backtop


Print 6 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Jul 8 at 4:54 AM

Cataloged data could include palm prints, iris scans, tattoos, and more

Criminals beware: the FBI’s next wave of identification technologies is fast approaching.

DailyTech first reported on the FBI’s “Next Generation Identification” system when word of it broke last December, where at the time the biggest question revolved around who would be the lucky winner of such a lucrative contract. Fast forward half a year: the $1 billion contract went to Lockheed-Martin (this occurred last February) and the FBI’s pie-in-the-sky desires have since had a brush with reality, compliments of a recent status report posted over at Popular Mechanics.

As for the project itself, Lockheed-Martin says it is still in the planning stage, and that the company is currently conducting “trade studies” to determine the algorithmic requirements of scanning hundreds of thousands of biometric images at a time.

Both Lockheed-Martin and the FBI are somewhat pensive when it comes to the actual requirements of such a system. Clearly, the NGI’s increased use of images will require storage facilities far beyond its current fingerprint system – but so far, either nobody knows or they’re keeping their lips sealed. It has said, however, that the NGI will be software-based – a relatively obvious conclusion given the nature of many past systems – so that it can be made available to police departments equipped with “compatible biometric collection gear.”

More interestingly, Lockheed-Martin plans on outsourcing much of the actual hardware duties: “Lockheed does not build [data] capture devices or matching algorithms, per se,” says NGI project manager Barbara Humpton. “NGI is about setting up a database and standards—the format for how things come into the system.” The project won’t be working from scratch, and fully plans to make use of “existing biometric technologies,” with a variety of police departments already collecting data for future use.

Privacy issues, of course, remain at the forefront: critics from the ACLU and Electronic Privacy Information Center think that the technology isn’t mature enough to start widespread deployments – particularly regarding police departments that choose to gather information now. There’s nothing to worry about, says the FBI; the scope of the project isn’t going to expand and it will continue collecting data from the same people it’s already gathering data on – criminals, chiefly, in addition to outside prints it receives from its civil services division, which provides print-matching services to the private sector for use in things like employment background checks.

“We aren't going to start collecting irises from everyone and their brother,” says FBI assistant director Thomas Bush. “We adhere to very strict privacy guidelines. We're taking more biometrics from the same people we were always authorized to take fingerprints from.”

Further, the FBI says its identity databases have “never been hacked.”

Provided everything goes to plan, the initial phases of NGI deployment are set to occur sometime in 2010. The project will likely have a ten-year lifespan, and research on a next-gen NGI will begin in 2018.

I’m not quite sure that this project sits easy with me. With the growing development of computer-based recognition technologies, it’s easy to see where this is going: face data, scar prints, and tattoo markers being fed into automated surveillance systems that are exactly like what the UK and U.S. have been jockeying for. There are a ton of arguments against this kind of intrusion – which stretch far beyond the scope of this write-up – that sit ignored by both government officials and the general public, both of which seem to be willfully sleepwalking into a arms of a surveillance state.

Remember, crime is not the only way to land into the government’s identification snare. It would be one thing if the nation’s psychopaths, murderers, and general-purpose scum were the only ones to land in such a system – but instead, the FBI openly acknowledges that it inputs data received from outside sources as well. Society’s lesser offenders – the kids thrown in jail for marijuana possession, the “Don’t tase me, Bro!” dissenter at a John Kerry rally, or Texas computer-repair technicians who work without a PI license – people for whom the definition of “offense” is often dubious, as well as job-seekers and other assorted bystanders, are the ones who get the short end of this NGI deal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Those pesky Internet rumors
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 11:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "or Texas computer-repair technicians who work without a PI license..."

I'm pretty sure that story is false, and based on an incorrect reading of the TX law. You can see the actual text of the law in question here:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/...




By Screwballl on 7/3/2008 12:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
this is one of those damed if you do, damned if you don't situations..

http://cw33.trb.com/news/kdaf-062608-computerspelp...

quote:
A new Texas law requires every computer repair technician to obtain a private investigator's license, according to a lawsuit filed in Austin. Violators can face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail, as well as a $10,000 civil penalty.

Unlicensed computer shops will have to close down until they obtain a private investigator's license.

A private investigator's license can be obtained by acquiring a criminal justice degree or by getting a three-year apprenticeship under a licensed private investigator.

According to the Institute for Justice, an Austin-based non-profit law firm, the new law also impacts consumers. Consumers who knowingly take computers to an unlicensed company for repair can face the same penalties.

An article from the Daily Texan explains the concern from one computer shop owner's perspective.

In the Austin American-Statesman, State Rep. Joe Driver, (R-Garland) explains the intent of the law, and claims it does not place such restrictions on most computer shops.


Ok so does it or does it not place these restrictions on the repair shops... sounds like the wording needs to be modified...

I read through the bill and saw several spots that could be called into question and may appear to require just what the story states.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki