Slashdot Mirror
State Photo-ID Databases Mined By Police
Rick Zeman writes "Showing once again that once a privacy door is opened every law enforcement agency will run through it, The Washington Post details how state drivers license photo databases are being mined by various LEOs in their states--and out. From the article: '[L]aw enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities. Such open access has caused a backlash in some of the few states where there has been a public debate. As the databases grow larger and increasingly connected across jurisdictional boundaries, critics warn that authorities are developing what amounts to a national identification system — based on the distinct geography of each human face.'"
every time someone gives a description of a getaway car, the cops look it up in the state DMV database. my car's data is in there. my privacy is violated daily because my car might be coming up in searches
My license renewal is coming up. Time to grow a beard and dye my hair.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
These guys are really trying hard to make sure 1984 and Brave New World actually come true.
Once they have it, they'll misuse it, and tell you it's for your own good.
Freedom has gone out of fashion, and now we're stuck with the surveillance society.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
and write them telling them you're doing so and why.
it's the only real illusion of power us 'Merkins are given.
Though I do not agree with law enforcement being able to access everyone's information for identification purposes, I do think that this is not very different from being pulled in for a line up other than the fact that with a line up, you are at least aware of what's happening.
the Government watches you.
This does not stop facial recognition but it does make it work less accurately. Major changes in beard style or glasses will not help a facial recognition systems accuracy.
Your papers please.
Its not a matter of accused / not accused, civil / criminal - NJ requires photo ID and DL to allow police to quickly identify fraudulent documentation: online photos should match the pic on the license.
Also used when trying to locate someone - criminal, lost, whatever: picture is handy to start ID process.
Wasn't photo ID required for stated to get federal highway money somewhere along the line? "Uniform" ID act or whatever?
Information given to the government for purposes of identification used for identification by government.
Illegal Aliens can't get a drivers license... so they are safe from these photo searches...
Ignoring the legal ramifications of this (for now)...
Facial Recognition is neat, I'll give it that. BUT it's not as accurate as people think. Against a small sample set (hundreds) OR with very solid source pics (both A and B) it's decent. But between poor surveillance images and the "margin of error" settings on the software you can end up with lots of false positives.
Add that to the huge DMV databases across the country, you're going to get a LOT of false positives. Sometimes too much data is worse than too little. Imagine showing all 30 matches of VERY VERY similar people to a witness who's already nervous enough. I know the cops already show them handfuls of similar pics: but the "similar" pics might be "chubby white-skinned guy" and not "chubby white-skinned guys that looks REALLY REALLY REALLY similar"
All of this noise is going to cause a headache. Even just adjoining states, you're going to have close enough hits. So what, you're going to have to investigate them? If you're basing off a picture you can't just say "Well he's 30miles away so let's consider him but NOT that guy who's 40miles away"
Sure you might say "Well we'll factor criminal background into this." But if you're basing on a criminal record, then well, why not just use the mug shots?
Privacy? No, privacy is only for the government.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This does not stop facial recognition but it does make it work less accurately. Major changes in beard style or glasses will not help a facial recognition systems accuracy.
Yes, they will. As weaknesses in facial recognition systems get discovered, they will get patched. Soon it won't matter if you grow or shave your facial hair, whether you dye or bleach your skin, or whatever.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The state of the art in Facial Recognition software has a long way to go.
At best it can be used to give the police a list of people to look at, and certainly not a list of people to arrest.
There is a lot of false positives. I've tried several off the shelf packages, as well as the FR built into Google's Picasa. (surprisingly good).
Most of these have significant problems of false positives. My sisters look nothing alike, yet two of the commercial products and
Picasa always confuse them, presumably based on facial measurement.
A great deal of the false positives would be weeded out by the police just looking at the pictures, People are so much better at this than
machines.
The only abuse of this I can see is if you are summoned to appear or hauled in kicking and screaming based ONLY on some
automated FR software match. But FR will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
So I feel confident that such pictorial drag-netting wouldn't be allowed by the courts. *Cough*. Sure I do.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That is why you can't wear glasses when you have your photo taken...
I thought this was pretty much common knowledge...
