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.

17 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.

  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 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 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
    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
    4. 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
  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.

  4. 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 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: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
  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.