Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

52 Million Photos In FBI's Face Recognition Database By Next Year

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Government 108

Advocatus Diaboli writes "The EFF has been investigating the FBI's Next-Generation Identification (NGI) scheme, an enormous database of biometric information. It's based on the agency's fingerprint database, which already has 100 million records. But according to the documents EFF dug up, the NGI database will include 52 million images of people's faces by 2015. At least 4.3 million images will have been taken outside any sort of criminal context. 'Currently, if you apply for any type of job that requires fingerprinting or a background check, your prints are sent to and stored by the FBI in its civil print database. However, the FBI has never before collected a photograph along with those prints. This is changing with NGI. Now an employer could require you to provide a 'mug shot' photo along with your fingerprints. If that's the case, then the FBI will store both your face print and your fingerprints along with your biographic data.'"

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I grew a beard (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#46761949)

Let's see how they handle that, as I keep messing around with facial hair 8^{)>

Re:I grew a beard (4, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | about 4 months ago | (#46762155)

Let's see how they handle that, as I keep messing around with facial hair 8^{)>

Modern facial recognition seems to be immune to facial hair changes, as well as other simple attempts to fool it. It is based more on measurements of bone structure, and distances between certain facial features such as eyes, nose and mouth. Also, sophisticated AI software is used to make the system robust against changes to some of these features as well. Unless you wear a bag over your head, it's pretty hard to fool modern systems.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762267)

While what you say is true (partly). - We are still far from what CSI would like us to believe.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767663)

How do you know ? Are you working with NSA or CIA ? And if so, where does your clearance say you can tell the world about it ?

Re:I grew a beard (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 months ago | (#46762407)

So the cheek inserts that appear to change bone structure would work, but facial hair that partially obscures the mouth (preventing accurate readings of the mouth) would have no effect? I've been told the opposite before. So how will I know which is right?

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764117)

Both are correct. It depends entirely on which detection algorithms they're using. There's no one best algorithm, so a lot of different ones are in use right now. Unless you know what algorithm is being used against you, you don't know the way to fool it as no one methods fools all the algorithms.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763057)

Also, sophisticated AI software

There is no such thing as AI software, sophisticated or otherwise. Yet.

Re:I grew a beard (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#46763705)

Wrong.

The field of AI is not just about movie-style artificial humans.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764059)

Wrong.

Where's your data?

The field of AI is not just about movie-style artificial humans.

Strawman. Didn't say it was. What AI is about, though, is Artificial Intelligence, and unless you know something no one else around here knows, there still isn't any. At all. Expert systems? Sure. Clever algorithms to solve specific problems? Yep. Dedicated hardware to mimic neurons? That too. Are these things artificial? They are. But are they, or do they incorporate, or do they evidence, intelligence? No. Not even. No way. There is no "field of AI." There's a bunch of efforts that collectively, fairly, might be called "we hope like hell that someday something related to what we're doing now might have something to do with actual AI", or more kindly, "the field of preN...-pre2-pre1-AI."

You come back when you can put actual non-human created intelligence on the table. After the Nobel and a raft of other prizes, after the millions of dollars in awards and offerings to set you (and your AI) up with the bestest lab every imagined, after the wine and the endless stream of women, I will be waiting patiently in line to shake your hand instead of calling you out as a charlatan here on the ol' slashy-dawt.

If you have AI, prove it. Otherwise, settle down and call it mundane, non-intelligent computing like reasonable people do, which, of course, is all it is so far.

Re:I grew a beard (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#46765187)

Dear Mr Coward,

I did my masters in AI so I do in fact know exactly what it is about. YOU don't get to define the term or the field.

Fortunately it is common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

I know, I know - it sucks having someone so easily point out how so wrong you were when all you you wanted to do was post an angry, snarky post about something you actually know very little about but were hoping no one would notice.

So sorry about that little fella.

But hey, I may never aim to please but I am pleased to aim.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767699)

Marvin Minsky is a first rate science whore and he is one of the champions of "AI". So, questioning the existence of AI is indeed legitimate.

Re:I grew a beard (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46765685)

Strawman. Didn't say it was. What AI is about, though, is Artificial Intelligence, and unless you know something no one else around here knows, there still isn't any. At all. Expert systems? Sure. Clever algorithms to solve specific problems? Yep. Dedicated hardware to mimic neurons? That too. Are these things artificial? They are. But are they, or do they incorporate, or do they evidence, intelligence? No. Not even. No way. There is no "field of AI."

