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.

109 comments

  1. fuck u mute me shitdick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    unmute me bitch boy

    1. Re:fuck u mute me shitdick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      then quit micspamming oldies, self fertilizing hermaphrodite emo noob

  2. it's VERMONT by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    they ALL look alike

    1. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember folks, if the Dukes of Hazzard had been about minorities, you'd be cheering for the Sheriff to shoot them.

      In fact, I can't even remember a black guy on the show. Ever.

    2. Re:it's VERMONT by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Dukes of Hazard had more black actors than Seinfeld or Friends.

      It's not a show based up in the segregated North.

    3. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The Dukes of Hazard had more black actors than Seinfeld or Friends.

      Oh my, you're really trying to base your superiority on 20 characters, is that it? Not exactly showing much credibility there.

      But ok, take pride in that token achievement, it'll sure be the toast of the town that Friends and Seinfeld, two shows with a cast that could be shoved into a Wonder Bread sack have even fewer black characters.

      It's not a show based up in the segregated North.

      Actually, except for minor episodes, all of three of them were primarily filmed in California. In fact, Jerry's apartment's exterior is even in LA.

      The same is true of NCIS, Body of Proof, Andy Griffith, Castle, MASH, the Golden Girls, JAG, How I Met your Mother and many more.

      Yep, they're based in Sunny Cal-i-For-Ni-Ay!

      Even Stately Wayne Manor!

    4. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer sat at their usual booths at Monk's, their favorite diner.

      "Gee, George, it's a shame about Susan," Jerry offered, trying to sound sincere.

      "Yeah, well ... yeah." George was still trying to cover up his glee at escaping the marriage vows by his fiancee's untimely death.

      "Still," Kramer said, sipping his soda loudly, "it's kind of a good thing."

      Elaine looked at him, shocked. "How can you say that? A woman has died."

      Kramer put his glass down with a bang. "I think it's kinda obvious that Georgie-boy here needs to get a little more pussy before he settles down."

      "What?" Elaine was stunned.

      Jerry just nodded. "I agree."

      "Hey!" George said, outraged, "I'll have you know I've had plenty of pussy in my life."

      "I can't believe you're all sitting around here talking about this in front of me," Elaine said, shocked.

      "Oh, get over it," Jerry said. "You're worse than the rest of us when it comes to talking about fucking."

      Elaine glared at her former boyfriend, then calmed down. "I guess you're right about that."

      "Who cares about that?" George said, still angry. "Let's get back to me. I've fucked a lot of women in my life! Dozens! A hundred at least!"

      "A hundred?" Jerry scoffed.

      "OK, maybe a couple dozen," George said, a little humbled.

      "Name 'em," Kramer shot back.

      "Name 'em?" George said. "I can't name 'em. I can't remember their names."

      "OK, then, tell what you do remember about them," Jerry said.

      George thought. "Well, there was Susan, of course. Then that one woman with the male roommate. Then the woman whose grandmother's funeral I went to. And that antique store woman. And the one who I wanted to think we were gay. And that woman I dated, then Jerry dated. And that woman who got the nose job. Boy, I had to screw her with my eyes closed."

      "OK, that's seven," Jerry said. "Who else?"

      George thought, then admitted. "That's it."

      "Seven?" Elaine said, snickering. "That's it?"

      "Hey," George said, getting angry, "it's not how many boats are on your ocean, it's how big the waves are."

      "What?" Elaine said.

      "I think you mean, 'It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean."

      "That makes no sense," George said. "It's not how many boats .."

      Elaine cut him off. "What are you trying to say?"

      "I'm saying I'm a great fuck," George said, proudly.

      "Ha!" Kramer said. "I'm the best fuck at this table."

      "Gentlemen," Jerry said, scoffing. "I beg to differ. I'm the best fuck here."

      "Ha!" Elaine snorted. "You couldn't even make me cum in all the times we fucked."

      "That's because it was before I got good," Jerry countered. "I've had plenty of women since we screwed, and they taught me a thing or two about fucking."

      "Well, there's only one way to settle this, you know," Elaine said, sitting back, folding her arms.

      "What's that?" Kramer asked.

