Just How Dangerous is Facial Profiling?

[KilljoyKlown]

I didn’t realize they were that close to implementing this type of technology across the country. I’m not prepared about how I feel about it yet, and yet here it is. For those of you that don’t mind sharing your feelings and opinions please do.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/39297?utm_...m_medium=email

Within the next 60 days, state law enforcement agencies across the nation are set to implement a new facial profiling technology that will enable them to scan faces of people in a crowd and cross-check this scan data with information already in their databases. Simply by equipping a so-called MORIS ("Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System") device to an iPhone, it will be possible to scan faces from as far as five feet away and perform iris scans at distances of six inches or less. The same technology that makes it possible to spot an Al Qaeda insurgent in Afghanistan or nab a suspected terrorist in New York City also makes it possible to nab an undocumented migrant worker in El Paso or Laredo. And therein lies the problem.

Facial profiling is, if not used properly, as dangerous to our privacy and civil liberties as racial profiling. Which faces will police officers scan in a crowd? And when do law enforcement agents have the right to scan your irises? Having your iris scanned, as some have suggested, is tantamount to being fingerprinted in public – and potentially, without you even knowing about it. Of course, as Emily Steel and Julia Angwin point out in the Wall Street Journal, taking photos of people passing through a public space is fully enabled by law. And it’s perfectly acceptable for a law enforcement to stop and detain someone if they have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed - or is about to be committed.

But what if they just don’t like your face? (Maybe you forgot to shave that morning, and your ironic hipster beard is starting to look a little too much like an Osama beard.)

Getting stopped and detained raises a whole host of other legal questions related to search-and-seizure. Do you have the right to resist an iris scan if you have been detained? Thus far, the courts have not yet had to rule on face- and iris-recognition technology. But, as law professor Orin Kerr from George Washington University points out, "A warrant might be required to force someone to open their eyes."

It’s perfectly possible that Facial Profiling by law enforcement authorities will cause a civil libertarian uproar. Just think of the TSA pat-down procedures at airports. How many of us enjoy getting a little extra grope on the way to our planes? If we think full-body scanners are invasive enough, what about a bunch of Bad Lieutenants in Arizona having a little fun with their new iPhone toy?

Every time a technology company comes up with an innovative new way to “protect” us, we move further into a civil liberties gray area. Nearly a decade ago, when Oracle announced plans for a national ID card, Larry Ellison came under a firestorm of commentary. Even as recently as the past 18 months, when companies like Facebook and Google have developed new facial recognition technologies that enable us to "tag" our friends in photos, there has been murmurs of dissent from privacy and civil libertarian activists.

At the end of the day, facial recognition technology doesn't profile people, people do. Some would argue that the more that law enforcement authorities know about us, the freer we are. They will be better able to protect us from the evil forces of Al Qaeda circulating in our midst. Yet, at some level, that argument begins to sound a bit Orwellian. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. So just how dangerous is facial profiling?

[spidergoat]

Caught in a dragnet

John H. Gass hadn’t had a traffic ticket in years, so the Natick resident was surprised this spring when he received a letter from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles informing him to cease driving because his license had been revoked.
“I was shocked,’’ Gass said in a recent interview. “As far as I was concerned, I had done nothing wrong.’’

After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his as a possible fraud.

[Ellie]

Of course, as Emily Steel and Julia Angwin point out in the Wall Street Journal, taking photos of people passing through a public space is fully enabled by law.

And should be illegal.

[KilljoyKlown]

Caught in a dragnet

John H. Gass hadn’t had a traffic ticket in years, so the Natick resident was surprised this spring when he received a letter from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles informing him to cease driving because his license had been revoked.
“I was shocked,’’ Gass said in a recent interview. “As far as I was concerned, I had done nothing wrong.’’

After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his as a possible fraud.

This sounds like they need to tweak the way they respond to the red flags rather than any problem with the system making mistakes.

[KilljoyKlown]

And should be illegal.

Can you elaborate a little more? How does facial recognition and profiling cause you any personal problems other than knowing your picture is being watched when you are out in public?

[Ellie]

I commented on the random picture taking of people in public places. I didnt consent to have my picture taken.

[KilljoyKlown]

I commented on the random picture taking of people in public places. I didnt consent to have my picture taken.

Reporters and paparazzi can take anybodies picture in public and it's legal. They don't get prosecuted for it. So why should it be any different for the police. Do innocent people really have anything to fear from this?

[cosmictraveler]

Looks like this might become the new wardrobe style soon.

[Ellie]

Reporters and paparazzi can take anybodies picture in public and it's legal. They don't get prosecuted for it.

They should ask for permission first. Isnt it illegal to use someones image for sales?

So why should it be any different for the police. Do innocent people really have anything to fear from this?

Can an ordinary citizen pull you over and give you a traffic ticket?

[Ellie]

Looks like this might become the new wardrobe style soon.

That is why i dont think the right to photograph anyone you please should be allowed. Every time a person image is electronically or manually taken permission should be granted.

[Fraggle Rocker]

This genie is out of the bottle. Some technologies mature so quickly and become so compact and affordable that there's simply no way to get Big Brother not to use them.

So there's no point in mounting a campaign to make them illegal. It ain't gonna happen. They'll just use them secretly.

As for errors in identification, those will become pretty rare as the technology matures. Remember, every 18 months the power of a new technology doubles and the price drops by 50%. In six years everybody will have one of these things and you'll be scanning the guy who comes over to take your daughter out.

Remember when only big-shot lawyers and the titans of industry had telephones in their cars? Today kids have them on their bicycles.

You younger people will live to see consumer-market DNA kits.

[cosmictraveler]

They should ask for permission first. Isnt it illegal to use someones image for sales?