You know, you've just demonstrated why many clueless people denigrate AI: whenever the field of AI solves some problem, that problem stops being considered an AI problem and spins out as a separate area with its own research and applications. Then, hordes of people like you shout "but they haven't found out anything useful yet!"

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767721)

The point is that "AI" competes with the "intelligene" of an ant or a cockroach (in terms of complexity and capability). So challenging the term "AI" is indeed a somewhat proper argument.

Re:I grew a beard (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 4 months ago | (#46763543)

No. It's not. The most effective and efficient forms map the face to a uniform shape, almost spherical shape, especially for 3D facial recognition. The resulting consistent transform is *edge* based, not 3d structure shaped. Anything that adds extra edges, or re-arranges them, like makeup that adds eyebrow like dark markings or makes the face strongly asymmetrical consuses the hell out of it.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767807)

Defense contractors like Lockheed-Killmart of Raydeathon kindly take hundreds of millions from U.S.G. to make facial recognition "conceal-proof". And sure as hell you can do quite a few things to defeat "ordinary" beards by software. Plus you can couple this with lots of other sensors and measurements to get some sort of "fingerprint".

Just think of recording the walking style of a person (weight sensors in the ground or camera) and crunching that data to make a "fingerprint of the walking style". Then fuse that information with the face image to get more certainty.

Then there are more possibilities which you can figure out with a good scientific education.

Re:I grew a beard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46765251)

"It is based more on measurements of bone structure, and distances between certain facial features such as eyes, nose and mouth."

My granny's eyebrows change size and position every day.
Even her mouth changes position if she removes her teeth.

Re:I grew a beard (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about 4 months ago | (#46765777)

Last time I renewed my drivers' licence they asked me to remove my glasses before taking the photo. I assume the reason for it is to help facilitate algorithmic facial recognition.

I wonder how many databases this photo is in, who gets access to it, and for what reason.

tie that to K'nect camera (1)

hguorbray (967940) | about 4 months ago | (#46761955)

and we are one step closer to a 1984 'Big Brother is watching' world....

and active investigations only my ass -they will stockpile this for the rest of our lives and when they find some association 20 years from now they will backtrack all the way to all other associations NSA 'metadata' style with the same deniability.

-I'm just sayin' -we're screwed

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#46762021)

and we are one step closer to a 1984 'Big Brother is watching' world....

and active investigations only my ass -they will stockpile this for the rest of our lives and when they find some association 20 years from now they will backtrack all the way to all other associations NSA 'metadata' style with the same deniability.

-I'm just sayin' -we're screwed

o Sunglasses
o Facial Hair
o Make-up
o Big Floppy Hat

These are your weapons, use them wisely.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

larwe (858929) | about 4 months ago | (#46762121)

Those won't work, there are acceptance standards for those photographs. No headgear (possible religious exemption), no tinted eyeglasses, etc etc. Also, how many women do you know with a full mustache and knee-length beard? (I realize the answer to this may be nonzero, but it's going to be small). When I went to renew my passport a few years ago [Australian], they had additional requirements "neutral expression, no smiling" and they were explicit about the fact that this was to improve facial recognition DB matching. All this is nothing at all compared to the databases in the United Peoples' Democratic Republic of Europistan, of course. Interestingly, all this facial recognition and cross-referencing is a real problem for spies. Passports with biometric information in them that can be cross-referenced to a central database are a serious problem to a guy whose job is to enter Russia as Mr. John Smith, tourist today and enter it again next week as Mr. Alphonse Gambolputty, international financier.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46762641)

When I went to renew my passport a few years ago [Australian], they had additional requirements "neutral expression, no smiling" and they were explicit about the fact that this was to improve facial recognition DB matching.

Soon this will be the rule for walking around the street, great news for botox fans. No smiling, look straight ahead, head down, eyes down and enjoy your freedom.

Have a nice day!

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

larwe (858929) | about 4 months ago | (#46762805)

I'd love to argue with you... but I can't. Have a very pleasant and conformist day, citizen.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46763251)

I'd love to argue with you... but I can't. Have a very pleasant and conformist day, citizen.

Such a gathering would be illegal anyway and I would have to report you lest I would be liable for similar penalties. You also have a pleasant day citizen!

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

imikem (767509) | about 4 months ago | (#46762845)

At first I read that as "BoSox" fans. That would probably work, too.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (5, Funny)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 4 months ago | (#46762305)

o Sunglasses
o Facial Hair
o Make-up
o Big Floppy Hat

These are your weapons, use them wisely.

