Fugitive Child Sex Abuser Caught By Face-Recognition Technology

mrspoonsi sends this BBC report: "A U.S. juggler facing child sex abuse charges, who jumped bail 14 years ago, has been arrested in Nepal after the use of facial-recognition technology. Street performer Neil Stammer traveled to Nepal eight years ago using a fake passport under the name Kevin Hodges. New facial-recognition software matched his passport picture with a wanted poster the FBI released in January. Mr Stammer, who had owned a magic shop in New Mexico, has now been returned to the U.S. state to face trial. The Diplomatic Security Service, which protects U.S. embassies and checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports, had been using FBI wanted posters to test the facial-recognition software, designed to uncover passport fraud. The FBI has been developing its own facial-recognition database as part of the bureau's Next Generation Identification program."

Comments

It's tinfoil time!

[mythosaz]

There's been a lot of 1984-esque technology stories of late, each of which has been tied to catching a child predator.

The tinfoil crowd sees this as how "the man" intends to deliver all of these intrusions to us -- by showing how they stop kid touchers.

Me? Meh. Neat that we're cross-referencing FBI wanted posters against passports. Seems a good use of the technology -- better than tagging people on Facebook automatically, I guess.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Kenja]

I would think such systems would automatically flag people in tinfoil protector beanies for closer scrutiny...

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[93 Escort Wagon]

What we really need - but will never have - is some sort of independent civilian oversight group designed to make sure these sorts of programs operate within some specific narrow parameters - with effective enforcement power.

Looking for passport fraud? Go ahead and look through all the passport pictures... as long as you immediately discard every single one that doesn't match.

Looking for a stolen car? Go ahead and use that vehicle-mounted license plate scanner... But you can't store any of the non-matching plates for even a second.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Anonymous Coward]

The tinfoil crowd sees this as how "the man" intends to deliver all of these intrusions to us -- by showing how they stop kid touchers.

That's pretty much what it is.

Neat that we're cross-referencing FBI wanted posters against passports.

Yeah, it's neat how we're at a point where "Papers, please" has come to a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Apologists like you just make things worse. All this surveillance should disgust anyone who cares about freedom.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[redeIm]

Looking for a stolen car?

Look for it yourself.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[mythosaz]

Cross-checking the FBI wanted list against passport photos (or driver's license photos for that matter) doesn't disgust me.

To each their own.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Anonymous Coward]

In this day and age, you almost have to have a driver's license. How is it fair that they make you get one, and then they use privacy-violating facial recognition software on it? They shouldn't be allowed to use this information as they please. They should need a specific warrant to even look at it, and I don't think all these government organizations should be sharing information. Freedom and privacy are simply more important than safety.

doesn't disgust me.

Because you're anti-freedom. Enjoy the fruits of your labor, the very same fruits that have grown time and time again throughout history.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Ralph Wiggam]

What we really need - but will never have - is some sort of independent civilian oversight group designed to make sure these sorts of programs operate within some specific narrow parameters

That's what the Judicial Branch is supposed to do. We don't need an entirely new structure. We just need better execution from them.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Jane Q. Public]

In this day and age, you almost have to have a driver's license. How is it fair that they make you get one, and then they use privacy-violating facial recognition software on it? They shouldn't be allowed to use this information as they please. They should need a specific warrant to even look at it, and I don't think all these government organizations should be sharing information. Freedom and privacy are simply more important than safety.

doesn't disgust me.

Because you're anti-freedom. Enjoy the fruits of your labor, the very same fruits that have grown time and time again throughout history.

Too bad it's an AC comment. I agree 100%.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[KhabaLox]

Look for it yourself.

By this, I assume you mean have a human police officer use biological eyes to scan streets and parking lots for a stolen car or it's license plate number. This is a very expensive and inefficient way to solve the problem.

There are a lot of problems that are best solved by government entities. Like any business, the government should strive to solve these problems as efficiently as possible. The issue is that a lot of the process or technological improvements that we can put in place (like license plate scanners) reduce price so dramatically that the net can be cast much wider. Instead of looking just for cars that are involved in a kidnapping, we can look for cars that are involved in any crime. With this increased productivity comes the real risk of overreach on the part of government.

Your proposed solution seems to be to not allow government to have access to these cost saving improvements. That's impractical, as well as a bad decision from a financial perspective. Rather, we should, as GPP points out, have rigid oversight mechanisms, checks and balances if you will, to insure that government doesn't overstep it's bounds.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

I know of several people who were dismissed as tinfoil hatters prior to the Snowden revelations.

just saying.

Facial recognition programs on 300 and umpteen million folks(Your Metrics May Vary), to rightfully monitor 10,000 with legitimate probable cause? I'd rather be free than that safe.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[redeIm]

This is a very expensive and inefficient way to solve the problem.

Yes. That is the point. All of this automated surveillance has gotten out of control, and allows the government to oppress people more efficiently than ever before. That is not a good thing; sometimes the government should not be inexpensive or effective.

The oversight never does any good, will be subverted eventually, and doesn't solve the fundamental problem: The data on innocents should not be collected to begin with.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[mythosaz]

With changes to the Canada and Mexico borders, it's getting a little harder...

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[mythosaz]

Police, I suppose should wander the streets with blindfolds on, only removing them if they get within 20 yards of an out-of-bounds ankle bracelet or a ringing alarm. :/

If you add "automation' to existing processes, freedom isn't necessarily lost.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[crioca]

I think using this technology in this context is a net negative as it's eventually going to be used against activists, whistle blowers and other individuals that are insufficiently patriotic, not to mention the potential for abuse and hacking.

Does that make me a tinfoil hat wearer?

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

Your point is not without merit. Law enforcement is a sometimes thankless, dirty, ugly job that pays far too little for a vocation in which other folks shoot at you.

OTOH, I assure you the people enforcing the laws already have many, many electronic surveillance tools already at their disposal.

Do those with access to sensitive information routinely abuse that privilege? I would say the evidence is pointing in that direction.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[sonamchauhan]

Correct - lets hamstring the police. Information technology, image recognition, automation, are only permissible for use by mobsters, etc.

*Private* data should not be accessible without a warrant. Image recognition on data already presented to the government (a passport photo in this case) is perfectly permissible.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

I know of several people who were dismissed as tinfoil hatters prior to the Snowden revelations.

I strongly suspect that those people can still be safely dismissed as tinfoil hat wearers. When you spit out a hundred different conspiracy theories every day, one of them is bound to be right eventually. That's the magic of probability and large numbers.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

All of this automated surveillance has gotten out of control, and allows the government to oppress people more efficiently than ever before.

Kinda funny, then, that bankrupt regimes with 1980s era electronics are orders of magnitude better at this "oppression" thing than our own high-tech governments.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[akgooseman]

Our government doesn't yet have enough political power to safely brutalize its general population (though it's doing an increasingly good job on minorities), but it can control most of us never-the-less. Their current interest is in ensuring we don't upset the current balance of power. Thorough surveillance is critical to knowing who, when and in which direction to nudge or blast opposition leaders to the sidelines. Subtle manipulation of current and potential opposition leadership is likely far more successful to entrenched interests' goals than more direct, physical options.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[akgooseman]

Most of us don't have a problem with checking the wanted list against passport photos. The problem is they won't stop there. TFS says this was a test of the system. Obviously, there are bigger plans.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[akgooseman]

The "Hearts and Minds" people are out in force today.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[ArmoredDragon]

Most of the ones who were dismissed as such probably still are. Usually those types of people listen to Alex Jones. And you know what? They're still equally nutty and in some cases downright silly. Examples of such silliness: They believe IPv6 is a Cisco plot in tandem with the Illuminati and/or the NWO to take over the world. Yeah you read that right; and you can't make this shit up:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/...

Here's an actual quote from the website:

As I said in an earlier post, I like how hardcore and bold the NWO is. A teeny fraction of the world's internet users use IPv6, and Cisco and the other globalist cyber false-flagger corporations believe all of the world's sheeple will just ease into the new global cattle pen with no resistance.

IPv6 must be resisted.

I like how these guys use a bunch of tiny truths to point to one big "TRUTH!" that is really a horribly retarded conclusion. Any IP engineer will easily point out however why their little "TRUFES!" don't point to what they think it does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[davester666]

not mentioned in the story...how did he get a fraudulent US passport that fooled US officials for so long. It is literally their job to detect fraudulent passports.

