Slashdot Mirror


FBI Completes New Face Recognition System

Advocatus Diaboli writes: According to a report from Gizmodo, "After six years and over one billion dollars in development, the FBI has just announced that its new biometric facial recognition software system is finally complete. Meaning that, starting soon, photos of tens of millions of U.S. citizen's faces will be captured by the national system on a daily basis. The Next Generation Identification (NGI) program will logs all of those faces, and will reference them against its growing database in the event of a crime. It's not just faces, though. Thanks to the shared database dubbed the Interstate Photo System (IPS), everything from tattoos to scars to a person's irises could be enough to secure an ID. What's more, the FBI is estimating that NGI will include as many as 52 million individual faces by next year, collecting identified faces from mug shots and some job applications." Techdirt points out that an assessment of how this system affects privacy was supposed to have preceded the actual rollout. Unfortunately, that assessment is nowhere to be found.

Two recent news items are related. First, at a music festival in Boston last year, face recognition software was tested on festival-goers. Boston police denied involvement, but were seen using the software, and much of the data was carelessly made available online. Second, both Ford and GM are working on bringing face recognition software to cars. It's intended for safety and security — it can act as authentication and to make sure the driver is paying attention to the road.

129 comments

  1. Baaah... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Vegas casinos were doing this years ago...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now it's there when you Skype with your girlfriend (hah).

    2. Re:Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vegas casinos were doing this years ago...

      So was the FBI.....

    3. Re:Baaah... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And now it's there when you Skype with your girlfriend (hah).

      Not a far-fetched idea, what with the close ties between tech titans and the Three Letter Agencies. Indeed, these folks probably would not even need cooperation to "scrape" images from Skype and similar applications.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Baaah... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What's the skype version of sexting?

      Now wouldn't it suck if the FBI had that in a database.

    5. Re:Baaah... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there's a difference when a private company does it and the government does it. the government has the legal ability to shoot and kill citizens on the street, take away their belongings, or jail them for life. we have a constitution in place to limit the role of government. private companies have more leeway but less scope to dictate people's lives.

    6. Re:Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the skype version of sexting?

      Now wouldn't it suck if the FBI had that in a database.

      Pretty sure it's just called "Skyping". And it seems to be a somewhat common use of video chat. While the FBI probably doesn't have access to those video chats, the NSA presumably does and quite likely shares them along with the private nude photos they are already known to share.

    7. Re:Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now it's there when you Skype with your girlfriend (hah).

      That's fine, but if they are looking for a picture of my face they will be SOL.

    8. Re:Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can't legally wear pantyhose on your face in a casino.

    9. Re:Baaah... by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

      And all that "tagging" of photos in Facebook, the database is pretty much ready-made for them. Crowd-sourcing backfire?

    10. Re:Baaah... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      How dare you restrict my fashion options, you insensitive clod.

    11. Re:Baaah... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      there's a difference when a private company does it and the government does it.

      Dude, step back and understand the conversation.

      We are talking about the TECHNOLOGY, not the user.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    12. Re:Baaah... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i'm responding tot he comment "vegas casinos were doing this for years". This comment implies that because a private company does it, it's ok for the govt to do it as well. i'm pointing out that the two situations are very different. +1 ontopic.

      there's nothing new or noteworthy about the technology. the new thing is it's in the hands of the govt.

    13. Re:Baaah... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      FBI's penis recognition system has to receive its funding yet.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Baaah... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Except some might argue that using this technology in a public place is a violation of the 4th amendment.

      This stuff is getting very creepy, and it's kind of appalling to see that the US is in a hurry to usher in Big Brother.

      Papers please, comrade. Actually, we don't need your papers. We know exactly who you are.

      How's that "land of the free" thing working out for you?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Baaah... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Why would they need it in Skype? They've probably long since identified who is who by correlating the account details, so no need for facial recognition.

    16. Re: Baaah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never can have too much surveillance.

    17. Re: Baaah... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      there's a difference when a private company does it and the government does it. " no. There is not.

