

    78. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      People, in general, have no ability to grasp or accept theoretical consequences. Once theory becomes reality, it's usually too late.

      Most people get exactly what they deserve. Those who can grasp theoretical consequences and point them out ahead of time just get screwed.

    79. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Surprising, actually, since the logic behind motor vehicle regulations is that you agreed to them by signing. That's why most things are handled in an administrative manner, with little recourse to appeal. Even then, if the maximum length of imprisonment is less than 6th months, most jurisdictions say the 6th amendment right to trial by jury for all criminal offenses does not apply. They summarily sentence and imprison you.

    80. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What is the law in this area? In the UK you can't get compensation from the police for an arrest and detention in normal circumstances. The exception is if there was some kind of gross misconduct, but the basic idea is that the police need to be free to act without thinking about potential compensation claims if they nab the wrong guy.

      It seems unfair. Due to the glacial speed of the justice system people sentenced to 1 year often go free immediately because they have already spent that much time in prison waiting for the trial. If found innocent there they will still have lost their job and months of income, not to mention the affect on their family and friends. The justice system should have reparations built in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Except, you have to pay court costs if found innocent, which often amount to the same or more than the ticket. Traffic court is heavily loaded against the citizen.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    82. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Would love to hear other suggestions.

      Short of armed insurrection, I got nothin'. I gave up years ago. Sorry. Just munching the popcorn as civilization goes out with not a bang but a whimper, and putting together a good Mad Max outfit.

      The dimension I dwell in is called, with unintentional irony, 'Hope'.

      Hope, huh? So you live in Equestria? Cool. (hoof bump)

  4. Your tax dollars at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell me again why we need to raise taxes to close government deficits when they're spending money on crap like this?

    1. Re:Your tax dollars at work! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      terrorists.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Your tax dollars at work! by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      At least that money bought them something. Think of all the money that just disappears. All the money that's overpaid. All the money on overdue, nonfunctional projects that end up getting scrapped, then the government suing to recap a fraction in damages. Yes, we need higher taxes to support such wastefulness, and transfer of wealth from the honest to the scheming.

  5. I've got nothing to hide by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... except my face apparently.

    Anyone still wondering why privacy is such an important issue? I never want to hear the "I have nothing to hide" argument again.

    1. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Derf+the · · Score: 1

      At last, an argument for the Western, all sex's, Burka [well a niqaab, at least].
      You heard it here first.

      --
      No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
    2. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tried explaining the TSA mess to my sister and mother this weekend. They said it sounded terrific that they were checking elderly people with diapers and making wheel chaired bound people prove they needed a wheelchair.

      Mother: "We'll be safer."
      Sister: "I have nothing to hide."

      Me:"Terrorists have announced plans to start trying to hide bombs surgically implanted in their skin."

      Mother: "So... they have to perform surgery mid-flight to blow themselves up? *laugh*"

      Me: "Remote detonation. First time they catch someone attempting this the TSA will start requiring medical records if they see an operation scar."

      Sister: "So what? I got nothing to hide. In fact, I think it is a good idea for them to have our medical records to make sure our flights are safe."

      They are the first to Google people, gossip, etc. My sister has been caught looking at homes with binoculars at night. When a family friend joking texted her saying he could see her at night you'd be surprised how fast her translucent curtains were replaced with thick drapes. Some people don't care about privacy until it affects them.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    3. Re:I've got nothing to hide by maxume · · Score: 1

      The current system is that they are checking everybody. That means they have to check everybody. Create an exception and you have an exception.

      They shouldn't be giving people a problem for requesting a wheelchair though.

      (Nor do I think the current system makes much sense, but all the crying about how they actually bothered to check some special needs person or another ignores the fact that the implementation of checking everybody does actually involve checking everybody)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      I'm strongly reminded of Cory Doctorow's Little Brother. Specifically the bit where his dad's saying how wonderful the new RFID based car scanning system is, and that the problems people are having are just due to bugs, and they should be happy to help get the system working perfectly. Then he gets caught in one of the false positives and blows his top.

    5. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Some people don't care about privacy until it affects them.

      I think it's safe to say that most people don't give a damn about anything until it affects them personally. The ability to see beyond the end of one's own nose is amazingly rare.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Some people don't care about privacy until it affects them.

      Perhaps you could get your mother and sister a nicely printed copy of the wisdom of Pastor Niemoeller for their next birthdays.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:I've got nothing to hide by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Why are you hiding your mother and sister behind the name of their relationship to you?

      What are their names? These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.

      Please also post their medical histories, especially their mental health, people should know these before evaluating their opinions. These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.

    8. Re:I've got nothing to hide by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that quite attributed to Niemöller. People won't care until it affects them directly. They don't have any empathy for their fellow humans, or the ability to think of consequences further out than next week.

    9. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is that one each, one to share or is she from Arkansas?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:I've got nothing to hide by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      And then a week later once again is talking about how important being secure is, and a little inconvenience isn't that bad.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  6. Urg. by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Informative

    And I cut myself with my own rapier wit by messing up a quote tag and using the wrong homophone.

    Coffee needs to brew faster...

    1. Re:Urg. by rbrausse · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Coffee needs to brew faster...

      great stuff :)

    2. Re:Urg. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do we seriously expect a driving license to stop a terrorist? Do suicide bombers bother with them?

      This is feature creep at its worst. A driving license should be for just one thing - the license to drive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. In other news by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

    The ethnic population in Massachusetts has shrunk to one black and one asian.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:In other news by eyebits · · Score: 1

      >...one asian. Lol. I guess you've never been to MIT.

    2. Re:In other news by eyecorporations · · Score: 1

      Lol. I guess you don't get the joke.

  8. Oblig. Star Trek reference by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you're guilty until you prove your innocent

    ...because it would be unfair to put an innocent person on trial.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      No, The RMV could have a person investigate incidents flagged by the program, which would be presuming the program could be wrong. This is despite of the fact that they know and admit the program isn't 100% accurate. Regardless they seem to be using the assumption that the statistical computer program is infallible and the people it's flagging are guilty and thus the onus is on the innocent party to prove they just happen to look like someone who did something wrong.

    2. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by rust627 · · Score: 3

      I thought the legal system in America had changed some time ago from the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" to "innocent until proven broke".

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    3. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by cHALiTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to work with fingerprint identification systems for some police forces, and that's how they do it. AFIS systems are only a tool to narrow down and (enormously) speed up the candidate search process. The decision to declare a match is ALWAYS up to a human expert, after careful review of the results from the system.
      The only kind-of-exception to this are from portable devices the police uses for example at football matches, on which they have loaded the patterns for wanted persons. They scan everyone going into the stadium, and if they got a match (automatic, 99.9% accurate, but false positives ARE possible), the person is taken into the nearest police station for a more serious AFIS check, with an expert determining if there's a match.

