FBI Launches $1 Billion Nationwide Face Recognition System

Thought criminal by puddingebola · 2012-09-07 08:59 · Score: 5, Funny

The person who posted this story is a thought criminal. Report to the Ministry of Love immediately.

Re:Thought criminal by Tackhead · 2012-09-07 10:48 · Score: 1

The person who posted this story is a thought criminal. Report to the Ministry of Love immediately.

Nice try, Goldstein! You just want to make sure that by the time the rats in Room 101 are done with your operative, Big Brother's facial recognition scanners will never be able to pick him up!
Re:Thought criminal by PsyMan · 2012-09-07 22:58 · Score: 1

What we need is some kind of air analysis system that can monitor the air in air conditioning systems of public buildings etc and match DNA samples to keep track of everyone, add that to the face recognition and licence plate tracking and we can all rest easily at night. Maybe even install a turd analyser in public toilets with a similar database. I have never been sure which side of the foil hat goes on the outside but I may put 2 on soon.

One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

Re:One more reason by rainmouse · 2012-09-07 09:09 · Score: 0

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.
If its pictures of you smiling into the camera while you cook meth then sure.... don't post them. But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures. Seriously, stop living with fear and try just living.
Re:One more reason by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-07 09:11 · Score: 3, Informative

sure, throw caution to the wind.
what's the worst that can happen?
(answer: nightmarish stuff. give it time and we'll learn. the hard way, no doubt, but we'll learn!)

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:12 · Score: 0

No, they'll use the self-taken gangsta' posse pictures to recognize your face when a store gets robbed, and use "the science machine said you did it" to force a plea bargain (assuming finding the real robber would take effort).
Juries are all too willing to listen to the nice man in charge and his magic science machine.
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:13 · Score: 1

Yes, no one would ever want to harm you. Ever. Facebook is useless to me, anyway.

Seriously, stop living with fear and try just living.
Can you tell that the the FBI and the people obsessed with catching terrorists/criminals? And then can you tell them to stop wasting our tax money? Please?
Re:One more reason by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-07 09:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures.
Um.

If the FBI don't "give a shit..." why would they build a billion dollar facial recognition database?

I contend that there are people, powerful people, who do indeed "give a shit," and thus, so should the rest of us, yourself included.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

but we'll learn!
Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.
Re:One more reason by srussia · 2012-09-07 09:40 · Score: 1

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

Au contraire, flood DoS, anyone?

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Re:One more reason by currently_awake · 2012-09-07 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Your mother just posted these hilarious shots of you with some nice hells angel bikers from when your car broke down. With your name tagged. Gee, I wonder if that will be entered into the database? I'm sure having you tagged as an associate of known criminals will aid you immensely.
Re:One more reason by RabidReindeer · 2012-09-07 10:11 · Score: 1

sure, throw caution to the wind.
what's the worst that can happen?
Room 101.
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:11 · Score: 0

Coincidentally, I've just been sent a jury summons for next month. I PRAY that they pick me... I've got a month to study as much about the laws and abilities of a juror as I possibly can. Unless there's others like me in there, I'll be the most knowledgeable one there. With any luck, being not particularly stupid, I won't easily be able to be swayed by fancy words and computer terms (not that I have the slightest clue what it's about, but who knows, it may involve computers).
So naturally, as much as I can hope, I doubt I'll be picked since it seems they always try to pick the stupidest, naivest, most gullible people to be on a jury.
Re:One more reason by RabidReindeer · 2012-09-07 10:14 · Score: 1

but we'll learn!
Will we? I think it's more likely that people will be surprised and vow to never let it happen again, but it will quickly be forgotten. Look at how people are sacrificing freedom for safety left and right (TSA, Patriot Act, and all the other garbage) despite countless corrupt governments throughout history; it's as if they think the people in the government are perfect beings that could never hurt anyone but the 'bad guys'.
Ironically, these self-same people who think that the government would never abuse its power when it comes to handling terror are the ones who routinely scream about how the Goddam Gubmint is a thieving bunch of Socialistic power-abusers.
Re:One more reason by 0111+1110 · 2012-09-07 10:52 · Score: 4, Informative

There's only one juror 'ability' you need to know about: jury nullification. If you think the law is unjust then the accused is not guilty by definition.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:One more reason by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-07 11:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

There's not much choice in England. The 12 are usually selected from ~15 at random and that's that. A *huge* academic research effort recently completed by Cheryl Thomas (search and read!) has confirmed that jurors tend to be much less biased / against people's personal hobby-horses than both the tabloid and leftie media suggest - IOW English juries actually do pretty fucking well.
America has managed to take one of the best developments in justice that the world has ever created and fuck even that up. It is so sad.
Also ignore the post above me: jury nullification isn't very interesting, and tends to be cited as an excuse to limit the power of juries. Anyway, you go in all guns blazing and a fellow juror will just call you out; you lie to your fellow jurors by falsely stating your determination of the facts and you're throwing the jury system into disrepute. Like all powerful weapons, you apply nullification only where necessary. Again, though, we don't have the problem of insane sentences being handed out for minor crimes (e.g. marijuana possession) - it's harder to think myself in the position of such an ostensibly just but procedurally corrupt system as America's.
Re:One more reason by Seumas · 2012-09-07 12:10 · Score: 1

Uh. The idea is that by posting photos and linking them directly to your identity on these services and using facial-login systems on your cell phone and such is that you are giving them a massive database to use to identify you from their monitoring systems. It doesn't matter if anyone's ever going to "give a shit about your photos". They'll have them to pull from in matches to aid in their real time searching and identification on the street. In effect, you are handing them over all the information they need to track you every time you're out in public.
Granted, you may not be doing anything of interest and maybe nothing questionable, but so what?
Re:One more reason by History's+Coming+To · 2012-09-07 12:19 · Score: 1

On reading the headline I had to stop and try to remember what the FB in FBI stood for. Just for a moment. Scary moment.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 13:38 · Score: 0

It's difficult to live without fear in the United States, at least ever since those terrorists beat us and our government has been in "cowardly little bitch" mode since.
Re:One more reason by hawkingradiation · 2012-09-07 13:57 · Score: 1

Pretty soon they will be able to catch criminals before they are even criminals. After all, what are criminals before they are charged and convicted?

--
Society use your Sciences
Re:One more reason by starakurva · 2012-09-07 15:48 · Score: 1

But don't believe people will ever give a shit about your self taken gangsta' pose pictures..
You've obviously never seen my gangsta pose.

