Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

100 Arrested In New York Thanks To Better Face-Recognition Technology (arstechnica.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the looking-guilty dept.

New York doubled the number of "measurement points" used by their facial recognitation technology this year, leading to 100 arrests for fraud and identity theft, plus another 900 open cases. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In all, since New York implemented facial recognition technology in 2010, more than 14,000 people have been hampered trying to get multiple licenses. The newly upgraded system increases the measurement points of a driver's license picture from 64 to 128.

The DMV said this vastly improves its chances of matching new photographs with one already in a database of 16 million photos... "Facial recognition plays a critical role in keeping our communities safer by cracking down on individuals who break the law," Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said in a statement. "New York is leading the nation with this technology, and the results from our use of this enhanced technology are proof positive that its use is vital in making our roads safer and holding fraudsters accountable."
At least 39 US states use some form of facial recognition software, and New York says their new system also "removes high-risk drivers from the road," stressing that new licenses will no longer be issued until a photo clears their database.

85 comments

  1. I don't feel safer by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    It's true they can use this technology for good but you know it'll be abused to hell and back. Safer? Very little but certainly much less free.

    1. Re:I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once thieves start wearing masks, the only use of facial recognition will be to track non-criminals -- it's actual intended use!

    2. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people here will consider the face recognition and tracking to be a potential invasion of privacy. I agree, and I don't like it. However, privacy is dead, regardless of where you go. If you're alive, you're being tracked. Even when you're told you're not being tracked, you're still being tracked.

      Take Slashdot for example. There's no such thing as anonymity here. My post may say "Anonymous Coward" but I'm really being tracked many times over while making this post.

      My IP address is logged. Editors can and do use that information to track who posts what, and do look that information up. If you get a temporary posting ban, you're given an MD5 hash of your IP and subnet. It's trivial to calculate 16.7 million or even 4 billion hashes to identify an IPv4 address. It's clear they also log other information like the browser's user agent and the OS used to post comments. That information could be requested by an outside entity and used against you. Notice there isn't any transparency, either, as to whether Slashdot has actually received any requests to track users. Given the content posted to this site, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they have received requests. There's also little transparency as to what is recorded, and it wouldn't surprise me if they employed tactics like browser fingerprinting.

      And then you have numerous advertisements and tracking scripts that load on this site unless you block them. Each of them is tracking you. While I'm not aware of Slashdot tracking users on other sites, these advertisers are definitely doing so. So you're being tracked there, too.

      Anonymous Coward posts aren't anonymous at all. You might as well post your IP, because there's little protection afforded to users. And if you're being tracked here, you're being tracked everywhere else, too.

      Because there's no anonymity, I'll post my IP address: 70.198.37.139. Sadly, you're being tracked everywhere you go, whether you like it or not. Privacy is dead, dead, dead.

    3. Re:I don't feel safer by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Once thieves start wearing masks, the only use of facial recognition will be to track non-criminals

      RTFA. The main use of this tech (so far) is to prevent people from getting additional drivers licenses under false names. You can't wear a mask while getting your DL photo. Another common use of facial recognition is to identify people that have warrants while they are in public places. Actually identifying a perp in the process of committing a crime is much less common, and is not what this system is designed to do.

    4. Re:I don't feel safer by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      And the paranoia begins....Nothing useful can be done with technology because: Gummint! Sheesh!!

    5. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not Sharia Law that allows you to wear a mask. That's the first amendment.

    6. Re:I don't feel safer by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I call 100% Organic, dolphin-free Bullshit! Name one place in America where you are allowed to have your DL photo taken while wearing a mask because of SHARIA!! (Boogety-boogety...) You can't, because your paranoia has you blinded.

    7. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's Omaha this time of year?

    8. Re:I don't feel safer by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      lets be honest though, you know damn well thats the end goal. minority report

      in all seriousness, this is actually a good use of it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:I don't feel safer by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fine, then name one country. Even Saudi Arabia makes women remove their veils for State ID photos.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never specified which country

      Yes you did.

      You are posting in a thread discussing New York in the USA.
      The fact you specified no country means, intentionally or not, you are talking about New York in the USA.

      The fact there is no Sharia Law in the USA let alone in New York means your statement is factually incorrect.

      Stop being so obtusely stupid on purpose.

    11. Re:I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're the paranoid ones: They're the ones who want to keep tabs on everyone's minutiae.

