Tag Archives: Department of Public Safety

Is my Oklahoma Driver’s License a Biometric ID?

ok dl

Kaye Beach

10/22/2015

I admit that I am astonished to discover that many people in the Great State of Oklahoma do not yet understand that their Oklahoma state driver’s license and ID cards are biometric.

I am not really surprised anymore when I find that sometimes people don’t care, but I am really shaken up when I find that they don’t know.

Here is the problem, we cannot begin to have an intelligent and informed discussion about the pros and cons of biometric ID (for ordinary law-abiding people) if we do not even understand that we are currently being subjected to it – And we MUST have this conversation!

The faces of more than 120 million people are in searchable photo databases that state officials assembled to prevent driver’s-license fraud but that increasingly are used by police to identify suspects, accomplices and even innocent bystanders in a wide range of criminal investigations. . . . But law enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities.’ (Source: The Washington Post, June 17, 2013 State photo-ID databases become troves for police)

The current uses of biometric ID on the population is pretty tame compared to the planned and possible uses of the technology in the future. Right now we are blindly blundering ahead without looking at where we are headed.

Biometric simply means measurement of the body. Fingerprints, digital photos, iris scans and DNA are all examples of biometrics.

Explainer: what-is-biometric-id

Every couple of years we hit another REAL ID deadline set by the Department of Homeland Security and the news media explodes with sensational stories about how ‘soon’ we will not be able to fly or enter federal buildings. (To put it simply, there is no danger of any serious disruption for most people any time soon.)

I guess I shouldn’t view these roving deadlines with such dread but instead look at them as an opportunity to educate people on the issue because, at least for a short time, because they are terrified of being inconvenienced, they are paying attention to this policy that otherwise lurks in obscurity.

I am addressing just one fact in this post:

Oklahoma’s state driver’s licenses and ID cards ARE biometric ID’s

You must submit to a fingerprint scan and facial biometric captured in order to receive a driver’s license or ID card in this state.

Oklahoma biometric driver’s licenses made their  public “debut” in 2003-4

viisage

2004 OK Biometric license

In 2010, the Department of Public Safety documents technical information regarding their collection of biometric data including the size of finger and face biometric template files and the size of its “facial recognition database” (See page 3 and 4)

DPS 2010 rfi facial rtecognition database

None of this is hidden or a mystery of any sort.  in fact, the Department of Public Safety is quite open about some uses of its biometric ID. Like for instance, the fact that if you have your face and finger with you, you can get a replacement license without any documentation of your identity.

How? Because with biometrics, your body is your ID.

DPS memo biometrics

Biometric data, especially facial biometrics,  is extremely sensitive information that can be used to accomplish a great deal of surveillance and control over our personal affairs. It is important that we know what it is, who has it and how it is being used.

Downloadable 1 page explainer

Oklahoma’s Driver’s License is a Biometric ID docx

Advertisements

Texas DPS’ Face and ALL Ten Prints Biometric Policy Makes Everone a Suspect

lineup

Kaye Beach
July 14, 2014

Like Oklahoma, Texas requires applicants for a state drivers license or ID card to submit to his or her facial and finger biometrics to being captured and stored. But Texas has recently upped the ante requiring those who wish to have a state issued driver’s license of ID card, to submit to the scanning and retention of all ten fingerprints.

Texas lawmakers have passed legislation that allows the Department of Public Safety to get all ten of your fingerprints the next time you renew your drivers license. And the DPS quietly began doing that this year.

‘To Cut Down On Fraud, DPS Wants Fingerprints To Renew Drivers License,’

If you are already offended by the notion of the notion of being fingerprinted like a common criminal just to get an driver’s license or ID card you will be horrified by what Ryan Barrett, a former DPS employee who resigned over the new fingerprinting policy, reveals about what is actually being done with the data.

His main objection, he tells The Watchdog, is that all fingerprints of Texans are now being run through the state’s criminal database. (my bold)

…Barrett says he is not against catching criminals. The problem, he says, is that if someone has no criminal record, a new record is created of the innocent individual and stored in the statewide database called AFIS.

…Barrett says he believes the reason DPS quietly launched the program this year without public announcement is because such a public notice would have touched off a debate about the program’s legality.

Read more, ‘The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints,’ July 12, 2014, DallasNews.com

Dave Lieber, Watchdog Reporter for the Dallas Morning News is doing a fine job of investigating and reporting on this story which he first reported  on back on June 7, 2014.