--
All you need is lurv.
Re:One more reason by nospam007 · 2012-09-07 16:10 · Score: 2

"You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror but it sees everything."
Re:One more reason by jamstar7 · 2012-09-07 16:24 · Score: 2

What are you worried about? They only spent a billion on it. Everybody knows that any government contract under a billion is worthless. They'll be lucky if they can even log into it at that price.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:One more reason by davester666 · 2012-09-07 19:39 · Score: 1

Except, they aren't even sacrificing freedom for safety. At best, they've bought the promise of safety.
It's as valuable and truthful as any of the other promises by our politicians over the years.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:One more reason by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-09-07 20:27 · Score: 1

Don't worry about posting your pics to Facebook; your friends will do that for you. Chances are that a picture with you in it at any social event (sister's wedding, office picnic, drunken dorm blowout) has already made its way to Facebook or another photo sharing service... dutifully tagged with your name by said friends.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:One more reason by turp182 · 2012-09-08 11:02 · Score: 1

True, but defense lawyers are almost always forbidden from mentioning it and the court guidelines potential jurors receive will never mention it.
I'd love to see a lot more jury nullification, especially with regards to low level drug crimes (although those usually never see a courtroom).

--
BlameBillCosby.com
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 19:36 · Score: 0

Nah you were thinking about the FBIU.
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 22:20 · Score: 0

as long as it only affects 0.1% of the global population, where their lives get irreparably ruined by some data that was stored about them, it will continue to happen unabated.
Re:One more reason by pnutjam · 2012-09-10 02:39 · Score: 1

ostensibly just but procedurally corrupt system
I love this description.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 09:44 · Score: 0

Going to end up on the no fly list for sure!

Anyone will do... by mspohr · 2012-09-07 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem is that cops get points for arresting someone (catch the criminal).
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This database will help them rack up points by finding someone who vaguely matches. All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Re:Anyone will do... by oakgrove · 2012-09-07 09:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

All they need to do then is get them to "confess" (aka "plea bargain").
And conveniently over 90 percent of federal cases end in plea bargaining. And if you make the mistake of not taking the offer and get found guilty at trial, you can be virtually certain to end up with a harsher sentence and at a minimum, you want receive the "downward departure" for being cooperative which is standard in federal cases.
That being said, why wait until that phase to get the confession when you can just send in the private investigators from the start. PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Anyone will do... by Hatta · 2012-09-07 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This is the real problem. If you've been falsely accused of a crime, removed from your home, and locked in a cage, then you've been victimized just as surely as if you were kidnapped. In such circumstances you deserve justice against your aggressor.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Anyone will do... by mk1004 · 2012-09-07 09:43 · Score: 3, Informative

There was a case in Dallas some years ago like this. The guy worked as a window installer. He moved somewhere in the North East. Some years later, the national fingerprint database went on-line and the local cops started running fingerprints that had been gathered at crime scenes through the system. The guy had been in the military, so his records were in the database and matched prints found in a burglary. The detectives working the case didn't care that there was a perfectly good explanation for his prints being at the scene. He ended up going back to Dallas, interrupting his family's lives until he could get it resolved. A plea bargain counts as a win; they didn't care if he was guilty or not.

--
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Re:Anyone will do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:01 · Score: 0

There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.
Why would the problem of "vague matches" be any worse with this than without this? They can already find vague matches manually. The problem here would be that the match could be rather good even if erroneous. However, that is mitigated by the fact that most of the good matches found by the system can be eliminated rather easily by figuring out where the person was at that time.
The real purpose of a system like this is to get to the point where you can check your real evidence (fingerprints and DNA) against an actual suspect. It's not like they get to throw out the more precise evidence because they found a partial facial match. There may be a privacy issue with this, but you aren't describing it. The current system is more vulnerable to false arrest than this system would be. All we need now is enough of a match to convince a jury that the person in the image is the defendant. With a system like this, a defense attorney could determine just how many people match the image. That would make it easier to offer alternative options to a jury.
Re:Anyone will do... by Aryden · 2012-09-07 10:19 · Score: 2

PIs aren't bound by any of that "Miranda Act" nonsense and can pretty much say anything they want to get you to incriminate yourself and it all stands up in court just as well as if an interviewing detective had gotten you to talk.
The police can say anything they want to get you to talk. Miranda rights may have to be read, but that doesn't stop them from lying through their teeth to get the information they want out of you.
Re:Anyone will do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:58 · Score: 1

What I always find interesting is how prosecutor offices say again and again that they don't have a quota system, but the second someone quits that is exactly what they say goes on in them. Around here, we found out that they do thanks to a FOIA for internal policy memos that repeatedly referenced the need to "work on your numbers" among other, much more obvious, phrases.
Re:Anyone will do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 11:03 · Score: 0

And he didn't have an alibi?
Re:Anyone will do... by rtb61 · 2012-09-07 11:26 · Score: 1

So an explosion in the number of excessive use of force cases, as looks like person after looks like person is beaten, tazed and often shot for looking like a person the FBI are after, when the FBI send out the local steroid junkies. What's beating this billion dollar system ends up costing ten times as much in false arrests.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Anyone will do... by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-09-07 11:50 · Score: 2

I'm sure he did.
Of course, the police don't really care. They can still arrest him, in which case he'd better have an attorney and pay that guy and track down witnesses from years ago (all while living 1000 miles away) and all that in order to defend himself. And, if found Not Guilty, it's not like anybody's going to reimburse him. So there goes the kids' college education fund down the tubes.
But if he pleads guilty, I'm sure the DA will recommend a light sentence. After all, he has no prior arrests. He'll get a few years probation so he doesn't have to serve any jail time and can go on with his life--albeit with a criminal record. The DAs office gets to knock a "cold case" off their files and everybody's happy!
Re:Anyone will do... by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-09-07 12:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.
Keep in mind that "false arrest" means that the police did not have a valid warrant for your arrest, not that you didn't do it. As long as the police can show a valid arrest warrant and they didn't lie to the judge to get it, it's not false arrest--even if they made a mistake.
Re:Anyone will do... by gnasher719 · 2012-09-07 19:12 · Score: 1

There was a case in Dallas some years ago like this. The guy worked as a window installer.

Some very dangerous criminal (I think the Unabomber, but I may be wrong) was caught because the police found a finger print on a letter that he wrote. Not the criminal's finger print, but the finger print of a completely innocent employee at a copying shop. Which lead them to the shop and from there to the criminal.
Re:Anyone will do... by hutsell · 2012-09-08 22:10 · Score: 1

There was a case in Dallas some years ago like this. The guy worked as a window installer.
Some very dangerous criminal (I think the Unabomber, but I may be wrong) was caught because the police found a finger print on a letter that he wrote. Not the criminal's finger print, but the finger print of a completely innocent employee at a copying shop. Which lead them to the shop and from there to the criminal.
Actually (if you aren't wrong), in the case of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski's capture was done by his brother. The connection leading David Kaczynski to strongly suspect it was his brother was in the writing style of the Unabomber Manifesto published by The Washington Post and NY Times.