    12. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so they are expressing themselves by allowing oppression? That's not stupid at all /sarcasm.

    13. Re:I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes until it's used as a convenient excuse for probable cause. And I am sure it's not free. I know folks are in this endless loop of we aren't safe, we need more gov't protection, but spending resource on something I don't think has a good ROI. I would rather they spend it on redoing a road or bridge. We don't need to increase the power of the police state by giving them another 'tool'.

    14. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are expressing themselves by covering their face, for whatever reason they choose.

      I get it, you hate freedom of religion.

    15. Re:I don't feel safer by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You can't wear a mask while getting your DL photo.

      No... you can't appear to be wearing a mask. If your mask is realistic enough to fool people and machines into thinking you're not wearing a mask, then you can probably still get your DL photo.

    16. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windstream?

    17. Re:I don't feel safer by Hylandr · · Score: 0

      I was talking about sharia law.

      The very real fact remains that I mentioned Sharia Law in reference to it being considered improper to photograph women. Granted in the states I was thankfully proven wrong for our country. I do not condone sharia or it's practices but was using that as an example.

      You can pretend to assign a geographic reference by your own personal assumptions and abuse of logic to declare what another person has on their minds till the cows come home. It makes no difference to me, but you may want to see a psychiatrist for that.

      I can't wait until Summer is over and you kids go back to school.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    18. Re: I don't feel safer by Megane · · Score: 2

      A DL is a privilege, not a right. The state can express itself by refusing to give you a DL if you refuse to take a picture without stuff covering your face.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    19. Re:I don't feel safer by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I was talking about sharia law.

      The only one who can't have his photo taken due to Sharia law is the Prophet Mohammed.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    20. Re:I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're not supposed to depict the Prophet Mohammed in art/literature/etc for fear of worshiping the man in place of God.

      Orthodox Christianity is similar.....Have you ever wondered why Orthodox art is far less detailed than Catholic/Protestant and many of the people are moderately distorted.

    21. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it is time for the "privilege not a right" trope to die now. One can no longer expect to be able to use a horse instead of a car. (Not saying that it is wrong to require a photo without accessories. Just that the use of a car is something less than optional for most citizens.)

    22. Re: I don't feel safer by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I think it's OK to keep the "trope" since we're living in the age of Uber and on the verge of self driven cars anyway.

    23. Re: I don't feel safer by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      There is no privacy in public, never has been. What we are on the verge of losing is the near anonymity of living in a large faceless city, and I'm OK with losing that.

    24. Re: I don't feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no privacy in public, never has been.

      False. There is an expectation of privacy under many circumstances in public places, and that expectation is protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments in US law.

      For example, if you are hiking in a national forest - a public place - you nevertheless have an expectation of privacy when you step behind a convenient tree to relieve yourself. Any rational person would agree that attempting to either a) take somebody's picture under such circumstances, or b) publish such a picture, if a person was caught in the image by accident, would be a violation of fundamental rights.

      Reasonable expectations regarding the law are themselves protected under the 9th / 10th Amendment right to ethical practice of law, and hence ANY court reaching a decision to the contrary is violating the Bill of Rights.

  2. Because everyone driving has a license. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    its use is vital in making our roads safer

    and New York says their new system also "removes high-risk drivers from the road," stressing that new licenses will no longer be issued until a photo clears their database.

    Because no one has ever driven without a license. Especially those 'high risk drivers'.

    1. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by GNious · · Score: 1

      So now we need to retrofit all cars with card-readers and cell-transceivers, so the car can verify that you have a valid license before starting.... Simples!

    2. Re: Because everyone driving has a license. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is still a useful difference between no one and fewer.

    3. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Welcome on board Mr. Dallas.. You have five points left on your license."

    4. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can only hope...

    5. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Because no one has ever driven without a license. Especially those 'high risk drivers'.

      Probably in the next few decades car manufacturers will have to implement a new standard, where to drive your car, there's a "slot" you have to insert your driver's license in, and a computer in your vehicle will verify the status of your license and your facial ID before allowing you to take the vehicle out of park.

    6. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highly unlikely, because in a few decades most people won't actually be driving their cars at all. No license, no problem, the car does the driving.

    7. Re:Because everyone driving has a license. by phorm · · Score: 1

      "removes high-risk drivers from the road"

      Well, presumably applying for a false identification would be a criminal violation, so going to jail would remove one from the road...