You just described my mother in law out for an afternoon stroll.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#46762793)

Well, she makes a formidable weapon...

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 4 months ago | (#46762715)

You forgot the tinfoil hat...

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763401)

Moron, if you're still spouting shit like that you either are completely uninformed or the dumbest sonofabitch around.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (2)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46762439)

and we are one step closer to a 1984 'Big Brother is watching' world....

Or a jump...

I bought a SAMSUNG UN32F6300AFXZA smart HDTV as a computer monitor.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]

While I haven't read the Xbox ToS and Privacy statements; I have read the ones for this HDTV, it's one hell of a data miner that claims it's jurisdiction in some city in South Korea.

It can match the Xbox and Kinetic for intrusiveness and I'm sure surpass it.

The difference is you must supply a webcam for the HDTV, this is used for gestures (no joke).

With a built in WiFi, it will most likely be connected to the Internet 100% of the time, this is to use it's features, which includes social applications; so when someone hits a like button of yours somewhere it shows on your screen -being an example.

Everything you do, and watch with this HDTV is monitored and saved, this is for it's "S Recommendation" feature.

I only use it as a monitor (the price was right), and have yet to establish an account for it; which is part of it's features set-up.

Some of it's features (which I have no use for).

Smart TV
The Samsung Smart TV finds the movies and TV shows you like – and more. Navigate within the 5 Smart Hub content panels. Easily discover movies, shows, and social posts with less searching and more watching.

Smart Hub
Our new interface organizes your entertainment and content into 5 convenient panels: On TV, Movies and TV Shows, Social, Apps, and a panel for your Photos, Videos and Music.

S Recommendation
Find something good to watch. Simply click the recommend button on the remote to get instant recommended shows that are on now.

Full Web Browser
All the benefits of full web browsing, right on your TV. From social sites like Facebook and Twitter to news, weather, entertainment, blogs and more. Discover even more content possibilities with your Smart TV.

Built-in WiFi
With WiFi built right into the TV, no additional equipment is needed to connect with an existing wireless router in your home network and start browsing the web, accessing Samsung Apps or other Smart TV features.

It's also not 120Hz as claimed but 60Hz, I watch TV with my Plasma 600Hz HDTV which is also 60Hz.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46762583)

and we are one step closer to a 1984 'Big Brother is watching' world....

Or a jump...

I bought a SAMSUNG UN32F6300AFXZA smart HDTV as a computer monitor.

If you don't like what the product does, just don't buy them.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46765219)

and we are one step closer to a 1984 'Big Brother is watching' world....

Or a jump...

I bought a SAMSUNG UN32F6300AFXZA smart HDTV as a computer monitor.

If you don't like what the product does, just don't buy them.

That wasn't a complaint. I bought exactly what I wanted (well it was to be 120 Hz) and it suits my needs perfectly, it's the features that you start getting into tracking. I don't use the any of the features, nor have I acquiring an account, and as long as I don't hook the lan into it (allow it's WiFi) I'll have no problems.

I've read the ToS (there are two), and Privacy Policy I know what I can and can't do, and how to prevent the shout-outs.

I posted about the HDTV to show that other people have the same system in their domiciles, and no clue to what is happening, it's very rare for "anybody" to read a ToS or Privacy Policies, I do.

It was a comparison to the Xbox and it's kinetic whose ToS and Privacy policy I haven't read yet know it will be much less of a tracker due to public opinion and all the noise about it, Have you heard a thing about a HDTV as a tracker? Of course not, they are under the radar.

Like I said my HDTV is one hell of a data miner if used as it's meant to be used, I use it as a computer monitor.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 months ago | (#46762447)

You can request your FBI file. If they have your picture, are they required to disclose as part of their response? You have to give your fingerprints to get your file, so asking for your file results in a file being made, if one didn't exist. So the FBI and State of Texas have my prints on file. Though nothing to associate the prints with, other than my name (no actions, no arrests or the like).

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762663)

(no actions, no arrests or the like).

Why do they log arrests and not convictions instead, sure it makes their job easier, but when a court says you're innocent, shouldn't it just end there? Makes no sense recording conviction-less arrests other than to try and harm your reputation somehow down the line.

Re:tie that to K'nect camera (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 months ago | (#46763395)

Arrest means "convicted by police". The police like to track that to identify trouble people to put more effort into convicting them in the courts. Job applications ask for it, background checks show it. It's public information. Stored forever.