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why

FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?

Re:FB et. al? by Sperbels · 2012-09-07 09:38 · Score: 1

What makes you think they don't already have FB's data?
Re:FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:45 · Score: 1

FB ... FBI.
Coincidence? I think not!
Re:FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:00 · Score: 0

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?
They already have our drivers licence photos, don't they?
Re:FB et. al? by mr1911 · 2012-09-07 10:54 · Score: 1

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators get tapped for their "resources"?
About three years ago.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Re:FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:03 · Score: 0

How long until Facebook and other considerably large photography aggregators ...

At first, the FBI will be another paying (?) customer. But, when the FBI becomes dependent on these data collection services, Facebook and others can 'alter the deal', using their favourite tool: The EULA. While the FBI can seize FB servers, they cannot (legally) run FB themselves or trawl all the user accounts.
So the question becomes: What can Facebook take from the FBI (to benefit the expanding corporatocracy)?
Re:FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:16 · Score: 0

For those who haven't figured it out: facebook was considered too valuable to ignore years ago. Not necessarily as a reliable storehouse of data, but certainly as a very, very large training set for anyone looking to test biometrics databases. If you are only now worrying about Facebook, you can stop, because you're already way too late to do anything about it.
On a related note, the comment, "the problem is, the FBI hasn't guaranteed that the NGI will only use photos of known criminals," is misleading. Part of the stated mission of NGI is to integrate all the government biometrics databases. The DOJ's IAFIS fingerprint database (that would be the FBI one), DHS's IDENT database (used by pretty much everything, including the US-VISIT program), the military's ABIS system (already accessible through IDENT queries), and others. So rather than "hasn't guaranteed..." the summary would be more accurate to say "has already explicitly rejected the notion that...".
The idea right now is not to pull in data from private sector sources, but instead to make all government data (which is considerable) accessible through a common portal. The effort is actually two-prong. One part is that they must establish a network between stores: look up IDENT, which is the newest and most powerful database. Another part is the development of a common, XML-based syntax to support data and queries, supporting and uniting the justice, intelligence, and military domains. (Putting all this information into a single, machine-parse-able form is rather difficult. It makes Microsoft's XML Office syntax look elegant by comparison).
This is by no means a secret. When my company went chasing a grant, the first decent, open-source news articles that we found relating to the project dated back to roughly five years ago. People just don't seem to pay much attention to what the government is doing, even when they're not making much effort to hide it. In fact, most of the requirements go back to the NSTC's (very public) 2006 National Biometrics Challenge, a sort of public call for industry and agencies to get off their ass and finally make this happen.
Re:FB et. al? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:25 · Score: 0

In a word, no. Each state maintains its own licenses and own requirements, an absurd number of people have outdated information on file, and there's really no way to compel states to give up such information (which would be necessary if such information can't be divulged under state law). For example, the information on a New York driver's license is a lot harder to get, by law, than the information on a Texas driver's license.
You may recall that the federal government was pushing for the RealID program, a few years back so all states would have essentially the same standards, same data, and same ability to disseminate information. The states largely rejected the idea, and it eventually died as they either fought it in court, or just dragged their feet complying.

public datasets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

During a 2010 presentationmade by the FBI’s Biometric Center of Intelligence, the FBI said the technology could be used for "identifying subjects in public databases."

Hello, Facebok!

pixelhead by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-07 09:10 · Score: 0

http://www.thelocal.de/lifestyle/20120823-44537.html

just read that today (a few minutes ago, in fact).

in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public (not sure the exact wording, but its essentially along those lines).

halloween is an exception but probably not even listed in the laws. technically, they COULD hassle you on oct-31 if they wanted to.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:pixelhead by twotacocombo · 2012-09-07 09:14 · Score: 1

Well then I guess I'll have to leave my helmet off for the ride home tonight. Wouldn't want to upset the police!
Re:pixelhead by h4rr4r · 2012-09-07 09:15 · Score: 1

Since when is it illegal to hide your face in the USA?
Please link to the relevant law. In the winter where I live people regularly wear ski masks.
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:20 · Score: 0

in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public
citation needed
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:34 · Score: 0

No it isn't.
No they can't
You are a troll or a moron.
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:41 · Score: 1

Boy, winter comes early to Detroit!
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:44 · Score: 0

lol. sorry speaking from personal experience being charge and plead no contest to. It is the truth.
Re:pixelhead by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-07 09:51 · Score: 2

I have not checked all states and it probably does vary by state. but this is what I was able to find:
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; (National Lawyers Guild NYC Chapter paper on the anti-mask law)
CA Penal Code Section 185.
It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification
in the commission of any public offense.
Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested
for, or convicted of, any public offense.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
that's 2 states, so far. but two biggies. ymmv. offer void where prohibited by law. order by midnight tonite!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:pixelhead by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-07 09:56 · Score: 1

sorry, this is a better link and it contains a short summary by state:
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
these states have 'issues', listed:
AL AK AZ AR CA COCT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
man, that's a LOT.
hope all that modded me down will reconsider your judgement..
and btw, I do NOT agree with this. don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:02 · Score: 1

Did you read it? Only the bolded states have info there: CA, DC, FL, GA, MA, MI, NC, NY, VA, WV
Re:pixelhead by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-07 10:19 · Score: 1

Did you read it? Only the bolded states have info there: CA, DC, FL, GA, MA, MI, NC, NY, VA, WV
Wish I had mod points to give you.
The list the GP provided is simply a list of all the states in the USA. As stated on that page, only a small number (the ones you listed) are known to have anti-mask statutes on the books.
Additionally, the New York law listed by the GGP is all about groups of masked individuals. You could certainly argue about whether or not that's still a bad law; but it's not applicable to a single individual who chooses to wear a mask.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:30 · Score: 1

go to a protest in nyc with a facemask on count the seconds until some cops slam your ass and drag you into a cruiser.
Re:pixelhead by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-07 10:49 · Score: 1

so, lets just agree that its:
"greater than zero in most cases and sometimes less than 100."
deal? those that said 'no way' were not correct, but its also not correct to say that all states have this restriction and its the same in every state.
ie, this is NOT a total non-issue in many states.
I think it should be changed, but good luck with that. once a power is taken by the state, it does not come back, easily.
I'm not sure what made me look this law up, several years ago, but I really was surprised to find my state having quite a few restrictions on 'going outside, masked'. I don't study law and so it really was surprising to find that some states object to you cloaking your ID while in public.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:pixelhead by Lakitu · 2012-09-07 10:50 · Score: 1

what?

NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; blah blah blah other exceptions

CA Penal Code Section 185.
It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense.
Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
I know legalese can be hard to read through, but the sentences are long because the latter parts of the sentences are fucking important. The NY sounds pretty dated and the CA law is actually what amounts to explicitly stating that wearing a mask or covering your face is perfectly lawful behavior.
I don't understand why anyone would try to spread the idea that it's not.
Re:pixelhead by dthx1138 · 2012-09-07 11:13 · Score: 2

The way the California code is worded seems to imply that simply wearing a mask is not a crime. It's only a violation if it can be proven that you were wearing a mask/disguise for the purpose of evading identification while 1) committing a public offense, or 2) if you have already been charged or convicted with an offense. In other words, they'd have to prove that you committed some other crime first.

If that's the case, the mask is simply a misdemeanor add-on to whatever your initial crime is, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

The NY one on the other hand sounds a bit scarier... masks are illegal unless you're having a costume party? If so, how did this become law?

--
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
Re:pixelhead by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-07 11:49 · Score: 1

i saw a hip hop show at a bar once. one of the acts was a duo who wore masks as part of their act. they waited outside and when it was time for their set, they rushed in through the crowd, jumped up on stage and started performing. someone parking their car across the street saw them run in, and called the cops describing two masked men rushing into a bar. when the cops showed up they asked the bouncer if he'd seen the two masked men. bouncer pointed at the stage and cop shook his head and left. better safe than sorry, i guess.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 14:18 · Score: 0

It might be illegal to hide your face in a demonstration, public gathering or a protest in some states (and countries). There is nothing more to it.
Re:pixelhead by jamstar7 · 2012-09-07 16:32 · Score: 1

They must be slipping again in Arizona.

As an aside, think they consider mirrorshades to be a 'disguise'? How about a suit & tie, since all anybody ever sees me in are polo shirts and jeans?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:pixelhead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 16:53 · Score: 0

http://www.thelocal.de/lifestyle/20120823-44537.html
just read that today (a few minutes ago, in fact).
in the US, its illegal to hide your face in public (not sure the exact wording, but its essentially along those lines).
halloween is an exception but probably not even listed in the laws. technically, they COULD hassle you on oct-31 if they wanted to.
If I want to walk around in any American city wearing a ski mask while carrying a loaded shotgun I may have a problem. No shotgun, no problem. If I am in the country and clearly hunting ducks or deer, wearing a ski mask and carrying a loaded shotgun, no problem. There are no laws about having your face hidden.

Trust us. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:10 · Score: 0

I mean, what could go wrong?

Privacy? by byteherder · 2012-09-07 09:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?

This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

Re:Privacy? by twotacocombo · 2012-09-07 09:16 · Score: 0

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:27 · Score: 1

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?

This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
And when the local police get their hands on it watch what happens. In many municipalities they already have an array of cameras on their cars to scan license plates. The next logical step are the face scanners. So when you're taking that walk to clear your head and decide to explore a little, don't be surprised when Jonny Law pulls up with a "Hey, Robert Scoble of 123 Maplewood Lane. It looks like you're a little far from home. Care to tell me about the burglaries that have been happening around here lately and why I shouldn't arrest you now?"
Yes, it will happen.
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:32 · Score: 0

What are you worried about? This isn't anything Google doesn't already have, except for maybe the lack of DNA.
Re:Privacy? by cbiltcliffe · 2012-09-07 10:05 · Score: 1

If you think the Stasi or the KGB had anything remotely close to this, you're incredibly naive. The kind of computing power necessary to exploit this kind of database hasn't existed until very recent history. While there may have been databases in Stasi offices, how long does it take to look through paper files for a photo, compared to computer processing? The Stasi would have cum in their pants for modern surveillance capabilities.
Now Facebook is a different story, but it's still my choice whether I join it or not, unlike this system.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Privacy? by byteherder · 2012-09-07 10:18 · Score: 1

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"? This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.
Except maybe for the Stasi.. KGB... Facebook...
I am sure the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestpo too, would have loved this but it just didn't exist at that time.
Re:Privacy? by byteherder · 2012-09-07 10:48 · Score: 1

Gestapo.....The grammar Nazis are going to get me for that one.
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 00:14 · Score: 0

That would be a spelling error, not a grammar error.
Re:Privacy? by qu33ksilver · 2012-09-09 17:38 · Score: 1

A small sacrifice for the greater good called "technology". Its a trade off that we need to take our chances on. Anyway, this is just what the FBI is telling us. Think of all the stuff that they might already be tracking on us. Consider unauthorised wiretaps, satellite tracking, cell phone triangulation to name a few.
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 17:00 · Score: 0

Have you been spying on me?
Bob Scoble

Missing cow ... barn door ... must close by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:11 · Score: 0

Silly! That was done, and quite thoroughly, years ago. The FBI just wanted to play with the same toys that NSA, MI6, et cetera have had for years.

Good for them by Bryansix · 2012-09-07 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

First off the widely reported story is that the NGI will use public surveillance video and photos. The part about including DNA records from private practices is unsubstantiated. Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.

Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:25 · Score: 1

And when a pole with multiple cameras shows up in front of every residence in America it's all good since the cameras are on public property, right? RIGHT?
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:29 · Score: 0

Yeah, that sounds real cute until the cameras are mounted to police cars and they scan every face in the surrounding area continuously. "Hi Mr. Jake Bailey of 432 Mockingbird Lane. I see you're a little far from home. Did you know this is a drug neighborhood? Oh, you didn't? I'm gonna need you to empty your pockets, citizen."
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:30 · Score: 1

and by extension, the Government.
No, I don't. The government is theoretically controlled by the people, and hopefully people realize it's probably a bad idea to allow the government to have eyes and ears everywhere, and frankly, people who think this is a good idea are gullible idiots who have learned nothing from history's long line of corrupt governments.
In short, if the people don't want these automated systems, the government probably wouldn't have them. If the people didn't want the government to spy on them and actually did something about it, the government probably wouldn't do it. The majority just need to stand up for their rights.

and good
Good? *sigh*
Just go. Take the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all of your other garbage with you.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:32 · Score: 0

Good luck. You can't see my house from public property.
Re:Good for them by Bryansix · 2012-09-07 09:35 · Score: 2

Ever heard of the fourth amendement? Obviously not.
Re:Good for them by ThatsMyNick · 2012-09-07 09:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, I would be concerned about how good these systems are, and if they are really worth the money. Unless they do 3D face recognition (which is very expensive), the accuracy is really bad (especially for a system of this scale).
Re:Good for them by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-07 09:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.

It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
It absolutely does lie in the source of the images you gloss over all the nuance by saying "legally obtained" - when in fact what matters most is WHY it was legally obtained. Being photographed for a driver's license is a far different thing than being photographed for a system that can be used to identify someone who isn't even in a car, much less driving.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:41 · Score: 0

You forget that most public observations are ephemeral, and that people violate several laws every day without knowing so. As it is, police can pull you over any time they wish and throw the book at you. If there were cameras recording nearly 100% of your daily life, records can be searched and throw an overwhelming barrage of charges on you.
I wonder if recent red-light court decisions such as California v. Khaled will be applicable in cases of public surveillance footage.
Re:Good for them by oakgrove · 2012-09-07 09:46 · Score: 1

Ever heard of the fourth amendement? Obviously not.
Ever heard of "reasonable suspicion"? I.e., where the cop says you appeared to be "staggering" and therefore he reasonably suspects that you're on drugs? Obviously not.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Good for them by bbelt16ag · 2012-09-07 09:47 · Score: 1

First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

--
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:47 · Score: 1

Incorrect. When a person goes out into the public, that person does not expect that everyone that crosses his path has a perfect photographic memory. A person that goes out in public, based on innate human limitations, expects that he will be largely anonymous.
The video camera and face recognition technology completely destroy that expectation.
It is time for the people to demand that *their* government halt such unexpected intrusions.
Re:Good for them by RobertLTux · 2012-09-07 09:48 · Score: 1

considering that the DC folks have been using the Constitution for toilet paper im sure that this could be used to ruin somebody in such a way that it can't be fixed.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Good for them by oakgrove · 2012-09-07 09:50 · Score: 2

You forget that most public observations are ephemeral, and that people violate several laws every day without knowing so.
Not only that but practically any crime these days can be ratched upward in seriousness. I saw a case recently where a guy was using his phone to commit the crimes but he was only calling people in his own state so it wasn't federal. Or so you would think. The phone records were pulled and come to find out one of the calls ended up bouncing off of a satellite and was therefore "out of state". The feds picked it up.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:04 · Score: 0

sadly there's already a pole with a camera on it that can see the only door out of my apartment. it's only local pd watching it but since my city has had some links to terror activity i wouldn't be surprised to hear some fed is watching over the shoulder of the local cops stuck on camera duty. sure, i'm not a terrorist but it is a little sketchy to think the cops can know whenever i am at home or not. hey maybe it will save my ass when i need an alibi for a false accusation they can pull up the archives from that camera and see when i left! i mean dna samples seem creepy but dna evidence has exonerated a lot of innocent people some on death row so let's try to remember having all this data can benefit the innocent too.
Re:Good for them by houghi · 2012-09-07 10:05 · Score: 1

If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched

Being watched is not identical to being recorded.
In better times, when a cop saw you, at an event, he would have forgotten you after a few seconds, unless you did something that would make him remember you. The same for everybody else. You would not remember him either.
Now nothing is forgotten and that is an invasion of my privacy. And yes, I do expect some privacy in public. Public space mean to me a space where a lot of people are together. It does not mean that everybody suddenly has to give up all and any of their rights.
How would you feel if you need to show papers to the police every 15 minutes? This is even worse, because they do not even ask you to show your papers. The paper asking is just a way of identifying you and where you are, where you were and where you are going.
1984 was an uplifting story compared to what is going on.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:11 · Score: 1

First off the widely reported story is that the NGI will use public surveillance video and photos. The part about including DNA records from private practices is unsubstantiated. Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
I suppose you never even remotely considered the psychological impact of an entire society paranoid to step outside their front door.
No, I guess you didn't, because apparently you don't have a problem with me installing a webcam on YOUR mailbox. I mean, after all, it's public property...I wonder how long before I can capture something I could use against you or your family...oh, I forgot you don't think like that either...(too bad the asshats controlling the cameras do.)
I suppose to justify ROI here, the FBI thinks that the majority of the population will be "criminals" in the near future (and likely will be, as the privatization of prisons continue, and of course all those new shiny cameras capturing every single law you break..and you break a LOT...we all do, without even knowing it)
Allow this kind of bullshit to continue, and the future will consist of The Elite (1%), and the incarcerated or enslaved. Two groups. That's it. And the choices you make now will determine which group you're allowed to be in. Might want to consider that as you continue to vote your liberties away.
Re:Good for them by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-07 10:21 · Score: 1

That's easily solved by a $1.50 can of spray paint. Just make sure to stay out of the camera's field of view when you decide to handle it.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Good for them by misexistentialist · 2012-09-07 10:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

People don't sit around in the registry and pay a hefty fee to give an updated photo for the spy system, they do it to drive. Using those photos is an abuse of the public trust. I'll print out your post and mail it to you when you are death row because a guy without a license who looks you went into a maternity ward and raped all the babies to death.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:45 · Score: 0

A baby doesn't consent to any fucking thing. The fact is that in the last 20 years, doing anything considered "public", is a much different proposition. The fact is NO one considered how today's technology would make agreed upon "public" information infringe on humans privacy. If we do not act to change the rules, there will not be privacy. Humans will be born into a type of hell that I would rather not even exist in. Stop over population, and work towards extending human rights, for it is the only way to save humanity.
Re:Good for them by steveaustin1971 · 2012-09-07 11:15 · Score: 1

First off the widely reported story is that the NGI will use public surveillance video and photos. The part about including DNA records from private practices is unsubstantiated. Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
Isn't it a bit wrong for the government to be collecting data on people who may not be part of any sort of investigation? I thought that violated the law in the US?
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 11:27 · Score: 0

yeah, well, they already thought of that... it's about 30 feet up a smooth metal pole with some kind of downward pointing spikes that look like a steel badminton shuttlecock half way up and the camera has 360 degree view.
Re:Good for them by JoeMerchant · 2012-09-07 12:37 · Score: 2

Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.
Exactly this, any corporeal person obtaining this much information about you "in public" 20 years ago would have been eligible for a restraining order against them.
Re:Good for them by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-07 12:58 · Score: 1

Paintball gun, then! Or fill a bunch of balloons with paint and take turns with your friends trying to hit the camera.
You might want to wear V for Vendetta masks in either of these cases.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Good for them by Dr+Max · 2012-09-07 13:17 · Score: 1

Time for, QuadCopter spray can!

--
Rocket Surgeon.
Re:Good for them by caballew · 2012-09-07 13:25 · Score: 1

Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government. It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.

You might not, but there are lots of us that do mind being tracked. There are lots of people in jail because the police add 2 + 2 and get 5.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
~Martin Niemöller
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 13:26 · Score: 1

Officer Johnson says "don't you think his eyes are a little read officer jackson".
Officer Jackson says "quick get him, you hold him down"
Suspect "but i haven't done anything"
Officer Jackson "stop resisting arresting, stop resisting arrest, stop resisting arrest".
Officer Johnson declares to the court "well we didn't find any drugs on his person, but he was resisting arresting"
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 17:53 · Score: 0

> If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched
No, I don't. I consent to being *seen*. People (other citizens) can watch me if they choose, but only because I happen to be momentarily sharing the same physical location. I do NOT consent, nor should any citizen, to being tracked, stalked, profiled, identified, etc. - especially by the government or an agent working for the government, and especially if not a suspect in an active criminal investigation. That's the law. It's called the 4th Amendment.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:03 · Score: 0

> In short, if the people don't want these automated systems, the government probably wouldn't have them.
The only way that's going to happen is if the people wake up and make this a priority. By that I mean, tell their representatives that unless they start dismantling this steaming pile of unconstitutional detritus, they will not be serving a subsequent term in office. And then vote accordingly.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 05:40 · Score: 0

No one cares about you anyway.

