FBI to deploy facial recognition by 2014

[Her3tiK]

idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/report-fbi-to-bring-lockheed-martins-facial-recognition-technology-nationwide.php

The FBI plans to bring facial recognition technology nationwide in 2014 to help law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. to identify persons of interest, according to FBI sources, Nextgov reported.

The system will let agents upload photos or screen captures of unidentified persons of interest into a computer that will display the closest matches from a database of 10 million mug shots, according to Nextgov.

The system, which will begin testing in Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina this winter, according to Nextgov, is just one component of the FBI’s so-called Next Generation Identification (NGI) effort, a $1 billion program contract awarded to Lockheed Martin in 2008 to radically upgrade the FBI’s fingerprints database, and to augment it with new biometrics information, including iris scans, voice recordings, palm prints and other detailed personal identification markers.

[/url]
The article says that current facial recognition technology isn't very effective, but there's plenty of time to work some of the bugs out.

Looks like I'll be buying a ski mask within the next two years...

[Admiral Lithp]

What if it recognizes your ski mask?

[sylvana]

Last time I checked America isn't a repressive regime, so all I can see is that this would be a good thing. Hell something like this in my country would be wonderful. Being able to identify people on the street quickly and effectively would really help law enforcement agencies a lot.
Think of all the times there is a warrant for someones arrest, but they go about completely unnoticed in public. this may help law enforcement catch these people.

[Random Guy]

This obviously must be part of Obama's plan to destroy our freedoms, take our guns, outlaw Christianity, and impose dictatorship, eventually leading toward a New World Order-dominated One World Government. Come quickly, Jesus!

...ouch. I think typing that made my brain throw up.

[lighthorseman]

Oct 12, 2011 1:09:16 GMT -5 sylvana said:

Last time I checked America isn't a repressive regime, so all I can see is that this would be a good thing. Hell something like this in my country would be wonderful. Being able to identify people on the street quickly and effectively would really help law enforcement agencies a lot.
Think of all the times there is a warrant for someones arrest, but they go about completely unnoticed in public. this may help law enforcement catch these people.

Good ol' "only those with something to hide have anything to fear", huh?

[Art Vandelay]

Oct 12, 2011 3:43:53 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Oct 12, 2011 1:09:16 GMT -5 sylvana said:

Last time I checked America isn't a repressive regime, so all I can see is that this would be a good thing. Hell something like this in my country would be wonderful. Being able to identify people on the street quickly and effectively would really help law enforcement agencies a lot.
Think of all the times there is a warrant for someones arrest, but they go about completely unnoticed in public. this may help law enforcement catch these people.

Good ol' "only those with something to hide have anything to fear", huh?

Every technology has the potential to be abused, including ones that already exist. I don't suppose you're in favour of pre-18th century or even more primitive forensic technology for similar reasons?

[Distind]

Oct 12, 2011 3:43:53 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Good ol' "only those with something to hide have anything to fear", huh?

More of, "Only those who have annoyed the government enough to burn a lot of processor time and law enforcement time following up false leads have anything to fear", this stuff has been around, and it hasn't gotten that much better. It's reasonably effective if it gets a head on shot of you at the same distance as it's had before. Anything else hardly works as far as I've ever seen.

It'd probably be good for catching arrogant bastards though.

[lighthorseman]

Anyone care to place a small wager as to how long after introduction the technology is abused? My money is on "within the first week".

[Art Vandelay]

Oct 12, 2011 5:56:33 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Anyone care to place a small wager as to how long after introduction the technology is abused? My money is on "within the first week".

Again, does this mean you want to remove every single forensic technology already in use because they too have potential for abuse? If not, why? Direct questions bro.

[lighthorseman]

Oct 12, 2011 6:03:56 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Oct 12, 2011 5:56:33 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Anyone care to place a small wager as to how long after introduction the technology is abused? My money is on "within the first week".

Again, does this mean you want to remove every single forensic technology already in use because they too have potential for abuse? If not, why? Direct questions bro.

nO, BUT i'M HAPPY TO REMOVE THOSE WHERE THE LIKLIHOOD OF ABUSE IS GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY IT WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING USEFUL.

Oops, sorry caps.

[Art Vandelay]

Oct 12, 2011 8:43:25 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Oct 12, 2011 6:03:56 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Again, does this mean you want to remove every single forensic technology already in use because they too have potential for abuse? If not, why? Direct questions bro.

nO, BUT i'M HAPPY TO REMOVE THOSE WHERE THE LIKLIHOOD OF ABUSE IS GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY IT WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING USEFUL.

Oops, sorry caps.

Ok, and are you calculating this probability in any way other than your initial, emotional ass-pull?

[lighthorseman]

Oct 12, 2011 9:04:50 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Oct 12, 2011 8:43:25 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

nO, BUT i'M HAPPY TO REMOVE THOSE WHERE THE LIKLIHOOD OF ABUSE IS GREATER THAN THE PROBABILITY IT WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING USEFUL.

Oops, sorry caps.

Ok, and are you calculating this probability in any way other than your initial, emotional ass-pull?

Yep.

[Art Vandelay]

Oct 12, 2011 9:51:18 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Oct 12, 2011 9:04:50 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Ok, and are you calculating this probability in any way other than your initial, emotional ass-pull?

Yep.

Do tell.

[lighthorseman]

Oct 12, 2011 9:53:02 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Oct 12, 2011 9:51:18 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Yep.

Do tell.

Years of experience.

Watching every. Single. Example. of new "crime fighting" technology be misused and abused. Further, knowing just how fallible humans are when it comes to supposedly "confidential" information. You want the guy in the local CCTV office knowing everything you did in any given day, where you went, who you visited, who you spent time with? Good luck to you.

I, however, realise there are a myriad perfectly legal things that I (and probably you) do on a regular basis that I don't necessarily want my friends, neighbours and co-workers knowing the intimate details of.

[Art Vandelay]

Oct 12, 2011 10:04:00 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Oct 12, 2011 9:53:02 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Do tell.

Years of experience.

Watching every. Single. Example. of new "crime fighting" technology be misused and abused. Further, knowing just how fallible humans are when it comes to supposedly "confidential" information. You want the guy in the local CCTV office knowing everything you did in any given day, where you went, who you visited, who you spent time with? Good luck to you.

I, however, realise there are a myriad perfectly legal things that I (and probably you) do on a regular basis that I don't necessarily want my friends, neighbours and co-workers knowing the intimate details of.

So potential embarrassment trumps better efficiency at catching criminals? Personally I'd rather take my chances if it means less of the bastards roaming free.