  2. So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything you show in public is public information.

    1. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by OhPlz · · Score: 3

      Anything done with our tax money should be done with the consent of the governed.

      I do not consent.

    2. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Baby+Duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once it's rushed out without our consent, all us dissenters can be cataloged and tracked :-(

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    3. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not consent.

      Unfortunately, many of the sheep in this country (and elsewhere, particularly Australia and the British Empire) simply don't care.

      You are overruled. Move along...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever.

      Keep whining, keep voting Republican and keep making sure that we only get neo-cons like shrub, or neo-con lights like Obama. And that we can't actually get a liberal in the oval office. And no the libertarians are not liberals, they're just neo-con extreme.

    5. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Some of us care more about criminals hiding in plain sight than we do about our privacy.

    6. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is reasonable (privacy is an illusion anyway).

      The main problem is that too many people have been behaving hypocritically and would be easily blackmailed. The secondary problem is that out asinine legislative system has built up layers of crappy laws that no one follows because they're stupid and too hard to enforce (like the states where oral sex is illegal). A reduction in privacy would enable garter selective enforcment of those laws.

      That's going to make the transition period really painful.

    7. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by preaction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you mean politicians?

      With crime on an incredible downswing, I don't see how anyone can justify draconian measures for law enforcement when it is becoming less and less likely that they will be the victim of a crime.

    8. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you hadn't noticed, you live in a democracy. Specifically, a representative democracy. The non-consent of a single individual doesn't get to determine policy. Policy is determined by the duly elected representatives of a majority of the public.

    9. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by maharvey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, an insightful and rarely articulated point, supported by hard data! Where are mod points when I need them?

    10. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I see your point. The problem of course is when you become the criminal. In the future I suspect there will be a lot more restrictions. A lot more and they already have the system coming into place that will insure compliance with whatever they mandate. The reason of course is that in about 8 years or so the government will be bankrupt and when they can't write those checks without printing ridiculous amounts of phony money there will be a lot of people that will suddenly find their monthly check doesn't buy a living, even a meager one. That's the day they will need all this stuff to control a pissed off and hungry populace.

    11. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Get even. Post anything at all that you can find on the head of the FBI (et al.) -- him in that capacity and outside of it.

    12. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      As with all relative terms "less likely" is not good enough. Crime rates are still too high and there are still too many known criminals on the loose. We should use what ever technology we have to bring the number of at loose criminals as close to zero as possible.

    13. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Good point. However I'd like to point out that the prison system is a private company with vested interest in having "clients". If no one breaks any laws, then these companies have a lot to lose.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    14. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I for one don't want to live in your perfectly ordered dystopia.

    15. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      No shit. Do you think the majority of the population supports this? Especially after all the known incidents of domestic spying, illegal wiretaps, secret no fly lists, free speech zones for demonstrators, etc. There's very little freedom left in our free country. I'm not against surveillance, but tracking each person individually is a slippery slope. Attend a protest the administration doesn't like, they pull the video footage, next thing you know.. everyone there is on a watch list and is about to be audited by the IRS. You might even end up on a secret list for health care, kind of like the secret waiting lists at the VA. Ooo, I'm sorry, we have no openings for you.

      By the way, your summary of our system of government is wrong. We elect people, but they don't represent us. Any talk of that ends the moment they win the election.

    16. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Then paintball some government cameras.

    17. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to reduce crime is to bring about equality and rise the quality of living for all, not to create an Orwellian dystopia.

    18. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are doing it so that when the USA begins to default on its internal and foreign debts, and has unfunded liabilities, and no way to pay for it all... and goes spiraling down roughly ten years from now... that they can control you and your every move.
      You're not innocent to them.
      You're guilty and a slave at birth, and until death.
      It's all about the money, their money, not yours.
      Get the fuck out of the USA now!

    19. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... simply don't care ...

      The mass-murder of Americans occurred in 2001 and Australia kept its terrorism-alert at 'Medium'.
      The mass-murder of Australians overseas occurred in 2002 and Australia kept its terrorism-alert at 'Medium'.
      London experienced bombings in 2006 and Australia kept its terrorism-alert at 'Medium'.