      Instant revoking of licenses or serious decisions like that shouldn't be left to automatic systems, no matter how accurate they might be. This has to be always a human decision, and one of the main reasons is that humans have to take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable. The identification system is just a tool to help people do their jobs better/faster (not to do it for them).

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      If you can solve the bureaucracy quickly enough, you should try to find out who the other sucker is. Think about it: you know he has a problem with the RMV, you have just finished solving the exact same problem, and you look just like him. Contractor services opportunity!

    5. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Theyre also arguing that since driving isnt a right, its a privelege (which by all indicators seems to be true), you dont need to be proven guilty for them to revoke your license.

      Commentary on this point by a lawyer would be edifying.

    6. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Trial? I see no trial here.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They scan everyone going into the stadium, and if they got a match (automatic, 99.9% accurate, but false positives ARE possible), the person is taken into the nearest police station for a more serious AFIS check, with an expert determining if there's a match.

      That's OK then, only a dozen or so people per game being subject to wrongful imprisonment and an extrajudicial fine.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Well, if you think about it, that is "unfair". A criminal trial is a hardship which an innocent person does not deserve, albeit a far lesser hardship than being wrongfully punished.

      Which is exactly what this is about. There was no preceding trial, there was no preceding conviction. There was only a punishment.

      The state seems to hold that due process isn't required if they have some kind of appeals process. Hell, they're being generous letting anybody have the "privilege" of getting from point A to point B in the first place. To their thinking merely revoking a "privilege" shouldn't be a hardship for anyone. And if it is, c'est la vie.

    9. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours.
      I'm not saying I like it, but it's far from letting an automated system put you in jail or taking your license away.

      Actually I got the number wrong, it was 99.99% accuracy. Still not 100%, though, and it'll probably never be. Haven't worked on that field for at least 5 years now, so I dunno how much those things have improved.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    10. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours.

      So, you're saying that they take the prints at the gate and then let the fellow into the stadium while checking them?

      Or do they take the person in to the station (holding him there against his will) until the print check is over (and so is the event that the person was going to)?

      He's confined for "a couple of hours" and is out the money he spent on the ticket.

    11. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      "Automated justice is not justice."

      Somebody should put that into the constitution.

      Red Light Cameras, Speeding Cameras, etc., and now semi-accurate license revoking are all travesties of justice.

    12. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they take them to the station against their will (very few people go there voluntarily as you can imagine). They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay) . Again, I didn't say I like it, but It's still better than picking people off because they look like the face on a wanted pic. or more-or-less match a wanted description.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay) .

      So the only people who go to football matches wherever you are are hooligans? You started by saying:

      They scan everyone going into the stadium,

      Do they only bother doing the full check on hooligans, or do innocent innocent people get hauled off to jail for a few hours and lose the price of the ticket because of the false positive? Just how do the police know who the hooligans are until they start doing hooligan-type activities? Are they profiling based on dress?

    14. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      99.99% accuracy will falsely select about 3 people per match. How many true positives does it give? If less than 5, I'd say the system is quite poor. 50% failure rate with 99.99% accuracy.

    15. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're looking at he police in a funny manner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Oblig. Star Trek reference by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Well I haven't heard of those gadgets for a few years, but I think back then it was some of the people going through the accesses to the general part of the stadium (called 'popular' in argentina). Not 100% sure though, and they can change that procedure any time they like. I worked for the company that built, programmed and sold the stuff, not for the police (I've only talked to them so I know how it went, but not down to every last detail).

      Sadly, the police usually knows who many hooligans are (which usually even brag about it and have connections with the clubs directives and usually go in groups). For the rest ftey profile on many things, and I'm sure you'd be able to get your own idea if you ever come see a match here.

      In any case, the point I was trying to make was that first: nobody gets thrown in jail or his license cancelled automatically (but they do, as you pointed out, miss the match and spend a few hours at the station for a check), and second: it's an improvement over taking people *only* because they look suspicious.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
  9. Governments Are Always Right by shawnhcorey · · Score: 1

    I don't see what the complaint is about. For years, the governments of the world have a no-fly list. If your name appears on it, you can't fly. It doesn't matter if you didn't do anything wrong, because Governments Are Always Right. Stop whining. :)

    --
    Don't stop where the ink does.
  10. Pastafarianism will solve this by TenDollarMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    All you need to do is wear a welding mask as your Pastafarian religous headwear.

    It works in Austria. G'day mate.

    1. Re:Pastafarianism will solve this by chomsky68 · · Score: 1, Funny

      It works in Austria. Grüß Gott Kumpel.

      FTFY

      --
      I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
    2. Re:Pastafarianism will solve this by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      So then one Pastafarian bad driver will cause all of the others to lose their licenses.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Pastafarianism will solve this by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. It's like you picked a handful a meme and got everything about it wrong.

      Or, he was going for a "Dumb and Dumber" reference and got everything about it *right*...

    4. Re:Pastafarianism will solve this by Briareos · · Score: 1

      It works in Austria. Sers Oida.

      FTFY

      FTFY.

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    5. Re:Pastafarianism will solve this by chomsky68 · · Score: 1

      It works in Austria. Servus Kumpel.

      FTFY

      FTFY.

      FTFY and FYI lingo != slang

      --
      I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
  11. Sounds Like a Good System by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1

    After RTFA it appears that they're sending out maybe 1,500 of these every year, of which there are now 2 known problems, and his complaint is that he went without his license for a week or so while he cleared his name. Now he's sueing the state, for undisclosed sums, but even he would be hard pressed to really say he was out much other than a weeks wages. Given the 0.0013% failure rate, which results in a minor inconvenience this sounds like a VERY good system.

    1. Re:Sounds Like a Good System by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      âoeWe send out 1,500 suspension letters every day,â(TM)â(TM)

      "Neither the Registry nor State Police keep tabs on the number of people wrongly tagged by the system. But Gass estimates in his lawsuit that hundreds might have received revocation notices in error since the system was installed."

      That's a DAY. Do you really believe that only 2 of them are problems? Most are probably just fixed without people making a big stink because they are used to the government screwing up.

    2. Re:Sounds Like a Good System by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      They don't give numbers for Mass but they do for NY.

      New York detected roughly 3,500 instances of possible fraud, resulting in 600 arrests since a system was adopted in 2010.

      Looks like about 80% fail rate to me.

    3. Re:Sounds Like a Good System by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1
      Right above that sentence it says

      Last year, the facial recognition system picked out more than 1,000 cases that resulted in State Police investigations, officials say.

      I sincerely doubt they're sending out 1,500 a day, it's probably either a misquote, or the total for ALL reasons. If it was true, that would mean that 390K people would get these every year, or about 10% of all Massachusetts drivers, not including all the people who have their license revoked for other reasons, like DUI, etc. Doesn't seem like a valid statistic to me. Further the guy filling the lawsuit is estimating (to his benefit) hundreds over a period of 5 years, so maybe tens per year. (In state with 4.5 million licensed drivers) So yeah, still sounds like a pretty darned good system to me.

    4. Re:Sounds Like a Good System by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether or not those people were actually run through the system or the computer flagged it, and the operator said "No". Also, just because they weren't arrested doesn't mean that those people weren't perpetrating fraud, those were just the people they were able to track down, and arrest.

    5. Re:Sounds Like a Good System by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Sure. And it also depends on whether "detected" is the ones left after throwing out all of the obviously wrong results. The numbers could be off either way.

  12. in defense of intrusive bungling bureaucracy by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    Massholes do all drive in the same aggressive manner

    (I keed, I keed!)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in defense of intrusive bungling bureaucracy by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      The difference between a Boston driver and a New York driver: The New York driver takes a right turn from the left lane at 45 mph honking and giving you the finger. The Boston driver does the same thing, but is also drinking coffee, reading the paper, and talking on his cell phone.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:in defense of intrusive bungling bureaucracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Boston drivers are better multi-taskers, right? That's wicked cool!

    3. Re:in defense of intrusive bungling bureaucracy by hey! · · Score: 1

      The difference between a Boston driver and a New York driver: The New York driver takes a right turn from the left lane at 45 mph honking and giving you the finger. The Boston driver does the same thing, but is also drinking coffee, reading the paper, and talking on his cell phone.

      So a New York driver is a Boston driver with people skills.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Identity Theft? Way to Aim High by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    “Yes, it is an inconvenience [to have to clear your name], but lots of people have their identities stolen, and that’s an inconvenience, too.’’

    So their defense is to list crimes that are worse than what they (law enforcement) are doing? I guess if you aim low, there's no chance of failure.

    So if I went up to someone and said, "Hey, I know you think I'm a jerk because I call you harmful names but lots of people get raped in a parking lot and that's harmful too." They should thank their lucky stars I'm just calling them names and not raping them in a parking lot? Isn't that more of a threat than an excuse? I don't get it, is the Registry of Motor Vehicles threatening to steal or sell everyone's identity if they don't like being wrongly accused?

    Facial recognition is not quite yet where it has to be. I worked on some of this stuff way back in college and the case studies we did on open face databases had abysmal recall rates. Basically it should be concluded that until your chance of a false positive is equivalent with winning the lottery, you shouldn't implement this. I say "winning the lottery" because it is such a terrible violation of rights that you should be prepared to pay out a million dollars to the poor citizen that is wrongly accused of some crime or infraction just based upon the features of their face. It's a high stakes game and if you're going to use it as a short cut, you better be prepared to accept a high amount of risk.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  14. Pictures or it didn't happen! by Henriok · · Score: 1

    Nuff said!

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  15. Problem with face recognition by sifi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was looking at facial recognition algorithms some while back, the problem is you get too many false positives.

    The problem with all of these algorithms is that it doesn't matter how accurate they are, they are only ever going to be a way to reduce the search space - you should never base a decision solely on the algorithm telling you "this is person X".

    For example, some sales person says "Hey I've got this great facial recognition software it is 99.99% accurate!" (that's better than most facial algorithms out there) sounds pretty good right! - Wrong!. Suppose you set it up to look for one terrorist at Heathrow airport. The system is likely to flag up 650 000 people a year (based on 65 million passengers a year); of course it gets even worse if you start looking for more people.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Problem with face recognition by data2 · · Score: 2

      Except that it is only 6500 people a year, you are right.

    2. Re:Problem with face recognition by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Give it 10,000 people to look for (Which the US No Fly list will soon have) and it could flag everybody as someone on the list ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:Problem with face recognition by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Almost all of these systems are set up on the opposite principal to the basis for our justice system. The U.S. justice system was established on the principal that it better to fail to identify the guy you are looking for than to identify someone else as that guy. These systems are set up on the assumption that it is better to get the wrong person occasionally than to miss the correct person. This is part of why security systems (not just the computerized ones) are tending to get out of hand. It is complicated by the fact that they do not want to profile for fear of being accused of bias.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Problem with face recognition by sifi · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll try a calculator next time.... :-)

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    5. Re:Problem with face recognition by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      "Suppose you set it up to look for one terrorist at Heathrow airport. The system is likely to flag up 650 000 people a year (based on 65 million passengers a year)"

      Eh, probably not, as many of those people are repeat visitors, and the guys who you arrested because they looked like your terrorist are unlikely to come back and try again :) //And of course if your terrorist is non-white you can reduce your search space significantly on that as well.

    6. Re:Problem with face recognition by dwandy · · Score: 1

      65,000,000 * 0.01% == 65,000,000 * 0.0001 != 650 000
      So 6500 people per year, or about 18 people per day get extra attention from a human. Doesn't seem unmanageable.
      I don't disagree with technology helping deal with issues as long as in the end it's a human making the call; not a machine.

      The real question/danger is if we begin to rely 100% on this machine whether other methods which work today will mean that Bad People (tm) will take explicit action to become one of the 0.01% ensuring 100% effective failure of the system.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    7. Re:Problem with face recognition by jopsen · · Score: 1
      When

      some sales person says

      then you must multiply by at least 10 :)

  16. Bayesian statistics by denoir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a company that develops neural network software which is used for face recognition on a number of airports. The problem we've had over and over again is that government officials and airport security personnel have great difficulty understanding some elementary statistics.

    Let me give you an example. One version of the software offers 99.99% accuracy (symmetrical true positive and true negative), a number that always seems very impressive to various officials.

    What they don't understand and what we have to remind them all the time is that they need to take into account the large number of faces that are scanned by the software and that a 0.01% false positive rate isn't something you can ignore.

    For instance in a large airport that has say a million people getting scanned yearly it means that 100 people will be incorrectly flagged by the system. The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000. Plugging the number into Bayes' theorem you get that when the system flags a passenger, the probability that the passenger was actually a person of interest is around 9%.

    The officials typically only listen to the 99.99% figure and ignore the reality of the relatively large numbers of false positives when dealing with huge numbers of people. Subsequently they treat the people the systems flag much worse than they would if they realized that the probability of a 'catch' being correct was less than 10%. We've done our best to try to educate them but usually they don't want to listen as it's an uncomfortable truth and it's much more convenient to say that the system has an accuracy of 99.99%.

    1. Re:Bayesian statistics by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!

    2. Re:Bayesian statistics by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.

      The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

    3. Re:Bayesian statistics by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 2

      I work for a company that develops neural network software which is used for face recognition on a number of airports. The problem we've had over and over again is that government officials and airport security personnel have great difficulty understanding some elementary statistics.

      Let me give you an example. One version of the software offers 99.99% accuracy (symmetrical true positive and true negative), a number that always seems very impressive to various officials.

      What they don't understand and what we have to remind them all the time is that they need to take into account the large number of faces that are scanned by the software and that a 0.01% false positive rate isn't something you can ignore.

      For instance in a large airport that has say a million people getting scanned yearly it means that 100 people will be incorrectly flagged by the system. The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000. Plugging the number into Bayes' theorem you get that when the system flags a passenger, the probability that the passenger was actually a person of interest is around 9%.

      The officials typically only listen to the 99.99% figure and ignore the reality of the relatively large numbers of false positives when dealing with huge numbers of people. Subsequently they treat the people the systems flag much worse than they would if they realized that the probability of a 'catch' being correct was less than 10%. We've done our best to try to educate them but usually they don't want to listen as it's an uncomfortable truth and it's much more convenient to say that the system has an accuracy of 99.99%.

      Stop selling them you shit software!

      Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    4. Re:Bayesian statistics by martyros · · Score: 1

      The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

      I wouldn't call the Base rate fallacy basic numerical reasoning. I didn't learn about baysean probability until my senior year, and I didn't hear about the base rate fallacy until I was a researcher.

      Maybe a better technique would be to say there's an "effective true positive accuracy", which varies depending on the circumstances. Maybe have it as a feature of the software, that you have to enter in certain settings (i.e., population of US 300m, number of suspects searching for: 1000), and then when you get a positive, under the match flag up the effective accuracy. (E.g., "Match! Effective accuracy: 2.3%, based on population of 300m and search space of 10000). That would make it clear to everyone operating it that even though you have a match, the person you're talking to is *potentially* a terrorist, but *probably not*.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    5. Re:Bayesian statistics by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      You should just have your software flash a big sign saying "Probability of match: 9%". I don't see how they could ignore that.

    6. Re:Bayesian statistics by vlm · · Score: 1

      The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000.

      That high? Maybe in the general population 1 in 100,000 are being oppressed by the govt. Think about it, if you know that you'll be oppressed, you wouldn't go to the airport...

      So either most of the people being oppressed are innocent thus not expecting to be oppressed, or are too stupid to accomplish anything evil, in which case they're also irrelevant.

      Is it even possible to accomplish anything with a system like that?

      The other problem with 1 in 100,000 being oppressed is that my local "big" airport processes about that many people per day. And there's a lot of days per decade. But much less than one 9/11 per decade. So, almost all of the people being oppressed basically almost never do anything wrong. So why bother offending and angering everyone?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Bayesian statistics by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.

      You're a typical scientist. You have 1 figure which is always reliable and true, but it is misleading. The other one depends on too many variables but is a lot more insightful. The scientist will choose the first misleading figure, all other people would go for the second. Adapt to your audience: present a simple case in which you can calculate the useful figure.

      The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

      Changing the educational system will only give results in 20-25 years, if not even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't change it... but it does mean it cannot be used as a part of the solution to our immediate problem. You have to find another solution.

    8. Re:Bayesian statistics by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      What is needed is the matrix that shows the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. Additionally I would like to see some numbers not just percentages. I would start with an overestimate of the number of terrorists in a population a good overestimate would probably be that 0.001% (reality is it is probably a couple of orders of magnitude lower but lets over hype the threat) are terrorists and then pick a reasonable population size that is in the same ball park as the application they are using it for. Then show the number of innocent people detained, questions, and treated like dirt so that there is a statical chance (lets be reasonable and say 25% instead of some value approaching 100% or even 50%) of it catching just one terrorist.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re:Bayesian statistics by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      In defense of the politicians, they aren't as bad at math as it might first appear. Remember, they're looking at the systems and factoring in the money that will be added into their political campaigns. Approving the systems might also multiply their opportunity to land cushy lobbying jobs after they leave office. As a bonus, approving this subtracts any chance that their opponents could call them weak on terrorism. Thus, these systems get their undivided support.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:Bayesian statistics by brim4brim · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is with the teacher not the education system. We learned a lot of things on our Maths course that weren't on the course because we had a good Maths teacher.

      In saying that the teacher I had before that was terrible and used tricks he taught himself to get through teaching how to do a problem meaning you learned the trick, not how to solve the problem.

      And he was the honors teacher... So I dropped to Ordinary level after a year and learned less maths properly and caught up in college on my own time to get through the course. Really though, it is over 50% the teacher and then we can talk about the intelligence of the pupil. If I can go on to college and do maths that was on the honors course at secondary school/high school, only two years later, then I don't think the problem is me.

      I think it is ridiculous when some people claim, it is the pupils and not the teacher. It is high school/leaving certificate Maths FFS!

    11. Re:Bayesian statistics by maxume · · Score: 1

      High schools in Michigan are currently focusing on stating that every student has passed Algebra 2.

      They do not even offer a class like "Understanding and Interpreting Numbers and Statistics".

      Sure, that sounds like a stupid class, but it would be a lot more useful to most people than they flirtation with higher math offered in Algebra 2.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Bayesian statistics by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.

      You're a typical scientist. You have 1 figure which is always reliable and true, but it is misleading. The other one depends on too many variables but is a lot more insightful. The scientist will choose the first misleading figure, all other people would go for the second. Adapt to your audience: present a simple case in which you can calculate the useful figure.

      In this case, I would replace scientist with salesman.

    13. Re:Bayesian statistics by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Stop selling them you shit software!

      Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?

      Too true - I wish I had mod points for you. It seems that most commenters are arguing about the math or the technology. Not nearly enough of us are addressing the issue of just how seriously fucked up it is that this kind of situation is even allowed to occur.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    14. Re:Bayesian statistics by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!

      The skillset required to be a successful politician has a very small overlap with the population that can actually understand higher mathematical concepts (like the result of the application of fractions to large numbers).

    15. Re:Bayesian statistics by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      But corporations don't give a flying monkey fart about freedom, unless it's their freedom to sell you things and exploit your labour. I guess the answer is "Yes. You are doing a good job!"

    16. Re:Bayesian statistics by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is marketing. Marketing folks know darn well that two different logically equivalent statements can provoke radically different cognitive responses. You could just as logically say:

      "If this system were used to screen every passenger passenger Chicago's O'Hare airport, it would spuriously flag over four innocent passengers every day as a terrorist."

      Perhaps a better way is to specify the base rate of the thing being tested for that provides a 50/50 chance of being right:

      "Assuming that one in ten thousand passengers is a terrorist, when the system flags a passenger there's precisely 50/50 chance that any passenger flagged by the system is a terrorist."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Bayesian statistics by NetNed · · Score: 1

      I am sure politicians look at a little more then a accuracy number in picking these systems. More like "My friend Mr. X own Y company that makes this software that "we" can make ZZZ million dollars off of." The politician then goes in front of whoever, cooks the numbers in favor of approval, then takes a position with the company as a "consultant" at a cost of 1.2 million a year. He then pays off people like the idiot lady in the story do sing praises for the system and spread FUD in a effort to justify the software. "Well yeah, it gave a million false positives, but we stopped a person from driving because of a failure to yield the right of way and made $200 on it to justify our $150 million dollar expense."

    18. Re:Bayesian statistics by JAS0NH0NG · · Score: 1
      Instead of using the 99.99% figure, use natural frequencies to describe it. This blog post on the NYTimes talks about how people have a much easier time understanding frequencies than prior probabilities. This isn't just a problem of education, cognitive scientists already know that some representations are much easier to reason with than others, even if they are equivalent. For example, many people get this problem wrong:

      The probability that one of these women has breast cancer is 0.8 percent. If a woman has breast cancer, the probability is 90 percent that she will have a positive mammogram. If a woman does not have breast cancer, the probability is 7 percent that she will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a woman who has a positive mammogram. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

      But, a lot of people get this framing right:

      Eight out of every 1,000 women have breast cancer. Of these 8 women with breast cancer, 7 will have a positive mammogram. Of the remaining 992 women who don’t have breast cancer, some 70 will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a sample of women who have positive mammograms in screening. How many of these women actually have breast cancer?

    19. Re:Bayesian statistics by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      We have to find another solution.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    20. Re:Bayesian statistics by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      And yet you continue to sell your product to the government, despite knowing that it does not do what they want it to do, and that in consequence it will ruin the lives of innocent victims.

      Are you overcome by greed, or just plain evil?

    21. Re:Bayesian statistics by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The problem we've had over and over again is that government officials and airport security personnel have great difficulty understanding some elementary statistics.

      Government officials shouldn't need to. Does the Secretary Of Defense know how a variable yield nuke works? No, that's what expert advisors are for.

      As for airport security personnel, of course they don't understand statistics. These are the people who failed the test to be cops - you'd be lucky if they can count. They should be trained that the machine is only an aid and it's not infallible. And maybe the infernal contraption should bear a label saying the same, in large friendly letters.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Bayesian statistics by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!

      If the company does not present the 99.99% number with an explanation, then a competitor who sells 99.97% with a smile will get the sale instead.

    23. Re:Bayesian statistics by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

      I wouldn't call the Base rate fallacy basic numerical reasoning. I didn't learn about baysean probability until my senior year, and I didn't hear about the base rate fallacy until I was a researcher.

      You may be correct that perhaps it is too much to ask of the general populace. But we are not talking about the general populace.

      Base rate fallacy should be trivial information to any profession that employs fingerprinting, such as law enforcement. Partial print matches are a common occurrence in crime scene investigations. There is no excuse here.

  17. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    All you IAALs out there, can we get some ThisIsAdviceButNotLegalAdvice?

    Motorcycle riders would escape this system, wouldn't they? And they are almost the only group allowed to wear helmets.

    I thought I read (but it may have been an unreputable source) that we are allowed to wear helmets while driving our cars. Is that true? Or do the other characteristics of driving cars such as different view ranges negate that legality?

    What if a cop pulls you over and actually states that he doesn't like you wearing your helmet?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. tear him for his bad verses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Third Citizen

            Your name, sir, truly.

    CINNA THE POET

            Truly, my name is Cinna.

    First Citizen

            Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.

    CINNA THE POET

            I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.

    Fourth Citizen

            Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.

    CINNA THE POET

            I am not Cinna the conspirator.

    Fourth Citizen

            It is no matter, his name's Cinna; pluck but his
            name out of his heart, and turn him going.

    Third Citizen

            Tear him, tear him! Come, brands ho! fire-brands:
            to Brutus', to Cassius'; burn all: some to Decius'
            house, and some to Casca's; some to Ligarius': away, go!

            Exeunt

    - from Julius Ceasar

  19. draper? batelle? by decora · · Score: 1

    you work on the Future Attribute stuff?

  20. Brought to you by by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

    The leading repliblican presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney. Oh the Irony.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
    1. Re:Brought to you by by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Former Governor, out of office since 2007, was a Republican governor in one of the most Democratic leaning states in the union, thus he might have signed the appropriation bill, but that congress would have simply overridden any veto he made.

      Not to say that he didn't back this (I simply don't know either way), but the fact that he was the Governor of this state in the past has zero relevance to this issue. Oh and 34 states use this or similar systems and Mitt wasn't running the other 33 states.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  21. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by rbrausse · · Score: 1

    maybe I read a different article but the description sounds like a database search; they compared copies of the license pictures and similar pictures were selected.

  22. I just hope Leonardo DeCaprio stays out of trouble by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Because he could really drag me down with him.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  23. not to me by decora · · Score: 1

    they spent millions of taxpayer dollars for a system that has no proven benefit, all it does is further erode civil liberties which 'our brave men and women in uniform' are said to have died to defend.

  24. you know who else didn't know where to begin? by decora · · Score: 1

    thats right. adolph hitler.

    "I don't know where to begin"

    -- Mein Kampf, 1987.

    That was right before he killed all the Muslims.

  25. Re:Identity Theft? Way to Aim High by Terrasque · · Score: 1

    So their defense is to list crimes that are worse than what they (law enforcement) are doing?

    "Your Honor, it's true that I've stolen millions of dollars, and beaten people to within an inch of their lives, but remember that there are people out there who have KILLED hundreds of people!"

    "You know, you make a really compelling argument there. You're free to go."

    or, does this only work if you're in the government?

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  26. The ironry of the /. quote by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I did find the /. quote earlier today quite funny in this context. For those that missed it the quote was about QA and testing 1 in 1000 products to ensure that only 1 in 100 fails products work.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  27. Multiples... by TheLevelHeadedOne · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the dimwits would say when I tell them I'm an identical triplet and loan my pickup truck to my brothers...It's as if the people that think facial recognition is so great have never heard of identical twins, triplets, etc. They might say something stupid like "you look enough different to tell apart" and I'd tell them them they're full of crap. This article being case in point.