  3. 100 Arrested? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Did those 100 arrested people crash their cars at a statistically significantly higher rate than the population of 'normally' licensed people?

    If not, what was the benefit?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:100 Arrested? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Well the summary talks about people trying to get "multiple licenses", so I wouldn't assume car crashes was involved here. Sounds like people trying to get IDs under false identities being caught at the DMV. It's a time they would be required to make their face fully exposed for a government camera with good lighting and view of their features.

    2. Re:100 Arrested? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you Provide legitimate reasons a person should be able to get multiple drivers licenses?

      I don't have a problem with this specific situation - in isolation. I do, however, see a huge (and inevitable) problem with overreach and abuse, since the powers that be will obviously see this as "useful" data not being mined to its full potential. Doesn't New York have surveillance cameras all over the bloody place - including wifi hotspots?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:100 Arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They will not see this as an opportunity, they CREATED that "opportunity", and get away with it because people like you think installing face-recognition technology to constantly scan everybody is an acceptable measure to find 100 petty criminals out of millions of people.

    4. Re:100 Arrested? by MindPrison · · Score: 1

      100 people extra to fill the already overfilled prison population industry, yes...I wrote industry.

      Oh, and everything we write in here (slashdot.org is also social media) will now be subject to scrutiny the next time we visit the U.S. So I'll probably be apprihended for what I just wrote here. Oh heck, the way it's going over there...I might not apply for a Green Card anymore, I'm happy here in Scandinavia. *(Still love American citzens though).

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    5. Re:100 Arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Still love American citzens though"

      I love banging Yank sluts as well!

    6. Re:100 Arrested? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      Getting arrested doesn't mean going to prison.

    7. Re:100 Arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they where only arrested, they could have been false positives.

  4. Face-kini is all the rage in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before this craze hits american shores? (Hahahaha)

  5. Big data is gonna kill small crime by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm seeing this is just about every form of crime outside of petty theft among the poor (e.g. when they keep it in their own neighborhood so nobody can be arsed to investigate). Give it another 10-20 years and the only crimes left will be the occasional breakin at some poor slobs apartment that nets $100 bucks worth of junk, a few crimes of passion and the legal crime Wallstreet does because we don't have the bollocks to regulate anymore.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm seeing this is just about every form of crime outside of petty theft among the poor (e.g. when they keep it in their own neighborhood so nobody can be arsed to investigate). Give it another 10-20 years and the only crimes left will be the occasional breakin at some poor slobs apartment that nets $100 bucks worth of junk, a few crimes of passion and the legal crime Wallstreet does because we don't have the bollocks to regulate anymore.

      "A few" crimes of passion? Spend one day in a courtroom listening to domestic violence cases. Big data can help fight crime, but crime isn't going away without more profound societal changes. Fundamentally, we need to create enough legal opportunity for everyone, we need to raise people better, we need to provide much better social training to everyone, and that's just a part of it. Big data can help with that, but it's not going to magically "solve" crime by helping you arrest people.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    2. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the multiple trillions of dollars we've already spent trying to instill common sense into people, the multitude of social programs designed to try and help people get jobs or a roof over their head, the grants or subsidies to help people start their own businesses and all the other programs who in one way or another have tried to set people on the correct path to life have worked so well we should spend trillions more.

      The easiest way to reduce the prison population and those committing repeat crimes is to execute people. Domestic violence. Gone. You don't beat the crap out the woman (or man) you're living with and think that's acceptable.

      You don't have multiple crimes against you before you're 18 then get a free pass to start the process over. Rapes, child molestation/rape, recidivists, murderers in general, gone.

      Clean out the system instead of coddling and you will see a dramatic improvement in society. With the criminals gone, who will commit the crimes?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by known_coward_69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      people will find something else. in the 80's it was almost guaranteed that your car would be stolen or your stereo ripped out. the car makers fixed that. back then it was almost guaranteed that you would be mugged on the streets of NYC.

      now petty criminals do digital scams. once that goes away they will find something else as organized crime adapts and the rank and file employees learn new skills

    4. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by oic0 · · Score: 1

      Thats basically like trying to force the effects of eugenics without having actual eugenics. Its not easy to modify instinctual behavior that easily. You can force it if you try hard enough, but you end up with an awfully oppressive society to achieve it. Might as well just go ahead with actual eugenics, just approach it from a positive reward system rather than a negative.