      England changes its danger level to 'High' in September 2014 and a week later Australia does the same. The USA declares its intelligence agencies have not detected a "credible threat". No-one actually says it, but the implication is one or more Australian Muslims have decided to leave the delightfully bloodthirsty war in Syria to kill Australians in their beds.

      The Australian government puts TSA-like police in Airports and the WestField shopping centres also increase security operations. A government-subsidized news show, usually happy to highlight bad policy, interviews a random granny who proclaims "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear".

      Someone in the Australian government cares: Although I wonder if its more about following the USA into the imminent war on ISIS. Here we go again.

    20. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. Do you think the majority of the population supports this? Especially after all the known incidents of domestic spying, illegal wiretaps, secret no fly lists, free speech zones for demonstrators, etc. There's very little freedom left in our free country.

      But at least you are less likely to get robbed at gunpoint or taken out by a terrorist than if you were living in some ridiculously unoppressive country like, say, Switzerland. Would you rather be out at night in the dark streets of New York or Zurich?

      The level of safety the U.S. provides to its citizens comes at a prize, and that prize is their freedom.

    21. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Misdemeanors are now felonies!

    22. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, everbody except China and Russia (well, the countries which are allied with Russia) are more or less subscribers to the U.S. "security" system. Many countries even deliver their entire telecom traffic to NSA, so that they can do the work for them. They abduct people from e.g. Germany, Italy and stick them into secret Prisons in Poland. Then ship them to some other secret place or into the cells of an Arab tyrant. All Euro governments are U.S. sycophants who will do NOTHING to stop this.

      All of this includes Switzerland factually, if not formally. Even they shit bricks when America orders them to do some act. Any act. And then they comply.

      And even if you are in Russia or China, you are not really secure from NSA. Even the Russkies are now almost 100% addicted on Windows, Linux, Android, Mac. Their security cameras can propbably be hacked, so they can surveil random airports/railway stations in Russia. Even their weapons factories are in many cases under permanent NSA surveillance, because they are stupid enough to run it on U.S.-designed IT. Sure as hell they have their shortwave railway comms system 100% penetrated, so they know the whereabouts of every train in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaidjan etc.

      All you can be sure of there is that the KGB has their own agenda and their own tactics, which can in some ways be less nasty than American tactics. In other ways certainly not.

    23. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us care more about criminals hiding in plain sight than we do about our privacy.

      You mean, in congress?

    24. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swiss security has traditionally been based on every swiss man having an M16 class rifle at home. Then security carries these rifles very overtly in shopping malls. I once visited Zurich and spotted an automatic rifle against the sun (people say I have "eagle eyes"). Did not see the guyat first look, because he and the gun wore "shopping mall camouflage".

      Plus they do not allow Minarets in Switzerland, to piss off the rabid Mohammedanians

      This is exaclty proper security: Show the Mohas that they will simply die right in the shopping mall at the hands of a Swiss Patriot and his automatic rifle. Let them do their planning, let them do nasty stuff. Let them show their conscience. Then shoot them. ZERO need for Tsheka-style security.

      Unfortunately, there are lots of traitors in Switzerland, who essentially want to destroy this great country. They want NSA-style "security" and have set up NDB (Nachrichtendienst des Bundes). NDB's function is to suck up to NSA and to emulate them. Instead of the Free Swiss Man and his rifle we have a bunch of Tsheka Specialists in their comfy chairs collecting on everybody. They also want unlimited immigration into this excellent country, so that the original Free Men can be replaced by all sorts of people useful for the Bankster class.

      Yeah, the Mohammedanians, the MIC and the Zio Banksters have won !

    25. Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by pr0file · · Score: 1

      I do not consent.

      Unfortunately, many of the sheep in this country (and elsewhere, particularly Australia and the British Empire) simply don't care.

      You are overruled. Move along...

      Incidentally, on this day back in 2001 Richard Stallman talked about this same thing... it appears people really and truly don't care (enough) about the consequences of this. After all, people had 13 years to kick up a stink right? http://news.slashdot.org/story...