      "Another contest," she said.

      "You mean, like when we saw who could go without beating off the longest?" Jerry asked.

      "Exactly," Elaine answered. "Except this time, I'm going to have to be the judge, so I should get some of the money up front."

      Jerry looked at Elaine in disbelief. "Are you saying ...?"

      "Yup," she said, smiling. "I'm going to have to fuck all of you."

      George couldn't believe his ears. He's wanted to bang Elaine ever since he met her, but he'd always been a little afraid of her. "Are you serious?"

      "Sure," she answered. "You guys all put up $500 each. I get half, and the winner gets the other half. Deal?"

      Jerry shrugged. "I'm game."

      George nodded. "Count me in!"

      "Giddyup!" Kramer shouted.

      They shook hands on the deal.

      "OK, how do we decide who goes first?" Jerry asked.

      "Pick a number between one and 10," Elaine said.

      "Two! No, Six!" George blurted out.

      "Which one you wan

    5. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20>24? You claim Dukes had more, but unless Trump has executive ordered the Dewey Decimal system, 24 is still greater than 20, and 19 is not that much lower.

      And that isn't factoring in other minorities.

      Not looking good for them Duke Boys, is it?

    6. Re:it's VERMONT by sexconker · · Score: 2

      You're a moron.
      "Based in" or "set in" means the location within the show. "Filmed in" or "shot in" would mean the actual location it was filmed.

    7. Re:it's VERMONT by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I always did anyway.

    8. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You're a moron.
      "Based in" or "set in" means the location within the show. "Filmed in" or "shot in" would mean the actual location it was filmed.

      Ah, you're so upset by being told actual facts that you whine with a pointless bit of name-calling?

      Maybe you are more of a moron than you realize. Or do you think your useless post doesn't say more about your lack of prudent and thoughtful contribution to the discussion?

      You should have stuck with the Seinfeld erotica. That's entertaining.

    9. Re: it's VERMONT by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that Vermont was in Asia!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet dollars to donuts that Seinfeld had more Jews than Dukes of Hazzard and Friends combined.

      I can't believe I just defended Seinfeld. All three of those shows were utter dreck. And damn I'm old...

    11. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dukes of Hazard was set in Georgia. Friends and Seinfeld were both set in New York. I don't know why you're even mentioning where they're filmed - how is that relevant to the discussion?

    12. Re:it's VERMONT by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The Dukes of Hazard had more black actors than Seinfeld or Friends.

      It's not a show based up in the segregated North.

      It's not surprising to anyone who actually lives in the South. It's not perfect down here, but there's way less hangup on race down here than up north. I think this guy accurately sums it up:

      https://www.facebook.com/sylva...

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    13. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/4 of the Seinfeld main cast are jewish (and that's being generous -- George __Costanza__ is actually Italian). 5/6 of the Friends main cast are jewish

    14. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you dipstick. Friends was set in New York, that means the people being played were supposed to be living there. Where it is filmed is a completely different thing. You really expect a tv show about an army surgical hospital on the front lines of the Korean war (MASH) to be set in the California desert? Filmed there yes but set in 1950s Korea.

      Stupid.

    15. Re:it's VERMONT by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you my perspective on "race" and bigotry. IT starts and ends when (usually white) people make excuses as to why black people are different from white people, by calling anyone "racist" who expects people to be ... the same.

      Wearing pants around their knees is a "racial trait".

      Sucking at school is a "racial trait"

      Being poor is a "racial trait"

      And the worst ... voting democratic is a "racial trait"

      You can see it in all sorts of political opinions and assumptions, that black people can't _______ because they are ... black. You can see this summarized in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The most racist white people I know, are all liberal democrats who think so poorly of black people. The problem is, they think they aren't racist, and republicans are all racist, because they think they are "helping" black people with their condescending attitudes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per capita or in this case episode? When Friends 30% more episodes than Dukes?

      Percentage of shows with blacks.
      Dukes 13.6% (20 / 146)
      Seinfield 10.5% (19 / 180)
      Friends 10% (24 / 236)

      Yep, looks like the show about the "racist, https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/05/24/213221/vermont-dmv-caught-using-illegal-facial-recognition-program#backwoods" southern boys was more diverse, per capita, than the progressive Northern "intelligent" people.

