Monday, December 11, 2017

POLICE STATE: Arizona Citizens Tracked In Facial Recognition Database In First Step For REAL ID Implementation

POLICE STATE: Arizona Citizens Tracked In Facial Recognition Database In First Step For REAL ID Implementation

Arizona citizens are now in a government database that uses facial recognition technology to track them simply for getting a driver’s license. This allows federal and local law enforcement to use the “perpetual lineup” of suspects not accused of a crime to see if someone is wanted for a crime, Arizona Capitol Times reported.



The state says that the program is to prevent identity theft and fraud. Here’s how it works according to Arizona Capitol Times.
After someone at the Motor Vehicle Division takes your photo, your face is scanned by a system based on a proprietary algorithm that analyzes facial features. The system compares your face against the 19 million photos in the state’s driver’s license database to look for similarities. If an image is similar enough, the system will flag it for further review.
The program is an effort that is part of a nationwide initiative called the REAL ID Act that was created by Congress in 2005 as a response to the September 11th terror attacks. The system allows the state to comply with the federal act, which increased standards for identification documents. Although the REAL ID Act does not explicitly call for facial recognition, it does maintain that states need to take measures to reduce fraud.
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) already has publicly boasted about the success with more than 100 cases it has taken to court for fraud using the technology, which has been in place since early 2015.
But the use of the system to prevent identity theft isn’t what people are worried about; the problem is the lack of oversight in government programs that allows anyone with access to look into the database. As such, state-run facial recognition databases are dangerous and can lead down a slippery slope to allow other operations the technology wasn’t intended for.
The other key issue is the fact that residents in Arizona aren’t even being told that this is going on – coupled with the lack of oversight and disclosure, it becomes a nightmare for privacy rights advocates.
“If you don’t know that a system is in place, you actually don’t have the choice of consenting to it or not,” said Clare Garvie who authored the “perpetual line-up” study.
Jim Dempsey, the executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, also had some reservations about the lack of disclosure currently in effect.
Informed consent, through giving notice to people that their faces will be matched up against millions of others when they apply for a license, is a basic tenet of privacy, Jim Dempsey, the executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, said.
Even if notice is given, it’s unlikely that people would opt out of getting a license because facial recognition technology is used because people will decide driving a car and having a legal ID outweigh the risks, Dempsey said.
“It’s an important element. The lack of it is an issue, but it’s one that should be corrected and would be easy to correct,” he said.
Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have voiced their concerns about state facial recognition databases and how this could be tied into the push by the federal government to use these databases in airports and border checkpoints creating a dystopian Orwellian surveillance state.
“DMV photo databases are probably the most comprehensive databases in existence,” which means they’re “very, very powerful” tools for potential surveillance, something the ACLU worries could be a “next step,” Jay Stanley a senior policy analyst at ACLU said.
One of the main pitfalls of such a system is not only the lack of oversight on the program by any government watchdog, but the fact that there are no laws to justify the collections, or a court between law enforcement and access to millions of people’s identities.
The only requirement for those that search is that it must involve people suspected of committing a crime or “who law enforcement may suspect is about to commit a crime.” People could also be involved in activities that are threats to public safety, sought as part of a criminal investigation or “intelligence-gathering effort.”
Such extremely broad terms for using this technology is extremely worrying and has a high potential for abuse.
“There should at the very least be a court involved before law enforcement can access millions of unwitting people’s identities,” EFF staff attorney, Adam Schwartz, said.
“It’s really hard to function in a car-based society without a driver’s license, and people shouldn’t be subjected to an invasive technology when they decide to follow the law and get a legal document that allows them to drive,” he added. “It’s a misuse of data to collect data, in this case images, for one thing and use them for other purposes.”
Schwartz added that
in many states, including Arizona, agencies have started using facial recognition technology outside of any formal approval from the public and its representatives, state lawmakers.”
“Before government starts using powerful technology to surveil the public, there ought to be a more open and transparent process where the public controls whether or not this is picked up.
All in all, this could set a larger precedent for the surveillance state that the DHS wants in the country under its REAL ID program. States must adopt REAL ID standards by Oct. 1, 2020, or their residents will need alternate identification to travel which may include carrying a passport domestically, Daily Mail reported.