      --
      Tis, brakes that allow cars go fast!
    26. Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too bad people are lazy or just plain stupid. You must be young and haven't figured this out yet. Are you keeping the poor down, do you know some individuals that are? Do they tell you their plans to keep little tommy from going to college? NO. As long as people don not want to cooperate, are lazy or selfish, and just plain stupid, there will always be classes. You give your hard earned money directly to a adult that will waste it. See how you feel afterwards.

    27. Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      So, we hide in boxes until we die, or live in prison.
      False dilemma. We have other choices. Like, NO cameras.

    28. Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Privacy an illusion? This is too easy. What's your name? Address? Children's names, sex ages, pics, and current locations?
      How much do you make? What's your car plate ID? I'm sure you won't mind sharing.

  3. Yay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yay? :-/

  4. Dragnet by Meeni · · Score: 1

    How is this not an invasion of privacy when the police is taking records of where everybody is going at all times, w/o probable cause or warrant ?

    1. Re:Dragnet by Nightwraith · · Score: 2

      Well, they'll just claim you're out in the public eye and don't have any expectation of privacy.

      I mean it's not like the Civil Forfeiture laws where they can take any cash/property on your person without cause or due process. You're not even required to have been *charged* with any crime. Stop & Frisk has been replaced with Seize & Threaten.

      They're betting that you'll walk away from lengthy, expensive legal fight to get your property/rights back.

    2. Re:Dragnet by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      records of where everybody is going at all times,

      They are only doing this when you are in a public place and in range of a camera. While this is quite often it is far from "at all times". Can they run facial recognition on you while you are in your bathroom?

      Your image has no privacy when in a public place.

    3. Re:Dragnet by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The officer that patrols the part of the city you work in may know when you go to and leave work just because he sees you on the side walk this is not an invasion of privacy and he could possibly recall if he saw you at the regular time on a given date but yes doing it electronically is very different. Generally this will be in public places so I'm not sure any existing laws really cover that.

    4. Re:Dragnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your image has no privacy when in a public place.

      Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves. Also the US Government has also said this is not the case for buildings, etc. that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.

      Way to suck down the authoritarian cock, brah.

    5. Re:Dragnet by PPH · · Score: 1

      Your image has no privacy when in a public place.

      So they have no problem with the camera I've got set up on the street at the J Edgar Hoover building parking garage entrance?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Dragnet by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves.

      Law enforcement is not a single entity and do not all think alike. Also, the filming of police officers has been found to be legal in most places.

      that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.

      I have seen censoring of secure areas but not public areas. Do you have any references of public areas being censored?

    7. Re:Dragnet by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      They may have a problem with you using public property to station your camera. If you happen to own or rent property across the street from that location I doubt they would have an issue.

    8. Re:Dragnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has removed evidence of their huge excavation project in yakima from google earth. I would even say they have shopped the current and historical pictures to give the appearance of disrepair.
      Try finding the lawsuit the Yakima tribe brought to the US gov for dumping unwanted dirt on tribal land.

    9. Re:Dragnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK in many places there are cameras that cover peoples private homes and many people have to fight to have ones moved that look in to windows even. If you don't think that the USA wants to go down the same path then the pile of evidence in front of you has been sincerely misunderstood.

    10. Re:Dragnet by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Aim a Class III laser at the camera. Problem solved. Don't like your camera blowing up? Don't aim it at my bedroom window.

    11. Re: Dragnet by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      The law is whatever the conga line of cops caving in your ribs say it is. That's reality. Dont give monkeys the keys to the banana plantation.

    12. Re: Dragnet by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Try it on a plane. Then reflect that they will do the same if you blind their ground cameras. Expect a felony charge. And a club to your groin.

    13. Re: Dragnet by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Add more cameras, track all cars, put cameras in cars, and there is no place to be alone. Prison with mortgage and car payments.

    14. Re: Dragnet by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If that is ever proposed I will be against that.

  5. I think I know where to find the Assessment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the bottom of a trash can when they realized the "affect" to privacy was to murder the very concept.