    17. Re:it's VERMONT by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      2/4 of the Seinfeld main cast are jewish (and that's being generous -- George __Costanza__ is actually Italian). 5/6 of the Friends main cast are jewish

      It's just so unfair and anti-semitic that people claim that Hollywood is run by jews. Clearly the facts don't support such hateful accusations. It's not like they are all Jewish after all, they let a few tokens in.

    18. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a wonderful video link. Tell us more about how the South isn't implementing racist voter ID and gerrymandering policies. Even Clarence fucking Thomas couldn't follow the mental gymnastics required to believe that bullshit.

      https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-05-22/supreme-courts-north-carolina-ruling-could-pave-way-for-more-race-based-gerrymandering-cases

    19. Re:it's VERMONT by Altus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really chill down there...

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    20. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Partisan gerrymandering is always unsavory, but that is not the issue here," Alito wrote in his dissent, adding that the the real issue was whether one voting district was drawn predominantly because of race. The record shows that it was not."

      Bonus "Black people don't know where the DMV is."

    21. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he were writing for the majority, you may have a point. The majority felt otherwise, Sparky.

    22. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, less hangups, so much less, a Mississippilegislator didn't call for a lynching when some Confederate monuments were removed. Oh wait, he did.

      Not to mention the racially motivated gerrymandering.

      It's never racism in Alabama. Never.

      Tell us another one. A funny one this time.

    23. Re:it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you my perspective on "race" and bigotry.

      Oh, is it sharing time?

      IT starts and ends when (usually white) people make excuses as to why black people are different from white people, by calling anyone "racist" who expects people to be ... the same.

      So you're basically sharing how you, are racist, and your perspective is biased, towards your own bigotry?

      Nice share. But we already knew that.

      Especially your expecting people to be the same, yeah, what a coincidence that all of your "examples" are hallmarks of white complaints about blacks.

      You expect everybody to be the same White, Cookie-Cutter, Breadslices you demand.

      Wearing pants around their knees is a "racial trait".

      Oh yes, you really are showing your dog-whistle for that one. Because to you, it's apparently only blacks who wear clothes in that style.

      Of course, you remind me more of this old granny who made such a remark in the Eighties. I told her she was stupid, because I wasn't wearing my swimshorts in a particular way, it was merely the elastic had worn out while I was swimming. Quite annoying and intrusive. But yeah, your song is an old one. Blah-blah-blah, look how they wear their clothes! Even James Dean rebelled against it.

      Here's some other fun for you:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/parents-outraged-over-school-s-discriminatory-racist-dress-code-n759821

      http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/schools-racist-hair-code-up-in-the-air-2075357

      http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/15/malden-mystic-valley-charter-school-hair-policy-racism-anti-defamation-league/

      https://mic.com/articles/50493/ohio-high-school-s-dress-code-bans-african-american-hairstyles#.CX1HWWhZ5

      http://www.essence.com/2016/07/28/kentucky-high-school-bans-natural-hairstyles-racism

      Tell me why I never see bans that affect white styles?

      Sucking at school is a "racial trait"

      Read the lawsuit.

      Being poor is a "racial trait"

      Well, that's what Ronald Reagan preached. Not to mention that Poverty is a sign of moral culpability, and as such, not something induced by outside forces, or even trouble worth treating on its own.

      Never mind the numerous studies that have shown simple things like an adequate diet helps deal with a lot of the problems associated with poverty.

      And the worst ... voting democratic is a "racial trait"

      Yes, one that the North Carolina Legislature, held by Republicans, deliberately targeted. They admitted it.

      You can see it in all sorts of political opinions and assumptions, that black people can't _______ because they are ... black.

      Yes, frequently yours. For example, your remarks about Driver's Licenses. Or Literacy Tests. Or Segregated Schools.

      You can see this summarized in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The most racist white people I know, are all liberal democrats who think so poorly of black people.

      Here, have some more videos:

      http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/05/24/arkansas-walmart-racist-rant-orig-vstop.cnn

      https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/24/video-cliven-bundys-racist-comments/199008

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/richard-spencer-trump-alt-right-white-nationalist

      Now you know some actual racists.