"Diplomatic Security Service, which protects U.S. embassies and checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports"

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they should walk around the streets and be helpful. Currently most police officers treats people like they are potential criminals, that is not what they are there for.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[wiredog]

Or Congress, which has oversight authority.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[AmiMoJo]

There are a limited number of police officers, and they are human beings so at least in theory can't easily be ordered to break the law or do unethical things. An automated face recognition system can be cheaply deployed almost everywhere, and can be used for nefarious purposes simply by adding the faces of a few people the authorities don't like to the list of suspects. "Sorry, false positive" is going to become a new way to harass innocent people that those with authority don't like.

The system will also be abused for data collection, if it isn't already. Used to be that they only had a record of people actually going through the border checkpoints, but now they can just sprinkle cameras around the general area and see who accompanied them. Cops can't identify everyone they see, but a computer can. Even if it doesn't have a name, it can create a record and spot when the same person visits another place with facial recognition. The NSA already scans the internet for public photos to build a database of known faces.

Privacy and freedom are most definitely lost.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[redeIm]

No, it isn't. Just because some part of the government has access to some data on someone does not mean that data should be shared freely and used for any purpose. Using it against everyone to make sure they aren't criminals is unacceptable.

Information technology, image recognition, automation, are only permissible for use by mobsters, etc.

Only uses of technology open to abuse or mass surveillance should be disallowed. Red light cameras, mass government public surveillance, NSA-style surveillance, facial recognition technology on drivers licenses or passports, etc. should all be forbidden.

Re: It's tinfoil time!

[redeIm]

says who?

I think he's talking about the principles to which 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is supposed to aspire. You know, how the government's power is severely limited by the US constitution, and how the government only has the powers given to it by said constitution? Or do you think violating the constitution is not a big deal either?

What are the tangible benefits "freedom" and "privacy" give the community?

Why don't you ask the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were abused and/or outright murdered by corrupt governments? Freedom and privacy are checks on the government's powers. Oh, and then there's the free market that allows you to live in such a prosperous society to begin with, the very society you're trying to undermine. Your problem is that you assume the people in the government are perfect angels who could never make mistakes or abuse their powers; anyone with even minuscule knowledge of history could trivially prove that wrong. And what's even more hypocritical is that you want safety. Safety from what? People who can't be trusted, apparently. Criminals. Terrorists. Why do you think that the people in the government can't be any of those?

If you really believed the nonsense that you wrote, you'd be in favor of suspending all restrictions upon the government. If that is the case, then just move to North Korea, trash; there, you'll have the government you quite openly admitted you want.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

Or:

Some of these people were being improperly classified as conspiracy theorists.

I am aware there are some who see conspiracy at every turn, as if no event on the radar could simply be happenstance. Shit does just happen, sometimes.

But, there were many who read Orwell and were convinced government would eventually devolve to this. Whatever they used to be called, it can now be said they appear prophetic.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Shortguy881]

Hmm let me try:

People are listening to all our internet traffic - Cisco router back doors
All our online searches and emails are filtered for "illegal content" - Google turns over suspicious emails to government officials
Our cell phones record all our conversations - all cell companies have huge data stores of every phone call made for at least the last decade
Toll cameras track our movements by license plate - Shown to be true via the state of new york
Our cell phones are used to track our location - Federal government has put out several notices to local law enforcement to deny such claims
Facebook turns over all personal data to law enforcement - These reports are just scarily detailed
Our cars monitor our movements - onstar
The government is building a huge database of potential troublemakers, "terrorists," and including all their friends and relatives on that same list by association - NSA
Facial recognition is monitoring our every movement through controlled areas - see this article

I must be f*ing nuts

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Shortguy881]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[alexo]

Our government doesn't yet have enough political power to safely brutalize its general population (though it's doing an increasingly good job on minorities), but it can control most of us never-the-less.

Your government doesn't need to brutalize its general population in order to control it.
And, as you have noted yourself, it does resort to brutalizing when dealing with less compliant groups.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[alexo]

Kinda funny, then, that bankrupt regimes with 1980s era electronics are orders of magnitude better at this "oppression" thing than our own high-tech governments.

The US government has it's citizens barely able to control their bowels due to unfounded fear of terrorism. Dissidents are corralled into "free speech zones" or simply ignored. Everyone is being watched - what they do online, where they go (phone tracking), who they communicate with. The government actively monitors and attempts to disrupt dissent online via operations against sites such as Slashdot. What little protection US citizens have in law is easily bypassed by having foreign partners such as GCHQ operate against them on the NSA's behalf. There are secret courts designed to prevent proper oversight and scrutiny.

There is little difference between the two main parties, and the people with the real power don't change even when they do. Americans have very little real democratic influence.

The US has outdone all those oppressive regimes and most of its citizens don't even realize what has happened. Rather than an unstable, overtly violent system of control the US has found a way to almost completely subdue the population without the risk of being overthrown.

Mod parent up please, this opinion deserves higher visibility.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[tlhIngan]

The US government has it's citizens barely able to control their bowels due to unfounded fear of terrorism. Dissidents are corralled into "free speech zones" or simply ignored.

The two don't follow. One perfectly normal reason for "free speech zones" is simply because the local populace gets fed up with the protests and protesters in general.

First is property damage - 99.99% of protesters may be completely peaceful, but the 0.01% that decide to use it to go rioting get the news, and the people whose property is damaged gets enough sympathy and other stuff that governments take notice. (Insurance companies help, too, since they're paying for this, and taxpayers are often stuck with the cleanup costs).

Second is inconvenience - a simple 5 minute road blockade can easily lead to an hour long tieup in traffic, and most commuters, already tired from work and just wanting to get home now get snarled and even more annoyed at protestors who seem to have nothing better to do than screw with everyone else.

Third, related to the first two, are "professional protesters" - the kind that literally have a job doing protests. Doesn't matter what the cause is - anti-abortion one day, pro-choice the next - their entire livelihood is based on protesting and panhandling money off "hardworking people".

And that's the real problem - the people who are the target of protests rarely end up having to deal with the costs of a protest - it's borne by everyone else who deals with the mess, the traffic and all the other inconveniences. (Not that it's necessarily fair on the target either - since it may just be someone having the opposite opinion).

So when the public is fed up with dealing with the crap, they start demanding changes, leading to these zones. Governments (often strapped for cash and not wanting to deal with more unexpected cleanup costs, plus a quick-win decision that appeals to the majority) are more than happy to oblige.

This is way more likely when the real target of the protest is distant - e.g., the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

Our government doesn't yet have enough political power to safely brutalize its general population (though it's doing an increasingly good job on minorities)

That's hilarious. You're talking about the country which built concentration camps for Japanese citizens, had an official policy of enslaving and then later segregating blacks, and treated the Jews and the Irish as second-class citizens for centuries. That's the country which you think is "doing an increasingly good job on [brutalizing] minorities".

You've either never picked up a history book in your life, or you care more about politics and ideology than you do about reality.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

The US government has it's citizens barely able to control their bowels due to unfounded fear of terrorism.

Complete fucking nonsense. The average American is more afraid of vaccines than they are of terrorists.

Dissidents are corralled into "free speech zones" or simply ignored.

Only in the mind of a delusional sociopath is being ignored the same as being oppressed. And what kind of egomaniac do you have to be in order to believe that you have a right to other peoples attention?

The government actively monitors and attempts to disrupt dissent online via operations against sites such as Slashdot.

Also, your tinfoil hat seems to be leaking.

There are secret courts designed to prevent proper oversight and scrutiny.

So secret that you and your cat were able to find loads of evidence which you would happily share with others if only the MIBs hadn't stolen it from you!

There is little difference between the two main parties, and the people with the real power don't change even when they do. Americans have very little real democratic influence.

Yeah, very little difference. I mean, both parties are human. And they firmly obey the laws of physics. And no matter how many Americans would like to repeal the law of gravity, it never seems to happen. OPPRESSION!

The US has outdone all those oppressive regimes and most of its citizens don't even realize what has happened.