  6. Any more three letter phrases? by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 0

    OMG! WTF! FBI stands for Fear Based Intradickshun! Pose little sheep POSE NOW!

  7. My actions after reading the summary by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

    1) google "retire in France" 2) post this

    1. Re:My actions after reading the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time you jump through all the hoops to go live in France, the system will have crossed the Atlantic.

  8. Qualified to not qualify by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new, umm, overlords.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Qualified to not qualify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meet the new overlord, same as the old overlord.

  9. I hope it's better than the existing system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The existing system uses a Jboss v3.x.x and a rather convoluted data path. Since I'll be supporting this when we get it, I hope it works better.

    1. Re:I hope it's better than the existing system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably also worth nothing that it's an investigation tool and can't be used as a source of positive identification. Even the existing system carries that disclaimer.

    2. Re:I hope it's better than the existing system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer, haha. Like "we don't record your phone calls" and "this will only be used against terrorists, not drug dealers" and "subjects are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in court" ...

    3. Re:I hope it's better than the existing system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, you don't know how the system actually works. It usually does not pinpoint a single person. It retrieves a number of likely candidates and it's the investigators job to determine if any of them match their suspect. It takes human eyes to look and see if the image matches. Even if it DOES match, it can't be used to positively identify anyone. The officer still has to do his/her job; this just narrows the focus.

    4. Re:I hope it's better than the existing system.... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "It's probably also worth nothing that it's an investigation tool and can't be used as a source of positive identification."
      Just like phone call parallel construction? Just like the use of lower cost cellular phone surveillance devices at a city and State level?
      CCTV from city, state, federal and other sites will be joined in public private partnerships to ensure every face in some areas gets a good probability of been compared to existing databases or new faces saved for years.
      Add in cell phone information at the same time, tracking license plates, getting the passengers face, over time builds up years of positive identification.
      Add in tame partnerships between the private sector and the federal gov, very tame social media, very tame web 2.0 providers and helpful telcos.
      The cpu costs per face and time per face is low, storage costs are low. Side on images and the physics of the lens distance is really the only difficult part left.
      Funding for more CCTV can help with that. Social media can also be used to induce the wider public to upload many pictures of staff, friends, random faces in public for national "promote awareness" events. With gps, camera details kept in the uploaded file, good lighting, more resolution and lots of faces facing in the right direction for facial recognition.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:I hope it's better than the existing system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [[... it's an investigation tool and can't be used as a source of positive identification.]]

      That doesn't un-maim or resurrect after mistargeted SWAT visits.

  10. Tinfoil hats now available with facemasks! by Nightwraith · · Score: 1

    Seems like I'll need to get a hockey mask to go with my tinfoil hat.
    OOooo, or maybe one of those high-def ex-Presidential masks!

    1. Re:Tinfoil hats now available with facemasks! by nblender · · Score: 1

      oh! A Spartacus mask!

    2. Re: Tinfoil hats now available with facemasks! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Masks... illegal. Disguises will be more so. Attempting to hide from Panoptikon will be, is, a crime, and an excuse to drag you over for questioning, then to receive permanent surveillance. Really GOOD surveillance, not this rickety mess they have right now.After all, it'll be cheap and ubiquitous.

  11. Hoover FBI.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Catch your undesirables/enemies in compromising situations then drop them a couple photos with a 'It'd be a shame if these made it to the press...'

    1. Re:Hoover FBI.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The appropriate response is: "Well,..., go ahead, I wont deny it and I will take responsibility for my actions", sadly almost no one does that anymore !

    2. Re:Hoover FBI.... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Hoover FBI.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are a virign. They will not talk to you, but flash it on a billboard of your daily work route when you drive by.

    4. Re: Hoover FBI.... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Well DONE. People trust tech so much it doesn't occur to them that data can be faked, if you can access the system backdoors.

  12. Once all they've all been catalogued and analyzed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the FBI's Helicarriers start scratching off the Administration's enemies... a few million at a time.