It use to be that if you needed glasses, they wanted you to wear your glasses for the photo so you looked how you looked normally...
Ever since they went RealID (IE National Digital ID System) you are not allowed to wear glasses... that is for the facial recognition database..
Seriously, I have to ask how anyone is surprised at all by this. I pretty much wrote it off as an expectation that LEOs would be doing this routinely. And why wouldn't they?
I told you last time: tattoos are permanent. [t=6s]
Sorry Roger, you tiger now. [t=16s, same commercial]
This is another case of tech and computers automating and making something that was acceptable unacceptable.
Having a cop follow your car around without a warrant? Acceptable. Having a cop put a GPS tracker on your car without a warrant? Unacceptable.
Having someone sit on a street corner and write down every license plate number that goes by, acceptable. Putting a camera there and doing it automatically? Unacceptable (to me but sadly I just have to deal with it)
Pulling the DL info of every 6'2" male with red hair in YourTown and manually comparing to a photo? Acceptable. Comparing that same photo automatically against a database of everyone in the USA, unacceptable.
Many other examples. It comes down to things that were manpower limited before so they were very hard to abuse suddenly becoming trivial.
Well, guys. You voted your politicians into office yourselves ;)
It's rather important to understand why this is in fact abuse, and not acceptable law enforcement behaviour.
I say the pictures were ment to provide easy verification that the driver's licence you're holding is in fact yours. Matching against databases was not in the original charter, so to speak, and in fact storing the pictures at all beyond display on the licence itself isn't either. It is this stretching of use beyond the original what is so deceitful and ultimately damaging to society.
This quite regardless of who does it (our watchers, for our own good, of course), with what intentions (the very best, for our own good, of course), the direct results (LE is happy with their new toy, for a while), and so on.
We probably ought to embrace the principle that data can only ever be used for the purpose it was gathered for, and nothing else. This seems, perhaps is rather draconian, but is the only way to be clear and honest about it, making it a better option than any of the alternatives.
And, really, at this rate they'd just make it illegal for you to significantly alter your appearance without registering with the authorities.
Once the State decides it's they're right to watch everything you do, attempting to dodge that must clearly be a sign of bad intent. Clearly an honest person wouldn't be doing this.
Oddly enough, if we tried to pass a law that says everything an officer of the law does is to be recorded and made public, they'd be up in arms about their privacy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I noted from the article, that there was a single company collecting this information, and besides the LE, I wondered who else is buying/getting the information. I remember a few years ago in my state, we were notified that we had to 'opt-out' or our driver's license info would be sold to mailing lists and I still have to 'opt-out' every time I renew my license. google: 'drivers license opt out mailing lists' for some interesting info.
I could see companies buying this info, and using the security cameras, tracking where you go & what you buy. Look at it as an expansion of the 'buyers loyalty cards' programs that currently exist.
At one time, I considered 'Enemy of the State' to be paranoia, but now I'm seeing it as prophetic.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis
The IRS targeting tea party organizations for scrutiny proves that abuse happens today and will continue to happen as long as law enforcement has access to private personal information. Think how many times in your life someone has been exonerated after spending years in jail for crimes they didn't commit. It is an outright lie for anyone to say personal private information will not be abused. It is being abused now and that will continue. No matter what the President says, your information is not safe or secure and you can easily become a completely innocent target.
Now this is what I have to consider if I want to apply for a driver's license? Choosing between the privilege of travelling and being a false positive in some FBI chase?
I have a kinda wacky uncle in Berkeley, CA, and that's what he says. I'm starting to see his point.
The ironic thing is that he's a self made millionaire.
I know it's not reliable. You know it's not reliable. We know it's not reliable. Whether or not the police know it's unreliable -- or can at a minimum be convinced of that in court after they've dragged me away to prison because I sort of look like someone else -- is a different matter entirely.
...always wear my Richard Nixon mask when I drive around.
Oh, & always comment as Anonymous Coward...
You get pulled in for lineups because they have a reason to suspect you: You've been in similar situations or you were close to the scene and of suitable description.
