The AP [via Yahoo] reports that the FBI has begun using facial recognition software to dig through DMV photo archives searching for fugitives, causing new worries for privacy advocates. “Everybody’s participating, essentially, in a virtual lineup by getting a driver’s license,” the ACLU’s Christopher Calabrese explains. Drivers licenses, argues Calabrese are rapidly becoming more than, well, driver’s licenses. “Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they’re becoming the de facto law enforcement database,” he says. State and Federal laws prohibit the FBI from collecting and storing DMV records as a law-enforcement database, so the pilot program in North Carolina is taking place within the state DMV with its full cooperation.
The FBI’s response to privacy concerns are predictably McCarthian. “Unless the person’s a criminal, we would not have a need to have that information in the system,” says Kim Del Greco, head of the FBI’s biometrics division. “I think that would be a privacy concern. We’re staying away from that.” But they’re not staying away from efforts to push the use of biometric-mining nationwide. According to the AP’s report, the FBI has assembled a panel of experts tasked with standardizing drivers license photos and push use of biometric-mining nationwide. But the value of mining DMV records with the biometric software is limited for one simple reason, expressed perfectly by Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “We don’t have good photos of terrorists,” he explains. “Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that’s where the good photos are. It’s not where the terrorists are.” Besides, don’t DMV photos make everyone look guilty?
And we should always trust Uncle Sam. Why???
I believe they used the word terrorists during the Bush administration to strip the rest of our rights away. Sounds no different.
Being bald with glasses, I should be accused of a dozen crimes by the time this thing is up and running.
And the Americans that comment here are hard on us in Canada because of a wingnut proposal to randomly breathalyze drivers that will never pass a constitutional challenge.
You guys have a tremendous constitution, but the last administration has proved that it can be trampled on with the mere utterance of the T word.
So, they are searching DMV photos for fugitives? You know, people who actualy did something wrong or there was enough probable cause to have a warrant issued for their arrest. I see nothing wrong with this. If you did something wrong law enforcement should do EVERYTHING in their power to find you and bring you to justice. This even includes the people who miss court for a traffic ticket and have a Failure to Appear warrant issued for them.
I think this is long overdue and anyone who debates this as an invasion of their privacy are the ones who probably are the fugitives they are looking for.
More worthless security theater.
If this interests you, I highly recommend you follow Bruce Schneier’s blog. Bruce is no hack. He is one of the top IT security experts on the planet. He currently works as BT’s IT security director.
I enjoy reading or listening to his work because he takes such a common sense approach to personal, IT, and national security issues. He is very good pointing out how time, money, and effort is wasted focusing on the wrong threats by individuals, companies, and governments. It is very logical and practical.
Better yet, listen to the monthly Cryptogram Security Podcast. It is only about 30 minutes a month, but it packs a lot. In this, Bruce explains why stunts like this and other government efforts to “protect us” are always wrong.
If you can only read one thing, then read Bruce’s article “Perceived Risk vs. Actual Risk“. he does an amazing job explaining how humans recognize (or not) and react to risk/reward. And how often our natural instincts are dead wrong. It will make you re-think about how you make decisions in your own life from everything from investing, to taking a walk.
Goes to show what the real reason for any license is. Safety? Laughable! It’s “your papers please.”
jaydez :
I think this is long overdue and anyone who debates this as an invasion of their privacy are the ones who probably are the fugitives they are looking for.
Remember, facial matching is far from perfect, so pretty much any of us could wind up in a folder at the local FBI office. So when it turns out that YOU look like someone the FBI wants, and to find out if you’re trying to operate under a false identity (if you’re using your own name as a fugitive they don’t need pictures) the FBI is going to check you out. You know, talk to your boss, your neighbors. When anyone asks why the FBI is asking about you, the agents won’t say why they want to know so much about you. You’re OK with that kind of intrusion into your life?
The ACLU hug a thug nutbars are upset the FBI is looking for criminals and terrorists! What did they think the FBI does?
So let me get this straight: The previous administration wiretaps the phones (often cell phones) of people who are making/receiving calls to known or suspected terrorist overseas, informs the congressional leaders (including some lady named Pelosi) and backs it up with a FISA warrant after they start recording (the decision to record can be made in hours – the issuing of the warrant can take days, and if you wait till then it may be too late).
The New York times breaks this news (hey, thanks for looking out for us Gray Lady!), and everyone gets their panties in a knot. “My privacy is being trampled on! The government is listening to EVERYONE’s phone calls” (300 million people? Are you out of your mind!?).
Now the current administration is using computers (not people) to sift thru EVERYONE’s DMV photos, without consulting congress, without a follow-on warrant and what happens? Front page on the NYT? Probably not. Even here the commenters still bark about what the previous administration did. How’s that hope/change thing from president Fiz’n’Pop working for ya now?
As I understand it, the DMV in most (if not all) states is a state government agency.
My license info should be protected from people who don’t need access to it.
However, I’ve always expected that it could be used by judges, courts, police officers, or the FBI for the purpose of enforcing the law and/or enforcing legally issued court orders.
The police and courts are tasked with enforcing our laws. Therefore, they should have access to the information on my driver license and/or licence plate/tag for the purpose of enforcing the law.
Nice pic up there. Terrorism = Muslim
If the FBI was compiling a database of personal information based on data gleaned from drivers’ licenses, that would be a violation of privacy. But simply looking at your face to see if it matches a wanted felon? I don’t really see the big deal. My face, and occasionally other parts of my body, appear in public all the time.
windswords: I’m one of two commenters who “barked” about what the previous administration did. If you brush up on your reading comprehension skills and reread the two posts (mine and CyCarConsulting’s) you’ll find that neither of us excused the current administration.
Please leave your snarky Fiz n’ Pop comments to yourself.
Thank goodness here in NH, we can check off on our driver’s license renewal that the state may not put our pictures in the DMV database. They always halfheartedly say that they cannot easily make a replacement license if necessary, but I’ll take the tradeoff.
As yankinwaoz mentioned, it’s more security theater. (Yep, I read Schneier’s blog)
The FBI is using government-held information to hunt down criminals and bring them to justice?
Thumbs up from me.
Allow me to propose a distinction that is crucial to the legal analysis of claims about privacy. It is a phrase the “legitimate expectation of privacy.”
An example on one side. You and your spouse are spending an evening at home watching movies. You have a legitimate expectation that the situation is private. If a peeping tom creeps up to the window and takes pictures of you, he has invaded your privacy, you can sue him and he can be sent to jail.
The situation above is the opposite side of the coin. If you enter a DMV office, you must surely know that it is a PUBLIC place, an agency of the state. When a PUBLIC employee takes your picture, enters it into the PUBLIC records and gives you a drivers license, you must surely know that the picture is not private, and that it belongs to the state. The entire transaction and its results take place in PUBLIC, on PUBLIC property, with PUBLIC employees, using PUBLIC equipment to create PUBLIC records. And you have no legitimate expectation of privacy, and therefore no privacy rights.
Punch line: What happens in private stays private, what happens in PUBLIC is not private.