Only a ignorant child who's never stepped foot outside the western sphere could EVER make such an absurd claim. You have absolutely no idea what real oppression and control are. You're so completely obsessed with your own petty grievances that you can't even be bothered to try and understand the plight of people who's entire lifetimes are spent in absolute terror of saying the wrong thing, or being perceived to be anything short of completely dedicated to the wishes of the state. You have no idea how disgusting your words truly are.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Catbeller]

After 2015 or so, Federal law will require integrated tracking devices and radio network integration into all cars. They tried passing that law last year, and backed down - but they will slip it back in when no one is looking. I imagine motorcycles, Elios, and anything that moves will be included, excepting bicycles... and don't bet they won't get around to bikes.
As I said a decade ago here: open-air prison. The point to power is power. No reason is necessary; people who want power over other people will grab it when they can, and universal tracking is the ultimate in power. No rebellion is possible in a goldfish bowl.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Catbeller]

It's an API for a future tyranny that we will be helpless against. Tomorrow is not today. Those in charge will not be the pussycats we have now; such power will attrack tyrants and secret governments. No, guarantees them.
Do not give the monkeys the key to the banana plantation.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

It's an API for a future tyranny that we will be helpless against. Tomorrow is not today. Those in charge will not be the pussycats we have now; such power will attrack tyrants and secret governments

Man, I wish I were psychic :(

I totally get your point though. If only we'd never invented the printing press and the telegraph, we'd be completely tyrant-free by now. These newfangled gadgets are always making the world more dangerous for us. Pretty soon we won't even have lawns for yelling at kids to get off of.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[whathappenedtomonday]

Also, remember that this is an arms race. A few more similar cases and press coverage, and those people you target will know that a false identity only works if it comes with plastic surgery. And: whatever benefits they say face recognition has, they are dwarfed by the potential abuses. But we don't talk about those, we're busy thinking of the children, while trying not to think too hard of the children, because that would put us in a different camp.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[AmiMoJo]

99.99% of citizens don't cause property damage, but 0.01% do so let's just round everyone up and put them in a "free crime zone".

The whole point of protest is to disrupt. It's the only way to get noticed when you have exhausted all other options. It's the only reason protest has any effect.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

Solid post.

With regards to their goldfish bowl... it doesn't work when the lights go out.

Rebellion? I'm thinking Revolution.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[c6gunner]

But, there were many who read Orwell and were convinced government would eventually devolve to this.

Yeah; the dumb kids sitting at the back of the class eating their crayons, who didn't realize Orwell was referring to communist regimes which already existed at the time. In other words, the same idiots who make up the majority of the various Conspiracy Theory movements today.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[Shortguy881]

Unfortunately, that's no solution. Outright rebellion will only hasten the demise of our liberties. What would the NSA love more than a conflict at home to tighten their grip on every citizen? The phrase "home grown terrorism" will start to become prolific and the ignorant masses will gladly hand over more freedoms to stop this new threat.

As of now, we only have political options.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[david_thornley]

The average American is afraid of terrorism to the extent of allowing extremely invasive searches at the airport and militarization of the police, among other things. I don't think vaccines are as frightening.

Nobody has a right not to be ignored, but the only "free speech zone" that should be backed by law or law enforcement is the US.

While FISA isn't exactly a secret, its proceedings are, and there is nor formal punishment system for people who lie to a FISA judge to get a warrant. I'd call it a secret court.

The two parties are in fact very similar, except for a few issues. There's been some studies of late that show that the influence of the people on policy is not very great.

As far as outdoing repressive regimes, the US is indeed nowhere near. For example, if the US was even moderately oppressive, we wouldn't talk about Free Speech zones because there simply wouldn't be any. The very real complaint about them is that they violate freedoms that are very far-reaching in the US. Most countries simply don't have the US emphasis on freedom of speech.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[david_thornley]

The Judicial Branch really has limited abilities of its own. They normally respond to cases brought by prosecutors, who work for the same branch as the police, and are often in cahoots. If the Judicial Branch had investigators who were tasked with going after illegal acts by law enforcement, and could bring cases before the courts, that would work as an independent oversight group.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

Just wow.

If you think hyper-Constitutional surveillance is alive and well only in the nations that constitute the communist regimes in business during Orwell's lifetime,

you, sir, are definitely too trusting and optimistic in general to post so hatefully here.

Re:It's tinfoil time!

[rmdingler]

Revolution is a reference to the Network program where the lights go out preceding the obligatory zombie outbreak.

If the power wielded by your overlord devolves into something essentially unlivable for the masses, and his power is concentrated heavily in electronic surveillance, turning out the lights is a way to level the field.

"The FBI has been developing"..

[fred911]

Definition: they've been using it for 5 years.

Re:"The FBI has been developing"..

[gweihir]

Indeed. And now they are ready to break it to the public and have searched for a nice, repulsive individual for a few months, ignoring countless others where the public might have noticed how bad the technology actually is for individual freedom.

Re:"The FBI has been developing"..

[HeckRuler]

This is what I immediately thought. They're looking to take it into the limelight and actually use it publicly, as opposed to using it and hiding the fact through "Parallel Construction".

Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't hide in Nepal, where can you hide?

Re:Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother's basement... Just never go out and never let your picture be taken..

Re:Where?

[Runaway1956]

Apparently, you don't understand the term "political asylum".

Re:Where?

[Obfuscant]

Forgive the troll feeding, if that's the case. Snowden was convicted of what?

The same thing this guy who is being extradited from Nepal was. Nothing yet. He jumped bail, which can only happen prior to trial.

What I'm wondering about in this story, if the passport was FAKE, how did the FBI have a copy of the passport PHOTO that wasn't sent to the department of state to scan against the mug shot they did have? Was the passport REAL but under an assumed name, or was it really fake and not issued by the state department and they got the picture by magic?

Re:Where?

[rmdingler]

When an American citizen seeks political asylum in Russia,

well,

it's time to take a good look at ourselves.

Re:Where?

[gweihir]

The idea of a police-state is that you cannot hide. Sure, for really bad crimes, it is fine for the state to throw a lot of resources at it, bit what they did here is cheap and can be applied universally. That the index case seems to be somebody carefully selected so that nobody has any sympathy is just a propaganda trick. I bet they had at the very least several hundred hits.

And if you think a police-state is not so bad, after all it just mercilessly enforces the rule of law, here is news for you: 1. "The law" and morality, ethics and what is right are two different things. For example, the killing of the Jews in the 3rd Reich was legal. 2. A police state is universally followed by totalitarianism, because at some point all opposition can be silenced legally.

Re:Where?

[radarskiy]

"how did the FBI have a copy of the passport PHOTO that wasn't sent to the department of state"

If you could be bothered to read the article, you would know that they didn't.

The State Department had the passport photos. The FBI makes the photos of wanted criminals widely available. The person at the State department looking for fraud ran the recognition software on those two sets of pictures and found a match between pictures with different identities attached. The FBI before this point did NOT have the passport photo, and at this point they got it from the State Department.

Re:Where?

[westlake]

If you can't hide in Nepal, where can you hide?

There are maybe 3,000 expats living in Nepal. Living in Nepal - What it's like after 1.5 years

The odd man out is one of the oldest stereotypes of police work. Living on the run? Forget the flight to Kathmandu. Take the bus to New York City.

Re:Where?

[Obfuscant]

If you could be bothered to read the article, you would know that they didn't. The State Department had the passport photos.

And had you read my question, you'd have noticed that who had the photos was pretty much irrelevant, the important question was HOW DID THEY GET IT? The passport was fake. You don't send your photo to the state department to get a fake passport, you give it to the guy making the fake passports. He doesn't send them to the state department, either.

The FBI before this point did NOT have the passport photo, and at this point they got it from the State Department.

So now you say the FBI did have the photo because the state department gave it to them, after telling me they didn't have it. I don't really care who had it, the question was how anyone had it.

Re:Where?

[c6gunner]

When an American citizen seeks political asylum in Russia,

well,

it's time to take a good look at ourselves.

So true. It's really time you guys did something about the affordability of your mental-health services.

Re:Where?

[radarskiy]

"You don't send your photo to the state department to get a fake passport,"

The word fake is not in the article.

"So now you say the FBI did have the photo because the state department gave it to them, after telling me they didn't have it."
Yes, because at the time the scanning was done the FBI in fact did not have the photo. After the State department found the match against the publicly available wanted criminal information the passport information becomes evidence of an alias used by a criminal and thus is perfectly reasonable for the FBI to obtain from the State Department after that.

Re:Where?

[gnasher719]

Read Three Felonies a Day (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx), then apply this type of technology.

That has been totally debunked. The author claims that the average person commits three felonies on an average day. The examples that he gives are things that very few people do once in their life. So iff you are in the USA, you are not going to commit three felonies today. There is a small chance that you commit _one_ at some point in your life, but that chance is small.

Re:Where?

[gweihir]

Oh, sure, it was much more subtle than that. And of course I was referring to the state doing the killing. Do you really think you can run a concentration camp illegally?

Re:Where?

[alexo]

For example, the killing of the Jews in the 3rd Reich was legal.

No, it wasn't.

Crimes against Jews -- especially those committed by officials of the state -- were ignored by people who were responsible for enforcing the laws in Nazi Germany but at no point did the Nazis change the criminal code to say: "by the way, you totally can kill all the Jews you want".

As if selective prosecution is not prevalent in the US...

Re:Where?

[nedlohs]

Because it's not fake as in "printed at home to look like a passport" (or something slightly more likely to work). It's fake as in "not actually for the person it claims to be". "Fake" is the wrong word of course, which is probably why the article doesn't use that word but uses "fraud".

So not being a complete moron the guy didn't get a passport in his own name. But instead got one in someone else's name - using his own photo since it helps to look like the photo when actually using the passport.

Re:Where?

[HeckRuler]

See: Panopticon

Re:Where?

[Obfuscant]

The word fake is not in the article.

Third paragraph, third sentence of the article:

Street performer Neil Stammer travelled to Nepal eight years ago using a fake passport under the name Kevin Hodges.

Yes, because at the time the scanning was done the FBI in fact did not have the photo. After the State department found the match against the publicly available wanted criminal information

It doesn't matter WHO had the picture. State department, FBI, whatever. Since the passport was fake, and clearly said so in the article as well as the summary, the state department wouldn't have the picture. You do not send your picture to the state department when you get a fake passport, you give it to the guy who makes the fakes. And he doesn't give it to the government.

How did they (whoever) get his picture to scan against his wanted photo?

and thus is perfectly reasonable for the FBI to obtain from the State Department after that.

I didn't ask if it was reasonable for the FBI to get the picture, I asked HOW they got it. And for that, you have no answer.

Re:Where?

[Obfuscant]

Because it's not fake as in "printed at home to look like a passport"

Straw man. Nobody said it was. It's "fake" as in "not a real passport". "Not real passports" are created by "not the State Department", just like "not a real Chevy" is produced by "not Chevrolet". Nothing in "fake passport" means "printed on your printer at home."

It's fake as in "not actually for the person it claims to be".

That's not "fake", that's "false" or "fraudulent." If the state department issues it using the standard process, it isn't a fake. The information on it is fraudulent. If Boeing ships a 737 off the assembly line that contains counterfeit parts from a shady vendor, it's not a fake 737, it's a real 737 with fraudulent parts.

"Fake" is the wrong word of course, which is probably why the article doesn't use that word but uses "fraud".

I just quoted the article from the BBC for the previous response. "Street performer Neil Stammer travelled to Nepal eight years ago using a fake passport under the name Kevin Hodges." The guy making fake passports doesn't send the photo off to the US Government; that kinda defeats the purpose of getting a fake passport.

So not being a complete moron the guy didn't get a passport in his own name. But instead got one in someone else's name - using his own photo since it helps to look like the photo when actually using the passport.

So not being a complete moron, the guy didn't send a passport application off to the state department using his own picture, he found a forger who could make a fake passport without the government being involved at all. It is a half-moron who sends his picture off to the feds to let them know he's planning on traveling out of the country to flee prosecution.

So maybe it wasn't a fake passport like the article says it was. Fine. But stop telling me that the article doesn't say it was a fake because it does.

Re:Where?

[radarskiy]

"Third paragraph, third sentence of the article [bbc.com]:"

This article does not: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

That article states "Stammer’s face matched a person whose passport photo carried a different name. Suspecting fraud, the agent contacted the Bureau".

Re:Where?

[Obfuscant]

This article does not: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

Yes, the second article linked in the summary does not call the passport a fake, but neither does it call it real. The article talks about "passport fraud", which is using either a real or fake passport in a fraudulent way, or providing false data for a real passport.

It is a reasonable assumption that the passport was real based on the fact the government had a copy of it. Why the BBC would call it a fake, then, is a question.

Re:Where?

[nedlohs]

Who cares what a news media article says? There's a link to an article by the FBI on the FBI web site. Surprise, surprise it doesn't use the wrong terms for the details that matter.

Clearly he applied for a real passport under a name other than his own (and got one) with a photo of himself - that's how you get a fraudulent passport that will actually work in the long term as opposed to hopefully getting you past one immigration agent one time.

Re:Where?

[david_thornley]

If the police and prosecutors agree, you can run any kind of illegal operation you want without getting into trouble with the law.

Nazi Germany was very definitely not fond of the rule of law. Hitler could have any law he pleased changed, but he didn't bother to make practices he mandated legal.

We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Scanning travel documents for hits in criminal (or other databases) is yet another case of data being re-purposed for uses other than the original intent. It is the same problem I have with things like Visa selling lists of what people pay for using a Visa card, Verizon selling a list of what addresses I travel to and what websites I browse and my pharmacy selling my prescription information.
 
Repurposing of data for unrelated uses is deeply corrosive to the trust that society needs to function. It keeps us all metaphorically looking over our shoulders, wondering in the back of our heads just how this information generated by going about our normal every-day lives might end up harming us. Even if one in a million times it helps catch a pedo, that still doesn't justify the damage it does to a free society.
 
There will always be crime, even in the most authoritarian of countries. But copious amounts of dignity and privacy are necessary for a healthy society - when you constantly have to second guess yourself it makes you less willing to be open and honest with others, makes you less willing to take risks, to be unconventional. Just compare the amount of creative development in the west to that of the USSR in the same time frame, or even North Korea now. Every time a database is repurposed, our society gets a little bit less robust.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

I don't think using facial recognition to verify the identity of someone using a US passport is re purposing data.

Even if one in a million times it helps catch a pedo, that still doesn't justify the damage it does to a free society.

How will these identity verifications damage a free society? The will definitely impact passport fraud.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

If that ever happens there are much bigger problems than facial recognition.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[davidwr]

The only valid reason for a passport photo is to make sure that one person doesn't have two passports.

That, and to make sure the passport is really the person who claims it is his.

OK, I will grant you this: You can dispense with the photo altogether for "yes, this passport is mine" purposes if there is another practically-un-spoofable method for the purported passport holder to prove that it is his. A hash of DNA/fingerprint/iris/etc. will do. Possession of knowledge, such as a decryption key of encyphered text embedded in the passport that says "yes, it's really me" will be good enough for most purposes but it's not as good as a unique biometric identifier.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

One of the prerequisites of having a passport is not having an outstanding warrant.

I am not a criminal, owning a passport should not be cause to consider me a potential criminal.

Sorry but everyone on earth is a potential criminal. I don't care how many times my finger prints (they were taken for a background check) are compared because I have never committed a serious crime (I have a few speeding tickets).

The only valid reason for a passport photo is to make sure that one person doesn't have two passports.

It is also a valid use to match the person with the passport and therefore the name and other information on the passport. What is the difference between doing a text search on the name on a passport and doing a facial recognition search on a passport?

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[redeIm]

Abuses of facial recognition is a problem in and of itself.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Anonymous Coward]

> That, and to make sure the passport is really the person who claims it is his.
> You can dispense with the photo altogether for "yes, this passport is mine" purposes if there is another practically-un-spoofable

For over a century we've had passports without such unspoofable methods and without significant problems. Just because the technology is now there to cross-check photos does not mean we must do it. Do not fall victim to the authoritarianism of technocracy.

BTW, when you get a passport you provide the photo. You can tweak it such that the facial recog algos fail but humans still recognize you. We are far away from an unspoofable system.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[redeIm]

Sorry but everyone on earth is a potential criminal. I don't care how many times my finger prints (they were taken for a background check) are compared because I have never committed a serious crime (I have a few speeding tickets).

Agreed. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. History confirms this.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sorry but everyone on earth is a potential criminal.

Right there is your problem. You'll never see it because your mindset is inherently authoritarian.

> I don't care how many times my finger prints are compared

Trust in authority!

> One of the prerequisites of having a passport is not having an outstanding warrant.

No, in some cases that can be the reason to deny issuing you a passport. But in and of itself it is not sufficient to cancel a passport.
And that means that it is reasonable to match your photo against a list of criminals when applying for the passport but that does not make it OK to search all passport holders to see if they might be a criminal.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

What is or is not abuse is an opinion and therefore variable. Too many people seem to think that "use" is the same as "abuse".

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

Conversely, if you have not been proven to be a criminal no one should suspect you. Reality is somewhere between those two extremes.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[BancBoy]

> For over a century we've had passports without such unspoofable methods and without significant problems.

I'd call for a citation, but based on that incredibly broad statement and all the passport games that have been played over said century and change by spies, criminals, freedom fighters, terrorists, martyrs and evildoers...not to mention others, I think I'm just going to call shenanigans. Or BS, if you prefer.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Algae_94]

The government already owns the database of passport photos. It's theirs. Every person who has a photo in there gave it to the government. In this case the FBI did a cross reference between 2 databases owned by the government. They did not force or coerce any private entity or individual to divulge private information to them. They weren't using any sort of real time or recent time surveillance. I don't see how you can make any rational suggestion to stop this situation short of abolishing passport photos and the subsequent database of them.

You may not like it. You may think this is another step on the slippery slope, but what specific part of this do you recommend be changed?

