FBI to launch nationwide facial recognition service
By Aliya Sternstein 10/07/2011
The FBI by mid-January will activate a nationwide facial recognition service in select states that will allow local police to identify unknown subjects in photos, bureau officials told Nextgov.
The federal government is embarking on a multiyear, $1 billion dollar overhaul of the FBI's existing fingerprint database to more quickly and accurately identify suspects, partly through applying other biometric markers, such as iris scans and voice recordings.
Often law enforcement authorities will "have a photo of a person and for whatever reason they just don't know who it is [but they know] this is clearly the missing link to our case," said Nick Megna, a unit chief at the FBI's criminal justice information services division. The new facial recognition service can help provide that missing link by retrieving a list of mug shots ranked in order of similarity to the features of the subject in the photo.
Today, an agent would have to already know the name of an individual to pull up the suspect's mug shot from among the 10 million shots stored in the bureau's existing Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Using the new Next-Generation Identification system that is under development, law enforcement analysts will be able to upload a photo of an unknown person; choose a desired number of results from two to 50 mug shots; and, within 15 minutes, receive identified mugs to inspect for potential matches. Users typically will request 20 candidates, Megna said. The service does not provide a direct match.
Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina will participate in a test of the new search tool this winter before it is offered to criminal justice professionals across the country in 2014 as part of NGI. The project, which was awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp. in 2008, already has upgraded the FBI's fingerprint matching service.
Local authorities have the choice to file mug shots with the FBI as part of the booking process. The bureau expects its collection of shots to rival its repository of 70 million fingerprints once more officers are aware of the facial search's capabilities.
Thomas E. Bush III, who helped develop NGI's system requirements when he served as assistant director of the CJIS division between 2005 and 2009, said, "The idea was to be able to plug and play with these identifiers and biometrics." Law enforcement personnel saw value in facial recognition and the technology was maturing, said the 33-year FBI veteran who now serves as a private consultant.
NGI's incremental construction seems to align with the White House's push to deploy new information technology in phases so features can be scrapped if they don't meet expectations or run over budget.
But immigrant rights groups have raised concerns that the Homeland Security Department, which exchanges digital prints with the FBI, will abuse the new facial recognition component. Currently, a controversial DHS immigrant fingerprinting program called Secure Communities runs FBI prints from booked offenders against the department's IDENT biometric database to check whether they are in the country illegally. Homeland Security officials say they extradite only the most dangerous aliens, including convicted murderers and rapists. But critics say the FBI-DHS print swapping ensnares as many foreigners as possible, including those whose charges are minor or are ultimately dismissed.
Megna said Homeland Security is not part of the facial recognition pilot. But, Bush said in the future NGI's data, including the photos, will be accessible by Homeland Security's IDENT.
The planned addition of facial searches worries Sunita Patel, a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who said, "Any database of personal identity information is bound to have mistakes. And with the most personal immutable traits like our facial features and fingerprints, the public can't afford a mistake."
In addition, Patel said she is concerned about the involvement of local police in information sharing for federal immigration enforcement purposes. "The federal government is using local cops to create a massive surveillance system," she said.
Bush said, "We do have the capability to search against each other's systems," but added, "if you don't come to the attention of law enforcement you don't have anything to fear from these systems."
Other civil liberties advocates questioned whether the facial recognition application would retrieve mug shots of those who have simply been arrested. "It might be appropriate to have nonconvicted people out of that system," said Jim Harper, director of information policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. FBI officials declined to comment on the recommendation.
Harper also noted large-scale searches may generate a lot of false positives, or incorrect matches. Facial recognition "is more accurate with a Google or a Facebook, because they will have anywhere from a half-dozen to a dozen pictures of an individual, whereas I imagine the FBI has one or two mug shots," he said.
FBI officials would not disclose the name of the search product or the vendor, but said they gained insights on the technique's accuracy by studying research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
In responding to concerns about the creation of a Big Brother database for tracking innocent Americans, Megna said the system will not alter the FBI's authorities or the way it conducts business. "This doesn't change or create any new exchanges of data," he said. "It only provides [law enforcement] with a new service to determine what photos are of interest to them."
In 2008, the FBI released a privacy impact assessment summarizing its appraisal of controls in place to ensure compliance with federal privacy regulations. Megna said that, during meetings with the CJIS Advisory Policy Board and the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, "we haven't gotten a whole lot of pushback on the photo capability."
The FBI has an elaborate system of checks and balances to guard fingerprints, palm prints, mug shots and all manner of criminal history data, he said.
"This is not something where we want to collect a bunch of surveillance film" and enter it in the system, Megna said. "That would be useless to us. It would be useless to our users."
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20111007_6100.php?oref=rss
This is what i was reffering to last week. It is almost sickening watching politicans, play up to or denounce these riots. It is amazing they we almost on polar opposite sides when it came to the tea party gatherings (protests). But the Tea Party protestors were not destructive of property and were not jailed. Amazing.