Watchdog: Driver’s license centers snatch your fingerprints

[. . .]Quietly, earlier this year, the Texas Department of Public Safety began requiring full sets of fingerprints from everyone who obtains a new driver’s license or photo identification card.

[. . .]Since 2010, Texas has used facial recognition software to match driver’s license photos with government databases looking for persons wanted by law enforcement for various reasons.

The state’s Image Verification System also matches known faces from driver’s licenses and photo ID cards with sketches of criminal suspects, a Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman explained in answer to The Watchdog’s questions.

[. . . ]In the Texas Homeland Security Strategic Plan, which Marina found, authorities cite identity theft and terrorism as two motivators for using fingerprints and facial recognition software.

Checking fingerprints, the plan says, will help officials locate people seeking a second, unauthorized identification card.

The plan states that fingerprints will be compared with the federal Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System to identify criminals and terrorists.  Read more

July 12, 2014 article, The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints

And here is Lieber’s article published today, July 14, 2014, that allows the whistleblower and a representative for the Texas Department of Public Safety,  to both give their perspective in their own words.

Judge for yourself if fingerprint taking is necessary for Texas driver’s licenses

 

I love the DPS whistleblower, Ryan Barrett’s,  final thoughts on the matter.

‘…you can use any means or methods to stop crime and then justify it with the DPS’s blanket ‘safety’ statement.  You can say the DPS is placing RFID chips in all driver’s license holders, and then justify it with the the same sentence Tom used: that it stops fraud, combats terrorism, and keeps people safe.  In fact, I’m sure it probably would stop a little fraud, or some crime, but that doesn’t mean it is morally right, in line with the concept of citizens’ privacy, or cost-effective.  You could search every single house in a city when a crime is committed and justify it with that statement, and yes, the police would probably find some crime or wrong-doing.  But again, that doesn’t mean it’s morally right…’

Read more, ‘The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints,’ July 12, 2014, DallasNews.com

Secret Service nabs Oklahoma driver’s license equipment burglars

secret service

Kaye Beach

August 20, 2013

Two men are accused of committing multiple felony burglaries at metro area tag agencies. They were after only one thing – the equipment and supplies needed to make Oklahoma driver’s licenses and ID cards.  The Secret Service nabbed them.

Wonder why the Secret Service is involved when the charges were filed in Oklahoma County District Court and not federal court.

Apparently 591 customers had their personal information stolen along with the equipment prompting a notice from the Dept. of Public Safety with instructions on how to get a replacement license or state photo ID.

We keep piling on security feature like biometrics to our state driver’s license but the weakest link is the local DMV or tag agencies as the case is in Oklahoma.  This sort of crime is happening all over the country.  DMV employees are being bribed and license making equipment stolen.  All the personal data and high tech security features in the world will not t make the card secure.  Instead what it does is  make the document a hot commodity for crooks.

Read more from the Edmond Sun who broke the story on August 19th.

Affidavit: Tag agency suspects confess to metro crime spree

Mistaken for a Dead Man? Oklahoma Driver’s License Renewal Gets Complicated

dmv line
Kaye Beach
August 8, 2013

In recent months I have personally had a number of people tell me that they have had more than the usual hassle when trying to get their licenses renewed or replaced.  They are being redirected from the tag agency to the Dept. of Public Safety and the problem seems to be that their name or other identifying information was similar to another person that had some violation of fine on their driving record.

Often the matter was cleared up by a visit to the Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) but even in the most straightforward of circumstances, these people anywhere from a few hours or even days of work or school to dealing with the DPS and they are none to happy about it.

The National Drivers Registry

From what I can tell, many of these problems trace back to the National Drivers Registry (NDR) Every state submits information to the NDR about drivers who have had the driver’s license suspended, revoked or who have been convicted of serious traffic violations. (NHSTA.gov)

When a person applies for a driver’s license or renewal the DMV (or in our case, a Tag Agency) the person’s name and other identifying information such as date of birth, license number or social security number, is checked to see if they show up on the National Drivers Registry. If there is a match, he or she has to go to the state Department of Public Safety in order to clear the problem up before a driver’s license can be issued.