Can an ordinary citizen pull you over and give you a traffic ticket?

If your in the public then anyone can take your image, there's no law preventing them from doing that. Pulling anyone over while driving would not be a very prudent idea but calling the police on your cell phone would be better.

[Fraggle Rocker]

If your in the public then anyone can take your image, there's no law preventing them from doing that.

But it's illegal to use it for commercial purposes without your permission, which usually means paying you for it.

Notice when you walk into an amusement park or some place like that, you pass a sign that says you just gave them permission to take pictures of you and use them any way they want without paying you.

Have you seen the photo that was spammed all over the internet of the girl who got scared to death on a roller coaster and when she got off her pants had a giant wet splotch? She can't sue anybody for that. Frankly I very much doubt that it was a park employee who took that photo or distributed it, but it doesn't matter. She gave up her rights.

Pulling anyone over while driving would not be a very prudent idea but calling the police on your cell phone would be better.

Don't do that in Washington D.C. Those chicken-shit bastards will send an officer right over to give you a $150 ticket for using your cell phone while driving!

[Tiassa]

I have no problem with facial-recognition software as long as the agents and authorizing supervisors who cause an accidental breach of civil rights are held accountable under criminal codes for their violations of people's civil rights. For instance, in the case Spidergoat linked to, I say, sure, go ahead and use the system, but since someone screwed up and an innocent person's life was disrupted as if he was a criminal, someone should go to prison on a federal civil rights rap.

There's the compromise. No immunity. No credit because you've been a good cop for however many years. Somebody, somewhere, needs to be held responsible when the state screws up, and much of American anti-government sentiment seems to come from the idea that nobody is ever held accountable. I mean, sure, we can hound a guy out of office for Tweeting a picture of his dick, but because it's a cop, the King County prosecutor won't file manslaughter charges against a guy who wrongfully took another person's life and even appears to have lied in order to cover his ass.

Think of it this way: I'm a pot smoker. I'm not particularly shy about it. Then again, I have been treated as a criminal more often by authorities when I have done nothing wrong than when I've actually broken the law. I can't imagine how frustrating this must be for all the anal-retentive folks who follow every law perfectly and never speed and always signal their lane changes properly and never ever say anything that could be construed as a threat or anything else like that.

Oh, wait. The last sentence in the preceding paragraph is the wrong rant. But, still, yeah. I'm of the opinion that whoever signed the last document that empowered the system to wrongly revoke that guy's driver license ought to spend some time behind bars.

Felonies for every time they screw up. Extraordinary power demands extraordinary responsibility.

[KilljoyKlown]

If your in the public then anyone can take your image, there's no law preventing them from doing that. Pulling anyone over while driving would not be a very prudent idea but calling the police on your cell phone would be better.

If your driving and notice the car in front of you swerving and being reckless as if drunk driving, and you have a cell phone. Do you call the police and report it? You do if your a good citizen. Everyone knows it's likely that everyone out in public has a cell phone, so they shouldn't expect drunk driving not to be reported, as a result I feel safer on the road now than I ever did when I first started driving some 40+ years ago.

[Ellie]

If your in the public then anyone can take your image, there's no law preventing them from doing that. Pulling anyone over while driving would not be a very prudent idea but calling the police on your cell phone would be better.

If a dangerous criminal were on the loose in your area would you want his image? If there was an image database you would have an image to look at or even copy. I am guessing you would not object to this.

[Ellie]

Notice when you walk into an amusement park or some place like that, you pass a sign that says you just gave them permission to take pictures of you and use them any way they want without paying you.

There should be implied consent upon entering certain or all events etc. At parks and events people carry cameras, once you enter your image can be taken.

[KilljoyKlown]

I have no problem with facial-recognition software as long as the agents and authorizing supervisors who cause an accidental breach of civil rights are held accountable under criminal codes for their violations of people's civil rights. For instance, in the case Spidergoat linked to, I say, sure, go ahead and use the system, but since someone screwed up and an innocent person's life was disrupted as if he was a criminal, someone should go to prison on a federal civil rights rap.

There's the compromise. No immunity. No credit because you've been a good cop for however many years. Somebody, somewhere, needs to be held responsible when the state screws up, and much of American anti-government sentiment seems to come from the idea that nobody is ever held accountable. I mean, sure, we can hound a guy out of office for Tweeting a picture of his dick, but because it's a cop, the King County prosecutor won't file manslaughter charges against a guy who wrongfully took another person's life and even appears to have lied in order to cover his ass.

Think of it this way: I'm a pot smoker. I'm not particularly shy about it. Then again, I have been treated as a criminal more often by authorities when I have done nothing wrong than when I've actually broken the law. I can't imagine how frustrating this must be for all the anal-retentive folks who follow every law perfectly and never speed and always signal their lane changes properly and never ever say anything that could be construed as a threat or anything else like that.

Oh, wait. The last sentence in the preceding paragraph is the wrong rant. But, still, yeah. I'm of the opinion that whoever signed the last document that empowered the system to wrongly revoke that guy's driver license ought to spend some time behind bars.

Felonies for every time they screw up. Extraordinary power demands extraordinary responsibility.

That would certainly make big brother think twice. I think public policy needs to presume people are innocent until proven guilty. So whatever programs are put into place should error on the side of presumed innocence.

I'm very much looking forward to how this new technology plays out in all the cop programs running on TV now.

[Ellie]

I'm very much looking forward to how this new technology plays out in all the cop programs running on TV now.

I think people can ask to have their face blurred.

[KilljoyKlown]

I think people can ask to have their face blurred.

I'm sure they can, however I was thinking more how they will portray tracking and catching criminals using this new technology. Should be exciting.