If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   I'm shocked, shocked, that police departments are using facial recognition software to mine driver's license databases for suspects, accomplices and witnesses   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 21
    More: Obvious, driver's licenses, driver's license databases, fusion center, office park, databases, mobile apps, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, civil liberties  
•       •       •

2777 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2013 at 7:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-17 08:22:54 AM
3 votes:
How dare they look for leads to solve crimes! Who do they think they are?!
2013-06-17 08:55:17 AM
2 votes:
The presumption of innocence is dead.  If that doesn't bother you; you are an accomplice.
2013-06-17 08:51:05 AM
2 votes:
I don't see the violation of privacy either. if they saw you on the street minding your own business, not committing any crimes, but they recognised you from a surveillance photo, should they not approach you?

does that work as an analogy? I don't know what point I'm quite making but it's all i got
2013-06-17 08:44:09 AM
2 votes:
I'm having a hard time being outraged by this. Are you outraged that they run your name and license to check for outstanding warrants during routine traffic stops? How is this different?
2013-06-17 08:11:48 AM
2 votes:
I would expect them to do this.  There is no invasion of privacy.  It is expedient.  It is cost effective.
2013-06-17 11:32:27 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: StopLurkListen: slayer199: Hmm.  This is dicey in terms of the 4th Amendment.  You do give up some rights when you get a state-issued driver's license.  Unless it's expressly forbidden by state law, they probably can do it.  It isn't like Minority Report where everyone is being scanned everywhere.

The real problem is that I don't think that facial recognition software is mature enough to rule out bad matches.  Of course, if they use it as a starting point to find possible suspects to start an investigation, it may not be that much of an issue.

You don't "give up some rights" when the state gives you a license to drive. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. By accepting the license, you agree to the state's requirements of that license. People with driver's licenses do not have any more or less Constitutional rights than anyone else.

True.  Point is that you agree to give up some of your freedom when obtaining the privilege of driving in that state.


Which freedom are you talking about? What freedom did you have that you don't have once you get a driver's license?
2013-06-17 11:17:13 AM
1 votes:
When they started using facial recognition software and central driver's license issuance, it was sold as an identity theft protection measure, because under the old system somebody could go in with your stolen SS card and some mail from your box and get a DL. Now they're going to mine the data, which should not be surprising to anybody.

How about as a condition of that privilege you just give a little cheek swab, so they can match the DNA--you know, in case somebody that can defeat the facial recognition comes in? You know, just to make sure....

Catching criminals is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but eroding everybody else's privacy just to make the cop's job easier is not something I'm entirely comfortable with.
2013-06-17 11:02:54 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: Hmm.  This is dicey in terms of the 4th Amendment.  You do give up some rights when you get a state-issued driver's license.  Unless it's expressly forbidden by state law, they probably can do it.  It isn't like Minority Report where everyone is being scanned everywhere.

The real problem is that I don't think that facial recognition software is mature enough to rule out bad matches.  Of course, if they use it as a starting point to find possible suspects to start an investigation, it may not be that much of an issue.


You don't "give up some rights" when the state gives you a license to drive. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. By accepting the license, you agree to the state's requirements of that license. People with driver's licenses do not have any more or less Constitutional rights than anyone else.
2013-06-17 10:42:53 AM
1 votes:
I'm kinda glad they do this.  It would be stupid and inefficient not to.
2013-06-17 10:01:17 AM
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Magnus: wgb423: The presumption of innocence is dead.  If that doesn't bother you; you are an accomplice.

Police are not required to presume you are innocent.  What does your comment have to do with the article?

Actually, they are.  That doesn't mean they can't investigate or arrest you if they feel there's enough proof for either, but that doesn't mean you're legally presumed guilty.


In the context that evidence is required to initiate an arrest (probable cause) by the police.  But, the presumption of innocence principal is related more to the trial process and not the investigative process.  The police are not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to secure an arrest.  They need only probable cause, standards that don't even meet the preponderance of the evidence.  The arrest is usually the end of their portion of responsibility for actions taken against a suspect.  That is not a presumption of innocence test placed upon police or the investigative process.