Business Opportunity by BMOC · 2012-09-07 09:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Selling T-Shirts saying, "I've got your false-positive right here..." with a picture of goat.se on the back...

--
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.

Re:Business Opportunity by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-09-07 09:26 · Score: 0

Thanks! That takes care of Grandma's birthday present for next week.
Re:Business Opportunity by RobertLTux · 2012-09-07 09:56 · Score: 1

Please if somebody actually does this please use UV inks to make the picture not normal color inks

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

They said I was paranoid... by arcite · 2012-09-07 09:14 · Score: 4, Funny

...walking around outside with a brown paper bag over my head. NOW who's paranoid? FOOLS!!!

False positives are to be handled how? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:15 · Score: 1

Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?

Hell and blood, the police often have trouble knocking down the right door when they have an address:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Ex-Miss-Nevada-Sues-LA-Sheriffs-Deputies-Over-Raid-164060136.html

How are they going to behave when this system wrongly identifies an innocent person?

Re:False positives are to be handled how? by Spy+Handler · 2012-09-07 09:22 · Score: 1

Well they're not sending out an armed robot drone to kill the person identified by the software. It's not an irreversible process.
I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them.
Re:False positives are to be handled how? by oakgrove · 2012-09-07 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?
Why would they want to do that? If they restored full citizenship to ex-cons and actually allowed them to lead productive lives as full-fledged members of society, drastically lowering the recidivism rate from desperate people that can't even get hired at McDonalds and see no choice but to go back to crime, then how are they going to keep all the prosecutors, judges, police, detention officers, wardens, etc. employed? I mean, for God's sake man, what about the stockholders for the private prison corporations? Who's thinking about them?

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:False positives are to be handled how? by currently_awake · 2012-09-07 10:03 · Score: 1

They probably do that in the middle east first to test it out. Then when the expected bi-kill rate is low enough they bring it here.
Re:False positives are to be handled how? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:08 · Score: 0

"I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them."
Hahahahahahahaha. You've obviously never been involved in the legal system machinery. I wish I shared your faith in the system.
Re:False positives are to be handled how? by wbr1 · 2012-09-07 13:18 · Score: 1

Amen.
Not to mention the fact that restoring rights allows a not insignificant bloc of disenfranchised individuals to vote again. Scary to some in power to be sure.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:16 · Score: 0

So how is this in relation to Tripwire?

Re:So... by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-07 13:57 · Score: 1

First, it's Trapwire. But that's a good question. I don't suppose they will offer a formal answer any time soon, so I will assume it's all connected -- and then some. You might also note that the DHS is quite involved with this NGI thing too. It''s an epic party for the voyeuristic elite and the citizenry aint invited -- a Closed Circuit (Sneak Preview) Authoritarian Freak Feature Presentation.

PS: Although you likely did not intend to refer to Tripwire -- a company involved in IT security -- in regard to the Strafor leaks, it is indeed Trapwire .

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

welcome to fascist america! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:21 · Score: 0

welcome to fascist america! Where everyone has an insecure/unauthenticated GPS tracking device shoved up their ass at birth. After all, its a small price for freedom right? If you arent doing anything wrong, then why would you care if we put this GPS up your ass? Dear gov't... I hate you... thanks.

Plastic Surgery by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:27 · Score: 0

I predict a boom in this particular field....

reminds me of the german census that ibm helped on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:28 · Score: 0

which was then soon used to determine who was jew and the rest is history

Don't smile for your driver's license photo by Culture20 · 2012-09-07 09:31 · Score: 1

They need a dour look for the facial recognition learning algorithms.

Re:Don't smile for your driver's license photo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:59 · Score: 0

Not true. At least not in CA. I'd heard that exact same thing but two years ago I renewed my license and I asked the person taking my DL picture if that was true. She laughed and said, "No, that's not true" so I'm a beaming fool on my current license!

There had to be a very good reason by doug141 · 2012-09-07 09:33 · Score: 1

the DMV ended the generation's old custom of allowing people to smile for their drivers license photo.

"...decimates civilian privacy and freedom" by Tinbuktu · 2012-09-07 09:34 · Score: 1

In the event that such a circumstance comes to pass (or for that matter, has already come to pass), how in the world will you know? The glint off of their shiny new terahertz scanners perhaps?

Registry Opt-out by Narnie · 2012-09-07 09:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm not particularly interested in this service. Where's the opt-out (do-not-fly) list signup?

--
greed@All_Evils:~#

In other news by darkonc · 2012-09-07 09:37 · Score: 1

Mark Zuckerberg's criminal record has quietly disappeared from the Criminal Record Database. No explanation was forthcoming.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.

Amateurs! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

We have had this in London for years.

Don' really see the big deal by jickerson · 2012-09-07 09:39 · Score: 0

Firstly, this post is in no way an attempt to troll. I've seen a lot of backlash for the CCTV images used in the UK, etc, but don't really get the argument behind this. I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp. I understand that people have civil rights, but how is being put into an indexed database really violating your rights? The FBI already has the right to bring anyone in for questioning, so why is it unreasonable to be able to bring someone in if their image pops in a search? If an agent saw a criminal act captured on camera, and then passed someone on the street who matched the visual description, i'd imagine they'd bring them in for questioning as well. We already have a database for convicted criminals. Why should a person's image not be included in the search if this is the first crime they have committed? And for the record, I support the right to bear arms, etc. I just think that if this is able to catch one person who is about to become a repeat offender, then i'd gladly waive my right to keep my photo private in exchange for that one victim being spared.

Re:Don' really see the big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:47 · Score: 0

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.
Then please allow the government to install surveillance devices in every room of your house. You should have no problem with it if you're not hiding anything.
The problem with people like you is that you believe government workers are perfect beings despite the countless malicious governments throughout history and the malicious actions of current governments. How gullible and naive can you be?

I understand that people have civil rights,
No, you don't. You don't understand it at all.

but how is being put into an indexed database really violating your rights?
Privacy. Ridiculous powers given to the government that are prone to be abused.

