Slashdot Mirror
Facial Recognition Database Used By FBI Is Out of Control, House Committee Hears (theguardian.com)
The House oversight committee claims the FBI's facial recognition database is out of control, noting that "no federal law controls this technology" and "no court decision limits it." At last week's House oversight committee hearing, politicians and privacy campaigners presented several "damning facts" about the databases. "About 80% of photos in the FBI's network are non-criminal entries, including pictures from driver's licenses and passports," reports The Guardian. "The algorithms used to identify matches are inaccurate about 15% of the time, and are most likely to misidentify black people than white people." From the report: "Facial recognition technology is a powerful tool law enforcement can use to protect people, their property, our borders, and our nation," said the committee chair, Jason Chaffetz, adding that in the private sector it can be used to protect financial transactions and prevent fraud or identity theft. "But it can also be used by bad actors to harass or stalk individuals. It can be used in a way that chills free speech and free association by targeting people attending certain political meetings, protests, churches, or other types of places in the public." Furthermore, the rise of real-time face recognition technology that allows surveillance and body cameras to scan the faces of people walking down the street was, according to Chaffetz, "most concerning." "For those reasons and others, we must conduct proper oversight of this emerging technology," he said.
I think police should need a warrant to use facial recognition in many cases. I also feel that perhaps searches of electronic devices and online accounts need to strictly limit exactly what is searched for and disallow any evidence of any crimes not listed in the warrant from being used.
The 4th amendment is supposed to make it hard to prosecute certain kinds of crime. In my opinion, the police really have no business going after crime that isn't reported to them anyway, except for a few exceptions like murder.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
... are most likely to misidentify black people than white people.
Before you jump to conclusions about "racist software," I can tell you that the reason for this is very well known and understood: lighting and contrast ratios. Specifically, you get a much higher contrast ratio of faces with light skinned people from image sensors than do you for dark skinned people unless you have their face very well lit up. Simply put, camera sensors are a poor substitute for the human eye and this is one of the side-effects of that.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The algorithms generally tend to identify an individual based on relative (i.e. comparison-based) facial structure. In order to have a facial structure to measure, it must identify the eyebrows, eyes, nose, jawline, hairline, etc. The way it identifies these features is based in contrast from one element to another; when hair and skin color are similar (such as with a platinum blond like me, or with a dark-haired, dark-skinned individual), there's a lot less contrast there to measure.
Furthermore, with darker skin, shadows aren't as noticeable, so the shadows that would otherwise allow measurement of eyebrow prominence or jawline will also be much harder to identify.
These images were captured in public where you have no right to privacy.
It's not that simple. Anything really important rarely is simple.
That standard, along with many other standards, laws, Acts, court precedents, etc etc, were created in the past under a different reality, where entire technologies did not exist and therefor could not have been accounted for in the drafting of those standards, laws, etc. All such make assumptions about how thoroughly enforced it can/will be along with how often it is broken which result in various levels of punishment.
Most traffic laws and their fines/punishments were drafted and codified into law with the assumption that 100% enforcement or close was impossible, but new technology is allowing law enforcement to achieve a much higher enforcement percentage than was originally understood possible. License plate scanning technology is another topic that is beginning to bring this phenomenon to public attention.
Considering the typical US citizen commits on average 3 felonies a day, 100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
There needs to be new limits set on the ability of the government to adopt new technology for domestic law enforcement and information gathering/analysis/investigation without thorough public review and oversight. Perhaps a topic for an Article-V Convention of States.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No one ever said that.
Sure they did. Lumpy said it in the post just above yours. I'm not sure I'd call him one of the wisest men in the country, but hey.
-- Alastair
Which freedoms have you lost? Be specific. Have you had any of your Constitutional rights violated? Be specific.
And what's wrong with storing passport and driver license photos?
I know your posting as AC, and not expecting an answer, but these are VERY VALID QUESTIONS and I don't think you deserved to be modded down....
I don't know about you, but over the last decade or so, I personally feel that my right to be secure in my person is not exactly strong. Lets not even get started on my papers and effects. Maybe you haven't been paying attention?
Or maybe since they are using my face, without my consent, it maybe doesn't count as bearing witness against myself?
I know that's not as specific as you had asked, but I think its best to leave that to the student. Call it a story problem. Which specific freedoms am I talking about?
I feel my face is a pretty big part of my person. I feel like its mine. That's what we are discussing here. The storage and use of yours and mine faces (not likenesses) against our consent, for use in automated law enforcement tools. Let that sink in for a moment. Say it out loud.
Automated. Law. Enforcement.
When you find yourself implicated in a rape or murder simply because your ID card photo from 15 years ago shares some of the features of the real villain, and the closed-source-super-classified-no-oversight-working-just-fine-thankyou-FBI-computer-system put you on the wrong side of 15%, remember how worth it the convenience of not having to stand in line for hours at the DMV was.
It could be, automating our law enforcement is best answer to modern law enforcement problems (selective enforcement, racial profiling, corruption, etc.) but only if its rolled out 100% everywhere at the same time, and simply being accused of a capital crime no longer completely ruins your life - As it does today in modern America. 15% false positives seem like pretty good betting odds, right up until you start to think about whats at stake. Maybe if we can automate our legal defenses as well it will balance out, but criminal defense is a long shot from fighting traffic tickets.
This is real. Events over the past 5 years have put body cams on the front-line of enforcement. Automation is the next logical step. We NEED to talk about this. We need to talk LOUDLY, in public, to each other, to our elected officials, to our children, and to our law enforcers. We need to set some rules, enforce some old ones, and make sure everybody sees this coming, before its to late.
Keep asking valid questions AC, and it's OK to ask them behind that anonymous mask.... for now.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Only 3 a day huh? I might should try to slow down a bit :o
Considering the typical US citizen commits on average 3 felonies a day, 100% enforcement would result in much if not most of the population imprisoned.
That smells like you plucked it out of some place not-so-fresh.
It's an average. Are you really unaware of how over-criminalized our society has become? Do they not have Google on your Internet?
https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.pkXOubGx5
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day/
It's a book, check it out.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Which brings us back around to where we started. It appears they are quite satisfied to use cheap cameras setups that are good enough not to overly misidentify white people, and then stop there.
Simple facts - better cameras cost money, white faces are easier to identify on camera. The most logical conclusion is to use cameras that are good enough for a majority of the population. Or if we have a "social justice" bend we can conclude that the planners considered better cameras but decided that they preferred cameras that misidentify black people and the low cost was only a bonus. Get over yourself. This is probably shocking to those who think that there is a vast conspiracy to keep the dark man down but it really isn't always about you. Besides, knowing that no group whines louder than the SJW crowd they would be complaining if the cities bought better cameras just so that they could better identify black criminals.