Mike Krieger: "Rebellion Has Arrived In America"
The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The
First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government
has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment
doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a
bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from
search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a
terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms
under any circumstances.
- Harry Browne
The inherent right in the people to reform their government,
I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist
unconstitutional laws without overturning the government.
- Daniel Webster
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather anRebellion Has Arrived in America
irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
- Samuel Adams
As most of you know, I spend almost as much time studying social changes and geopolitics happening around the world as I do studying markets. While carefully observing those areas are always important to a macro investor such as myself, when you are smack in the middle of a Fourth Turning they take on an increased level of importance. What has shielded the U.S. from a lot of the social strife sweeping the rest of the globe at the moment has been the U.S. dollar’s reserve status since this allows us to print seemingly infinite amounts of paper dollars and shove them down the throats of the rest of the world for their resources. This keeps the populace fat, happy and most importantly asleep and apathetic. Well I am pleased to announce that those days are OVER. The American populace is now in the very beginnings of a state of open peaceful rebellion against the criminal oligarchic mafia that runs the nation through fraud and corruption. The status quo is likely to become increasingly defensive as a result and may lash out aggressively like a cornered rat, but they cannot and will not win. They can only really win when they own your mind and that battle has already been lost. Six months from now the state of rebellion will have moved from just beneath to the surface to the forefront of everyone’s mind. It will be a peaceful and constitutional rebellion and it will end with new ways of doing things, more freedoms and a very long road toward rebuilding a safe, fair, free and localized society once TPTB’s prison planet grid of control has been torn down forever.
Occupy Wall Street
I will be the first to admit that I faded the whole idea of this “Occupy Wall Street” protest. I had already seen several failed attempts at protest in NYC come and go and I just sadly assumed the spirit of that once great city had died forever. I am extraordinarily happy to report that I was wrong. When I watched some video of police brutality at NYC protests this weekend I was stunned. Not because the cops acted like some mercenary storm trooper thugs, but because this protest that has started the week before still had momentum! Check out this link regarding what is going on. It has two must watch videos. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=194965 The first one already has over 400k watches on youtube. This is the spark I have been waiting for and I am pleased beyond belief that it happened in Manhattan right where it should. How about this appearance of Cornel West at the protest on Tuesday. http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/cornel-west-at-occupy-wall-str... I am proud of my old home today. This is a big deal. The serfs are coming together. Keep it up.
Most of you reading this right now are thinking that this is interesting but he is exaggerating and this will blow over. I am here to assure you that it is not and this whole thing is about to grow exponentially as the economy continues to stagnate and people climb the learning curve. Are you aware that the founder of Salon.com, David Talbot, is publicly calling for an “American Spring?” This of course is a reference to the Arab Spring, in which revolution swept across North Africa earlier this year and led to the collapse of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments and then major government bribes to the people living in the oil rich kingdoms. Mr. Talbot writes “In these increasingly hard times, Salon is dedicating itself to an American revival. Our editorial mission will become more explicitly and aggressively populist. We will be publishing more investigative pieces, exposing the shadow dance of power. And both Democratic and Republican targets will be fair game, since both parties are increasingly under the control of the same corporate forces.” His full piece is here http://www.salon.com/about/american_spring/index.html?story=/about/insid... You need to read it if you want to understand where all of this is headed. How about journalist Chris Hedges talking about “Occupy Wall Street” http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/chris-hedges-occupy-wall-stree... We the people now understand it is not “rich vs. poor,” businessperson vs. teacher.” It is serf vs. oligarch. They are 0.1% and we know what they are up to. GAME ON.
Jaime Dimon Proves he is a Complete and Total Psychopath
I am not even going to write my own thought paragraph about how delusional and insane this man’s statements were the other day on banking regulations. Rather I will provide links to articles by people that have done a great job of exposing the absurdity of this parasitic oligarch’s comments. My favorite line by far on this is from fellow ex-Wall Streeter Nomi Prins who writes:
“There are few things more cringe-inducing than a government-subsidized bank CEO spouting self-serving, entitlement-laden idiocy to the world just because he and his bank might be subject to some extra constraints. That hasn’t stopped JPM Chase CEO Jamie Dimon from acting like a spoiled, sociopathic brat while characterizing proposed Basel III capital requirements and regulations as ‘anti-American’ at every opportunity. They are not ‘anti-American’ but globally risk-mitigating in a time of widespread economic Depression, a point lost in the haze of Dimon’s megalomania.”
Her full article is here http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-jamie-dimon%E2%80%99s-shameful-.... Precious metals hero and money manager Eric Sprott chimed in with this letter to the Globe and Mail. http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-sprott-jamie-dimon-letter-2011-9
Jaime Dimon is a real piece of work. It is as if he is asking for a custom made guillotine (metaphorically speaking of course as I do not condone violence in any way shape or form). At least Lloyd Blankfein had the sense to read the writing on the wall, shut up and hire an attorney.