The FBI already has the right to bring anyone in for questioning
That's quite different than storing someone in a database indefinitely.

then i'd gladly waive my right to keep my photo private in exchange for that one victim being spared.
Safety is all you idiots care about. Have your TSA, your Patriot Act, your free speech zones, and all your other garbage if it means so much to you! However, get out of my country.
Re:Don' really see the big deal by interval1066 · 2012-09-07 09:55 · Score: 1

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.
Good, then you'll be easier to find. Put all the sheep in one camp and shave 'em all in one go. I think big Gov. will enjoy doing business with you.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Don' really see the big deal by currently_awake · 2012-09-07 10:06 · Score: 1

There is a difference from "exact match" and "best match". Getting arrested because you're the only guy with the same colour hair sucks.
Re:Don' really see the big deal by RabidReindeer · 2012-09-07 10:09 · Score: 2

I fall more in the, "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" camp.
And just what makes you thing that you are going to determine what's "wrong"?

Beware the state security apparatus .. by dgharmon · 2012-09-07 09:42 · Score: 2

"The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun rolling out its new $1 billion biometric Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. In essence, NGI is a nationwide database of mugshots, iris scans, DNA records, voice samples, and other biometrics that will help the FBI identify and catch criminals"

Actually, it's just a more efficient method for the police state to spy on its own citizens . Such methods the Stazi could only dream of. Without the threat of Islamic "terrorism" such methods would never have been acceptable by the population. A relevant question to ask is, who is going to protect us from you?

--
AccountKiller

Re:Beware the state security apparatus .. by VortexCortex · 2012-09-07 13:39 · Score: 1

A relevant question to ask is, who is going to protect us from you?
That's simple, Anyone willing to take a stand and do so (AKA Terrorists).

"decimates"? by mark-t · 2012-09-07 09:43 · Score: 1

Doesn't that word mean to "remove one-tenth of"?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:"decimates"? by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-09-07 09:58 · Score: 1

yes but the worst cases will be milionates!
Re:"decimates"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:10 · Score: 0

That's the etymology. That's not what it means now.
Re:"decimates"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 11:04 · Score: 0

Its original definition was to take or destroy a tenth of something. Now it just means to take or destroy a large percentage of something.
However, as it happens quite frequently, it was used incorrectly in this context. They are using the word "decimate" in place of the word "obliterate."
Re:"decimates"? by VortexCortex · 2012-09-07 13:52 · Score: 1

Doesn't that word mean to "remove one-tenth of"?
decimate - n. : a session lasting only a fraction of the duration a partner typically desires for intercourse.
"I'm glad it was good for you, but I could use about nine more of those decimates."

DMV Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:56 · Score: 0

Just wait until they start importing historical DMV photos into this database from all 50 states!

Re:DMV Photos by DanTheStone · 2012-09-07 10:12 · Score: 1

In my state you can opt-out of having your picture saved. The DMV worker tries to talk you out of it, but you can do it.
Re:DMV Photos by TuomasK · 2012-09-08 03:42 · Score: 1

How do you know they don't save the picture anyway?

--
The truth or interpretation..

Coincidence? by mcguirez · 2012-09-07 09:56 · Score: 1

Look, the FBI doesn't need to build a database when Facebook/Instagram is so pervasive.

So... this comes to light just after Facebook closes on a 1B purchase of Instagram.

Where's that government money going again?

--
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras

The real problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 09:57 · Score: 0

"... The problem is, the FBI hasn't guaranteed that the NGI will only use photos of known criminals. There may come a time when the NGI is filled with as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible — criminal or otherwise."

No, I'd say the real problem is that the general public actually believes this bullshit. As soon as this damn thing goes online, they already know where to get "as many photos as possible, from as many sources as possible, of as many people as possible"...rather fucking obvious for anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on Facebook.

I hate the mass ignorance our Government simply assumes exists over every citizen they wish to control...at least look us in the face when you lie to us.

Effing Police State by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-09-07 10:11 · Score: 0

And may the ghost of Benjamin Franklin sodomize anyone stupid or disengenuous enough to disagree.

"In order the save the village, we had to destroy it."

Re:Effing Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:30 · Score: 0

May the ghost of Benjamin Franklin sodomize anyone stupid enough to believe in Ghosts.

Apple device ID's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:14 · Score: 0

No wonder they needed those Apple device ID's.

Whoa whoa whoa by Altanar · 2012-09-07 10:15 · Score: 2

Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license...

Let me stop you right there. You can imagine all you want, but I can't ever see the states ever agreeing to a shared ID database. Look at how many states refused to take part in the REAL ID law. At least half the states have flat out refused to comply. Do you think that more than three or four would ever agree to spending state money on an FBI project?

Re:Whoa whoa whoa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 11:38 · Score: 0

> Let me stop you right there. You can imagine all you want, but I can't ever see the states ever agreeing to a shared ID database.
They will when they want access to it. Every law-enforcement agency will be clammouring to get on this, and they wont care about the privacy problems because that's an external cost not borne by them.
"Officials state that the so-called Barney-killer (because he preyed primarily on toddlers) could have been caught 6 months sooner if the state had participated in the federal NGI crime prevention program because the suspect was in the database for an earlier out-of-state conviction. Governor NotGettingReElected had declined to join the program earlier in his term, resulting in the tragic death of 4 additional children."
Re:Whoa whoa whoa by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-09-07 12:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, you can choose to not join the shared ID database. Of course, you won't get any money from the federal government for law enforcement if you don't join. But, hey, it's your choice.
Kind of like how all the States suddenly decided to raise the drinking age to 21 because it was a good idea. It had nothing to do with Losing 10% of their Federal Highway Funding.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 14:25 · Score: 0

That. The federal government can't legally regulate the drinking age. It actually says this in the amendment that repealed Prohibition, in a backwards sort of way. But they just had to cave into the neo-prohibitionists of MADD and they came up with this bullshit. Unfortunately since nobody ever stands up for the rights of young people, you didn't see the backlash that there was for the Real ID Act (a law that, like the Patriot Act, had it been in place on 9/11 wouldn't have stopped a damned thing)
NOW what we need is an amendment that says what the Supreme Court in its infinite cowardice and cop worship has not said and will not say: that if it is illegal for the government (read, cops) to do something, then any method of working around it is also illegal. No more "we didn't spy on you, got that info "voluntarily" from a private party, like your ISP spying on you, so it's ok". No more regulating drinking (prohibited to the Feds in the constitution for better or worse) by regulating highway funds, no more ignoring the 4th and 5th amendments.
You'll not hear this from liberals or conservatives. Even people who allegedly want to get the government "off your back" never seem to want to ACTUALLY get the police to stop harassing ordinary people in any real, meaningful way.

Sorry, FBI... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:39 · Score: 0

Facebook beat you to it.

Once again. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:39 · Score: 0

The nazis would be proud of what america has become.

