FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,524
art.iris.cnn.jpg


CNN

CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) -- The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people's physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.
art.iris.cnn.jpg

The FBI wants to use eye scans, combined with other data, to help identify suspects.

But it's an issue that raises major privacy concerns -- what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

But it's unnerving to privacy experts.

"It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Project.

The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect.

A lot will depend on how quickly technology is perfected, according to Thomas Bush, the FBI official in charge of the Clarksburg, West Virginia, facility where the FBI houses its current fingerprint database. Video Watch what the FBI hopes to gain »

"Fingerprints will still be the big player," Bush, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, told CNN.

But he added, "Whatever the biometric that comes down the road, we need to be able to plug that in and play."

First up, he said, are palm prints. The FBI has already begun collecting images and hopes to soon use these as an additional means of making identifications. Countries that are already using such images find 20 percent of their positive matches come from latent palm prints left at crime scenes, the FBI's Bush said.

The FBI has also started collecting mug shots and pictures of scars and tattoos. These images are being stored for now as the technology is fine-tuned. All of the FBI's biometric data is stored on computers 30-feet underground in the Clarksburg facility.

In addition, the FBI could soon start comparing people's eyes -- specifically the iris, or the colored part of an eye -- as part of its new biometrics program called Next Generation Identification.

Nearby, at West Virginia University's Center for Identification Technology Research, researchers are already testing some of these technologies that will ultimately be used by the FBI.

"The best increase in accuracy will come from fusing different biometrics together," said Bojan Cukic, the co-director of the center.

But while law enforcement officials are excited about the possibilities of these new technologies, privacy advocates are upset the FBI will be collecting so much personal information.

"People who don't think mistakes are going to be made I don't think fly enough," said Steinhardt.

He said thousands of mistakes have been made with the use of the so-called no-fly lists at airports -- and that giving law enforcement widespread data collection techniques should cause major privacy alarms.

"There are real consequences to people," Steinhardt said. Video Watch concerns over more data collection »

You don't have to be a criminal or a terrorist to be checked against the database. More than 55 percent of the checks the FBI runs involve criminal background checks for people applying for sensitive jobs in government or jobs working with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, according to the FBI.

The FBI says it hasn't been saving the fingerprints for those checks, but that may change. The FBI plans a so-called "rap-back" service in which an employer could ask the FBI to keep the prints for an employee on file and let the employer know if the person ever has a brush with the law. The FBI says it will first have to clear hurdles with state privacy laws, and people would have to sign waivers allowing their information to be kept.

Critics say people are being forced to give up too much personal information. But Lawrence Hornak, the co-director of the research center at West Virginia University, said it could actually enhance people's privacy.

"It allows you to project your identity as being you," said Hornak. "And it allows people to avoid identity theft, things of that nature." Video Watch Hornak describe why he thinks it's a "privacy enhancer" »

There remains the question of how reliable these new biometric technologies will be. A 2006 German study looking at facial recognition in a crowded train station found successful matches could be made 60 percent of the time during the day. But when lighting conditions worsened at night, the results shrank to a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

As work on these technologies continues, researchers are quick to admit what's proven to be the most accurate so far. "Iris technology is perceived today, together with fingerprints, to be the most accurate," said Cukic.

But in the future all kinds of methods may be employed. Some researchers are looking at the way people walk as a possible additional means of identification.

The FBI says it will protect all this personal data and only collect information on criminals and those seeking sensitive jobs.

The ACLU's Steinhardt doesn't believe it will stop there.

"This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals," he said. "Now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody." E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

Yay or Nay?
 
1984., anyone?
 
There is nothing different between this and fingerprints. People have no problem with that biometric, they shouldn't have a problem with this one. All it is doing is make the system more accurate and reliable.
 
The FBI says it will protect all this personal data and only collect information on criminals and those seeking sensitive jobs.

Because we all know how good the government is at protecting citizens' private data.....
 
Yay. As long it only pertains to criminals. This won't stop crime but it will help solve them. Its not much different then what cops do now. Only it will be centralized.
 
1984., anyone?

One day there will be a thread about civil liberties in which nobody will make a reference to that freaking SCIENCE-FICTION book.

You did not prove anything by stating that, and if you're trying to use the slippery-slope argument it's equally worthless.

One day I'm gonna write a book in which everything ends well because everything was filed by a central government, and then I'm gonna use it in all threads about the FBI or the UK ID card and I'm gonna win every debate!
 
Because we all know how good the government is at protecting citizens' private data.....