Just steal one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46761959)

They should just steal Facebooks database.

Re:Just steal one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762123)

That certainly would be easier on taxpayers than simply buying the database.

In like Rubin (4, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#46761963)

The camera goes 'click'
You're in DB, like Rick [wikipedia.org]
But we've got the trick
To make your chin slick
Burma Shave

the jews must be stopped! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46761993)

the treatment of americans of european descent by these oriental nomads is becoming unacceptable. enough!

Falsely accused (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762051)

Just remember that the best defense against being falsely accused of a crime is to SHUT UP. Exercise your right to remain silent or in England and Canada reply no comment to every question. You do NOT want to waste your time doing battle with cops who couldn't care less if you are guilty or innocent. You are just a means to an end to them. They will elect whoever they think they can take down for the rap.

Re:Falsely accused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763643)

I was thinking more along the lines of filing a massive lawsuit against companies that require all this data, as well as the FBI.

I find it a little ironic you cannot be hired for certain federal/private/public jobs without a back ground check, and yet a lot of what the feds/corps, get away with is perhaps even more criminal and harmful then someone who got busted for something like marijuana, or some other petty crap, IE white collar crimes.

Sh** has spun out of control, unless you can buy a island exempt from US, or international laws, you can't really go anywhere without reading or hearing something where governments, private/public companies aren't pushing for a massive surveillance with the 'true intent' on controlling every person.

Difference between China and Russia, and the US? In China and Russia your fully aware you being fu**ed over, in the US you have the illusion your not being f**k over.

Re:Falsely accused (3, Insightful)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 4 months ago | (#46765653)

People also don't seem to remember that background checks don't catch high-risk people, particularly the ones that have never been caught or are risky due to behavior and attitude rather than past actions. They deny jobs to people who have strong incentives to walk the straight and narrow path while giving management a false sense of security about the big red unknowns. They way they are used assumes past transgressions (even if only a single one exists) are a guaranteed predictor of future actions, which would only be true if humans never, ever changed and learned and grew.

The thief with a squeaky clean record is a bigger danger than the guy with one trial for larceny; "squeaky" looks like he's a model employee, while "tainted" faces much harsher punishment if convicted of another crime plus the destruction of the rebuilt life he's working on, which is hard enough because even renting a house in the middle of nowhere tends to require "background checks" that ultimately deny him basic needs such as housing. Inability to rebuild a stable life opens the door to commission of crime, in many cases just to survive. Sadly, America has a punishment and revenge fetish, and until that changes there will be nothing done to solve these problems.

Re:Falsely accused (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#46765747)

The problem is that if they do prosecute you in the UK the failure to mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court can harm you defence. It is assumed you making it up later if you didn't mention it when questioned. Maybe you could convince a jury you just didn't want to talk to the police, because they are well known for being corrupt scumbags, but it's one hell of a risk.

This could be put to great use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762091)

but alas I doubt the Gov will use this to deport more illegals.

Don't be an Employee (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 4 months ago | (#46762097)

One more reason not to be an employee. Work for yourself.

Of course, they're going to get your photo in other ways. Facebook, blogs, etc.

Re:Don't be an Employee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762391)

If you wr0k for yourself in dev field doing anything remotely "important" (for say your clients), then chances are pretty good you'll be fingerprinted and they'll do an FBI background check on you anyway. I bet even the cleaning staff of most datacenters get background checks.

Re:Don't be an Employee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766431)

yeah, chances are they can $#@!@ off!

Law enforcement already has your photo, and it has (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762503)

The DMV.

It is fun to pick on facebook though.

Re:Don't be an Employee (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#46764427)

Risky though. Some people prefer a guaranteed small-but-steady wage to gambling their income.

Even worse... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762105)

A lot of people aren't aware that thanks to a law passed by California voters, if you are arrested for a felony (or a possible felony) in California, your DNA will be collected and held in a government database indefinitely

Note that you only have to be arrested for what might be later possibly considered a felony for this to occur. You don't have to be convicted. Not even charged. Everyone who is arrested in California is arrested fairly and ultimately charged and convicted... right, Occupy Oakland people?

This has even been challenged and upheld [latimes.com] by the 9th district.

This law was passed by a 9/11-frightened public in 2004. Would such a law [wikipedia.org] pass now? I strongly doubt it.

These records are never expunged.