    --

    Twin or more? ITA
    Apache/Spring/La
  28. Another way to look at the stats by Shoten · · Score: 1

    "Last year, State Police obtained 100 arrest warrants for fraudulent identity, and 1,860 licenses were revoked as a result of the software, according to Procopio."

    Okay, so that sounds to me like a 94.7% error rate among the positives. Unless they just kind of said, to over a thousand people with fraudulent licenses, "Oh, that's okay...just stop doing it, and we'll let it slide"?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Another way to look at the stats by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      1860 licenses out of what, like 4 million registered drivers? So, like 99.95% of the voting public wasn't directly affected and we got 100 bad guys! Sounds like a win - from a certain point of view.

      It will probably continue to happen until somebody gets complacent and doesn't notice that a major politician's wife or daughter got snagged by the system and lets their license get revoked...

    2. Re:Another way to look at the stats by kirtu · · Score: 1

      However it seems that 1000 innocent people had their lives intruded upon unnecessarily by the state. They could have taken other action rather than just pulling the licenses and informing the people after the fact. And in the past people have actually died from data errors by police departments. In the 70's and 80's there were multiple instances, often perpetuated against teenagers, of police overstepping their bounds in cases of mistaken identity and killing people (the one that most readily comes to mind was a Hispanic teenager who was being taken in by police who had a computer generated report identifying a person with some characteristics that the teenager fit and one of the police officers was screaming at him with a gun to his head trying to get him to confess to something that it later turned out he definitely didn't do and of course the gun went off killing the young man).

    3. Re:Another way to look at the stats by Amouth · · Score: 1

      well an example could be that you moved from one part of the state to another.. and got a new licence - and rather than going in and "renewing" you got in the "new" line.. and hence are issued a "new" licence with new number at your new address while your other hasn't expired.

      i say this because i do this - i intentionally have two licences for my state with two different addresses - but because i own both properties and any time you have to mess with anything that has to do with proof of where you live it is a lot easier to have a license with that address on it..

      and in this state it isn't illegal if you own both properties.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:Another way to look at the stats by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And, you totally missed the Obi-Wan to Luke "so, when I told you Darth Vader killed your father I was telling the truth, from a certain point of view" reference.

      Pulling licenses and informing people after the fact is a classic DMV MO - when I moved out of Florida, I transferred insurance to new state Texas. Months later, in a routine sweep of the database, Florida invalidated my drivers' license because it was issued to the owner of a car with a Florida tag that did not have current insurance. I found out about this when attempting to get my Texas drivers' license, no attempt was ever made to notify me - I could have as easily found out my license was invalid during a "routine traffic stop," though I scarcely believe it could have been more annoying than the three times I had to wait the line at DMV.

  29. He missed a trick... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    Let Clarkson show you how it's done:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3i-HRxf8z4#t=04m39s

    (Skip to 4:39 if the link won't do it for you.)

  30. This is my generation's fault by wcrowe · · Score: 2

    Computers used to be tools used by a minority of professionals and hobbyists. But for almost 20 years now, certainly for the last 15 years, computers have become ubiquitous -- practically everyone in the United States has one on their desk and/or at home. And yet, after all these years of working with computers, people still naively, stupidly, assume that any output from a software program is 100% accurate and trustworthy. "The computer says it is so, therefore it must be true."

    My unscientific, gut feeling is that this is a distinction within my generation -- the generation which is now running things -- who grew up with simple devices like digital watches and foolishly have extended the reliability and accuracy of those baubles to machines and software which they barely comprehend.

    I hope and pray that the next generation, my daughter's generation, who have grown up with spam, spoofing, malware, faulty operating systems, and software inaccuracies, will have the intelligence to treat software as a useful tool to help us make decisions, rather than as founts of truth that make our decisions for us.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:This is my generation's fault by kirtu · · Score: 2

      In other words people don't test their assumptions or the results and don't think analytically or critically. They still generally don't BTW and at least hs students up generally are oblivious to these errors as well. People still aren't testing data or results nor are they thinking critically.

    2. Re:This is my generation's fault by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. The current generation in power is the one that acts as gatekeepers to the next generation of power brokers. Those who do not embrace the system the way those currently in charge embrace it will have a much harder time getting into a position to change anything than those who toe the line.

  31. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being a member of a functioning society means you need to participate -- check your mail and respond when asked reasonable questions by state authorities...

    A computer says I look like a lawbreaker, so I have to take time off work and get myself to a government office with my ID in order to prove the computer wrong. In what non-Fascist, non-totalitarian country is this a 'reasonable question'?

    To me, this is about as 'reasonable' as having to be fondled and/or irradiated to board an airplane. This 'functioning society' is growing more disfunctional with each passing day.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  32. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    and that he had 3 weeks to resolve the issue by providing supporting data or his license would be suspended

    It's actually about 5 business days.

    Letter dated Mar 22, with a suspension date of Apr 1
    Arrives at his PO box no earlier than Mar 24
    Take out the weekend, and that leaves Mar 25 & 28-31
    5 businsess days.

    Yes, the other guy did get it done in the window. But that still seems a pretty short timespan for notification of a license revocation.

  33. Require stats training as a condition to operate by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Add to the terms of sale:

    "This product is to be used only by experts trained in the proper interpretation of statistics. Use by untrained personnel is likely to result in misleading results and mis-identification of people who are at low risk as high risk and vice-versa. [Company] is not responsible for mis-use of this equipment."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  34. Not unique to computer identification by davidwr · · Score: 1

    A woman was (allegedly) deliberately rear-ended because she looks like a well-known criminal who was recently acquitted of killing her daughter.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Not unique to computer identification by dlgeek · · Score: 1

      If that person was acquitted, it is not correct to use the term "criminal".

  35. Rachel Kaprielian needs to be fired NOW by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She had the nerve to claim in the article that it's the driver's burden to prove he's not a criminal. We know that driving is not a right, but people DO have rights to liberty and property, and arbitrary removal of people's vital privileges without a hearing affects both of these. What if they decide to start revoking licenses because your name's spelling is similar to someone else's? How about if they find some data that claims people with brown eyes are likely to be terrorists? Haughty bureaucrats like these need to be educated.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Rachel Kaprielian needs to be fired NOW by Anomalyst · · Score: 1
      I read that as

      Haughty bureaucrats like these need to be medicated..

      Which has a certain truthiness to it.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  36. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Not yet.

    My question still stands. I am thinking ahead to the next iteration of this stuff.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  37. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    So far it is, however I am pursuing the Pandoras Box theory of the news, which is "what is the next step of the current iteration"?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  38. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by codegen · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, motorcycle riders wear the helmet when driving, not when inside the DMV having the the picture taken for their drivers licence.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  39. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    This guy was flagged ... it took 10 days to undo and resolve a process that was triggered by his original failure to respond.

    That's a pretty amazing bit of transference right there. You couldn't even keep it straight in your own head from one sentence to the next.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  40. I missed something. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

    Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue.

    In what way is using this technology to issue speeding tickets preventing terrorism, reducing fraud, improving the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents?

    If the money really was earmarked to be used in that specific way, I think somebody has some 'splainin to do.

  41. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by gknoy · · Score: 1

    However, the cameras take their pictures while driving, so there'd be nothing tocompare them to.... Except some other driver in a car who looks like them -- I see your point now.

  42. Unacceptably high failure rate by kirtu · · Score: 1

    That's an unacceptably high failure rate of 1 person in 6593 or 0.00015% and that's accurate only if only 1000 people have been affected since the software began being used. Bureaucrats may find that failure rate acceptable but it's an unwarranted exercise of power and an intrusion on people's daily lives. This exact kind of error was commented on by Paulos in his article "Who's Counting?: Privacy and Terrorists" (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=97755&page=1) : "Assume for the sake of the argument that eventually ..., some system of total information-gathering becomes so uncannily accurate that when it examines a future terrorist, 99 percent of the time it will correctly identify him as a pre-perpetrator. Furthermore, when this system examines somebody who is harmless, 99 percent of the time the system will correctly identify him as harmless. In short, it makes a mistake only once every 100 times. Now let's say that law enforcement apprehends a person by using this technology. Given these assumptions, you might guess that the person would be almost certain to commit a terrorist act. Right? Well, no. Even with the system's amazing data-mining powers, there is only a tiny probability the apprehended person will go on to become an active terrorist."

    1. Re:Unacceptably high failure rate by kirtu · · Score: 1

      Of course I meant 0.015%. So the system is only 99.985 % accurate and that if only 1000 people have had their licenses capriciously pulled.

    2. Re:Unacceptably high failure rate by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I don't think it's an unacceptable high failure rate, but there is ofcourse much room for improvement, like continued checking after the first hit to see if there isn't another hit, and if there are, it should go to chanel for a manual check (they've already narrowed down to a few).
      I do wonder how long they have tested the system on live-data before actually using it.
      But every system has it's flaws, even checking by humans would go wrong (propably it would have a much higher failure rate if done by humans)..
      It is unacceptable that it requires so much time/effert to undo the mistake.

  43. Just go on welfare. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Can't work without a car in most of this country. If the gov't makes it too hard to keep driving, just quit and go on welfare because you can't get to work.

    --
    Blar.
  44. Re:Identity Theft? Way to Aim High by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    No, it works if you work on Wall Street too.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  45. my evil(?) twin by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    According to the clerk at a convenience store near my house, there is someone who looks just like me and comes in all the time to buy cases of Bud Light. He commented on it because I was purchasing a six-pack of a local craft brew, instead of "the usual". Granted, the consequences aren't quite as harsh as being misidentified as a chronic traffic violator, but being mistaken for a Budweiser fan is almost as offensive.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:my evil(?) twin by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Those Bud fans all look alike to me.

    2. Re:my evil(?) twin by DRJR · · Score: 1

      A few years back, my great uncle died. His name was on the Comcast cable bill, and my grandmother, his sister, didn't bother to change the name on the bill. She just kept paying the bill to continue the service.

      Then she started getting notices of non-payment and service termination even though my aunt had paid the last few bills in person in cash. (Thankfully, she kept the receipts.) The service, however, was not actually terminated as they had stated. They were on the phone and at the local office many times trying to figure it out. On the phone they stated the service was disconnected, and my grandmother and aunt stated they had the television on right then and it was obviously not disconnected. Comcast said they were wrong despite the television being on in the background.

      As it turns out, there was an unrelated man, living in the same town, with the same name as my great uncle, who stopped paying his bill. His middle initial differed and the difference between the two account numbers was the last two digits were the reverse of each other.

      Apparently, when various Comcast service representatives would look at either account, they would randomly assume the information shown to them on their computers was wrong and think it was the other account. This lead to them pulling up incorrect accounts when doing customer service, applying payments to the wrong accounts, incorrect late fees, terminating the wrong accounts, and insisting the my grandmother and aunt were wrong about the particulars when talking to them.

      Finally, my aunt asked to change the name on the account. Prove the account holder is dead, they said. Totally understandable, but still frustrating after months of bad customer service. Once the death certificate was provide, Comcast had the nerve to charge a rather large installation fee to "connect up the service" that was, of course, never disconnected in the first place-- it was just a name change on the billing statement.

      They refused to pay the installation fee, returned the equipment, and switched to Direct TV.

      <rant>Confused identities are a pain-in-the-butt! I've been confused for my dad on my own credit report due to Chase assuming, same names, same addresses, same person! The error was they did not have my dad's birth date or soc.sec. number on file, so they matched his name to my name as I also had a card with them at the same address. As it was my mom's credit card on my credit report, Chase said it was up to _my_mom_ to remove _my_name_ from _my_credit_report_. I find it strange that I wasn't allowed to fix my credit report that they had erroneously altered. Thankfully, my family is very close, and my mom did fix the problem as Chase instructed. Image the nightmare if it had been a stranger's line of credit there, though. *sigh*</rant>

      My two cents.
      --Dave Romig, Jr.

    3. Re:my evil(?) twin by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Not related to the main topic, but spinning off on a tangent:

      My grandfather was, at various times in his career, a teacher and a professor of Education. As such, he was a member of the state teacher's union, an affiliation which continued into his retirement, because that's part of what being a union member is about. When he died (as grandfathers have a tendency to do), my father continued to receive his mail, because he'd asked the USPS to do that. For some of he union mailings, my father (not having any interest in dealing a union which no longer had anything to offer his late father) took the unopened mailings and gave them the return-to-sender treatment, writing "DECEASED" on the envelope. It didn't take long before we started receiving mailings from the union, addressed with the same street number and zip code, but the name of the city change to "Deceased".

      Unlike my father, I'm a supporter of the right to collective bargaining, and appreciate the things that a union can do for the individual worker. But sometimes... ya gotta wonder if there are any lights on at the office.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  46. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by Amouth · · Score: 1

    this system uses the stock photos used for created the Drivers Licence (the one snapped at the DMV)..

    but your question is - Motorcycle riders in some places are required to ware helmets - the rest of us it is optional..

    If you want to ware a helmet in your car go for it - i do it all the time on the track and have done it before on the interstate (it was next to me as i was returning from the track - and given the weather and traffic situation i felt there was a very very strong need for it, luckily there wasn't).

    what is illegal in some places (and where i live) is wearing headphones.. and i wish they would enforce it, too many people driving around not paying attention.