And they also really wish they had some of this technology 50 years ago.

Their hardon would have been so big they never could have started ww2.

Re:Once again. by RevSpaminator · 2012-09-07 10:55 · Score: 1

Who do you think has inspired all government intelligence agencies ever since? "You mean people will put up with THAT?! All you have to do is dupe them into believing it is for their own safety?! Sweet!"

It's called Facebook... contact the CIA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 10:43 · Score: 0

It's called Facebook... contact the CIA

They should rename it to be cool by udachny · 2012-09-07 10:51 · Score: 1

As a sign of times, FBI should be renamed as iFB.

Come on, iFB, now on your iPad, iPod, iPhone and everything else.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS

Re:They should rename it to be cool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 19:01 · Score: 0

roman_mir, hiding behind another name like the coward he is
go bak 2 CCCP, roman. fucking communist trying to tell americans what democracy is, just like that bitch ayn rand

We can trust these guys, right? by RevSpaminator · 2012-09-07 10:51 · Score: 5, Funny

There are a lot of concerns being voiced, but come on folks... When has the FBI ever been used to track those with opposing political points of view?

Re:We can trust these guys, right? by Rob_Bryerton · 2012-09-07 13:47 · Score: 1

I know you're being funny, I know, but it might as well be the FBI's goddamn unofficial charter...
Re:We can trust these guys, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:07 · Score: 0

When has the FBI ever been used to track those with opposing political points of view?

"If you can't trust your government, who can you trust?". - Yahoo Serious

Tony Soprarno, Scarface, Politicians by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 11:15 · Score: 0

They better be rounding up Tony Soprano and Scarface and their gangs with this and not just blackmailing politicians visiting whore houses and/or bathroom gay flings in the case of evangelical republicans.

Head Tilts & Christmas Trees by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-07 11:47 · Score: 1

I'm not worried. I've stay informed via the FBI proxy broadcast services aka "anonymous*" and know that by tilting my head and carrying a fully illuminated Christmas-tree, I will stroll through the shadows unseen.

Nasrudin walked into a store one day, and the owner greeted him.
“Wait a second,” said Nasrudin. “Have you ever seen me before?”
“Never,” said the man.
“Then how do you know it was me?” replied Nasrudin.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

Do you feel lucky punk? by caballew · 2012-09-07 13:31 · Score: 1

I imagine false positives would be handled by human agents looking at the photograph, then looking at the person's face in real life, and perhaps talking to them.

If you're lucky, you won't spend more than the weekend in jail before they correct their mistake.

Safety vs Liberty by caballew · 2012-09-07 13:37 · Score: 2

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

You say FB but they have state ID's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 13:39 · Score: 0

Seriously, if you don't post your picture on facebook, the government has requested it one way or another. You have a passport, state ID, driver's license etc etc.... When you go to the airport, your face is scanned similarly like at the casino's. I'm pretty sure that posting pics on FB that aren't incriminating won't really benefit the feds all that much.

You mean room 641A? by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-07 14:01 · Score: 4, Informative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

FBIFUD by ElitistWhiner · 2012-09-07 14:49 · Score: 1

Really there's any credibility to the claim after the .gov can't upgrade an ATC system, scrapped an FBI integration system that simply didn't work and there's any claim the FBI can float state-of-the-art image recognition platform?

What? You Mean the 'Most Wanted" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 17:22 · Score: 0

Posters are a ... gag gag ... farce!

And what of the Trillions of US$ spent since the very beginnings of the FBI on 'Most Wanted' Posters.

And now ... a Billion US$ (2011 valuations) were spent on a ... a .... html version!

Oh dear.

One wonders whether the poor FBI will ever understand a technology other than a ... Smith&Wesson or a ... pencil. :(

It is a done deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 17:29 · Score: 0

Were so doomed.

Anyone wonder what it is really for? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 17:43 · Score: 0

It cant be to catch a few more criminals we already have more prisoners than anyone in the world.
It is not enough?
Cant be a billion dollars.
You know combine this with the new software that casn find a person in a football stadium in 1/10,000 of a second and a cop can drive with a camera pointed out the car and find anyone he looking for as he drives.

Software can ask why are you running under the radar you are hiding?

It is going to make protest impossible soon conform or be arrested.
And you see how retarded voters are will believe anything on TV. what happens when someone is elected not so caring how it is used.
But then it is already to late.

Disturbing parallels. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:06 · Score: 0

We look back at the 1930's, in Germany, and wonder why so many Jews didn't see the writing on the wall, or read the writing in Mein Kampf, and get the Hell out... as our government gets the noose tighter and tighter 'round all our necks, one has to wonder, should we be thinking about packing OUR bags and leaving, before the gates are down, and doors metaphorically barred?

I've been saying this since September 11th, 2001: There is nothing even a tenth so fearsome and scary on this earth, as the United States government, unfettered and freed from the shackles, the limitations imposed on it by our civil rights. Those rights are being stripped away bit by bit, and sometimes in giant flaming chunks (the NDA and USA Patriot Act). It's probably too late to stop it, the big question is, is there still time to get out, and if so, where do you go in a world where the US can reach in and snatch you up or kill you wherever you are, and no one says or does a thing about it?

Oh Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 18:06 · Score: 0

"The FBI's NGI, if the right checks and balances aren't in place, could very easily become a tool that decimates civilian privacy and freedom."

How? Having your data that's already in one computer added to another computer doesn't restrict either of those. Having the FBI search include your face when they're looking for a criminal only effects you if you're a criminal, unless this also magically removes the presumption of innocence.

FBI are criminals. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-07 23:37 · Score: 0

We should really consider this now! They are implementing this in our crippled economy? When we dire to fund schools and highways?

WTF??? The FBI are notorious for immoral, criminality, even more so than the CIA. The FBI should have been shut down 50 years ago. It has aided in illegal detainment, imprisonment, and blacklist of U.S. citizens for exercising their fundamental, constitutional, human rights!

After this, what next? Yes, cameras. They will pass legislation before implementing.

Where are my fellow countrymen; why do we not have voice? Let us have voice!

"Black List" by Brad Thor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 05:16 · Score: 0

He is right on the money in predicting this system. Our liberty is slipping away.

Hallelujah by el_jake · 2012-09-08 09:26 · Score: 1

Hallelujah Mr Orwell. Except for the date you were spot on. Sad but true .

--
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.

decimates? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 09:39 · Score: 0

... decimates civilian privacy and freedom

So only one in ten will be affected?

one word by KingBenny · 2012-09-10 00:56 · Score: 1

baseball cap (that's two sorry)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

taxes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 09:21 · Score: 0

So basically we are paying the government to turn us all into criminals, brillant

Slashdot Mirror

FBI Launches $1 Billion Nationwide Face Recognition System

188 comments