Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vermont DMV Caught Using Illegal Facial Recognition Program (vocativ.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the stirring-the-pot dept.

schwit1 quotes a report from Vocativ: The Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles has been caught using facial recognition software -- despite a state law preventing it. Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont describe such a program, which uses software to compare the DMV's database of names and driver's license photos with information with state and federal law enforcement. Vermont state law, however, specifically states that "The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not implement any procedures or processes that involve the use of biometric identifiers." The program, the ACLU says, invites state and federal agencies to submit photographs of persons of interest to the Vermont DMV, which it compares against its database of some 2.6 million Vermonters and shares potential matches. Since 2012, the agency has run at least 126 such searches on behalf of local police, the State Department, FBI, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

8 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Fortunately... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Fortunately, the offending bureaucrats are guaranteed to see jail time, thus sending a stern and much-needed message to traitorous, corrupt officials elsewhere...

    Damn; these are some good mushrooms...

    1. Re:Fortunately... by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So law enforcement is looking to identify a specific person. Law enforcement only has a picture of the person the are looking for. They take the picture the DMV for help. The DMV takes the picture and runs it through facial recognition software to see if they can match the picture to anyone in it's database. How does this process harm anyone? The DMV already has your drivers license with your picture on it and is also considered a public record. If law enforcement only has the target picture and no other identifying information. How does this process harm anyone or violate anyone's rights?

      it might stop people from getting a drivers license.

      but how it harms peoples rights is that THEY GOT A FUCKING LAW THAT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT THAT THE DMV DATABASE IS NOT USED FOR THIS! for whatever reason they made that law and MADE IT A FUCKING RIGHT AND THE DMV AND FEDS JUST PISSED OVER THAT LAW.

      and how it harms people is false positives. the more you put faces into the system the more it starts producing false positives(a true fact with automatic facial matching) - now if the operators are too stupid to understand possibility of false positives then they will order a swat strike even if the suspect could not have been anywhere near the crimes alleged. if they are stupid enough to break the law to make such a search they might be stupid enough to use it like that. furthermore just having that option in the database for facial recognition opens the system for abuse by dmv workers(look a face on facebook, get details) and so on - they explicitly made a law to not have such capabilities and then they just went on and did it anyways.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Fortunately... by kenh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The issue is the law specifically forbids it, not that the search "harms" anyone.

      This caught my eye:

      Since 2012, the agency has run at least 126 such searches on behalf of local police, the State Department, FBI, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

      Why, that's just over 2 a month! It's an epidemic! These mad men must be stopped!

      --
      Ken
    3. Re: Fortunately... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When an agency entrusted to enforce the law breaks the law it harms everyone. Frequency is immaterial.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. Prohibit, not prevent by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The state law probably prohibits facial recognition. It certainly doesn't prevent it.

    It's not a law of nature, like gravity. It's one of those more petty laws of man.

  3. Yep by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have been saying this for many years.... it doesn't matter what laws say, the government (and big business) is going to do whatever they want with data they collect. Most certainly the 3-letter agencies will.

    I love it how things are worded "this data can only be used for XXXXX" or "can't be used for YYYYY" or "won't be disclosed to ZZZZZZ". Bull crap. They will do whatever they want and even if they abide by it for the moment, computers don't "forget" and laws can change at any time.

    If you don't think the agencies have access to (or WILL have access to) every fingerprint collected, every photo, every DNA sample run, etc, then you are living in a fantasy world.

    The only safe data (or biometric) is that not given and not collected.

  4. Re:126? by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "126 people since 2012 means they're not using it."

    Since you obviously flunked kindergarten math, you might want to change your claim once you learn that 126 doesn't equal 0.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  5. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your Honor, my client killed only one of the over 600,000 people in Vermont. Clearly, he's not a murderer.