Should the government not be allowed to look at their own data? Do you think government agencies should not be able to share data? Do you think passports should not require photos? If you can come up with a way to stop this you can work on changing things. Otherwise, you're just whining about things.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[redeIm]

Conversely, if you have not been proven to be a criminal no one should suspect you.

Agreed. I wish that were the case.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Obfuscant]

Possession of knowledge, such as a decryption key of encyphered text embedded in the passport that says "yes, it's really me" will be good enough for most purposes but it's not as good as a unique biometric identifier.

Knowledge of a decryption key would be useless to prevent passport fraud. I could loan my passport to someone and tell him the key -- then he's me. He would have a lot harder time developing my same facial features to defeat a picture, especially if "he" is a "she" trying to impersonate me. The IMF could do perfect impersonations, but for normal folk not so much. "The password is..." could be used by anyone.

And you want to steal someone's identity? "Tell my your passport key or I'll kill you..." then kill them to stop them from reporting the passport stolen. It probably wouldn't even take that much, since most people would probably put their passport key on a post-it inside the back cover so they don't forget, just like they post their passwords within eyeshot of the computer.

Pictures are simple and easy to use, requiring no huge database or complicated equipment, unlike the DNA scanner you'd need for a DNA hash. Does the person standing in front of you look like the picture? Yes, ok. No, investigate. Even the border agents in Nepal can do that much.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[westlake]

Scanning travel documents for hits in criminal (or other databases) is yet another case of data being re-purposed for uses other than the original intent.

Your passport is proof of your identity, citizenship and right to travel outside your own borders. It has always been subject to verification through whatever means are available.

In its beginnings, a passport was a formal letter of introduction to your hosts and in the strongest possible language spoke of the legitimacy of your mission, your good faith and common sense. To be signed by someone highly placed and credible.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Anonymous Coward]

According to TFA, it was the Diplomatic Security Service, which is responsible for checking the validity of U.S. visas and passports, that perform the test.

And they tested their database against the FBI wanted posters of, I assume, wanted criminals.

In this particular case, it seems like the appropriate agency was doing their appropriate job using appropriate data.

This does not seem to be the usual story of government overreach.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[radarskiy]

Note that the FBI is not scanning the set of passport photos for hits in a criminal database. In fact, in this case the FBI is not doing any scanning at all.

In this case, the State Department was scanning passport photos for hits in publicly available identity information, since passports are identity information and are expected to correctly match your identity. It just so happens that the State Department found a hit against a differen identity that was also that of a wanted criminal and that the identities really were for a single person.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Anonymous Coward]

They did not force or coerce any private entity or individual to divulge private information to them.

You have a funny definition of coercion then.
If denying someone their right to travel is not coercion, then what is?

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Kasar]

The presumption of guilt is valid, with an unnumbered quantity of federal laws on the books it is commonly posed that every person over 18 years of age in the US is guilty of some federal crime. As has been the case in many totalitarian nations, someone just needs to point someone out and let the federal police figure out what they can be charged with.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jnowlan]

> 'whatever means available'
Way too much latitude.

I'm Canadian. I came into the U.S. recently and, as part of the automated process, had my picture taken. I'm o.k. with that. What I am not o.k. with is that picture being kept beyond some REASONABLE amount of time, like the time I am in the country.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[redeIm]

This does not seem to be the usual story of government overreach.

It is. That data shouldn't be used for such purposes, and people shouldn't have facial recognition used on them merely because they want to go to another country.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[jklovanc]

What does that have to do with facial recognition used to capture a serious criminal? The meme of "because it can be abused it should not be used" is stupid. Anything can be abused.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[phorm]

We gave them the photos for one specific purpose - to facilitate our ability to travel in other countries

No, you gave them the photos along with an application which has certain legal requirements for an international identification, and signed it based on your acceptance of such.

And in this case, the person was illegally travelling using a fraudulent passport with a fake/stolen identity. This is exactly the type of stuff that should be caught and flagged (though it would be better done at the time of application).

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[Algae_94]

That's actually what I was trying to get people to do. Think of the actual laws that would need to be done to correct this situation instead of crying, "It's not fair!"

No problem can have a solution found until you accurately describe the root of the problem.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[redeIm]

You can't honestly believe this could work, do you?

I do. We can place any restriction on the government that we damn well please. If we want to say they can't perform facial recognition on people's passport photos, that's perfectly valid. That's already a rule, actually, since this deals with people's private information. No random searches to check criminality allowed.

Re:We Are All Under Suspicion Now

[david_thornley]

As a matter of curiosity, why shouldn't that data be used for such purposes? Is the government not allowed to cross-check data for validity? (BTW, I have facial recognition used on me when I enter another country. The customs agent there is going to look at me and at my passport.)

Re:Expect a surge of computer recognition technolo

[bobbied]

I'm thinking plastic surgery, big sunglasses, floppy hats and long hair might be in high demand too.

This Juggler's Only Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Was for juggling balls before they dropped

Re:This Juggler's Only Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

"Burn victim, yeah, real funny. Crush videos, hilarious! Childhood cancer, LOL.....fucking fucksticks"

brought to you, by the loving god (of your choice)

Re:This Juggler's Only Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be such a tight-ass. I suppose we shouldn't make any jokes about death, divorce, marriage, or any of the other things that happen in life because there are real people that really suffered from it.

Re:This Juggler's Only Crime

[Wraithlyn]

Oh lighten the fuck up, we are laughing at some clever wordplay, not because we think child abuse is funny.

Re:This Juggler's Only Crime

[DocSavage64109]

While you have a point, it is probably a good thing that we all have different viewpoints and opinions. Imagine how boring a society we'd have if we were all identical. Do you also consider 9/11 jokes to be so bad as to be unutterable? Do you consider every joke to be unutterable?

I actually have the same point of view as to racial jokes and use of the n-word. I consider use of that word to be a sign of that person's character and in poor taste. Perhaps this is because the child abuse is a largely foreign concept to my experiences -- I'm sure a therapist would see things differently.

Plot Twist

[PRMan]

Plot Twist: Kevin Hodges isn't the guy. He just looks like him. Oh well, he's going to prison for life for looking like a child predator. (Hopefully there are safeguards against this.)

Re:Plot Twist

[Anonymous Coward]

> Oh well, he's going to prison for life for looking like a child predator.
> (Hopefully there are safeguards against this.)

In a free society you could be sure that was the case.
But I am not so sure anymore.

Re:What is this be 'magic shop'?

[Runaway1956]

No spells, I don't think. What we refer to as "magic" here in the US is simply sleight-of-hand. I've never visited a "magic shop", but I would expect to find top hats with secret compartments, costumes, literal smoke and mirrors, special decks of cards, loaded dice, the boxes and saws used to "saw people in half". There would probably be books detailing how to make these tricks work. Such books would emphasize the importance of distracting the audience' attention away from the trickery, toward something else, such as a beautiful, scantily clad young lady.

For spells, you would probably visit a book shop that specializes in occult writings.

"My evil twin did it" defense

[davidwr]

There was an episode of Law and Order or Criminal Intent or one of those shows where they found DNA evidence, but near the end of the show, right as they were about ready to make an arrest, they realized the suspect had an identical twin who they couldn't rule out.

Another one they need to catch

[reemul]

Now if we can just catch fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski, who was convicted of his heinous crimes but fled the country before sentencing.

Re:Another one they need to catch

[mythosaz]

If he wanders into a country other than France, we just might...

Re:Another one they need to catch

[rmdingler]

I remember that.

I'll bet you don't get carded much these days either.

Frustrated

[The Raven]

What frustrates and upsets me is that before Snowden, I would have looked at this as a fluff piece about technology, with some mild nagging doubts about how it could be misused.

Now I see them as NSA whitewashing propaganda, with mild nagging doubts that maybe the original poster had no agenda and it really is a tech fluff article.

Re:Frustrated

[redeIm]

What frustrates and upsets me is that before Snowden, I would have looked at this as a fluff piece about technology, with some mild nagging doubts about how it could be misused.

So I guess you just ignored the countless abuses of government power throughout history before Snowden leaked those documents?

Re:Frustrated

[redeIm]

We are not all born omniscient.

Omniscience is unnecessary. Even a short history lesson will reveal countless government abuses.

checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports

[citizenr]

Are they saying US has no central database of all valid passports and the only way to uncover fake one is comparing some photos?

Re:checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not, otherwise we would discover all the cover passports of the employess of three letter agencies.

Re:checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports

[jopsen]

Of course not, otherwise we would discover all the cover passports of the employess of three letter agencies.

Also foreign agencies would be able to index all american citizen... For once, it seems like your government is doing something to protect your privacy.

Re:checks the validity of U.S. visas and passports

[Sobrique]

What makes you think those are fakes?

Re:Expect a surge of computer recognition technolo

[plover]

Or makeup: http://cvdazzle.com/

Psycho-Pass

[ArcadeMan]

Are we on the path to a world were even our state of mind will be on trial?

Re:Psycho-Pass

[HeckRuler]

Only if they start labeling personality characteristics as mental defects. I mean, it's not like they have any syndromes that describe geeks, right?

Woosh

[jklovanc]

Considering how many criminals have not been caught yet I don't agree.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Fundamental freedoms are simply more important than safety. I would rather let many criminals get away than allow these privacy invasions to continue.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

By that standard police should never use radar guns as that is checking the speed on an "innocent" driver. Using every possible database to find a criminal is a valid use of data and not an invasion. He gave the information to the government as a picture for a passport. That they found him using that data is valid. There is no freedom to be anonymous.

Re:Woosh

[TheP4st]

http://america.aljazeera.com/o...
Snippet: Despite finding that Mayfield’s print was not an identical match to the print left on the bag of detonators, FBI fingerprint examiners rationalized away the differences, according to a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Under the one discrepancy rule, the FBI lab should have concluded Mayfield did not leave the print found in Madrid — a conclusion the SNP reached and repeatedly communicated to the FBI. The FBI’s Portland field office, however, used that fingerprint match to begin digging into Mayfield’s background. Certain details of the attorney’s life convinced the agents that they had their man. Mayfield had converted to Islam after meeting his wife, an Egyptian.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

By that standard police should never use radar guns as that is checking the speed on an "innocent" driver.

Such information is not identifying, and isn't on the same scale as automatic surveillance.

Using every possible database to find a criminal is a valid use of data and not an invasion.

No, it isn't valid. Not if it's easily subject corruption like this is, and not if that's not what they said they'd do with the data.

He gave the information to the government as a picture for a passport.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the police can do whatever they want with this. You're being very disturbing by saying that any information the government has can be used for absolutely anything, regardless of what they said they would do with the information and what is moral or not.

There is no freedom to be anonymous.

I disagree 100%.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Why? How does losing your privacynegatively affect you.

Privacy is a fundamental human need and is what protects us from government abuse. Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments that would have just loved to have the capabilities our government has now. Our own government put Japanese people in internment camps, allowed slavery, had Jim Crow laws, spied on MLK, and did various other nasty rights-violating things. Yet, you seem to be saying that our government is 100% trustworthy, even though no government (even our own) throughout history was immune from corruption. History isn't on your side, you fool.

Giving them all these capabilities and all this information simply allows them to selectively abuse people who have angered the government; you're opening the door to oppression. This is the same reason why the NSA's mass surveillance is evil, though I suppose you have no problem with that, and since you basically asserted that the only kind of harm is physical, you're probably beyond hope.

While we're at it, why don't we let the government install surveillance equipment in every room of everyone's houses, despite the fact that it's a violation of the constitution. They swear they won't abuse such capabilities. After all, you already live in a glass house since privacy doesn't matter to you, right?

And not boo-hoo first world problems 'I have to sit in an hour long security line".

I assure you that the mass violation of the highest law of the land and people's fundamental rights is not a "first world problem."

Do you want to live in a free country? It seems not. Why don't you move to North Korea? I hear they have your same distaste for privacy.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

No, it isn't valid. Not if it's easily subject corruption like this is, and not if that's not what they said they'd do with the data.

Every tool of law enforcement is subject to corruption. By that standard police officers should not have batons because they can and have been used to beat innocent people. What needs to be done is the penalties for corruption need to be high enough to deter the corruption. In most cases they are.

You're being very disturbing by saying that any information the government has can be used for absolutely anything,

Don't put words in my mouth. In this case the person gave identification information to the government and the government used that information to identify him. It is not even a change of use.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Every tool of law enforcement is subject to corruption.

Some far more than others. You seem to be saying, "All things are subject to corruption, so everything is equally subject to corruption." Automated surveillance and performing facial recognition on someone just using a passport is far more subject to corruption (and harder to prevent) than many other things. People have a right to privacy, and that can include a right to not have your information used in certain ways by the government.

In this case the person gave identification information to the government and the government used that information to identify him.

Gave identification for a specific purpose: To facilitate travel to other countries. That's what passports should be about. But you seem to think (despite that you say) that the government should be able to do whatever it wants with your data merely because some part of the government has the data; that's horrible for freedom. I don't think passports should be used in this way, and I don't think drivers licenses should be used in this way. Get a warrant.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

That's what passports should be about.

Sorry but passports are also used as general identification. Go to any notary and they will accept a passport as identification.

I don't think passports should be used in this way, and I don't think drivers licenses should be used in this way. Get a warrant.

I disagree 100%. All you are doing is letting criminals get away. Again, what is the difference between doing facial recognition vs doing a text search on name or Social Security Number?

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Sorry but passports are also used as general identification.

They can be if you choose. Can you choose to not have them treat you like a criminal by using facial recognition software on your picture?

I disagree 100%. All you are doing is letting criminals get away.

Fine with me. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety. Catching criminals is far from my prime concern.

Again, what is the difference between doing facial recognition vs doing a text search on name or Social Security Number?

Why would they need facial recognition if they could just search a name or SSN? Obviously there is a difference. Facial recognition creates many more opportunities to oppress people, even if they manage to hide their names.

Then again, I'm not one for "Papers, please." to begin with, and I think you shouldn't be harassed like this at all. Name? SSN? Leave me the fuck alone.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

Can you choose to not have them treat you like a criminal by using facial recognition software on your picture?

That is a very broad definition of being treated like a criminal. I would consider having my picture use in facial recognition as being treated like a law abiding citizen.

Fine with me. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety.

You would say something different if you or someone close to you was a victim of a serious crime. Then why do we have any laws at all? Complete privacy and freedom and no safety.

Catching criminals is far from my prime concern.

Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.

Why would they need facial recognition if they could just search a name or SSN?

Because people do not walk around with their names on their chests but their pictures are captured during crimes.

Obviously there is a difference.

If you can not explain what the difference is then there is no difference.

Facial recognition creates many more opportunities to oppress people, even if they manage to hide their names.

Those opportunities are? Yet again you bring up vague arguments with no basis.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

I would consider having my picture use in facial recognition as being treated like a law abiding citizen.

Would you also think so if the police decided to perform cavity searches on you just to check if you're a criminal, no evidence required?

You would say something different if you or someone close to you was a victim of a serious crime.

What a dumb, trivially debunked argument. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my arguments are correct; that's just an ad hominem. I might also say something different if I murdered someone and was convicted of doing so: That it shouldn't be illegal to murder. Therefore, laws against murder are bad. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? The "victims" aren't anymore right or wrong than anyone else.

Then why do we have any laws at all?

Because it's a necessary evil, and there are different kinds of freedoms. Fundamental freedoms are not something we can give away for petty safety. I also like how you compare not being able to perform facial recognition techniques on people's pictures with complete anarchy.

Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.

Nice guilt by association, there. That is, if the implication was that I'm not a law abiding citizen.

Because people do not walk around with their names on their chests but their pictures are captured during crimes.

So you even listed a difference yourself. You do something the government doesn't like (perhaps break an unjust law) and they managed to capture a picture of you (probably by using all the surveillance you people encourage), and when you go to use your passport, you're fucked.

If you can not explain what the difference is then there is no difference.

Those opportunities are? Yet again you bring up vague arguments with no basis.

Are you that fucking dense? Obviously, if it was the facial recognition software that caught this person, there *is* a difference; names can be faked. Adding in facial recognition makes it easier to catch people unless they also disguise their appearance. It's just another way to oppress people.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.

Also, what kinds of criminals? Potheads? Laws aren't always just.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

Would you also think so if the police decided to perform cavity searches on you just to check if you're a criminal, no evidence required

Running my DL picture does not require physical contact and is therefore very different than a cavity search.

What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my arguments are correct; that's just an ad hominem.

It is an attempt to get you out of your narrow focus and see the broader picture from a different point of view.

Fundamental freedoms are not something we can give away for petty safety.

I have never heard of not being identified by the police as a fundamental freedom. Care to back that up with facts?

So you even listed a difference yourself. You do something the government doesn't like (perhaps break an unjust law) and they managed to capture a picture of you (probably by using all the surveillance you people encourage), and when you go to use your passport, you're fucked.

The way to fight unjust laws is to get them changed. Making just laws unenforceable is not the solution.

Adding in facial recognition makes it easier to catch people unless they also disguise their appearance. It's just another way to oppress people.

So catching criminals is oppressing the people. Just wow.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

Then change the laws instead of making just laws much more difficult to enforce.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Running my DL picture does not require physical contact and is therefore very different than a cavity search.