(More about the NDR http://www.nhtsa.gov/Data/National+Driver+Register+(NDR) )

Mistaken for a dead man

In one case that I am aware of, a young man with a rather common name, lost at least a day of school day at DPS to prove that he was not another man in another state who was actually deceased but also had an outstanding traffic ticket on his record.  Mistaken identity?  The solution was straightforward enough –go to the Dept. of Public Safety, they compare the information and the young man is cleared.

The never ending story

In reality, he lost two half days of school waiting in line at the Dept. of Public Safety. And it doesn’t end there. This gentleman found out that he, like many others with this ‘mistaken identity’ issue, can look forward to going through the same issue again and again -every time he needs a new driver’s license. The National Driver’s registry cannot be annotated in any way to indicate that the matter has already been investigated and cleared.

For those who may have had an old ticket or violation that had actually been settled but is erroneously showing up in the system, the problem gets even stickier. They have to sort the matter out with the state that the information originates from before they can hope to get their Oklahoma license. This can takes days or even months and sometimes even a trip in person back to the originating state.

The burden is on you

So the National Driver’s License registry is designed to make it hard for an offender to escape punishment or penalties by making sure their record follows them no matter which state they may go. This system provides obvious utility for government but what about the completely innocent person that is losing time and money to prove their innocence and can look forward to repeating the same process every few years?

And why are tag agencies are empowered to issue driver’s licenses why can they not receive the information that will allow them to do their jobs efficiently and verify this info on the spot?

Redirects on the Rise?

Judging from the number of spontaneous reports I have been receiving on this specific problem, this is happening to many people lately. The National Drivers Registry in not a new system but problems associated with it seems to be on an uptick. I wonder why?

I would be interested in hearing from others who have experienced this or similar bureaucratic nightmares involving their Oklahoma state driver’s license.

AxXiomForLiberty@gmail.com

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses

9/21/2011

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses, Demands Religious Accommodation

NORMAN, Okla. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an Oklahoma woman who has been denied accommodation of her sincerely held religious objection to having a high-resolution biometric photograph used on her driver’s license. In filing suit against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the state’s demand for a biometric photograph as a condition of being licensed to drive violates Kaye Beach’s rights under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Kaye Beach v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is available here.

“Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification is the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same—ultimate control by the government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized.”

In March 2011, Kaye Beach applied to renew her driver’s license with the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Upon learning that the biometric photographs used by DPS are stored in a database that is managed and accessed by international organizations, Beach repeatedly voiced her religious objection to the practice and asked to be allowed to use a low-resolution photograph for her license. Kaye Beach subscribes to the Christian belief, detailed in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, that Christians must not participate in a global numbering identification system.

Although Beach met all other requirements for renewing her license, DPS refused her request for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, as well as her offer to submit to a low-resolution photograph for her license, insisting that the state law does not provide for alternatives or exemptions. As a result, Beach was not permitted to renew her driver’s license. Consequently, Beach has also been deprived of common benefits and services that hinge on possessing a valid driver’s license, including the ability to acquire prescription medications, use her debit card, rent a hotel room or obtain a post office box.

In filing suit in the District Court of Cleveland County, Okla., attorneys for The Rutherford Institute allege that DPS’ refusal to accommodate Beach’s religious beliefs and grant Beach a license violates the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Institute attorneys point out that the state’s requirement of a biometric photograph does not serve a compelling state interest and that the state has other means for furthering any such state interest. The lawsuit also alleges that the use of Beach’s biometric photograph violates her right of privacy as guaranteed by Okla. Const. Art. II, § 30. Attorneys Eileen Echols, Jonathan Echols and Benjamin Sisney of Echols & Assoc. are working with the Institute in its defense of Kaye Beach’s right to religious freedom.

http://www.rutherford.org/

Oklahoma: House passes bill to prevent political violence

Kaye Beach

April 28, 2011

Senate Bill 287  passed the House Tuesday 69 to 23.

See House  votes

The Broken Arrow Ledger reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that would make it a felony to willfully and knowingly enter a restricted area where state officials are being provided protection by the Department of Public Safety has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 285, by state Sen. Kim David and state Rep. Mike Ritze, would also make it a felony to enter a restricted area to engage in violence or disorderly conduct and specifically mentions the Governor’s Mansion.

Read More

The bill says it ” shall be unlawful” to

1.  Willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the Governor, any member of the immediate family of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, or other state official being provided protection by the Department of Public Safety is or will be temporarily visiting;

2.  Willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds the use of which is restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national or state significance

Also unlawful would be to  “Willfully and knowingly, enter with the intent to impede or to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions in or within close proximity to any building or grounds” or to “or to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or within close proximity to any building or grounds”

SB285 version, votes, amendment etc.

Reading this bill, I would be afraid to get any where near the Governor! And this is likely, exactly the point. If  you want to make sure you don’t get into  trouble, stay the heck away from the Governor!  Nice. .

So much for access, but hey!  there’s always e-Government.  It is safe sanitary and makes those annoying citizens ever so easy to ignore.  Just hit “delete” and Buh Bye.. 

“I think it is important in light of the Arizona shooting of a U.S. Congresswoman to ensure the safety of public officials,” Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, said

The Arizona shooting  prompted a variety of  legislative proposals for the purpose of better  safeguarding officials.

Less than 24 hours after the Arizona shooting that killed 6 and critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords  Rep Robert Brady from Pennsylvania was promising to introduce legislation “making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” according to CNN

Read More

Video interview with Rep. Brady here.

Some legislators like Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, reacted by  focusing on language that they perceived as threatening;

A good place to start a more civil dialog would be for my Republican colleagues in the House to change the name of the bill they have introduced to repeal health care reform. The bill, titled the “Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act,” was set to come up for a vote this week, but in the wake of Gabby’s shooting, it has been postponed at least until next week.

Read More

One South Carolina legislator wanted to require Universities to turn over the records of “disruptive” or “threatening” students that drop out of school.  The article doesn’t say who the records would be turned over to but presumably it would be the police.

Read More

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

Read More

Other reactions were more predictable:

Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

Arizona Shooting Prompts Bloomberg to Renew Battle Against Illegal Guns

Republicans too

Peter King, a GOP Congressman from New York, announced new anti-gun legislation in the wake of the Arizona shooting:

“Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”

Read more

Does Texas Have the (Bureaucratic) ‘Biometric Blues’?

Let me cut to the chase here.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 24, signed in 2008 and revalidated in 2009 by the current administration, mandates that interoperability with respect to biometrics spans the military, civil, and criminal arenas.

http://www.biometrics.dod.mil/Newsletter/issues/2009/Sep/V5issue3.html

Using at-a-distance- biometrics like facial recognition and retinal scans will certainly put a damper on dissent…..

Its not just Texas.  There seems to be a mad dash across the US to begin to put the cameras and databases to work.

The story you read below is also one I see repeated everywhere.  We say NO!  Our elected Representatives say NO!  But the bureaucrats keep pushing until they get what they want.

You want to know where your sovereignty and liberty is going?  It is slipping right though the hands of a bunch of unelected, uncountable bureaucrats.

We are not being represented-we are being Wahooed!

Here are a few interesting stories out of the great state of Texas that might give us pause for thought.

Houston Chronicle

Homeland Security picking up tab for 250-300 surveillance cameras

Nov. 24, 2010,

The city is installing 250 to 300 cameras at downtown intersections in an effort to prevent and fight terrorism and crime, part of a security initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The cameras, which the city began installing in earnest this summer, already have helped police catch car burglars in the act, said Dennis Storemski, the city’s director of the Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security. Eventually, he said, the cameras could be used to allow dispatchers or officers approaching a crime scene to survey what’s happening from their patrol vehicles before they arrive.

Read More

2010  State Fair of Texas using Facial Recognition

https://crossmatch.com/State-Fair-Texas-using-Facial-Recognition.php

November 14, 2010

Camera monitoring sought by DPS is way too intrusive

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw recently asked state lawmakers to install license plate reader cameras on Texas roadways and to allow stationary roadblocks to stop motorists so DPS could see their driver’s licenses and proof of insurance.

McCraw wrapped these intrusive proposals in a generalized assertion of growing drug trafficking and violence during a state Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee meeting.

Read More


El Paso Feb. 3, 2010

Sheriff will identify people with a retinal scan

Going back to 2004 a battle began at the State Capitol in Texas over the collection of law abiding citizens biometrics.

Texas Biometric initiatives 2004

Should Texans have to give up “facial recognition” data and all ten fingerprints — just like they were being booked into the county jail — in order to get a driver’s license?
Chairman Frank Corte, Rep. Leo Berman, and a majority of the Texas House Defense Affairs Committee say ”Yes.” That committee’s #1 recommendation in its Interim Report (pdf) heading into the 79th Legislature is to allow the Texas Department of Public Safety to gather new “biometric data” – or new types of measurements about your physical body – as part of driver’s license applications.