    5. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? You think passing laws with draconian punishments will solve crime? That's already been tried. It just leads to endless cycles of 'revolution' as one group overthrows another only to impose its own draconian rule.

      You don't beat the crap out the woman (or man) you're living with and think that's acceptable.

      What about the years of passive-aggressive button pushing by the 'victim' that led up to the physical act? Does that warrant death too? How do we micromanage every relationship? Do we put cameras in every home, every car, every train, every street corner?

      I don't want to live in your society any more than I want to live in the 'progressive' welfare state we now have.

    6. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've basically described the type of populist manifesto which gets a great many of the world's tinpot dictatorships started.

    7. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Informative

      Might as well just go ahead with actual eugenics, just approach it from a positive reward system rather than a negative.

      Done and done!

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

      78% of PP clinics located in predominantly black neighborhoods, blacks ~12% of total US population but ~35% of total PP abortions. Margaret Sanger gave talks at KKK gatherings and was highly praised for her work by the KKK.

      They seem to want to cover all the bases.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some "crimes" are crimes only because they inconvenience people higher on the social ladder, such as many digital rights 'crimes.'
      Joke: every election politicians run on a platform that included getting rid of waste, fraud, and corruption. Next election, they are still running against those 3. It's fighting human nature; it's like trying to push water uphill. Instead of fighting it, I say go with the flow and embrace waste fraud and corruption--but unlike my opponent, I promise to cut everyone in for their fair share of the deal!
      So combine these ideas:
      human nature results in a lot of waste, fraud and corruption
      creating crimes by over-definition of what is criminal
      see 3 Felonies a Day... by Silverstein ...and I have an idea. One of the major factors that help complex societies function are decisions made by individuals or small groups at a small micro-level, that are pragmatic, they get results, but may violate some law or regulations. Example, the UPS delivery man who has been servicing my address most days for over 10 years knows he can leave packages for me safely, even though it violates what he is supposed to do. (For this argument let's exclude crimes of violence. Although micro-level crimes, such as roughing up a teenage punk may fit in as an overall 'good').
      Something like this face recognition software comes along and really is a much more efficient way to catch micro-criminals, but these petty 'crimes' are part of the glue and grease that keep society functioning better. Get rid of this type of human activity and society falls apart of grinds to a halt.

  6. The Panopticon is a safe place, for the wardens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the risk.

  7. Its about "fraud and identity theft" by drnb · · Score: 1

    Did those 100 arrested people crash their cars at a statistically significantly higher rate than the population of 'normally' licensed people? If not, what was the benefit?

    From the first sentence of the summary: "leading to 100 arrests for fraud and identity theft, plus another 900 open cases." The benefit is not letting an identity thief get a valid official identification card from the government.

  8. So now ... by ve3oat · · Score: 2

    we'll have the same problem with facial recognition and licenses as we do with names on the "no fly" list.

    "that new licenses will no longer be issued until a photo clears their database."

  9. Election year... government issued id by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

    "new licenses will no longer be issued until a photo clears their database."

    Let me guess. The technology takes longer to clear or doesn't work so well for black faces? Because people will need these to vote...

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. In no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Could that backfire.

  11. Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can you Provide legitimate reasons a person should be able to get multiple drivers licenses?

    Here are two good ones:
    1) transgender person preparing for transition should be able to get a new license for their post-transition gender with gender-appropriate name
    2) person who has legally changed their name should be able to get a new license with their new name

    The facial recognition system will auto-flag both of these cases as potential identity theft and delay issuance of the license longer than necessary. The live DMV official where these folks applied for their second license would have been able to immediately inspect the legal documents establishing that this is not identity theft, but the facial recognition system won't care and will unreasonably prevent immediate issuance of the license.

    Because the DMV now screws over trans and non-trans equally on name changes I'd bet they're on safe legal ground but it's bad political optics in someplace as liberal as NYC.