      The problem is, they think they aren't racist, and republicans are all racist, because they think they are "helping" black people with their condescending attitudes.

      Yes, Republicans are racist, because of their condescending attitudes, yes.

      This includes Ben Carson, BTW.

      I think he's suffering some tone deafness.

      Better than your d

    24. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per capita or in this case episode?

      The literal statement was, and I quote:

      The Dukes of Hazard had more black actors than Seinfeld or Friends.

      This is factually untrue, even by his own citation, unless 24When Friends 30% more episodes than Dukes?

      If you're going to make that assertion, then consider that Friends was a Half-hour show, while Dukes was 1-hour.

      That means, without getting into the exact run length, that Dukes has ~146 hours, while Friends has ~118 hours of content. Of course, since episode length varies, often considerably, that's a couple hours possible there, and then there's the remakes and the return movies to add a few.

      Percentage of shows with blacks.
      Dukes 13.6% (20 / 146)
      Seinfield 10.5% (19 / 180)
      Friends 10% (24 / 236)

      Yep, looks like the show about the "racist, https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/05/24/213221/vermont-dmv-caught-using-illegal-facial-recognition-program#backwoods" southern boys was more diverse, per capita, than the progressive Northern "intelligent" people.

      Man, and I thought the initial Trump Math was bad enough, now you're taking the number of actors, and dividing it by number of episodes, for reasons that make no sense. None. Really, what are you, assuming each actor appeared in the show in only one episode? Or that their screen time was equal? Talk about useless numbers for the sake of uselessness.

      But no, Friends wasn't about "Progressive" or "Intelligent" people. It's like you never saw the show. They didn't even have political discourse, let alone intelligence. It was a shallow, insipid show, about meaningless characters that nobody cared about.

      Sheesh. It's like you're trying to make Friends into something treated as meaningful, as opposed to half-baked crap.

      Unfortunately, for you, it's not. OTOH, Dukes of Hazzard? Seems to be a touchstone for many.

    25. Re: it's VERMONT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, a useless post? All you're saying is pointless redundancies.

      Why not say what errors cropped into MASH due to being based in California? Or Friends?

      No, you just state what we already knew, all because you want to throw out a pointless insult?

      Why not just type nothing but random letters? It'll accomplish just as much, and save time.

  3. 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 mellon · · Score: 1

      It's not out of the question that some actual retribution could follow. However, Vermonters tend to be absurdly nice, so we might forgive them. Could go either way. It's a small state, so it's not as easy for government to get away with shit here as elsewhere.

    2. Re:Fortunately... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      No maple syrup for a month?

    3. Re:Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, Vermonters tend to be IGNORANT AND NAIVE absurdly nice, so we might forgive them..

      There, I fixed it for you, you stupid backwoods road-salt-using liberal waste of skin.

    4. Re:Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      Next month the ACLU will renew it's yearly request to prohibit law enforcement from carrying a firearms.

    5. Re: Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      802 > your shit ass state. Keep your trashy ass out of it.

    6. 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.
    7. Re:Fortunately... by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      At $20 a liter, we can't afford the stuff. It's all sold to tourists.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    8. 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
    9. Re: Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe only two a month...But how many individuals had their images compared against each request? That's how many people had their rights violated according to the law.

      And if anyone actually tried to prosecute the infraction like they do with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, they could charge someone with 500,000 individual counts of illegal search and seizure.

    10. Re:Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I moved to VT years ago to get away from people like you. Thank you for reaffirming my decision.

    11. 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
    12. Re:Fortunately... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      So you saying its alright for government to break the law as long as they don't do it to much? What would be to much 10 a month, 100 a month, 1000?

      This is exactly why the right apposes background checks and such for weapons. That produces a paper trail, that trail was not supposed to be retained. The FBI was caught doing so!

      If you let government collect data it will at some point be used for a different purpose than advertised legal or otherwise. It should be plain to everyone that allowing government to know any more about us than strictly necessary isn't a good idea, it never was and much more so now in the era of big data and powerful computer correlation that can de-anonomize almost anyone.

      I really with the Trump admin would use the DACA records to prioritize deportation! Not because I think DACA applicants should be a priority but because we have a law they are in violation and it should be applied; but mostly because it would be a good object lesson for the rest of the public as to why allowing government to have data isn't smart. Once someone you don't like comes to power it will be used to hurt you!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Fortunately... by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Your argument is nonsensical.

      The "law" on the books states -no- searches are to be done. None. Kinda like, "no murdering", or "no robbing", etc.

      That means "none". "zero". "zip". "nada"

      So...if the state has 626,000+ people as of 2015 and there are probably ~320,000 with a license, and there were 126 searches of ~320,000 people over 48 months that's equal to ~40,320,000 violations of the law which tells them not to do these searches. That's an average of ~840,000 violations per month

      Yeah...They do need to be stopped

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    14. Re:Fortunately... by kenh · · Score: 2

      The law on the books says the DMV can't do the search, that is not the same as saying no one can do the search.

      The issue is using Vermont DMV resources to perform searches using biometric data, not the search itself.

      I'm not quite sure what harm caused to an individual when their picture is used to exclude them from consideration in an investigation, at worst, the folks mistakenly caught up in the investigation have a case to claim injury.

      --
      Ken
    15. Re: Fortunately... by kenh · · Score: 1

      . 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 only issue is that the searches are being done on DMV computers by DMV staff. The article is silent on the ability of the Vermont DMV to share the database with the Vermont State Police who could then run the searches on their own computers.

      This is a budget/resource issue, not a civil rights issue.

      And by the way, there are over 2M photos in the database, not 300K.

      --
      Ken
    16. Re:Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like sheep...

      So a man walks into a bar, and sits down. He starts a conversation with an old guy next to him. The old guy has obviously had a few. He says to the man:

      "You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No! And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scorching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
      The old guy looks around, and makes sure that nobody is listening, and leans to the man, and he says:
      "but you fuck one sheep..."

    17. Re: Fortunately... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the solution is more laws!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re: Fortunately... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That isn't even remotely implied by what I wrote. What is needed is more laws LIMITING THE POWER of GOVERNMENT (Maybe you have heard of the U.S. Constitution? That's what it is), and for those laws to be followed and enforced. IOW more freedom; actual adherence to the principles upon which this country was founded.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    19. Re:Fortunately... by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'd like to try to make the point that, since FR tech doesn't actually recognize faces, all results (including correct matches) are false positives.

    20. Re:Fortunately... by sjames · · Score: 1

      But your honor, I only robbed two liquor stores a month, it's not like I got greedy or anything!

  4. 126? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: -1

    So basically, they're not using it.

    126 people since 2012 means they're not using it. I'm more offended at the tax burden than at the intrusion into civil liberties. I'm not a big fan of big brother surveillance, but if you have a legally obtained image of someone who commits a crime of violence, you should be able to run it against DMV photos, for example.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the summary, it doesn't seem to be illegal for the cops to check against DMV photos. It's the DMV that can't do the checking. Cause it's not their job to be doing it.

    2. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We should be able to run over lawyers, too.

      See how weird it is when someone says that doing illegal things is okay because reasons?

      Just... weird. :)

    3. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you fail to comprehend the "at least" qualifier... the count is more likely in the thousands. there's only 126 that they've been CAUGHT performing. this is power-tripping, warrant and constitution-ignoring, data hungry government entities doing this.. what do you think?

    4. Re:126? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Why should they be able to use your photo in the DMV database to compare it to the other image without your consent? If it was a blood drop was left at the scene of the crime then you would have to give them consent in order for them to take a sample (or they would have to convince a judge that it was likely enough to be you in order to get a warrant).

      In this case you are freely letting them access another departments database without your permission. Yes, I realize that they could easily call you in and take a picture while you were in public but for that to happen they would have to know who you are in the first place. If they placed their own camera in public that did the face recognition in real-time with no storage of data then there wouldn't be a problem either.

      If it's okay to let the police troll through the photos of the DMV why not have the passport office (whatever office that is) collect your genetic information at the time you get your passport to help with identification if you are in an accident abroad and let the police departments compare DNA samples against that database? (Yes, I'm aware that the DNA database has been proposed by some country already.) Same thing. Don't go giving up your rights so easily as you will quickly find others will be taken away even quicker. Take a look at what is happening in the UK and what May's government wants to do with the Internet.

    5. Re:126? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      yeah, they probably stopped using DMV and switched to Facebook

    6. Re:126? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

      We should be able to run over lawyers, too.

      See how weird it is when someone says that doing illegal things is okay because reasons?

      Just... weird. :)

      :)

      I'm not saying it's okay to be breaking the law, just that the law is stupid if it prohibits the practice under certain conditions, and that if they are using it infrequently, the cost per use and tax burden are probably ridiculous. The law is sometimes stupid. When it is stupid, it should be changed.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    7. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't prove that, and you have no standing to sue for discovery.

    8. 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
    9. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "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.

      In an informal communication that is trivially untrue, there is usually a clear implication. If accurate, the reported 126 times over five years with two million photos and the quantity of crime you get across an entire state (not even considering that some of the requests were federal) means that it is hardly being used.

    10. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's once a fortnight, on average. It's getting some use.

    11. Re:126? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, two dozen times a year - wow. And that number is spread across Federal, state, and local queries...

      --
      Ken
    12. 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.

    13. Re:126? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      If they placed their own camera in public that did the face recognition in real-time with no storage of data then there wouldn't be a problem either.

      I have a much bigger problem with government-owned public facing cameras performing 24/7 facial recognition than I do with the DMV doing some searches on a photo I knowingly gave them.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the law not allowing running over lawyers as preemptive self defense is indeed stupid.

    15. Re: 126? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That's a brilliant argument. So basically a serial killer who has only killed 126 people isn't really guilty of anything after all.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    16. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I said no camels not five camels, can't you count?"
      - Indiana Jones

    17. Re:126? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Ken, you dont deserve that 4 digit uid.

      He only thieved 24 times over a year.
      He only drank and drove 24 times over a year.
      He only illegally used a DB 24 times over a year.

      Clearly hes not a criminal. /sarc
      Your point is MOOT.
      Even once is against the law, and they should be held accountable.

    18. Re:126? by Rastl · · Score: 1

      If it was a blood drop was left at the scene of the crime then you would have to give them consent in order for them to take a sample (or they would have to convince a judge that it was likely enough to be you in order to get a warrant).

      If a blood drop was left at the scene of the crime the police would run it through various state and federal databases that store DNA from legally approved harvesting methods. Your comparison would apply only if they singled you out as the person of interest and your DNA wasn't in the system. If it got to that point then they would probably have enough for a warrant.

    19. Re:126? by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      The lying liars are forced to admit to a certain degree of illegal activity when completely cornered.

      Why, exactly, is anyone believing that they've come completely clean? I mean, they've been so trustworthy up until now, right?

  5. 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.

    1. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. This is the Big Brother flip-side of "technology has made copyright obsolete, learn to deal with it!".

      Guess what. Technology has also made privacy obsolete. Learn to deal with it.

    2. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by Imrik · · Score: 1

      It doesn't prohibit facial recognition, it prohibits using DMV resources to do the police's job.

    3. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by kenh · · Score: 1

      Soooo the cops take over the program, they use police resources to extract the info from DMV. Is this a budgetary issue or a rights issue, because it's starting to sound like a budgetary issue - "prohibits using DMV resources to do the police's job."

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is the database is a DMV resource.

    5. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. Maybe that's why the title says "illegal" instead of "impossible."

    6. Re:Prohibit, not prevent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law only aplies to use for "identifying" "applicants".
      They can do whatever the FUCK they want after they "approve" your "application",
      in particular, TAKING your PICTURE, FINGERPRINTS, and DNA.

  6. I can see the license plate frame now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vermont is for Federal Fugitives

  7. Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of thing will happen more often in the future and will more than likely become legal quickly.

  8. 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.

    1. Re:Yep by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "We'll only use your social security number for your retirement account. Honest injun. We swear." ...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Yep by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

      There are no death panels.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re: Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

      Look, I know you are still upset that your doctor got arrested by the feds, but not only was he writing Oxycodone prescriptions like they were ging out of style, he wrote bad checks to buy a car.