The vast majority of the Texas House of Representatives opposed a similar bill by Chairman Corte last year. SB 945 passed without debate in the Senate, but died in the House after a vigorous debate over the effect it would have on civil liberties.   In a dramatic bipartisan 111-26 vote, the Texas House of Representatives rejected SB 945 in the 78th Legislature, which would have required drivers to give “biometric data” in order to get a license.


Grits says thatSB 945 “would have required drivers to give all ten fingerprints instead of just a thumbprint – just like they were being booked into the county jail. Plus, drivers would have to let DPS gather “facial recognition” data, which in theory would allow individuals to be identified from videotapes and photographs.”

Hmmm.  Seems like in 2003 the feisty Texans gave a clear cut NO in response to the question of collecting their biometrics.  Yet after a little re-grouping by the proponent of the Big Brother plan, in 2004 the proposal surfaces again.

Grits reports that the: “Interim Report. . .seems especially focused on allowing facial recognition from video, insisting that DPS needs technology that allows them to quickly match “one to many faceprints.”

and notes that;“After the embarrassingly lopsided vote on the House floor last year, I’m surprised Chairman Corte still wants a piece of this bill. There must be powerful interests pushing it behind the scenes. ”

Biometric Blues

In another post on the matter, Grits tells us;

Last year, DPS and the University of Texas pushed for an amendment to make “locations, specifications and operating procedures” related to security cameras closed records. That means the public can’t know where government cameras are, whether the camera can zoom, rotate or see through clothing, who has access to it, or what the government does with video it collects.
University of Texas lobbyists pushed the amendment, which is worded precisely like an open records request from the Daily Texan that UT fought in court. UT sued Attorney General Greg Abbott unsuccessfully to keep secret the locations of surveillance cameras it uses to monitor students. Failing in court, UT turned to the Legislature, spending taxpayer and tuition money to lobby for secret surveillance.

The House passed the bill without making camera locations secret, but Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, the Senate bill sponsor, added UT’s language and wrapped the whole thing into HB 9, the governor’s homeland security bill.

The only hat tip toward openness: The Senate voted for an amendment so that LEGISLATORS and government bureaucrats in private offices could know if THEY were being surveilled. Really, I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Mr. Grits then astutely notes;

“Given the alleged speed of biometric identification software and the proliferation of cameras at intersections and elsewhere, literally every Texan with a driver’s license could be identified and tracked everywhere we go in our daily lives, without any pretense of probable cause.

. . .Unless the Legislature revisits the question, secret surveillance cameras are the current legal reality. By collecting biometric identifiers on every driver and ID card holder – Texans suddenly will live in a place where law enforcement can monitor and track individuals virtually wherever we go in public. No longer will surveillance videos be anonymous – a database could match faces, fingerprints or even voiceprints to names, addresses or even credit reports as we go through our daily lives.”

Biometric Blues

He follows shortly with a highly recommended blog post entitled;

“Biometric Blues, Third Stanza”

Then this lament from 2005;

TXDPS thumbs nose at legislative will

Some bureaucrats just won’t take “no” for an answer.

Gee, you think those new cameras going up in Houston will use biometric tech to identify ordinary citizens?

If they can, they will. And the Texas state legislature has failed its job in protecting the liberties of Texas citizens.

The article cited at the top of my post notes that;

Privacy, he said, is not necessarily a concern because “in the public you’ve got no expectation of privacy.”

Then goes on to give the thoughts of a woefully uninformed citizen that finds “comfort” in the idea of Big Brother watching over her;

Judith Hanson said the cameras could provide comfort to women who come to the area.  “Just knowing that there is a camera just makes me feel a little bit safer,” she said.

When it comes to facial recognition, here are some points to ponder;

“Information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a ‘Global Security Envelope’ of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.” –Source: Robert Mocny, DHS

Popular Assertion-

There is no expectation of privacy in public when it comes to your face.

Having your face seen does not violate your right to privacy-true.  Even someone taking a snapshot of you without your permission while possibly disrespectful and rude, is not considered a violation of your privacy when you are in public. Their right to snap has just crossed paths with your public visage.

What if the “snapper” turns stalker? Following you around, taking pictures of each transaction you make, each place you visit or the friend you meet?

What if that person purposely begins to attach personal information to your snapshot like your SSN, address, birth date or any other private information?

What if they take all of this info attached to your picture and share it all far and wide or sell it?

This is the difference between seeing you in public and stalking, violating and abusing you.

Your image through facial recognition technology software is reduced to digits, numbers more personalized and unique to you than your social security number.  We all understand that our SSN is to be protected because that number is attached to all sorts of personal, biographical and sensitive information about you.  The SSN is rather like a key that can open doors to your personal data.  A purpose expressly prohibited, by the way, when the program was first started.

Being “seen” is not at all what we are talking about with facial recognition.

From Your Face is Not a Bar Code ;

Most people understand the moral difference between a single chance observation in a park and an investigator who follows you everywhere you go. The information collected in the second case is obviously more dangerous. What is more, custom and law have always recognized many kinds of privacy in public. For example, the press cannot publish pictures of most people in personally sensitive situations that have no legitimate news value. It is considered impolite to listen in on conversations in public. Pervasive face recognition clearly lies at the morally most problematic end of this spectrum. The chance of being spotted is different from the certainty of being tracked.

DPS Camera Contract for Insurance Verification

I’m not a gambler, but if I were my bets would be on IIS (or a company connected to IIS)as the winner of  the  contract as technology provider requested by Oklahoma DPS.

IIS has partnered with InsureNet, the driving force behind the state instant insurance verification bills.

Definitely a Dynamic Duo.

Ax

Intelligent Imaging Systems Technology Partnership

Intelligent Imageing Systems LogoInsureNet, Inc. (InsureNet) and Intelligent Imaging Systems (IIS) have formed a partnership to blend their respective technologies in order to provide added functionality relating to vehicle insurance verification. IIS is a leading supplier of Smart Roadside™ solutions for the Transportation Safety and Security market. IIS’ automated electronic screening systems represent the evolution in effectiveness and efficiency of roadside law enforcement operations. With technology deployed in almost half the States and Provinces in North America, IIS is leading the way in helping public agencies use technology to improve highway safety and security.

Smart Roadside™ electronic screening is based on the deployment of advanced roadside sensors including Automated License Plate Recognition, Automated USDOT Number Recognition, RFID, Radiation Detection, Laser Dimensioning, and Visual/Infrared Imaging systems. Originally developed for commercial vehicle e-screening enforcement operations, the modular Smart Roadside integrates easily with 3rd party sensors and with existing transportation screening infrastructure at ports of entry or open road data collection sites. IIS integrates existing roadside sensors and IIS sub-systems into a local screening station where data from passing vehicles is aggregated into individual vehicle files for processing.

IIS Smart Roadside™ enterprise software networks multiple electronic screening sites and processes remote database queries through a managed central server. Roadside identification data (License Plate, USDOT numbers, RFID) are automatically routed through multiple back-end databases and screened against user-defined business rules to produce automated alerts that can then be displayed for local operators or be sent to a centralized center for processing.

InsureNet’s Smart-Town initiatives blend perfectly with the IIS Smart Roadside™ elements, providing them with added functionality beyond safety credentialing, NCIC alerts and registration information for standard commercial vehicle electronic screening systems. InsureNet’s unique services offer unparalleled depth to IIS’ current electronic screening solution by adding instant, accurate insurance verification to Smart Roadside’s™ network of remote databases to link critical data to roadside enforcement operations.

On the other side of this productive and totally synergistic relationship, Smart Roadside™ provides InsureNet with deployment-ready roadside technology and middleware infrastructure to electronically screen every vehicle that passes through a network of remote inspection sites. Smart Roadside™ has already integrated multiple technologies and 3rd party sensors into roadside screening sites and can quickly adapt previously deployed 3rd party sensors (ie. ALPR systems) into its network screening system. The Smart Roadside™ enterprise software centralizes roadside data collection, processing and storage. Current processing includes remote data query, screening and alert reporting functions in addition to administrative reporting functions. This software infrastructure represents a deployment-ready architecture that will both query the InsureNet back-end database for each roadside event and automatically transmit alert files to an InsureNet citation processing system.