We may be splitting hairs.  Or you may cite a case in which presumption of innocence by police IS a standard by which police are required to operate according to the courts.  I've never heard of it, but that doesn't mean anything if I am unaware of some specific rule or ruling.
2013-06-17 09:48:49 AM
1 votes:

Magnus: wgb423: The presumption of innocence is dead.  If that doesn't bother you; you are an accomplice.

Police are not required to presume you are innocent.  What does your comment have to do with the article?


Actually, they are.  That doesn't mean they can't investigate or arrest you if they feel there's enough proof for either, but that doesn't mean you're legally presumed guilty.
2013-06-17 09:31:38 AM
1 votes:
I think trying to legislate the implementation of a technology that improves the capabilities of law enforcement is foolish. The ability to solve or investigate cold cases will cause the luddite states to eventually cave on their moral stand. Also, let us not dismiss the capability of this technology to absolve innocent people that might could been unjustly incarcerated, much like DNA evidence has. For example, if a person under suspicion of committing a crime has no good alibi for "the night in question", but the image evidence shows the individual was not at the scene of the crime, that will be strong evidence that the individual is innocent.

I think the real safeguards against the abuse of this technology will be in the courts. Lawyers will have a field day with disputing the linking of an individual to an image, especially if it was enhanced. Also, I feel it will eventually lead to legislation that restricts the "wide net" approach and will require law enforcement agencies to establish more positive identification than just through FR technology when conducting searches and interrogations.

As for the NSA, not so much. I'd stay away from stores that sell castor beans, comrade.
2013-06-17 09:29:14 AM
1 votes:

Public Savant: theknuckler_33: Is your driver's license photo supposed to be private?

You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Putting innocent people in databases is essentially equating them with criminals.

Just because it's convenient doesn't make it right - much like incest.


a) you were already in the database otherwise you wouldn't have a driver's license (or SSN).
2) No, it's not.
2013-06-17 09:19:18 AM
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: Kristoph57: simusid: A local cop told me that they have license plate scanners in their cruisers and routinely if not continuously collect and save a database of what car is where.  This included routinely driving through parking lots of businesses to establish patterns.

This is why you always vary your patterns. Never drive the same road at the same time each day. Learn to watch for Crown Vics, Impalas, Chargers, and UC's with tinted windows. Back in if you can as some states don't require front & back license plates. Buy digital scales and a lot of small plastic baggies on a credit card and watch the street out front of your house. If you wake up in the middle of the night, turn on some lights, then flicker them on and off in false morse code.

/really just screw with em
//son of two cops.
///these come in threes.

The office where I pickup my paycheck is right next door to a hydroponic supply place, so the cops probably think Im growing weed.


While they probably don't pay attention to most businesses parking lots, you can bet your ass they pay attention to hydro shops parking lots.
2013-06-17 09:11:03 AM
1 votes:

Lady J: I don't see the violation of privacy either. if they saw you on the street minding your own business, not committing any crimes, but they recognised you from a surveillance photo, should they not approach you?

does that work as an analogy? I don't know what point I'm quite making but it's all i got


The fundamentals are the same so it may work.  But, as a professional arguer here on Fark told me, never use analogy in a debate.  The debate generally turns to the validity of the analogy and forgets all about the point gets moved to the side.  I agree with that notion.
2013-06-17 09:08:04 AM
1 votes:

Public Savant: theknuckler_33: Is your driver's license photo supposed to be private?

You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Putting innocent people in databases is essentially equating them with criminals.

Just because it's convenient doesn't make it right - much like incest.


uh. no.
2013-06-17 08:33:10 AM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Is your driver's license photo supposed to be private?


You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Putting innocent people in databases is essentially equating them with criminals.

Just because it's convenient doesn't make it right - much like incest.
2013-06-17 08:27:54 AM
1 votes:
Is your driver's license photo supposed to be private?
2013-06-17 08:15:39 AM
1 votes:
Biometrics will work well when politicians and bureaucrats can understand the birthday fallacy. That is to say, never. Of course, there are always going to be a few that understand that the more data they sweep through, the more matches they will find (bad matches, but still matches).
2013-06-17 08:08:30 AM
1 votes:
I'm not really surprised by this at all.
2013-06-17 07:49:05 AM
1 votes:
A local cop told me that they have license plate scanners in their cruisers and routinely if not continuously collect and save a database of what car is where.  This included routinely driving through parking lots of businesses to establish patterns.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report