That's not why your picture is on your driver's licence. That is to easily match you to your licence so you get awarded the privilege of driving, which you might lose for abusing the privilege. The mere fact that the data exists isn't enough; there's a reason it was gathered and that reason needs to be honoured. Or you get situations like this one, where that privilege of driving becomes a convenient equivalent of a mugshot. Everyone's a potential criminal, baby.
It is a betrayal of the public's trust that the state won't abuse the data it demands--ostensibly to be able to do its job, but apparently it's idle enough that it keeps up cooking this sort of malarky. In that sense, having a state- or nationwide database of driver's licence pictures is already going too far. And lo and behold, it does indeed get abused simply because it's there. It's LE running loose unchecked. Back in the day we restricted them for very clear reasons. And now?
Amazing how people seem to think that any of this is new and the outrage this is causing.
This, and other technology being recently being "outed" has been around since the early-mid 2000's. How do I know? I wrote a lot of it while working for a provider of software for public safety and law enforcement. It isn't secret - you can go to their website and read the features the software provides. Or, you can read any of the LE magazines out there to learn what the various public safety software providers are, in fact, providing to police departments across the country.
Facial recognition was still in its early evolution when we looked at it back in, I believe, 2005-2007. When I left in 2009, we still had not integrated facial recognition into our desktop software (and, we we a leading provider) - let alone mobile software - it just wasn't ready. Other vendors did provide OCR to work with cameras that could read a license plate into software that would then look up the license plate in NCIC and the local DMV. Some states allowed more judicious use when querying the DMV. But, access to NCIC and the criminal justice information systems required probable cause to conduct a search. Each query was logged and, if questioned, the person making the request better have had a valid reason to have conducted the search. A case in point - it is well known that Phila. Traffic and Parking Authority uses OCR scanning to looking up scofflaws by scanning the plates of parked vehicles. Are they hitting the DMV or just a parking violation database managed by the city? That, I am not sure.
However, whenever someone is/was arrested and booked, their images, prints, tattoo information, etc, was placed into our database - instantly searchable by keyword for the generation of a line up. Most photos weren't suitable for facial recognition back then. Traffic analysis is not new either. Our case management system would allow associations to be derived based on information reported in an incident report or booking report. By following the trail, other potential suspects could be quickly discovered. I can see how this capability could be used with phone call meta-data. Was it done? Maybe. But, if it did, it required a warrant.
As for facial recognition - it's possible that today's software is ready to process DMV photos. Some states were requiring that images pass certain checks (via software) before being allowed to be submitted into the system But, I am not sure they can, legally, request those images for retention on their local systems. If it's legal now (at least in PA), I would be highly surprised.
Perhaps, someone currently working in the field, could clarify the current state regarding access to NCIC, DMV and similar systems?
Off coarse the government is using your Real ID (tm) photo for facial recognition. Why the fuck would't they? Really does this surprise any fucking one. I mean seriously were you suddenly time warped to the present from 1940? The new world Order is all about total control and tracking of the individual from the cradle to the grave. Sure there are still places in the world where you can eeek out your life without being given a number, but those places are systematically being bombed (Bad Terrorists).
Seriously who the fuck is surprised by this????????
If you are willing to get a DL, and get a social security card, you are surely willing to give up your guns and your life when the government calls for it. I mean isn't freedom all about obeying the orders of the government? They know best after all.
My DL photo is now 12 years old. They did not requested a new one my last renewal and since they last 8 years my photo will be 16 years old when my next one comes up. I had ZERO grey hair back then...
States such the People's Republic of Massachusetts wants to put transponders in every car, ostensibly so they can tax you on the actual miles driven in the state, as if this was not bad enough, but you just know that it will be used against political enemies. There are microphones in most cities already...
Anyone here with a scuba, or pilots license? Does it have your address on it???
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
They wouldn't need that unreliable facial recognition software if the state legislatures required a 2D bar code be tattooed on everyone's face at birth.
Imagine how much effort that would save.
Maybe they should start catching criminals instead of playing Minecraft!!!
Relevant...
https://www.nlets.org/mission-vision
Then read this...
http://psc.apcointl.org/2010/08/26/nlets-prism-transactions/
And is anyone surprised by this? I don't think so. It was the US that insisted on all passports having biometric information for face recognition already on everyones passport.