    1. Re:Marriage or transgender? by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      im with you on part 2, but on part one no, until they have the surgery there is zero good reason to give them a new identity, this isnt slashdot

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Marriage or transgender? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Here are two good ones:
      > 1) transgender person preparing for transition should be able to get a new
      > license for their post-transition gender with gender-appropriate name
      2) person who has legally changed their name should be able to get a new license with their new name

      Errrr, uhmmm; A person comes in with a valid driver's licence under name "A", *AND TURNS IT IN TO BE REPLACED* with a driver's licence under name "B" is not a problem. It's the people who've had their licence taken away for DWI, or who want to fraudulently pose as somebody else that are the problem.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    3. Re:Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Here are two good ones:
      > 1) transgender person preparing for transition should be able to get a new
      > license for their post-transition gender with gender-appropriate name
      2) person who has legally changed their name should be able to get a new license with their new name

      Errrr, uhmmm; A person comes in with a valid driver's licence under name "A", *AND TURNS IT IN TO BE REPLACED* with a driver's licence under name "B" is not a problem. It's the people who've had their licence taken away for DWI, or who want to fraudulently pose as somebody else that are the problem.

      This happens all the time when women take another name after marriage. I've never heard of anyone getting a second license without turning in the first one.

      In all of these cases, you check the box that asks if you have a current license on the form of the new one and hand the old one in. You don't get or need TWO licenses in any of these cases.

    4. Re:Marriage or transgender? by jezwel · · Score: 1
      Both of these cases are already met using official documentation (like a doctors cert. or marriage licence) and the appropriate 'change of name' form, where the reason is selected by the DMV officer in the registration and licensing system, which will automatically cancel the dual-identity flag by the facial recognition system.
      In my (non-US) country, drivers licences are not issued on the spot, so you would retain your old licence until the new licence is received. This 'dual licence, dual name' setup is catered for in the system.

      Source: works in a Transport department that maintains a custom registration and drivers licence system.

    5. Re:Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Here are two good ones:

      Only if you're too stupid to use the existing system.

      > 1) transgender person preparing for transition should be able to get a new license for their post-transition gender with gender-appropriate name

      Then you show up, with the appropriate paperwork, turn in your old licences, and get a new one. No need to have multiple licencees.

      > 2) person who has legally changed their name should be able to get a new license with their new name

      Then you show up, with the appropriate paperwork, turn in your old licences, and get a new one. No need to have multiple licencees.

    6. Re:Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not all transgender people have surgery.

      And for those who do, most doctors require them to live as their new gender for two years before they can have surgery. Part of that is getting a new license.

      So yes, you're being a transphobe.

    7. Re:Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transgender person will simply tell them about the transgender thing - easily checked. Same with the legally changed name.

    8. Re:Marriage or transgender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no... if you have a penis, you are man. you can play dressup all you want, and i support that right of yours. but dont try and tell me you are a woman. im not buying it. enjoy your life, but you dont have to push your gender non norms on me

  12. Identity Theft for IDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The main use of this tech (so far) is to prevent people from getting additional drivers licenses under false names.

    What we will see in response is a black-market in valid driver's licenses. By that I mean data-mining valid licenses for people that resemble the criminal and then getting a duplicate issued to the criminal.

    Many states sell their databases to third parties and even if they don't legally permit access that's not going to stop someone from exfiltrating a copy of the database and then using it for all kinds of fraudulent things, including the production of fake duplicates. Just go over to /r/fakeid on reddit and you'll see tons of kids and a few over-seas pros that manufacture fake-ids for kids who want to drink. The technology to make a fake license - especially one that has valid data - is totally democratized. Even digitally signing licenses (which is already in the standard just not widely implemented) won't prevent someone who looks like you from using your license - you can't digitally sign a person's face.

  13. Wow, I feel safer already /sarcasm by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    I am more nervous about the cops/gov't than a punk on the street. The punk on the street typicaly does not have a huge military (style and defacto) force backing him up, even if he is in a gang, and usualy he just wants my money. If it went further, usualy he would just shoot me dead on the spot, instead of locking me in a tiny windowless cell for years or decades on end, escorting me everywhere in shackles, and better yet tying me down in a restraint chair while blasting my face with pepper spray, sticking hoods and masks over my face if I dare slip, or go insane under the conditions of solitary confinement, and doing everything to prevent suicide to escape this torture. And I am a law-abiding citizen. Yes, the "good guys" scare me more than the "bad guys".

  14. Proudhon said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

  15. Can you say... by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

    False positive? What is the rate of misidentifying two people who look alike as being the same? How do they plan to deal with this? It could be seriously problematic for the victims of such a mistake, worse than erroneously being on the no-fly list.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    1. Re:Can you say... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      False positive? What is the rate of misidentifying two people who look alike as being the same? How do they plan to deal with this? It could be seriously problematic for the victims of such a mistake, worse than erroneously being on the no-fly list.

