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

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.

Comments

I don't feel safer

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:I don't feel safer

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:I don't feel safer

[GerryGilmore]

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.

Re:I don't feel safer

[chill]

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

Re: I don't feel safer

[Megane]

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.

Because everyone driving has a license.

[0100010001010011]

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'.

Big data is gonna kill small crime

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime

[SeattleLawGuy]

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.

Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime

[smooth wombat]

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?

Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime

[known_coward_69]

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

Re:100 Arrested?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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?

So now ...

[ve3oat]

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."

Re:Marriage or transgender?

[knorthern knight]

> 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.

Re:Can you say...

[gnasher719]

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.