  13. i do believe in spooks by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i do believe in spooks.

  14. Alright then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a $5 justin bieber mask for it

    1. Re:Alright then by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've got a Barack Obama mask. It's a hoot at Halloween. The kids laugh like crazy.

    2. Re:Alright then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a Barack Obama mask. It's a hoot at Halloween.

      Too soon, man, too soon.

  15. Drviers license. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything you show in public is public information.

    Those laws and rulings were made in the days when government, cops, and others had to flip through books upon books of photos.

    Today in 2014, we have computers that can put together incredible amounts of information from government source - state, local, federal and other governments; corporate sources, and of course everything else that's put on the Internet by our narcissistic fellow citizens.

    And bear in mind, when in doubt about something, no one ever give the benefit of the doubt, they jump to the worst case scenario that their little brains can think of.

    On a sex offender registry? Well now, you MUST have been having sex with little kids! Nobody ever thinks that one may be there because they urinated in public because there weren't any public bathrooms or stores that would allow him to use their toilet.

    People jump to conclusions.

    And with our increasingly fascist police state, jumping to conclusions by government gets you arrested or shot dead.

    It appears that the MORE information they get, the more ways they think of to screw us over.

    So maybe, when all this bullshit of "War on [fill in bullshit term here]" is over and all these unjust laws are removed from the books (like asset forfeiture) and policies (spying on AMERICANS and collecting data), then maybe - just maybe - I'll give the government the benefit of the doubt.

    But until proven otherwise, the FBI WILL (they have a history of illegal activities) use this technology for illegal and unConstitutional reasons. And proof is ME going in and auditing the code, the technology and how it's used.

    1. Re:Drviers license. by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Minority Report, anyone?

  16. good luck by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    with starting a grassroots revolution that involves dismantling the status quo..... some tailored busting, false flag action..and off it goes... these tools are too powerful to be put in the hands of a government, no matter how 'nice'.

  17. Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel so much safer now.

  18. 2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember you Americans love your second amendment? Do you remember what it was for?

    If not, let me set the premise:

    Arm yourselves and rush the data centers that house this stuff, tear it down and kill anyone that tries to stop you.

  19. Drivers license photos by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    State DMVs have for some time been compiling digital photo databases. I know Oregon has because they had to bring "someone more familiar with the software" in when they took my license photo. I have a sizable beard and mustache, and I believe the software had difficulty finding my mouth. ... I didn't offer to help.

    If cars are going to have some "if you aren't facing the road, we're going to shut the car off" routine, I may be somewhat restricted in my choice of automobile, or at least options packages...

  20. time for a Privacy amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To declare that right to privacy is an essential human right.

  21. umm... by ComputersKai · · Score: 2

    There are always these: http://petapixel.com/2013/06/1...
    and of course, it'd be amusing to see what'd happen if you taped a picture of yours truly Mr. President onto you fac

  22. Sunglasses by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    Sunglasses royally fuck up most face detection software. It's even better than putting your hair in front of one eye a la Dr. Blight in Captain Planet. Someone else linked to this, which is another, even better option (once they make them more "stylish" so you won't be drawing attention to yourself by wearing them): http://petapixel.com/2013/06/1...

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    1. Re:Sunglasses by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re sunglasses
      Fashion that will hide you from face-recognition technology ( 1/06/14)
      http://io9.com/how-fashion-can...
      "For example, if you are wearing sunglasses, the system will recognize the sunglasses and then ignore that part of your face. The program will then simply analyze whatever is left behind. "... "that it's possible to recognize faces with 30% and in some cases 50% occlusion."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > For example, if you are wearing sunglasses, the system will recognize the sunglasses and then ignore that part of your face.

      Those papers are about algorithms that are deliberately given faces. But that is no good for an automated system that scans crowds. First it has to recognize that a face is present and then it has to analyze the specific features of that face to match against the database.

      But, I expect that normal sunglasses are pretty easy to detect in a crowd anyway. So you need to be a little more aggressive. We need wrap-around sunglasses that are skin-colored and matte instead of glossy metallic/smoked. The idea is to make that part blend in with the rest of your head rather than stand out with a distinct pattern. Wrap-around sunglasses also have the benefit of covering the area around the bridge of the nose, that part of the face is very important for modern facial recognition algorithms.

      A less creepy-looking solution might be to use sunglasses that are not symmetrical - one side white with metallic tint and the other side black with smoked tint. Something that doesn't easily categorize as sunglasses.

      Another way to screw with the system might be the kind of countermeasures seen in this music video by MIA where the scarf contains an image of part of a face of someone else. It isn't a full-blown mask, just covers the mouth and lower nose. The scarf-detection algos in the paper won't recognize it as a scarf and any automated facial recog systems will just parse the picture of the face as if it were the real thing.

  23. Guy Fawkes masks anyone? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/1... $70 but I think I'll just wear my Groucho Marks glasses instead.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  24. What Could Possibly Go Wrong by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    And by using Windows everyone have the chance to share in the bounty.

  25. But please film it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... so everyone else can watch and laugh at you failing.

    1. Re:But please film it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like everyone that doesn't participate is a pussy

  26. Just Do It Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Join us. Create the national biometric ID and passport, with the ID containing optionally a digital social security card and access token store for various network services and building access. Join us, join us now. Only only $120 per card every five years per citizen.

  27. Did you know the FBI is a Mormon organization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know the FBI is primarily a Mormon organization? I bet you didn't know that. I'm sure they've been infiltrated.

  28. A billion dollars!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, that's 0.4 Minecrafts!

    1. Re:A billion dollars!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about 24,2 microhitlers, ain't it. (http://i.imgur.com/rlNyh.png)

  29. Turn yourself in! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    As proven repeatedly, most citizens commit at least 3 felonies every day. If you want criminals off the street, please be the first to turn yourself in. Don't forget to turn yourself in for future crimes too, which the many so called "Progressive" regimes are pushing for (including the US, UK, Australia, etc...)

    Funny how you won't admit that the system is broken because you are not currently the target of an investigation. Piss off the wrong people, and that will change really quickly won't it?

    People in the US today are afraid to express opinions, knowing that they can be a target for all sorts of trouble. So not only do people far criminals, the Government that is supposed to defend our Freedoms elicits as much or more fear.

    This is the exact reason so many quotes exist like "Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither". It's really too bad that people refuse to learn the lessons history can teach, and just as much of a shame that our "public" education system refuses to provide the lessons.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Turn yourself in! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither

      You can't even get the quote right. The real quote is as follows;

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      Notice the word "essential". Being anonymous to the police is not an essential liberty or we would never catch and criminals.

    2. Re:Turn yourself in! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.

      They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
      He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
      He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
      People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
      If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
      Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
      He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
      Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
      Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

      You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Turn yourself in! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:

      Which means that others have said variations of Franklin's words and have falsely attributed them to Franklin. What Franklin said is very different than what you said.
      Of all the quotes you cited Franklin actually said 2 of them. "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." and "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". The former is about wealth and power while the latter is about liberty and safety.

      You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.

      Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.

    4. Re:Turn yourself in! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Outside of your imagination, where did I state that the quote I provided was from Franklin? Go ahead and re-ready my post, read it three or four times if you must. All of your accusations are false and baseless.

      Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.

      In response to repeated false accusation and fabricated information, I find my ad hominem is not without basis. If you prefer people to be kind and proper holding dialogue, consider your input into the conversation first.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  30. The sad thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad thing is that staying the hell out of the U.S.A. is probably going to help as much as staying the hell out of Germany helped in 1940. At some point of time, one will have to make the call between global fascism or World War III.

  31. Acceptance? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    This is exactly what NSA has been doing, but this time it's "in the real world".
    Why do they think people will accept this?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  32. No one, yet? by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    All your face are belong to us.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  33. Optimization by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "We save time by automatically discarding all white faces."

  34. Big Brother is already watching you by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    In Belgium, for a murder case, they checked the nearby cellular phone antenna and send all 1,400 phones connected at the time of the murder a message to look for witnesses (aka suspects).
    I hope none of the innocent people will be in the vicinity of another one or two murders.