Per Brian Heath, President of IIS: “The IIS – InsureNet technology partnership represents an opportunity to deploy a broader electronic screening capability to the roadside for both commercial and passenger vehicles. Both partners contribute unique and complimentary technology sets that promote each other’s core business objectives. Together, InsureNet and IIS systems form a complete vehicle insurance verification solution for State agencies working to improve the safety and security of their transportation network.”

Jonathan Miller, President of InsureNet, confirms the relationship’s benefits to both companies, and to the jurisdictions served currently and in the future. “There is no possible rationale to have more than one FBI or CPIC/RCMP, more than one NLETS, more than one InsureNet and frankly, there is simply no organization more highly regarded in their business than IIS so….we think, no reason for consideration of more than one source for total solutions. State and Provincial Governments can’t possibly do better than to look to the InsureNet-IIS Partnership for all their needs regarding roadway safety and security.”

For more information, please visit the Intelligent Imaging Systems website at: www.intelligentimagingsystems.com.

http://www.theinsurenet.com/news/news008.html

Licen$e Tag $canning Camera $cheme for $afety’$ $ake

Dec 11, 2009

Traffic cameras could help wipe out city’s projected deficit

March 16, 2009

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Chicago could rake in “at least $200 million” a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today.

The system pitched to the City Council’s Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That’s already happening daily in 13 states, but not here.

Using the city’s red light cameras to track uninsured motorists could wipe out the 2009 projected budget deficit, aldermen were told today.
(Keith Hale/Sun-Times file)

The data would be entered into the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), the information-sharing network that links federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

When a camera spots an uninsured vehicle driving on Chicago streets, a citation would automatically be generated and sent to the registered owner.

Illinois’ mandatory insurance law carries a $500 fine. If Chicago levied a $300 fine and used its home-rule power to keep the money, the annual take would top $100 million. A $500 city fine would generate $357 million.

“Certainly, it will be well in excess of $100 million. We think at least $200 million. And the upward projections are far higher,” said InsureNet president Dr. Jonathan Miller, whose company would charge the city a 30 percent collection fee.

READ MORE

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1479275,red-light-camera-uninsured-031609.article#

Okla. state senator files bill that would allow DPS audio, video recordings to be made public

By Associated Press

4:31 PM CST, November 30, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A state senator has filed a bill that would allow audio and video recordings of the Department of Public Safety to be made public.

The bill by Sen. Jim Wilson, a Tahlequah Democrat, would amend the Oklahoma Open Records Act to include the recordings, which now do not fall under the definition of a “record”
http://www.kfsmState one of few to hold back videos

Senator Jim Wilson

wilson@oksenate.gov

 


TULSA WORLD

 

State one of few to hold back videos

7/21/09


Oklahoma is in the minority among regional states when it comes to releasing highway patrol videos shot from cameras mounted on the vehicle dashboards.

Texas, Missouri and Arkansas all treat state police dash camera videos as an open record, in contrast to Oklahoma where all trooper camera videos are closed to the public, a World survey of regional states found.

Arkansas State Police release its videos to the public after a case reaches the initial court stages, said Bill Sadler, public information officer for the Arkansas State Police.

The Texas Department of Public Safety releases video taken by trooper dash cameras after an investigation has been completed, said Tom Vinger, Texas DPS spokesman.

In Missouri, state officials release dash camera videos after a case has been adjudicated, a spokesman said.

Police dash camera videos are a relatively new record phenomenon. In Oklahoma, dash camera videos were considered public records until 2005, when the Department of Public Safety requested the state Legislature amend the Open Records Act to make all video and audio records closed to the public.

The amendment, contained in a bill with many exemptions requested by DPS, sailed through the Legislature with little fanfare.

The issue came to light a few weeks ago when media organizations began requesting a copy of the dash video camera recording of a May 24 encounter between an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a Creek Nation paramedic. The patrol initially refused a Tulsa World request to release the video and then later released it late on a Friday night.

OHP spokesman Capt. Chris West said the agency requested the audio and video recordings be closed to the public in 2005 largely out of concerns for both trooper safety and the privacy of residents.

“I can assure you it’s not about secrecy; it’s confidentiality,” West said.

But West added that “everything is subject to change,” when asked if the agency believed video and audio recordings should continue to be exempt from open record requests.

“I’m sure our administrators will be amenable to sit down with whether it be legislators or anybody else to maybe review it to see if it needed to stay this way or maybe there needed to be some modifications,” West said.

Read More