Federal Gov’t Admits it Will Continue Warrantless Spying — Even if Congress Votes to Stop It

(TFTP) As the United States Congress runs out of time to vote on a bill that would reauthorize one of the government’s most egregious warrantless spying programs, officials are claiming that those programs won’t end anytime soon—even if they are not reauthorized by the end of the year.
The USA Liberty Act will reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017. While the bill’s proponents have claimed it will help ensure “security” in the United States, privacy advocates have warned that will provide additional loopholes for the government to continue conducting warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans.
The assumption may be that if the USA Liberty Act is not signed into law, then the provisions from Section 702 will no longer be legal and the U.S. government will stop collecting data from innocent Americans without warrants—but intelligence officials do not see it that way.
A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Brian Hale, told the New York Times that “the government believes it can keep the program going for months,” even if it is not reauthorized.
Hale’s reasoning stems from the fact that every year, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizes the program to operate for the next 12 months. Section 702 was last authorized by the court on April 26, 2017, leaving some lawmakers hopeful that even if the Liberty Act does not pass before the end of the year, Congress will find a way reauthorize Section 702 before it actually expires on April 26, 2018.
Hale cited the “Transition Procedures” for the provision, which accompany the law in federal statute books. He told the Times that the procedures make it “very clear” that “any existing order will continue in effect for a short time even if Congress doesn’t act to reauthorize the law in a timely fashion.”
According to the definitions of Transition Procedures for the Protect America Act of 2007’s provisions for “Challenge of Directives, Protection from Liability; Use of Information” concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 702 shall continue to apply with respect to any directive issued pursuant to section 702 of such Act.”
While this loophole may give hope to some government officials who are in favor of violating Americans’ constitutional rights while selling them a false sense of security, NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden referred to it by writing on Twitter, Bypass the Fourth Amendment with one weird trick.”
The Times also cited anonymous intelligence officials who reportedly said that the government is making no plans to immediately turn off the program on New Year’s Day, no matter what happens in Congress.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, told the Times that he is prepared to have “a full and open debate” over the legality of the USA Liberty Act, even if Congress delays that debate until next year.
We’ve seen this movie before: wait until the last minute, and then say, ‘crowded congressional calendar, dangerous world, we’ve just got to go along with it,’” Wyden said. “Anything now that creates an opportunity for several months of real debate, I’ll listen to.”
Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, has also been critical of the USA Liberty Act. When it passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27-8 last month, Amash noted that all privacy advocates should be concerned about the overwhelming support the bill is receiving from Congress.
“The Liberty Act passed committee 27-8. It allows the government to search our private data without a warrant—in violation of the 4th Amendment,” Amash wrote on Twitter. “It’s another bill, like the Freedom Act, that furthers violations of our rights under the guise of protecting our rights.”
While advocates of the USA Liberty Act will claim that it is necessary in order to ensure that Americans are “safe,” it is important to remember that the surveillance programs that were adopted after 9/11 have never actually stopped a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In the same way that the USA Patriot Act was the opposite of patriotic in 2001, the USA Freedom Act also took away freedom in 2015. Do not be fooled by the title—the USA Liberty Act in 2017 has nothing to do with expanding “liberty.”

SOURCE

6 comments:

  1. New Jersey is also using facial recognition software at the DMV. I just renewed my license and couldn’t wear my glasses in my picture because they can obscure the facial recognition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I cant believe this is happening in our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Last year when I renewed my driver's license in Kentucky the form to fill out had changed...they asked questions on it that I have never been asked and then was asked to remove my glasses and hat

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live in Arizona and while at the DMV there was a muslim woman who didn't have to take off her head covering or face covering for her drivers license because it was against her religion ....

    ReplyDelete