Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsState photo-ID databases become troves for police
The facial databases have grown rapidly in recent years and generally operate with few legal safeguards beyond the requirement that searches are conducted for law enforcement purposes. Amid rising concern about the National Security Agencys high-tech surveillance aimed at foreigners, it is these state-level facial-recognition programs that more typically involve American citizens.
The most widely used systems were honed on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq as soldiers sought to identify insurgents. The increasingly widespread deployment of the technology in the United States has helped police find murderers, bank robbers and drug dealers, many of whom leave behind images on surveillance videos or social-media sites that can be compared against official photo databases.
But law enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities.
The most widely used systems were honed on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq as soldiers sought to identify insurgents. The increasingly widespread deployment of the technology in the United States has helped police find murderers, bank robbers and drug dealers, many of whom leave behind images on surveillance videos or social-media sites that can be compared against official photo databases.
But law enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/state-photo-id-databases-become-troves-for-police/2013/06/16/6f014bd4-ced5-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
As great as technology is sometimes it's not so great. I guess we could all just not get a driver's license
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 1124 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State photo-ID databases become troves for police (Original Post)
Little Star
Jun 2013
OP
Sorry, but I was married to a cop for many years until he died. This was not a screed. n/t
Little Star
Jun 2013
#6
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)1. I see more chickens are coming home
Chirp, chirp.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)2. If your chickens are chirping, they probably are not chickens.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)3. i blame the japanese nuclear industry for the mutated chicks of san diego
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)5. Well a lot of those chicks have grown into little
Not so cute...monsters.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)4. I hate to interrupt yet another screed about law enforcement and data ...
... but you do realize that we caught the OKC bombers, the Boston bombers, the WTC bombers, and others with these data. You DO know that, right?
Little Star
(17,055 posts)6. Sorry, but I was married to a cop for many years until he died. This was not a screed. n/t
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)10. Clearly, there is no correlation between being married to a cop ...
... and knowing the definition of the word "screed."
Sorry for the loss of your husband.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)8. You do know that millions of criminals over the years have been
caught without this kind of data. You DO know that, right?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)9. Of course.
So, I guess we are yearning for the good old days before finger prints, ballistics, DNA, and all the technological advancements that allow the demonstration of guilt and innocence.
Great plan.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)11. Don't put words in my mouth.
The point is, it doesn't take electronic surveillance to solve a crime, especially the kind of surveillance that is like dredging the bottom of the ocean looking for a pearl.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)7. Interesting point about the reliability, or not, of these in the article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/state-photo-id-databases-become-troves-for-police/2013/06/16/6f014bd4-ced5-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
Facial-recognition technology is part of a new generation of biometric tools that once were the stuff of science fiction but are increasingly used by authorities around the nation and the world. Though not yet as reliable as fingerprints, these technologies can help determine identity through individual variations in irises, skin textures, vein patterns, palm prints and a persons gait while walking.
Doubly interesting in view of the questioning of bite-mark evidence going on now. While once viewed as completely reliable, it has been shown to not be infallible:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ap-impact-bite-marks-long-accepted-as-criminal-evidence-face-doubts-about-reliability/2013/06/13/9f0bc408-d47a-11e2-b3a2-3bf5eb37b9d0_story_2.html
That nationally televised case and dozens more in the 1980s and 1990s made bite mark evidence look like infallible, cutting-edge science, and courtrooms accepted it with little debate.
Then came DNA testing. Beginning in the early 2000s, new evidence set free men serving prison time or awaiting the death penalty largely because of bite mark testimony that later proved faulty.
At the core of critics arguments is that science hasnt shown its possible to match a bite mark to a single persons teeth or even that human skin can accurately record a bite mark.
Fabricant, of the Innocence Project, said whats most troubling about bite mark evidence is how powerful it can be for jurors.
And when it comes to fingerprints, it's important to look at cases like that of Brandon Mayfield (also in terms of Patriot Act, FISA, 4th amendment, etc):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
Facial-recognition technology is part of a new generation of biometric tools that once were the stuff of science fiction but are increasingly used by authorities around the nation and the world. Though not yet as reliable as fingerprints, these technologies can help determine identity through individual variations in irises, skin textures, vein patterns, palm prints and a persons gait while walking.
Doubly interesting in view of the questioning of bite-mark evidence going on now. While once viewed as completely reliable, it has been shown to not be infallible:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ap-impact-bite-marks-long-accepted-as-criminal-evidence-face-doubts-about-reliability/2013/06/13/9f0bc408-d47a-11e2-b3a2-3bf5eb37b9d0_story_2.html
That nationally televised case and dozens more in the 1980s and 1990s made bite mark evidence look like infallible, cutting-edge science, and courtrooms accepted it with little debate.
Then came DNA testing. Beginning in the early 2000s, new evidence set free men serving prison time or awaiting the death penalty largely because of bite mark testimony that later proved faulty.
At the core of critics arguments is that science hasnt shown its possible to match a bite mark to a single persons teeth or even that human skin can accurately record a bite mark.
Fabricant, of the Innocence Project, said whats most troubling about bite mark evidence is how powerful it can be for jurors.
And when it comes to fingerprints, it's important to look at cases like that of Brandon Mayfield (also in terms of Patriot Act, FISA, 4th amendment, etc):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
Quantess
(27,630 posts)12. This actually sounds like a good thing.
Catch some criminals. What am I missing?