Re:Even worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762643)

A lot of people aren't aware that thanks to a law passed by California voters, if you are arrested for a felony (or a possible felony) in California, your DNA will be collected and held in a government database indefinitely

My Son has seen his share of trouble, not that he didn't ask for it.

At around 16 he was found guilty of a crime, as soon as sentence was delivered a court clerk came over and took a swab inside of his mouth, I asked why and told for his DNA. That would of been over 10 years ago. -Seattle, Washington

Re:Even worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764191)

At least they waited for a conviction and sentencing. In CA you only need be accused of something.

Re:Even worse... (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 4 months ago | (#46765749)

This law was passed by a 9/11-frightened public in 2004. Would such a law [wikipedia.org] pass now? I strongly doubt it.

Maybe not, but it shows how easily manipulated people are. If people are so stupid (they are) that they're give away their privacy and freedoms for 'safety' after every bad event, then we're screwed.

Good Luck Trying To Hire Me (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46762111)

I'm not trying to get a security-related job anyway, but even so: I won't be applying to companies who want to take my fingerprints or my photograph.

I don't do piss tests or credit checks. Why should I do fingerprints of photographs?

Not very damned many people need a particular job that badly; there is usually other work to be had.

No Right to Privacy, America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762139)

Sorry, America. Your founding fathers did not grant you any right to privacy in your constitution. Of course, being freemasons, this omission was purposeful, because they knew they were not really creating a free country, but rather a country of new slaves.

Re:No Right to Privacy, America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762327)

Sorry, America. Your founding fathers did not grant you any right to privacy in your constitution. Of course, being freemasons, this omission was purposeful, because they knew they were not really creating a free country, but rather a country of new slaves.

You know things are bad when the USA was founded to escape European repression yet it seems that the USA is more repressed then Europe these days.

Says a lot about your leaders.

Re:No Right to Privacy, America (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 months ago | (#46762461)

Yes they did, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The trouble is all the people who can't count past the 2nd and don't care if they take all the other rights away.

Why is this a surprise? (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 4 months ago | (#46762145)

Not sure what the big news is.... like we didn't already know this? They probably already have access to every state's DMV records, which include photographs for every person who has a driver's license or ID card. I would estimate that is maybe 90% of every adult citizen, alone.

And yes, it upsets me.... far less than fingerprinting or DNA, however. The only privacy-friendly biometrics are those that we don't "leave" all over the place, and can't be collected or taken without our knowledge. That leaves things like retinal scans and deep vein pattern recognition.

Re:Why is this a surprise? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 4 months ago | (#46763371)

Not to mention access to the biometrics and photo in every US passport, images of every individual crossing the immigration line at an airport, and a fingerprint or prints for every non-US citizen crossing the line. That's all without trying too hard.

Numbers don't fit (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 4 months ago | (#46762177)

I'm not quite certain how from a population of 316M people you can obtain 52M photos when the point of collection are federal background checks. With roughly 200M persons of working age, that would mean that within the next two years roughly 1 out of 4 people will be facing a work related federal security clearance check or having criminal charges filed against them. I'm not buying it. Either the 52M is bogus or they're collecting photos by other less savory mean.

Re:Numbers don't fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762239)

It says 52M images. Not 52M different people.

Re:Numbers don't fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762361)

It didn't say "a work related federal security clearance check"; it said "any type of job that requires fingerprinting or a background check".
I worked as a high school custodian the summer before college. I had to get fingerprinted and checked against the sex offender registry.
From TFS I assume the FBI has my prints.

Re:Numbers don't fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762795)

You'd be surprised. I'm a programmer for a pretty small company (30 employees), and once I had to go to a customer site to see a bug in action. This customer was a hospital with very tight security policies. I had to get an fbi background check, because I was "working on one of their computers", despite the fact that I wasn't even allowed to physically touch the keyboard, a security guard had to do it. The software itself, woefully unregulated and full of security holes, but that's a different story. :)

Re:Numbers don't fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764221)

It's driver's licenses. That's why they tell you not to smile.

Hah! (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46762183)

That's a factor of 100 less than what's available in Facebook's and Google's databases separately.

Don't take the job (1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#46762219)

I have *0* respect for a person who submits to photographs, fingerprints, credit checks or drug tests to get a job.

If you don't have enough self-respect to not sell your identity for a job then you're not worth my time.

Re:Don't take the job (4, Insightful)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 4 months ago | (#46762259)

You may have the luxury of choosing between multiple job offers, but many people don't.