      There are no death panels.

      And there never were. Until Trumpcare. Which will double the lack of coverage! And Texas is set on making it illegal fo your health insurance to even cover abortions if they want to do so.

      But hey, at least private schools will now get federal tax money they can use to discriminate and indoctrinate! Just what Thomas Jefferson always wanted.

    4. Re:Yep by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      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.

      The real issue is that laws like this are never constructed in the same manner as laws for little people.

      If the law were for a non-governmental actor, it would say "This data can only be used for XXXXX. Failure to abide by this statute will be considered a _______ felony with a minimum penalty of ______ and a maximum penalty of ______."

      They leave out the part that criminalizes the behavior that they're supposedly prohibiting, so there is literally no reason for anyone to follow this law. There's no penalty for disobeying. The only reason anyone would have to follow it is morals, but it's trivial to find someone with no morals in government work.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    5. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this.

      this, this, this. thank you.

      wish i had mod points!

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

      Well... it was YOU who SUPPORTED them and LET them do that.

      Exactly how much MORE SUPPORT and PERMISSION are you going to give to the ENEMY?
      You don't actually think Govenment and the Elites are on your side do you?

      Haha ha, you dumb fuckers.

  9. The first of many. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    There's no way this isn't happening everywhere. Camera detectors are actually a real thing now. I advise you all invest in them. Know when you're being filmed secretly as well as in plain sight. Make sure to ask the questions about where the data is going and what it's being used for and how well it's being secured. Be vigilant, people.

  10. Not 2.6 million Vermonters... by jad4 · · Score: 1

    There’s 2.6 million *photos*, not Vermonters. They must be keeping the photos from previous drivers licenses, too. That’s about 4 photos per Vermonter.

    1. Re:Not 2.6 million Vermonters... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well, if they've been storing them since 2012 you'd expect some duplicates. But I agree that I would expect closer to 2-photos-per-Vermonter, given that time frame. It does bring up the question of whether they had actually been collecting photos for longer than reported, or if their servers were doubling as storage for some prior inherited database of also ill-gotten headshots.

    2. Re:Not 2.6 million Vermonters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or.. they've got an agreement with some other non-vermont agency which also prohibits biometrics, and they outsource out-of-state to get around those pesky laws. like how the feds outsource some domestic spying to other country's agencies to get around operational jurisdiction limits (and they, of course, return the 'favor').

    3. Re:Not 2.6 million Vermonters... by nitro-57 · · Score: 1

      Yes since the population of Vermont is only around 630,000.

    4. Re:Not 2.6 million Vermonters... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they photograph every person that comes into the DMV. That would be even more egregious a violation of privacy.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  11. Paging Mr. Sanders... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Sanders to the white courtesy phone.

    I'm sure he'll take the necessary time, to make sure the guilty public servants, from bottom to top of the chain, get their comeuppance.

    RIGHT???

    1. Re:Paging Mr. Sanders... by kenh · · Score: 1

      As an elected federal official, exactly what gives him the authority/ability/responsibility to clean up state issues? In the eyes of the State, he is just another citizen.

      --
      Ken
  12. They could get around that law with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this system

  13. 2.6 million pictures? by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Might be of interest to investigate how a state with only 625,000 inhabitants comes by a data base of 2.6 million pictures.

    BTW. Vermont didn't even put pictures on most driver's licenses until about 20 years ago. You had to drive to Montpelier if you wanted a picture license because the Montpelier office had the DMV's only camera.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    1. Re:2.6 million pictures? by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Might be of interest to investigate how a state with only 625,000 inhabitants comes by a data base of 2.6 million pictures.

      Most likely they simply kept & counted the pictures from the previous licence(s) whenever they took a new one for a license renewal. (although those would admittedly be less useful than the current pictures)

    2. Re:2.6 million pictures? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Access to a database. Get into a few databases and the images add up.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:2.6 million pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be of interest to investigate how a state with only 625,000 inhabitants comes by a data base of 2.6 million pictures.