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  47. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

    wanna bet that someday

    1 when you get your motorcycle endorsement you will have to report to the office WITH YOUR HELMET(s)

    2 they will issue you (and charge you for) some sort of bar code sticker to be placed on your helmet so that photo id systems can recognize (you)

    3 make it illegal to use an "unregistered" helmet

    heck this would even be useful if they did a check of the helmet at the same time (for fitness of use ect)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  48. It's not by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    First you have to understand that there is no national ID card. Passports kind of fit the bill but you are not required to have one. Social Security numbers are getting close to mandatory but are not – and lack almost any personal detail information [Picture, etc.]. Partly this is due to the legacy that this was a state’s reasonability, not Federal. Partly this is due to the historical opposition of a centralized database from the individualist types.

    Second, just consider the phrase: “state issued picture ID.” Yes, it start our as a driver’s license, but now it just a plain old ID card. Sure, some have a “Automobile”, “Motorcycle”, or “Commercial Driver” stamp on it – but view those as extras that get tossed on top of the basic ID card. I have never heard anybody having an issue getting a state ID card because of driving ability.

    In this case the person’s driver license was being revoked because the state asserted [incorrectly] that he was a crappy driver and that he was driving under a false ID. The ID portion was not suspended – just the driving privilege.

    I understand and approve where the state is coming from. It looks like this is a combination of a false positive [I wonder how many false negatives there are???] and a 2nd rate notification process.

  49. It's way worse than that! by davecb · · Score: 1

    You know the party trick of asking if anyone in a group has the same birthday as someone else? In a 40-person group, you have would expect to have about 11% of the people match. Surprise, you have a 90% chance of a match! That's because there are 720-odd different pairs in 40 people (the Birthday Paradox)

    Now ask what happens if you have 20 criminals and 2000 honest travelers that that you're trying to match using a programs that has a 99.99 accuracy, or 0.001 error rate. My leaky brain says you have the same 90% chance of a match... or in this case, a mismatch and the arrest of an innocent person.

    I suspect, therefor, that trying to match bad drivers will produce a scary false positive rate!

    --dave
    [I also suspect I have the group sizes wrong: someone with a brain, please feel free to fix the numbers]

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  50. What does "plenty of time" mean? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    From TFA, "Kaprielian said the Registry gives drivers enough time to respond to the suspension letters "....Jesus, is it too much to expect a reporter to uh, report, exactly how much time we're talking about? The article states that the Registry sent a notice on March 22 that his license would be terminated on April 1. That doesn't sound like much time to me, but we never learn if there were any earlier warnings sent to Gass, and it appears that our genius of a reporter NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK.

    God, what passes for journalism these days just makes me weep.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  51. Anything worth doing... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Wow, yeah. I guess they didn't pay enough for that program, huh?

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  52. Re:first they grope us, now they give us facials by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

    Well it is the logical next step....

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  53. Tipping Point by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    We are hearing more like this every day. If we as a People don't act decisively to correct the course of our country, we will soon have no recourse but to shed blood. Note, this is not a partisan question of which party holds power, because the reality is that both are fronts for the same power. They are so corrupted and the system so thoroughly gamed that there are few and rapidly dwindling non-violent courses left to a People who want their will done. I love my life and my kids and my family and my country, but I would gladly sacrifice the first if it meant the latter could live in freedom. I believe there are still many patriots from both sides of the political spectrum who would as well.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  54. too much dyslexia by Dthief · · Score: 1

    guilty until proven innocent

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  55. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Being a member of a functioning society means you need to participate -- check your mail and respond when asked reasonable questions by state authorities...

    .

    Functioning?
    Society?
    Need?
    Participate?
    Asked?
    Reasonable?
    State?
    Authorities?

    I have a problem with every word I put a question mark behind, and that's just with one of your sentences.

  56. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I am over 35, and it's time for you to wake up.

  57. Arkansas? by gottabeme · · Score: 1

    What is it with these stupid Arkansas jokes? Arkansas is just as developed and civilized as anywhere else in the USA. One can find low-class, uneducated people in every state and every major city in the country, even the world. By making such inane comments, you're showing your ignorance or prejudice. Grow up.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  58. (Government) Identity is overrated by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Governments need to learn to rely less on identification to get shit done. We put so much power into these tiny pieces of easily falsified information, it's a wonder this society even functions at all. Real life does not actually look like hollywood crime dramas. Mob bosses don't hide in plain sight, and everyday hoodlums don't go around getting plastic surgery to impersonate Average Joes.

    Cops don't need face scanning software, they need functioning brains, apparently a rare luxury these days. You'd think if someone was flagged to have their license revoked, they might have arrested that person a few times in the past. Why didn't they revoke the license back then, in person ? It's a whole lot easier to identify a repeat DUI offender when you're staring at his dented bumper and glassy eyes. If cops no longer have the guts to confront oh-so-terrifying traffic offenders face-to-face, maybe they should choose a less stressful career, like a Wal-Mart greeter ?

    I've dealt with this sort of nonsense on a few occasions. In one particular incident, they couriered a license revocation notice to the wrong address, yet somehow sent a cop to my apartment complex on the very morning the order came into effect. He parked outside the gate and waited for me to drive out, nailing me with a viciously steep fine. A few weeks later my license was reinstated, and they blamed it on a computer glitch. Well I just happen to be a computer guy, I wasn't buying it. Eight months and a lawyer later, they finally fessed up that the cop used to date some chick I was seeing, and he got his brother at the DMV to add a few unpaid fines to my file. I'll let you imagine what happened to them afterward... But the point is, this facial recognition bullshit is just another excuse for convenient "glitches" to slip through the system. I'm not saying the software is perfect, it never is, but the humans manning it are infinitely more flawed.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  59. Re:I've got nothing to hide except my face by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    gknoy said,

    However, the cameras take their pictures while driving, so there'd be nothing tocompare them to.... Except some other driver in a car who looks like them -- I see your point now.

    Yes, thank you! I had to endure about three RTFA comments because of my bad phrasing.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  60. Basic maths : by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    $1.5million grant ; "more than 1000 cases" ; therefore an average settlement (less legal fees for the Department, and assuming that the victims don't have any legal fees awarded to them ; both unlikely) of more than $1500 against the Department will leave nothing left to write the report evaluating the success of this technology.

    Not having been evaluated, the technology will then be described as "having been deployed in Maasechusetts without any adverse findings reported" (because the report wasn't written, reported or published).

    Ka-ching! Another victory for lawyerly double-think over the masses. Can I have my peanut now?

    Caveats - have to classify the records, so you can't have pesky workers read and write up the report pro bono publicio. That would destroy the economics of the farce.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"