      There was a report of twins applying for a learner's permit at the same time running into problems, so this can happen.

      Applying for a second license under a false name seems to happen when the first license has lots of unpaid fines and/or the license is revoked. So if A has a perfectly fine license, and B applies for a license and happens to look exactly like A, this would look a lot less suspicious. Should be fine to give B his license and then investigate. On the other hand, if A's license is revoked, then this is more suspicious and more risky. The first idea would be to contact both A and B, and if they can both be contacted, it should be possibly to prove they are different. If A cannot be contacted, that makes it a bit tougher. You would ask B for evidence that he has existed for some time.

      There's a difference to the no-fly list: That gets people into trouble at the airport, with very little time to sort out any problems.

  16. Now all we need are more laws by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Informative

    With arrests and incarceration increasing, we will run out of criminals on the lam. Time to pass new laws.

    Ten felonies a day, or bust!

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  17. Privacy is not binary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privacy is not a complete black and white thing, if you lost one leg then would that be the same as loosing both and both arms and your eyes? We should not stop fighting, and we should not assume that we can only stop not push-back, it might be hard but it can work.

    Also this isn't true if you use sufficient script/tracking blockers the sites you visit would have to actively trade info to track you, which they don't normally, yet. If you postulate that the NSA/gchq drinks the whole internet then they might know illegally, even then storage is not free so as, the 5 treasonous eyes don't have that much storage so they will have to dump less interesting stuff on occasion.

  18. Heh, mayby but not how you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expensive hard to get ID excludes poor people, how its supposed to work, you wouldn't want them to vote would you? the more you ha

  19. False positive rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is the false positive rate for that 14,000?

    Maybe 14,000 is a bureaucratic nightmare for each one of those 14,000 selected.

    14000 denied? Success!

  20. Let's hope it works better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... fingerprinting: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/us/30settle.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4689218.stm

    Being overly confident "because computers" is a recipe for having to eat a lot of humble pie.

  21. not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "expensive" id costs less than $2 per year in New York, free if you're on disability or social security.

  22. I think we should get rid of drivers licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The threat from government is far worse than the threat from a few bad drivers. They are already utilizing the suspension of drivers licenses against those who can't pay child support because they lack employment. They abuse the hell out of men (and probably some women too). What do you think happens when you prevent a person from getting a job who can't pay child support because they are unemployed? They become homeless and/or living off of others. They don't become productive members of society. We don't need this crap and just because you haven't encountered it yet doesn't mean you won't. I'm a gay dude living in New Hampshire and don't have to worry about ever being screwed over because of this particular legislation, but that doesn't mean there aren't other things the government will do to screw me over and everyone else for that matter. They already steal my $$$ in the forth of taxes, vehicular registration (another form of tax), and similar. They utilize violence and corrosion against people who have harmed no one. That's what they do when you refuse to conform, or can't conform for one reason or another. For instance people of both sexes can't get drivers licenses without lyeing on the application and committing perjury. But it's none of the states business anyway. We are suppose to be able to travel without hindrance of government. It's even in the f'ing constitution.

    If you think we should get rid of copyright, taxes, and put responsibility back where it belongs: at the individual level. Then come join me and the free state project in New Hampshire. www.freestateproject.org ; It's a migration movement to bring liberty-minded folk together to fight government. We won't get anywhere spread out, but together we actually can change things. To succeed New Hampshire was chosen as a low population state where there is a good opportunity and it'll be feasible down the road to have significant political impact.

  23. So do I get my license with or without the beard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it easier to detect me from my license with a beard and then shave it after? Or should I take the picture without the beard and then grow it out later? Which scenario is the most personally secure?

  24. I'm Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how I feel about recognitation. The very thought of it scares me.I'm really not one to post on spelling errors, but then this is a whole new word on par with strategery.

    I'll wait patiently for someone to point out my errors. The person who points out an error always makes an error, right?

  25. 1984 has arrived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It took them a while longer than expected, but it has arrived. CCTVs, facial recognition, tracking, recording, perpetual wars, secret prisons and extra judicial punishment. Truth and facts are replaced by entertainment and lies, "history" as taught is a bunch of lies and congealed propaganda, everyone is a suspect and it's better to punish 100 innocents than letting one guilty escape.

    Welcome to our bright new world, the one where Hitler personally failed, but his ideas won on walk over.