Passport. You know? that thing you need to travel into countries other than Canada. Yes there ARE other countries somewhere out there. But I guess as most US citizens won't need one, that's the reason why they're mining driver's licencse photo databases.
Do those photos also be ready for biometric recognition as the ones in the passports?
bickerdyke
Sounds like a great start for national biometric ID card system! You can have your social security cards and electronic certificates integrated as well. You only have to pay $120 every five years to renew the card.
I don't understand the problem. So they run a picture through their software, for example from a CCTV camera. It brings up your face as a false positive. Now before the police come and arrest you (and any one else who was flagged, despite only one of them committing the crime) Someone will look at the pictures and say: 'Oh that's not the same guy. Lets look again.'
And if you did commit the crime, then good. It flagged you and you're going to be punished accordingly.
I think I'm going to advise all of my children to pursue careers in law enforcement. Everyday it seems that we are creating two classes of citizens: the watchers and the watched. I suppose if you have enough money or influence you don't need to be in law enforcement to be a watcher (you can just employ them) but lacking the requisite money and influence, it's probably better that they be watchers. Plus when was the last time a law enforcement officer was brought to justice for committing a serious crime? I know in my jurisdiction, there are whole sections of state legal code to protect them from ever facing any consequences, professionally or personally.
I don't understand the problem. So they run a picture through their software, for example from a CCTV camera. It brings up your face as a false positive. Now before the police come and arrest you (and any one else who was flagged, despite only one of them committing the crime) Someone will look at the pictures and say: 'Oh that's not the same guy. Lets look again.'
And if you did commit the crime, then good. It flagged you and you're going to be punished accordingly. So what is the problem?
I had to look this up. Apparently many STD treatments of old caused baldness in the expected places. A merkin is a wig well to do females used to cover up that embarrassing predicament. Quite out of place in today's culture and understandable that the word has been nearly lost to history.
Seattle, Washington and Washington, District of Columbia were the two cities with live tests of Trapwire.
Trapwire of course relies on facial recognition and other recognition. Seattle, Washington is in the same State of Washington that is mentioned in the posting title as being data-mined for faces from drivers' licenses and IDs.
It never goes back in. No wonder the young people are giving up driving.
Illegal Aliens can't get a drivers license... so they are safe from these photo searches...
Except no. Google "illegal immigrant driver's license" and see that 8 states already allow it and CA already has a bill filed.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Is what will they decide is a crime in the future and use this on you. Perhaps internet comments. It is looking like technology may well be what doomed us.
Why not require a warrant to search the databases? I'm skeptical that this tool is going to be all that useful, but of course LE will always trot out success stories, like in the article. Maybe they'll solve an extra 10 crimes per year, out of how many? It's probably insignificant, but people will still call for its use because it solved one murder last year. So fine, allow the databases to searched if a judge issues a warrant. If they're going to use this on something serious like a major felony, then getting a warrant should be no big deal. At least it would stop the sort of harassment described in the article where a LEO, using his infinitely wise discretion, decides that someone "looks suspicious", and "asks" to take his picture.
The LEOs better be including their photo IDs as well in this database.
More people need to join the "terrorists" for this crap to end. A few deaths is the price of freedom.
All Your Face Are Belong to Us.
Sorry, It had to be said.
oh, nevermind.
Or they let it happen so they could justify obtaining even more power to instititutionalize their reign.
You can't win an argument with a masochist with that statement, unless you're into role playing yourself. Then everybody wins.
I might be naive here, but when I first got a drivers license and they took the photo with a digital camera, I had figured it was part of the records that police could easily search through. I hadn't thought there was a right to privacy in such things. Not a great thing but part of "the system". I really wonder where the novelty in this article is.
I honestly think that the notion of being obligated to cooperate with testing for alcohol intoxication is more of an "unreasonable search and seizure" and "self-incrimination" constitutional problem. Requiring someone to waive their constitutional protections as a requirement for a not-optional thing such as a driver's license is to me far more problematic (and IMHO should be found a prima facie violation of the US constitution).
Speaking of that, requiring a driver's license to begin with has its own constitutional issues. Why should I require permission from the government just to get around? That doesn't make any sense. Who says they make a better judgement call than me?