Irrelevant. You acted as if them checking to see if you're a criminal is treating you as a law abiding citizen. Were that true, that logic could be used with anything; whether it happens physically or not does not matter.

It is an attempt to get you out of your narrow focus and see the broader picture from a different point of view.

I have never heard of not being identified by the police as a fundamental freedom.

Then you might need to check again, because performing facial recognition on people's pictures without a warrant is a violation of people's fundamental liberties, regardless of whether or not they have such data.

The way to fight unjust laws is to get them changed. Making just laws unenforceable is not the solution.

How many people have to be sacrificed to the government before the laws get changed? That's not something anyone should want.

And actually, making them unenforceable is one way to get them changed.

So catching criminals is oppressing the people.

It may very well be, depending on who qualifies as a "criminal"; besides that, the point you keep missing is that all of these capabilities allow them to oppress people even more easily.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

Irrelevant. You acted as if them checking to see if you're a criminal is treating you as a law abiding citizen. Were that true, that logic could be used with anything; whether it happens physically or not does not matter.

That is your opinion. My opinion differs. To me a database search is not intrusive while a cavity search is. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have been convicted of a crime in the past.

Then you might need to check again, because performing facial recognition on people's pictures without a warrant is a violation of people's fundamental liberties, regardless of whether or not they have such data.

Restating the same thing over and over again does not make it a fact. Where is your evidence that it is a " violation of people's fundamental liberties"? Without such evidence it is merely opinion.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

To me a database search is not intrusive while a cavity search is.

So you must have no problem with the NSA, then. Well, I and others who have studied history know that nothing good can come of it when you give the government access to too much information.

You don't believe in emotional harm? What if someone invented a technology to see through your walls and recorded your every move? You'd have no problem with that? Where does your arbitrary nonsense end?

Where is your evidence that it is a " violation of people's fundamental liberties"?

The fourth amendment, because they have no business looking at this data in this way without a warrant. I know you're going to disagree with that interpretation and ignore the spirit of the fourth amendment, but there it is. Besides that, the idea that people shouldn't have privacy from facial recognition software merely because they want to travel is absolutely absurd. Get a warrant, you fucks.

Without such evidence it is merely opinion.

All rights are. You think people should not be prosecuted for criticizing the government? That's an opinion.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

What if someone invented a technology to see through your walls and recorded your every move?

They already have. It is called an infrared camera.

You'd have no problem with that?

I have a problem with that and it has been covered by a court ruling as there is an expectation of privacy withing the walls of one's own home. I see no expectation of privacy on a DL or passport database considering it can be accessed by thousands of authorized personnel around the world.

Where does your arbitrary nonsense end?

At both ends of the privacy issue are complete privacy and no privacy at all. Where we draw the line as to what is acceptable will always be arbitrary.

The fourth amendment,

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. In my opinion facial recognition from passport databases is not unreasonable.

I know you're going to disagree with that interpretation and ignore the spirit of the fourth amendment,

The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then. You interpret the work "unreasonable" very differently than I do. Using the Fourth Amendment to mean a right to anonymity is a huge stretch.

Without such evidence it is merely opinion.

All rights are.

Most rights are codified in documents such as the United States Bill of Rights

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

I have a problem with that and it has been covered by a court ruling as there is an expectation of privacy withing the walls of one's own home.

You have a problem with that? Whatever for? Just because a court ruled it's bad? Nothing physical is happening to you, so what's the problem?

I see no expectation of privacy on a DL or passport database considering it can be accessed by thousands of authorized personnel around the world.

Lots of people can access it, so there is no privacy? Privacy laws can say whatever we want them to, and we can put whatever restrictions upon the government that we want. I see no issue here. The number of people that can access a database is irrelevant.

Where we draw the line as to what is acceptable will always be arbitrary.

With some lines being more moral than others.

The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then.

Oh, fuck off. It's obvious you don't understand the spirit of the constitution. They couldn't have conceived of computers, either, and yet the ridiculous posts you're sending using them are clearly free speech.

Most rights are codified in documents such as the United States Bill of Rights

The constitution is not just a list of rights. Anything the constitution does not give the government the power to do, it can't do.

Also, even that is a mere opinion, just an opinion by those who write laws.

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

With some lines being more moral than others.

What is moral is also arbitrary. What was not moral decades ago is moral today.

Oh, fuck off. It's obvious you don't understand the spirit of the constitution.

And unless you you can speak to the founding fathers neither do you. Everything from the Constitution is an interpretation backed up buy SCOTUS rulings which are also interpretations.

They couldn't have conceived of computers, either, and yet the ridiculous posts you're sending using them are clearly free speech.

Writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it, which the founding fathers could do, is not very different than typing and sending on a computer. Therefore the same freedom of speech is applicable to computers as to paper. Where in the constitution does is state anything about looking into government files and/or facial recognition? Trying to apply the Fourth Amendment is an interpretation and therefore open to opinion. It all revolves around the phrase "unreasonable searches". Again, what is or is not "unreasonable" is opinion.

The constitution is not just a list of rights.

I was not talking about the whole Constitution but the Bill of Rights which is a list of rights. Look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It looks like it is listing rights to me.

Also, even that is a mere opinion, just an opinion by those who write laws.

As opposed to the opinion of one person on the internet.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

What is moral is also arbitrary.

Look, you're free to disagree with me, but history shows what sort of government you'll end up with if you trust them with all this power. If you like that sort of thing, may I just suggest North Korea? There's no way you're going to convince me of anything, and it looks like there's no way I'll convince you of anything, so that's the fastest possible way to get what you want (or to get the government you deserve).

And unless you you can speak to the founding fathers neither do you.

There are numerous historical documents that lay out what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. Saying, "But you can't talk to them directly!" is such a laughable argument, but nothing surprising coming from you.

Writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it, which the founding fathers could do, is not very different than typing and sending on a computer.

"The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then." They didn't have computers back then, either. Why don't you stop moving your bullshit goalposts and being a hypocrite? The fact is, they don't *need* to have had such technology back then.

And I assure you that sending data over the Internet is far different from writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it. You can find some similarities, but that is all.

Where in the constitution does is state anything about looking into government files and/or facial recognition?

It doesn't need to. It constitutes as a search, and no, the government doesn't own a damn thing. Searching everyone because some people are criminals is clearly a violation of the fourth amendment. Again, get a warrant.

Trying to apply the Fourth Amendment is an interpretation and therefore open to opinion. It all revolves around the phrase "unreasonable searches". Again, what is or is not "unreasonable" is opinion.

Do you have a goddamn point? Everything you read is open to interpretation. You can't understand what is being wrote unless you interpret. And you know my opinion already. So you say that my opinion is an opinion. And? Are you going somewhere with this bullshit? You're not going to convince me to accept your illogical garbage by telling me that the 4th amendment must be interpreted.

As opposed to the opinion of one person on the internet.

What, you?

Re:Woosh

[jklovanc]

There are numerous historical documents that lay out what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution.

Were they written by the founding fathers. Otherwise they are interpretations of what they meant and therefore opinion. By the way, do you have any references to them. (please avoid the obvious politically motivated sites)

Why don't you stop moving your bullshit goalposts and being a hypocrite?

I guess you missed the fact that since there were no photographs and no computers to compare those photographs there is no way the founding fathers could have envision facial recognition software. I was just trying to point out the free speech on a computer is exactly the same as free speech on paper.

And I assure you that sending data over the Internet is far different from writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it

Both are the creation of text and transmission to another person. The mechanism is irrelevant.

Do you have a goddamn point?

Sorry you missed it. To put it as clearly as I can. There is nothing in the Forth Amendment that specifically outlaws the use of facial recognition from the passport database to identify suspects.

As opposed to the opinion of one person on the internet.

What, you?

The attempt to apply "unreasonable search" to facial recognition is an opinion. Your opinion differs from mine. The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS. It may get there.

You will never change your mind and I will never change my mind about this issue. I agree to disagree.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

Were they written by the founding fathers.

Yes. The point is that they spell out *why* the constitution was written the way it was, and what they sought to prevent. If any of the government's activities are similar to what they sought to prevent, then whether or not they could envision that specific violation happening is irrelevant. Courts itself also sometimes use a "What would the founders have done here?" test and uses those documents to try to figure it out, even though the founders had nothing specific to say about these situations.

Otherwise they are interpretations of what they meant and therefore opinion.

You *always* interpret what you read, and all interpretations are therefore opinion. But some opinions are more correct than others.

Both are the creation of text and transmission to another person. The mechanism is irrelevant.

The mechanism is very much relevant, since the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned it. What you're saying is completely subjective and arbitrary, and yet you're pretending like it's some intelligent standard.