Well since private companies already have my data and already abuse it like there's no tomorrow, and since a GOVERNMENT website was the only thing that actually stopped said private companies to use my private data to call me on Sunday mornings, I'm gonna say the private companies have a head start in private data mismanagement.
 
One day there will be a thread about civil liberties in which nobody will make a reference to that freaking SCIENCE-FICTION book.

You did not prove anything by stating that, and if you're trying to use the slippery-slope argument it's equally worthless.

One day I'm gonna write a book in which everything ends well because everything was filed by a central government, and then I'm gonna use it in all threads about the FBI or the UK ID card and I'm gonna win every debate!

NO you won't because they will counter you counter with Animal house or V for Vendetta!!
 
Well since private companies already have my data and already abuse it like there's no tomorrow, and since a GOVERNMENT website was the only thing that actually stopped said private companies to use my private data to call me on Sunday mornings, I'm gonna say the private companies have a head start in private data mismanagement.

I would prefer if no one had my information.

I believe there was a story where some idiot left a laptop with sensitive information about citizens in the U.K. on a bench and it got jacked.
 
One day there will be a thread about civil liberties in which nobody will make a reference to that freaking SCIENCE-FICTION book.

You did not prove anything by stating that, and if you're trying to use the slippery-slope argument it's equally worthless.

One day I'm gonna write a book in which everything ends well because everything was filed by a central government, and then I'm gonna use it in all threads about the FBI or the UK ID card and I'm gonna win every debate!
Why are you so pissed about the 1984. reference?
 
In the immortal words of Corinthian, how about no?
 
Why are you so pissed about the 1984. reference?


hehehe :)

Because it's in EVERY SINGLE THREAD about that topic.
Because it's a science-fiction book.
Because it's not an argument and does not prove anything other than a writer was good at creating examples to prove his point.

Again, let's say I want to write a book about how good it is that the government has every biometric data about the entire population on file. I'm gonna do a story about a pedophile who's caught because he left a DNA clue that got a match on the national DNA database.
Would it be ok to then use this story to prove that it's a good thing the government has access to private data? Would it be a convincing argument, given that just as in 1984, I MADE EVERYTHING UP?

PS: just want to make that crystal clear, it has nothing to do with you on a personal level, Pannonius :)
 
hehehe :)

Because it's in EVERY SINGLE THREAD about that topic.
Because it's a science-fiction book.
Because it's not an argument and does not prove anything other than a writer was good at creating examples to prove his point.

Again, let's say I want to write a book about how good it is that the government has every biometric data about the entire population on file. I'm gonna do a story about a pedophile who's caught because he left a DNA clue that got a match on the national DNA database.
Would it be ok to then use this story to prove that it's a good thing the government has access to private data? Would it be a convincing argument, given that just as in 1984, I MADE EVERYTHING UP?

PS: just want to make that crystal clear, it has nothing to do with you on a personal level, Pannonius :)
I know.:beer:
 
The problem with this is there's no accompanying list of rights to protect citizens from govt. malfesceance/abuse when using these systems.

So, what we really need is a bill of rights for the information age. Give me Constitutional guarantees backed up by real punishments for abusers (both govt, corporate, and individual) and I'm more likely to be OK with this kind of stuff.
 
I usally am not too uptight when it comes to civil liberties, but this seems to go a wee bit too far, for my tastes.
 
With the direction the government is going in now...I highly doubt that it's wise to give them anymore personal information than you already have to. At least until some things are hammered out.
 
Fingerprints good.

Palmprints bad.

Wait, why are you rolling your eyes at me?
 
I'm mostly worried about abuse, and intelligence agencies are not above that.

With fingerprints (and palm prints), abuse is somewhat hard. The FBI would have to go around fingerprinting everything to track someone, but with face data, they just need to tap into a video camera network to track individuals. There's less energy needed to abuse the system, which means abuse will likely become more common.
 
Yuck.

Does scars and tattoos only include ones visible on the face or hands? Otherwise that's in itself a gross invasion of privacy.

There is nothing different between this and fingerprints. People have no problem with that biometric
Yes we do.

All it is doing is make the system more accurate and reliable.
Hah. Certainly the UK Government doesn't know the meaning of the words, I don't know how the US fares.
 
Someone scanning my eye makes me want to vomit.

It's a direct assault on my right to be secure in my person, and it's quite unreasonable.

I don't think I need to be fingerprinted and palm printed and the like, but I really don't need to be eye scanned.

NO you won't because they will counter you counter with Animal house or V for Vendetta!!

I know you meant Animal Farm...

...but I had to laugh anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom