FBI Launches $1 Billion Nationwide Face Recognition System

MrSeb writes "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 — but it is how this biometric data is captured, through a nationwide network of cameras and photo databases, that is raising the eyebrows of privacy advocates. Until now, the FBI relied on IAFIS, a national fingerprint database that has long been due an overhaul. Over the last few months, the FBI has been pilot testing a face recognition system, which will soon be scaled up (PDF) until it's nationwide. In theory, this should result in much faster positive identifications of criminals and fewer unsolved cases. 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. Imagine if the NGI had full access to every driving license and passport photo in the country — and DNA records kept by doctors, and iris scans kept by businesses. 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."

Comments

One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason to not post stuff on Facebook.

Re:One more reason

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Hazel Bergeron]

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.

Good for them

[Bryansix]

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

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Good for them

[misexistentialist]

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:Anyone will do...

[Hatta]

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.

Re:False positives are to be handled how?

[oakgrove]

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?

Amateurs!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have had this in London for years.

Re:Anyone will do...

[R3d M3rcury]

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:Whoa whoa whoa

[R3d M3rcury]

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.