Re:Don't take the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762463)

America is full of idiots who will blindly provide anything for a job which would include but not limited to:

Mother's Maiden Name:

Social Security Number:

Name of First Male Child:

Bank Account Number:

Bank Name:

Bank Security Code:

Calling Card Number:

Credit Card type:

Credit Card Number:

Expiration Date:

Name on Card:

Your Address:

City:

State or Province:

Postal Code / Zip Code:

Country:

House Alarm Deactivation Code:

First Name:

Init./Middle Name:

Family Name:

Tel (work) Number:

Tel (home) Number:

Tel (home) Voicemail Remote Access Code:

Mobile / Cell Number:

Fax Number:

Email Address:

Email Password:

Facebook Account:

Facebook Password:

Twitter:

Twitter Password:

Bebo:

Bebo Password:

LinkedIn:

LinkedIn Password:

Driver's License Number:

Car License Plate Number:

Vehicle ID Number (VIN):

Number of Sexual Partners to Date:

Name of Most Recent Partner:

Their Email Address:

Their Facebook Accounts:

--

Yep you do get idiots who fill out every single thing, even when it flies in the face of common sense.

Re:Don't take the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763983)

Never been employed eh? How is the internet speed at the library?

Re:Don't take the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46765961)

Never been employed eh? How is the internet speed at the library?

Congrats, You sir, have proved my point exactly.

How about getting another employer, I know the laws around here require they don't ask for the information I stated, however if I were in your shoes in your country, I'd probably consider welfare.

Re:Don't take the job (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46762849)

I have *0* respect for a person who submits to photographs, fingerprints, credit checks or drug tests to get a job.

I have an FBI file, being cleared by them for a job I enjoyed and got lots of money doing it. Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad -Meat Loaf.
The loss of your respect was comforted by the money being made.

Was required to obtain a Q clearance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... [wikipedia.org] before 1993, after that date there is no FBI involvement There was also only one type of Q clearance (the link mentions two); I was a Q clearance with assess to vital areas.

On the bright side I now have a list of all the places I've lived, even their addresses which were many, (Air Force Brat). My Mom worked there as well so she did the leg work for past residences required for the PSQ (what needs to be filled out, and your request for a clearance).

You can request all of the information they have on file for you, through the Freedom of Information act. I wanted to see what others said about me :} so got mine - You can pick up the paper work for the request at any government office, and it doesn't take that long to be mailed to you.

Re:Don't take the job (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 4 months ago | (#46763415)

Please do not fly commercially, you clearly will not respect the authority of the pilots or the safety that zero blood alcohol/drug levels add to (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/120.109). Don't consume anything that is mined in my part of the world, most (all) mining companies have zero tolerance for drink/drugs and random testing for same... even for office staff.

Re:Don't take the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46765789)

Having zero respect does not mean you cannot enjoy the fruits of others' labor. You are illogical.

With that said, all of this nonsense is, I believe, morally wrong.

Re:Don't take the job (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#46764429)

Some of us like to have money. These are not good economic times - most people can't be picky, they are lucky to get just one job offer.

Re:Don't take the job (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46765517)

I have *0* respect for a person who submits to photographs, fingerprints, credit checks or drug tests to get a job.

I work for a modeling agency, you insensitive clod!

also, nsagooglebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762221)

Nsagooglebook is doing the same, but with pictures people volunteer.

Border pics? (1)

mars-nl (2777323) | about 4 months ago | (#46762229)

Does this database include the pics and fingerprints taken each time I enter the USA (as a EU-citizen)?

Re:Border pics? (1)

hebertrich (472331) | about 4 months ago | (#46762603)

of course . think they will pass on an occasion to treat you like a criminal ?
Welcome to the USA , where every visitor is a criminal and is being treated like one .
The USA is not a great nation. It's a sick police state the likes we haven't seen since the Nazis .
.

Need laws on effects, not technologies (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 4 months ago | (#46762295)

We need clear laws on what law enforcement and government agencies are allow to know about us, not how they gain that data. Do we want the government to be able to track everyone's motions. If not, then it shouldn't matter if they use cell phone data, face recognition, satellite photos, tracking implants, or invisible flying monkeys that follow people around, it shouldn't be legal.

If we do want to allow the government to track out motions, then we should let them us the least expensive, most efficient technology available. Simply making it difficult but not impossible is crazy , WE (the tax payers of the country in question) are the ones paying for the service, we are just making it more expensive for ourselves.

