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.

58 of 109 comments (clear)

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

    they ALL look alike

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

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

      I always did anyway.

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

      I had no idea that Vermont was in Asia!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. 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?
    6. 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.

    7. 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

  2. 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 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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
    11. 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.
    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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!

  3. 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 Imrik · · Score: 1

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

    2. 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: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. :)

  5. 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?
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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 nitro-57 · · Score: 1

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

    3. 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.
  9. 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.

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

    yeah, they probably stopped using DMV and switched to Facebook

  11. 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++
  12. 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
  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"
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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...

  17. 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.

  18. 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."
  19. 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
  20. 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 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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?

  24. 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.

  25. 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.