So in conclusion, rebellion has arrived on America’s shores and it is about time. The moment is here for each of us to make important decisions. Save freedom and liberty or allow the oligarchs to enslave us and your children for generations. Peter Orzag recently wrote that “We need Less Democracy.” http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democrac... This is what these guys are gunning for. Just think about who this “WE” he is talking about is.
And don’t kid yourself. Pretty much everyone on this list is a serf no matter how rich you are. Don’t kid yourself.
Peace and Wisdom,
Mike
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mike-kireger-rebellion-has-arrived-america
I guess i will start a new tag or label, flash of the obvious. It is so obvious it makes you wonder why there is even a discussion about it. You would think that judges are suppose to be able to think to be come a judge, but i guess not. It is no wonder why this country is in trouble.
Judge: Americans do not have right to choose food
Decision in farm dispute bars families from drinking milk from their own cows
A Wisconsin judge has decided – in a fight over families' access to milk from cows they own – that Americans "do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow."
The ruling comes from Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in a court battle involving a number of families who owned their own cows, but boarded them on a single farm.
The judge said the arrangement is a "dairy farm" and, therefore, is subject to the rules and regulations of the state of Wisconsin.
"It's always a surprise when a judge says you don't have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice," said Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which worked on the case on behalf of the farmers and the owners of the milk-producing cows.
The judge's original ruling came in a consolidation of two cases that presented similar situations: Cows being maintained and milked on farms for the benefit of non-resident owners. He refused to grant a summary judgment declaring such arrangements legitimate, deciding instead to favor the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, which opposed them.
"Plaintiffs argue that they have a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property and therefore have a fundamental right to own a cow, or a heard (sic) of cows, and to use their cow(s) in a manner that does not cause harm to third parties. They argue that they have a fundamental right to privacy to consume the food of their choice for themselves and their families and therefore have a fundamental right to consume unpasteurized milk from their cows," the judge wrote.
Bunk, he concluded.
"They do not simply own a cow that they board at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. If plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin."
He cited an earlier consent decree involving one of the farm locations, which had been accused of being the source of a "Campylobachter jejuni infection" and said there are state reasons to require standards and licenses.
Identifying the cases as the "Grassway plaintiffs" and the "Zinniker plaintiffs," the judge said both were in violation of state rules and regulations.
It was, however, when the plaintiffs petitioned the judge for a "clarification" of his order that he let fly his judicial temperament.
"The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which means the following:
"(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
"(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
"(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
"(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power;
"(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
"(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs' conduct."
"It is clear from their motion to clarify that the plaintiffs still fail to recognize that they are not merely attempting to enforce their 'right' to own a cow and board it at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm," he wrote.
Kennedy said the ruling is outlandish.
"Here you have a situation where a group of people, a couple of individuals, boarded their cows which they wholly owned, with Zinniker farms, and paid them a fee for the boarding."
He continued, "The judge said people have no fundamental right to acquire, possess and use your own property."
The dispute is part of a larger battle going on between private interests and state and federal regulators over just exactly who makes the decision on the difference between a privately held asset and a commercial producer.
The Los Angeles Times recently profiled a case in which prosecutors had arrested the owner of a health food market and two others on charges of allegedly illegally producing unpasteurized dairy products.
The arrests of James Cecil Stewart, Sharon Ann Palmer and Eugenie Bloch just a few weeks ago advanced the government's crackdown on the sale of so-called raw dairy products.
But Fiedler's arguments weren't unique.
Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit still pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain their food of choice.
The brief was filed early in 2010 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued.
WND has reported several times on fed crackdowns on producers of raw milk for friends and neighbors, including when agents arrived to inspect a private property belonging to Dan Allgyer in Pennsylvania at 5 a.m.
The Iowa case alleges the federal restrictions on raw milk are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a report at Natural News.
The federal attorneys want the case dismissed.
"The interest claimed by plaintiffs could be framed more narrowly as a right to 'provide themselves and their families with the foods of their own choice,'" the government document states. But the attorneys say that right doesn't exist.
"The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink," said the Natural News site, which explains it covers topics that allow individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity and consumer choices.
"You are only 'allowed' to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA's consent."
The Natural News report continued, "The state, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the state may do this for completely unscientific reasons – even just political reasons – all at their whim."
The report blames the aggressive campaign against raw milk on large commercial dairy interests, "because it threatens the commercial milk business."
The reason cannot be safety, the report said, since a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.
The federal government attorneys say the FDA's goal is to prevent disease, and that's why the "ban on the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk" was adopted.
The attorneys conceded that states ordinarily are expected to regulate intrastate activity but noted, "it is within HHS's authority … to institute an intrastate ban as well."
Natural News reported the ban could be seen as violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which leaves to states all powers not specifically designated in the Constitution for the federal body.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=352249#ixzz1aRgOZXXU
No comments:
Post a Comment