People clearly disagree on how much tracking is OK, but that it true for a wide variety of societal decisions, we should go through the normal legislative process.

Re:Need laws on effects, not technologies (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 4 months ago | (#46762535)

The reality is that it doesn't matter WHAT the law says. If they obtain the data, they can and will do anything they want with it. I knew this long before the whole NSA "expose`".

I am not saying we shouldn't make laws about it, or even try to enforce them, but I am saying that laws and enforcement are not enough. To some degree, the government (and businesses) simply should not have access to certain data in the first place because it is the ONLY way to prevent it from being used in an abusive way.

Re:Need laws on effects, not technologies (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 4 months ago | (#46762613)

The law should limit what they can collect as well as what they can do with data they have. I don't see any alternative to laws to prevent the government from having access to data. They have the resources to get pretty much any data they want, certainly a non-expert will not be able to secure their data against the NSA.

Re:Need laws on effects, not technologies (1)

Spamalope (91802) | about 4 months ago | (#46763885)

Thus they'll have the pictures from drivers license photos. They'll make it mandatory for exercising your constitutionally guaranteed rights(* exclusions apply, complaints accepted in 'free speech' zones only) - so press passes, licenses of all types (esp. for guns) will require it.

But it won't happen to me... (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 4 months ago | (#46764791)

You might think it won't happen to you but it only takes a few decades for things to go horribly horribly wrong (see German history...Nazi...) You might think your modern citizens are somehow wiser or smarter or more evolved-- well, maybe so (debatable) but the techniques used HAVE evolved.

People escaped, people resisted, and underground networks were extremely important in winning WW2. Will such things even be possible in the future? If your nation has the system already active and in place, it is just another weapon which can be turned against you in the worst of situations. People probably can't imagine the creative abuses that can be done now and will become possible.

Chaos and insecurity must be tolerated -- you'll never get completely safe and the risk of it going bad is so great long term it is an extremely foolish move to box people in. People are so easy to scare and so extremely cowardly - some fear is ok but a lot of it these days it is BS and people need to "grow a pair". Perhaps if everybody had to spend a few years commuting by bicycle to work among the traffic they'd learn to manage some risk.

Go ahead and buy many guns....useless move. does not prevent anything and it can't resist much either.

so many sources (1)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about 4 months ago | (#46762521)

There are so many opportunities to take and retake your photos these days. Every time you come to a traffic light you stand a high chance of being photographed by traffic cameras. I bet that stores and banks provide footage, often done with some tax incentives. Your clothes have RFID tags from the time you bought them. Yes, it can be possible to change clothes or microwave them, but I am sure that there is some error correction going on once these systems have amassed redundant data. Also, there are other systems out there, i.e. your faces's and eye's major blood vessels form a unique pattern for much the same reasons that your fingerprints do. Even people's stride is somewhat characteristic. Apparently so is writing style I am sure that data fusion is on the minds of many a NSA analysts.

Re:so many sources (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about 4 months ago | (#46762649)

If writng style is really an identifiable characteristic, I would actually be doing you a favor by going Grammar Nazi on your last sentence. Those people who really learn enough of the manifold rules of proper English will form a group which will appear indivisible in attempts to isolate an actual individual, To stand out at all, such people will have to use words such as "eldritch", that are very, very rare, create complex compound sentences such as this one, or otherwise write unusually. People who write a run on sentence with a lack of singular/plural agreement and an ambiguous clause that undermines their actually conveying meaning, all at once, will be much easier to single out. Good luck.

Re:so many sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763947)

People who write a run on sentence with a lack of singular/plural agreement and an ambiguous clause that undermines their actually conveying meaning, all at once, will be much easier to single out.

Why? Aren't they in the majority?

Police state. (0)

hebertrich (472331) | about 4 months ago | (#46762569)

Says it all . Keep being sheep , do not go out to Washington and protest , do not write your Congressman or Senator.
Keep being sheep and build the walls of your own prison. You deserve it .

Taint the database! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46762657)

Start uploading pictures of your ass to the internet!

I predict... (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46762689)

More people wearing head coverings like in Star Wars.