  35. Welcome To Mohammedanian Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Military Industrial Complex needs "Terror" to thrive monetarily. So Big Weapons business makes sure a steady supply of dangerous people comes into Pax Americana lands. Then "there is a pressing need" to set up Mohammedanian Security: All-encompassing Intelligence, secret courts, torture, secret prisons and the like.

    ALL THE FUN OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM.

  36. They dont by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you look for is NSA. They have a file on EVERYBODY. Because they have top-grade CS people like Larry Wall and they can Automate Checkism(TM). If you dont know what that is, look up the nice Feliks Dzherzhinsky.

    Also look up the case of the unit 8200 officers who refused to collect more Blackmail Material on completely innocent Arabs.

    And yeah, NSA allows the FBI and 87 other agencies/departments to peruse the smut they have collected. Plus they get cues from 8200 about new Nasty Tactics. They are Best Buddies with them.

  37. hide my face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am thinking of becoming a Islamic woman. Then I can cover my face in public.

  38. It is about leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they know where you have been, and who you have been there with, they can gain leverage.
    YOU have not broken any laws, but they want your boss.
    They caught a friend in a compromising position, and they KNOW you are a friend to him.
    He will get jail time unless YOU help them to get your boss.
    --
    They want to search your home. It is much easier when they see you on the camera across town.

  39. It doesn't scale by davecb · · Score: 1

    We do this in Canada too, and it works where the number of people you're trying to recognize is small. The "birthday paradox"* says that if you're comparing 23 people, you have a 50% chance of a match. You have to multiply this by the error rate (usually much less than 2%) of a facial match program to get the false-positive rate, but it's still huge.

    The German federal security service tried out Siemen's facial matcher years ago, found it had a low error rate... and was completely useless!

    When you had hundreds of criminals to look for in thousands of airport passengers a day, it was directing insane numbers of people to the "capture the terrorist" queue (;-))

    --dave
    [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem]

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:It doesn't scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By now, Siemens is one of the most incompetent companies in informatics. They compete with companies in Algeria or Morocco when it comes to computer science. The Google face recognition algos I have seen work almost perfectly. Fuse that with some military officers, military money and the ability to "shape" buildings and lighting. Then you betcha the quality rate will be 99,9%. Did you notice the almost perfect lighting in some public places ? Such a nice light, everything so BRIIIGHT !

      If you bring Google and Raytheon together, they will build a system that physically aims and zoomes into faces and use 50% of pixels for a nice, automated mugshot. Just because Siemens cannot do it means zilch. Even in the 40s they were designers of shitty cipher machines that could be broken even without a single machine in opposing hands.

      I am German, so I have little reason to say this, but the truth is that almost all well-skilled CS guys have left Germany. Management are simply idiots when it comes to information here, generally speaking. They probably have been since Zimmermann and Dönitz.

    2. Re:It doesn't scale by davecb · · Score: 1

      You can have 99.999 accuracy, and if the number of comparisons is (N choose 2), then the probability is (N chose 2) * 0.00001, which will be (really huge number * 0.00001) which is (merely huge number).

      I don't care how good or bad the implementation is, it has to have more 9's to the right of the decimal than I have zeroes to the left in the number of people, N. That's a known hard problem in computer science (;-))

      --dave
      [And yes, Siemens was getting crappy even then, but that isn't the problem that the FBI has to solve]

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  40. Open Air Prison by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    A jail is a jail, no matter how cool your phone might be.

  41. Re: Once all they've all been catalogued and analy by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Being an enemy is useless, if they know your whereabouts and activities. We're in prison. Get used to it. Pot is legal just in time, because we'll need to drug ourselves to not care.

  42. Re: I hope it's better than the existing system... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    You assume tomorrow will be just like today. This is not a static situation. The recognition systems will get better, then become nearly perfect. And they have other ways of cross checking the ID. This is not a game, and they are smarter than you.

  43. how does it feel america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well?