      BTW. Vermont didn't even put pictures on most driver's licenses until about 20 years ago. You had to drive to Montpelier if you wanted a picture license because the Montpelier office had the DMV's only camera.

      they probably capture images from the drivers licenses of everyone the cops interact with

    4. Re:2.6 million pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would it be less useful?

      i see software of the future...it takes several photos of you, from several points in time. then it calculates an image of what you'll look like in a few years (which could be the future, or it could be the present depending on when the pics were taken.)

      this tech either already exists, or it's coming. some law enforcement group will make it or buy it from somewhere.

      having several driver license pics from different years in your life will be very useful to such a group.

    5. Re:2.6 million pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to have a PICTURE on a "DRIVERS LICENSE", because drivers licenses do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and are thus NOT NEEDED (TO WIT, all the people who get extorted for cash for "Driving without a license" or "Driving without [current] plates or registration" or "Borrowing a friends car"... etc, etc, etc.).

      ALL of it, ALL OF IT, completely USELESS and FABRICATED ***PAPER VIOLATIONS*** meant to give the STATE power and control over you, and create an EXCUSE to perform ROAD PIRACY on you.

      YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR MONEY, ALL OF IT, to the STATE and their ELITE CRONIES.

      That's what they want.
      And you dumbfucks have given it to them.

      HIGH TIME you fucking take it back.

  14. Add teeth to the law by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    We are seeing many examples of where a bureaucrat is demonstrated to breach an explicit instruction and walks away. The answer lies in:

    a) A general law that any legislation that instructs officers of the state to do something and which is then breached may allow their prosecution for abuse of power carrying a a maximum sentence of 20 years, and a MANDATORY loss of pension rights

    b) Ensure that all laws with an instruction carry a similar penalty.

    The person who makes the decision to implement the illegal action is fully and personally liable unless they can offer an explicit instruction from their superior. So if an NSA spook does something iffy, then they go to prison unless their boss does. If it was signed off by the President - well, he'll only be in office for 8 years...

    1. Re: Add teeth to the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't last eight years. I'd take even odds he doesn't make it though the midterms and take fair bets he wont last past the new year.

  15. Why is this not surprising? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    1. Vermont has, for some time, been solidly Democrat. their last Republican Senator switched parties in 2001. Their last Republican Representative left office in 1991.

    2. The populace has become majority Leftist.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Why is this not surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO NO NO!!! My brother, left / right, either of two so called "PARTIES"....
      NO NO NO, doesn't make one single GODDAMNED bit of difference.

      The populace has become majority GOVERNMENT ASS KISSERS and SHILLS and NANNIED little BABIES.

      GROW the fuck UP, and get rid of govenment.
      Trust me...
      You DO NOT need it.

    2. Re: Why is this not surprising? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Of course. So how do we get to the alternative?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Why is this not surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vermont currently has a Republican Governor (and a Progressive/Democratic Lt. Governor, just to keep things fun). Last election cycle, it had a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lt. Governor (again, just to keep things fun). One important difference is that Vermont Republicans tend to be "let's save money by cutting spending" types rather than "let's impose our religious values on everyone through legislation" types.

  16. Government giving itself an exception?.. No!! by mi · · Score: 1

    Like this is the first time government officials are giving themselves an exception... From cops exceeding speed limits and driving the wrong way on one-way streets, to Amtrak's WiFi blocking Apple-store and Playboy.com (screw net-neutrality), to this.

    Maybe, it is time for a Constitutional amendment prescribing a minimum punishment for such violations — nothing less will do...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  17. sadly this isn't news by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    The government breaks laws all the time - with complete impunity. Agents of the government break the law all the time with impunity. Sadly this is not news. News would be if someone was actually punished. Big news would be if someone other than a low level peon was punished.

  18. this implies criminals will walk free by myotherslashdotname · · Score: 1

    This strongly implies that Vermont is using parallel construction in the gathering of evidence and prosecution of suspects. Parallel construction denies people the right of due process by denying them their right to know the evidence used against them.

    http://www.reuters.com/article...

    A lot of criminals are going to walk in Vermont when they're lawyers start making use of this A lot. . Maybe even all three of them.