Personally I'm thinking of exercising my rights, as a western white male, to dress as a muslim woman and don a Burqa. [wikipedia.org]

Some warnings (1)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about 4 months ago | (#46762827)

1. driver's license photos. There are several states that are already incorporating them into their facial recognition systems. This will accelerate. It needs to stop. (See #2)
2. the accuracy of these systems coupled with the increasing poor job police and investigatory (national security, etc) agencies are doing actually using these kinds of tools means that your chances of getting hit for a false positive is rapidly accelerating. It will wreck lives. It will get people (on both sides) killed.
3. I have been first-hand for discussions whereby state criminal justice officials have boasted about the aforementioned accelerations. There are, absolutely, policies in place in some states to ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY "criminalize" citizens to "get them in the system". This is no conspiracy theory, it IS happening. It has been written about extensively by legal bloggers like Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit and the group over at Volokh Conspiracy. But make no mistake, it is a targeted campaign by authoritative "governments" (I put that in quotes, because they certainly do NOT adhere to the tenets of governance set forth in the founding of the United States, "of, by, and for") against YOU! They are organized, well funded, and committed to success...you will lose.

And this is merely the beginning, as the stories that have already been written warn.

Re:Some warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764961)

For Washington state residents.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/520430.pdf

Facial recognition templates are not shared
We do not share the use of the system with law enforcement or other agencies without a court order
and do not release facial recognition system results. However, if our investigators find probable fraud
or identity theft, we inform appropriate partner agencies who can investigate for identity-based crime
or entitlement fraud.

Under no circumstances should we ever give up the fight (through all legal means we have) to keep our privacy.
Contact a legislator.
Contact someone in Congress.
Spread the word around and get it into everyone's mind.
What we need is a Constitutional amendment stating: Congress shall make no law violating the People's expectation of privacy.
Even if that's already true with our current interpretation of the Constitution.

52 million pictures, >= 2,421 false positives (2)

davecb (6526) | about 4 months ago | (#46763067)

According the wikipedia, the number of pictures being seen as the same with probability p is =sqrt(2d * ln(1/1-p)) If d is 52,000,000 and we use a 99% probability, then for each 21,884.6 pictures we get a false positive with a perfectly accurate matcher. And there are no perfect matchers.

This is a variant of the birthday paradox, where it only takes 100 people to get a 99.9% chance of them having the same birthday, and a mere 23 people to get a 50% chance [wikipedia].

The German Federal Security Service rejected facial matching years ago, for exactly this reason, when I was working for Siemens. The Americans did not, and supposedly stopped someone's grandma for being a (younger, male) terrorist.

If they use this, expect a week or so of everyone's grandma being arrested (;-))

--dave
Mathematicians, please feel free to check me on the numbers: I suspect I'm rather low...

Re:52 million pictures, = 2,421 false positives (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 4 months ago | (#46764807)

They not robots arrest, at least for now, and they have eyes to compare to the original photo.

Re:52 million pictures, = 2,421 false positives (1)

davecb (6526) | about 4 months ago | (#46765965)

The (supposed) grandma incident had the clerk acting robot-like and sending her for "random extra screening" and the screener, expecting an armed or bomb-carrying desparado, complaining that the clerk and/or computer was insane...

FBI Says WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763567)

Great !

Mega Terra Bytes and growing !

But, Wait a minute .... FBI !? .... FBI What ? .... Oh I Get It !

The Federal "Beaver" of Investigation FBI is so ratts ass up against the wall on this one that they are crying UNCLE. Ah ha. Remember the '60s cold war TV show !

Well, in "retrospect" FBI might just try crying "Ante" and see who shows up at the door !

Ha ha.

DMV (2)

AcesDnied (2542270) | about 4 months ago | (#46763825)

The last time I had to get my license renewed, I had to go to the DMV... After finally getting called to have my photo taken, I was asked to remove my glasses for my new picture. The first thing that crossed my mind of facial recognition.

Anybody else experienced this?

YUO FAZIL IT.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46763849)

leaving the play I don't want to ggod to write you volume of NetBSD

This is why I left the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764217)

I now live in the Germany where there is at least some semblance of freedom. (Television licence and church taxes aside) Every time I visit or read about what has been going on back in the US I have to shake my head in disbelief. The US is no longer the country I grew up in and I am beginning to doubt that I will ever return.

Dice popup ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46764225)

What's with these bullshit popup ads that appear to have no way to close them. Just "Show". Fuck Dice. Fuck Slashdot.

"Easy Test Environments: alm.parasoft.com". Scum!

Fuck the government (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 4 months ago | (#46767055)

Fuck the government

It's probably too late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768645)

...dammit, to start wearing my Nixon & Reagan masks!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>