Sorry you missed it. To put it as clearly as I can. There is nothing in the Forth Amendment that specifically outlaws the use of facial recognition from the passport database to identify suspects.

It does *not* need to be specific. Plenty of the constitution is rather vague, and it's called a "living document" for a reason. And yet, in this very specific instance, you have a problem with that. General warrants are unconstitutional. These people don't even have a warrant, and yet they somehow have the constitutional ability to search everyone's photos using facial recognition technology? That's just nonsense. The idea that the founding fathers would have allowed things to get this far, especially if it was used against them, is absolute nonsense. They would have taken measures to prevent the government from doing this nonsense of this scale just like they did for general warrants, warrantless searches, soldiers being quartered in homes, etc.

And besides the fourth amendment, if you're going to play that "There is nothing in the constitution that gives you right X!" game, the constitution also doesn't specifically grant the government the power to perform facial recognition technology on these photos. Therefore, anyone who says they do is interpreting the constitution and is therefore spouting an opinion.

The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS.

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary org

Re:Woosh

[david_thornley]

What happened here is that there was a scan of passport photos, which primarily identified people who got passports under an assumed identity (wanted criminals are normally denied passports, I believe). It may have included my photo, although I think my passport's expired. There's no way for me to know for certain.

On the other hand, I would notice a cavity search. The passport scan directly affected me not at all, but any sort of physical search would. The passport scan would not make me reluctant to do things that might be misconstrued, although constant license plate scanning or recording of email metadata could. This seems to be about as innocuous a process as it gets.

Re:Woosh

[redeIm]

What happened here is that there was a scan of passport photos, which primarily identified people who got passports under an assumed identity

Yes, I think everyone is already aware of that. Read this giant thread.

On the other hand, I would notice a cavity search.

"What you don't know can't hurt you" is the most ridiculous argument, especially when it comes to civil liberties. Any rights violation--whether you're aware of it or not--is automatically harmful by its very nature.

The passport scan would not make me reluctant to do things that might be misconstrued

Well, it absolutely should. It's just another way for the government to impede your right to travel if you don't want to implicitly give up certain rights - your right to privacy, in this case. Facial recognition software allows them to more easily identify dissidents; it's just another tool of oppression. The fact is, unless they have a warrant, they should not be 'searching' this information like this at all.

Re:Was he a HOMOSEXUAL paedophile, by any chance?

[rmdingler]

In fact, most pedophiles who prey upon boys are straight...

Mack and John were eating lunch at the truck stop when a man John didn't know strolled by the table and said to Mack, "Hey Cocksucker."

"What's that about, bud?" John asked his friend.

"I've been a truck driver for thirty years and no one ever referred to me as Mack the trucker. But you suck ONE dick!"

Whenever it's advertized like this, then it is bad

[gweihir]

If they trot out the child abusers (usually carefully selected so that nobody has any sympathy), what is actually announced is really bad for individual freedoms. Expect this to be used against you on a traffic ticket in 5-10 years or to identify people participating in lawful demonstrations. That is a sure way to a police-state and that one is universally followed by totalitarianism some time later.

Re:Was he a HOMOSEXUAL paedophile, by any chance?

[gweihir]

Simplistic and your numbers are badly off.

Dont you mean alledged?

[Osgeld]

Now I dont know the whole story, or frankly any of it, but if he was not tried he is not convicted

but who cares big brother caught a pedo, rejoice and go to sleep!

Jumping to conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with tin foil hattery is that it usually fails both Occam's razor and Hanlon's razor. You, in contrast, aren't really thinking at all. Walk with me.

Of course they'll be using "(alleged) (child) sex offenders" first, as it's a touch (oh the awful puns) less worn than "terrism!!1!", so makes for good headlines with the "the government must do something!" crowd. Seems good use of tech, right? Now try again, and start to think this time. What will it mean in the long run?

For the thing is that with every bit of tech and every database link, the law enforcement complex is building a veritable machine to go after people. I'm putting that wrong. To positively hound you everywhere you go. To make every step you take a "point of contact" at which they can at least track, and maybe apprehend you. Even the photo on your driver's licence is a convenient source to seed the database, maybe the security footage taken when accessing ATMs would be too. Why not have ANPR cams take a bigger picture and do facial recognition too? Let's tap all the public and private CCTVs we can and feed that to the recognition software too. Let's slurp in credit card data (with name attached) in real time and match against watchlists. Your name, your fingers, your face becomes a weapon to be used against you. Presumably this will only be used against bad people, the very worst, at first. But the rub isn't in that they're going after (allegedly) bad people, it's in that "at first". Where does it stop?

The answer, as we've seen before, is that it will not stop. At all. They'll expand until at some point your biometrics will be collected at every street corner and will flag you for as simple an infraction as jaywalking or swearing. Hey, maybe we can even make it "convenient" for you and auto-deduct random fines from your fine account with the government. Then couple it with your bank account (already the case in some countries) so the government can help itself at need. And oh does the government have money needs. Go over this once again slowly, and see how this is a fairly natural progression when seen from the bureaucrat's perspective. For it isn't your perspective and your values at play here, it's the government's, the bureaucrat's. Just add time and we'll get there.

There's also the problem that the justice crowd is very hard put to have "results" to show for all the budget they're burning, which puts more emphasis on "obtaining convictions" than it does on "doing justice". Just two examples are Aaron Schwarz and Alfred Anaya. The worst thing is that the justice department is unable to see the problems with this approach and so is busily finding ways to expand it. It makes for potent seasoning to this already onerous mix.

Add it all together and you get a world I wouldn't want to live in, with or without tin foil hats.

Re:Was he a HOMOSEXUAL paedophile, by any chance?

[grouchomarxist]

Some numbers:

According to wiki about 3.8% of the U.S. population is gay, but the % of men that is gay is not mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In any case, the original poster seems to be ignoring the possibility of female pedophiles.

Fake Passport?

[galgon]

All the debate has been about 1984 big brother type stuff. Am I the only one who is wondering how the heck he managed to get a hold of a fake passport and use it at a US embassy for YEARS without being caught? I would think the FBI would be routinely cross-checking all photos from passport applications/visa applications against all known databases (mug shots, driver licenses, etc) and kicking out anything that does not match. Maybe TV has me thinking the technology is much more advanced than I thought.

Re:Whenever it's advertized like this, then it is

[Jhon]

Honest question:

What's the difference with a criminal walking in public and being identified by some person who notifies the authorities VS. a criminal walking in public and being identified by a camera using face recognition software which notifies the authorities?

There are no cameras in our homes watching us. There are no cameras in the bathroom watching us. No cameras where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy...

I just don't get the argument that a camera scanning my face in public is the "government assuming I'm a criminal and treating me like one" and a stranger scanning my face with his eyes (though maybe creepy) isn't assuming I'm a criminal.

I'll admit I have an uneasy FEELING about the practice, but I haven't found a reasonable argument AGAINST it in public places.

Blindfolds off, handcuffs on everyone

[Catbeller]

If you enable perfect surveillance, then the result - "police without blindfolds", as well as employers, potential employers, competitors, secret national police, secret and not-secret corporate police (ever wonder about how Apple's security forces seem to have worldwide power and mobility?), marketers, your neighbors, your family, friends, enemies, and Scientology's and Moonies' covert operations getting their "blindfolds" removed - will be a world where everyone is a criminal, and the only recourse you have is that no one cares enough about you to look to see what you've been up to. A world of sheep, a pack of fat domesticated farm animals watching videos. (Better not be unlicensed video, criminal!) If you've not committed a crime, you've been in a coma. And they'll just add new laws if they really want to get someone. But bet your ass the Bushes and Cheneys of the world will be utterly off the police and media radar. Rich people don't commit crimes, statistics show. Only troublemakers and poor people. And oh, yes, Ferguson. Imagine how future Fergusons will play out with perfect surveillance. Notice how the cops in Ferguson don't have video cameras on their vehicles, and how they trash cameras pointed at them? That's the future, kid. Blindfolds on US; never, ever on the cops.

Passport check

[phorm]

This isn't some camera on a street-corner watching your every move, it's a comparison between a wanted posted and the passport database. It's a legitimate use of the technology without being overly invasive.

On the other hand, I wonder how the guy managed to get the passport in the first place. Was "Kevin Hodges" a real person (perhaps deceased) whom Stammer stole the identity of?

Re:Hey now.

[Ralph Wiggam]

Be careful what you ask for. In their minds "better execution" means "more convictions"

You're confusing Prosecutors (who are part of the Executive Branch) and Judges. Nobody cares about a judge's conviction rate. And even if they did, a jury is deciding most of the cases.