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

Thought criminal

[puddingebola]

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

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

[0111 1110]

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.

Anyone will do...

[mspohr]

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").

Re:Anyone will do...

[oakgrove]

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.

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: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.

Privacy?

[byteherder]

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.

Business Opportunity

[BMOC]

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

They said I was paranoid...

[arcite]

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

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?

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.

We can trust these guys, right?

[RevSpaminator]

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?

You mean room 641A?

[Penurious Penguin]

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