General Discussion

Little Star

(17,055 posts) Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:13 PM Jun 2013

State 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 Agency’s 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.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State photo-ID databases become troves for police (Original Post) Little Star Jun 2013 OP

I see more chickens are coming home nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #1

If your chickens are chirping, they probably are not chickens. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #2

i blame the japanese nuclear industry for the mutated chicks of san diego loli phabay Jun 2013 #3

Well a lot of those chicks have grown into little nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #5

I hate to interrupt yet another screed about law enforcement and data ... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #4

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

Clearly, there is no correlation between being married to a cop ... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #10

You do know that millions of criminals over the years have been ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #8

Of course. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #9

Don't put words in my mouth. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #11

Interesting point about the reliability, or not, of these in the article suffragette Jun 2013 #7

This actually sounds like a good thing. Quantess Jun 2013 #12

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

1. I see more chickens are coming home

Reply to Little Star (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:15 PM

Jun 2013

Chirp, chirp.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

2. If your chickens are chirping, they probably are not chickens.

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:18 PM

Jun 2013

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)

3. i blame the japanese nuclear industry for the mutated chicks of san diego

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:19 PM

Jun 2013

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

5. Well a lot of those chicks have grown into little

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:20 PM

Jun 2013

Not so cute...monsters.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

4. I hate to interrupt yet another screed about law enforcement and data ...

Reply to Little Star (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:19 PM

Jun 2013

... 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

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:25 PM

Jun 2013

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

10. Clearly, there is no correlation between being married to a cop ...

Reply to Little Star (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 02:13 PM

Jun 2013

... 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

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:56 PM

Jun 2013

caught without this kind of data. You DO know that, right?

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

9. Of course.

Reply to ohheckyeah (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 02:10 PM

Jun 2013

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.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 03:07 PM

Jun 2013

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

Reply to Little Star (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:53 PM

Jun 2013

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 person’s 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 hasn’t shown it’s possible to match a bite mark to a single person’s teeth or even that human skin can accurately record a bite mark.

Fabricant, of the Innocence Project, said what’s 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.

Reply to Little Star (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 03:57 PM

Jun 2013

Catch some criminals. What am I missing?

Reply to this discussion