Tag Archives: DHS

The FBI is Aggressively Building Biometric Database, International in Scope

fbi ngi

Kaye Beach

Dec. 26, 2011

FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI)

According to the FBI it is official FBI policy to collect “as much biometric data as possible within information technology systems” and to “work aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.” link

“We need to recognize the change that is occurring in society, Society is taking away the privilege of anonymity.”  – Morris Hymes, Head of the ID Assurance Directorate at the Defense Department.

With the FBI’s continuance of their Next Generation Identification project, the United States is rushing headlong into Mr. Hymes’ vision.

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S.334 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=514&invol=334), 357 (1995)

Biometrics is enables mass surveillance systems to become unbearably intimate.

“As we learn to link biometrics to biographic, geospatial, social networks and other forms of data, we can develop patterns of activities for both individuals and organizations resulting in tactical and strategic situational awareness and intelligence advantage.”

Biometric Enabled Intelligence- The New Frontier in Biometrics by Kimberly Del Greco, 2009 Biometrics Consortium Conference.

Mrs. Del Greco initiated two high profile, multi-million dollar development efforts: “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), which will expand biometric and criminal history capabilities; and “Biometric Interoperability”, which will ensure information sharing between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other key biometric-based systems within the Federal Government and international partners. more

FBI Next Generation ID overview ppt

Facts about NGI

-In 2008 Lockheed Martin won a 1 billion dollar contract for the NGI.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aU8dsjtMXgdo

-NGI will be fully operational in 2014

-This database is international in scope.  Biometrics collected by government officials from is already done so using international standards for the purpose of international sharing.

-The FBI will share data with more than 18,000 local, state, federal, and international agencies. link

-State DMV databases are one of the desired sources of biometrics for the FBI.

FBI Facial Recognition Initiatives

-The database is NOT being built from the biometrics of just criminals or legitimate suspects.  The NGI consolidates two existing databases of biometric information (one from the FBI and one from the Dept. Of Homeland Security) both of which were designed to be independent of each other and not interoperable. The FBI database, IAFIS, being merged with NGI, contains biometric data obtained from civil sources such as attorney bar applications, federal and state employees, and from people who work with children or the elderly so perfectly innocent if not model citizens also are included in the mix.   link

Link

-The FBI intends to supplement the biometric data is already has access to with biometric data from “seized systems” and “open sources”.  That means pictures that are on the internet or ones collected by existing CCTV surveillance cameras.

-The NGI currently contains palmprints, scars, marks, tattoos, voices, irises, and facial measurements but designed to collect even more types of biometrics, such as DNA, in the future.  (Can you imagine being stopped for a traffic violation and on the spot having a DNA sample taken, tested and used to pull up volumes of information about you?  Well, they can. )

-The FBI’s Next Generation ID violates the 1974 Privacy Act provisions which require that federal agencies maintain the records accurately and sets limitation on how and with whom the records can be shared.  The FBI claims that it is exempt from these provisions.

-The FBI has already deployed handheld biometric collection devices to police officers to help build the NGI database.

 And a mobile tool – the Biometric Identification (B-iD) Tools Program – will allow FBI agents to capture and access database photos, fingerprints, iris prints and other biographical data in the field.http://animetrics.com/the-fbis-next-generation-identification-program-helping-law-enforcement-track-and-share-suspect-information-across-state-lines/

March 21, 2011

FBI center takes on $1 billion ID project

Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects’ fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center.

“It’s a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,” Morris said.

http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/201103211014

Secure Communities, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program collects the biometrics of any person any time that a criminal background check is done.  The purpose, we are told, is to identify those immigrants that are in the U.S. illegally.   That information goes into the  the FBI’s NGI database.  Secure Communities serves the greater goal of the FBI to collect the biometric and personal data of as many individuals as possible in order to populate their growing Next Generation ID database.

“The FBI describes S-Comm as “the first of a number of biometric interoperability systems” that merge into NGI.3 The FOIA documents show that the FBI, and not DHS, was the first federal agency to call for mandatory implementation of S-Comm. The documents further reveal the FBI’s fear that any opt-out for SComm might lead states to rightfully question their participation in NGI.”

“. . .newly disclosed documents expose the FBI’s goal to accumulate a large biometric database that far exceeds its current fingerprint collection, extending to the collection and retention of iris scans and digital photographs to support automated facial recognition scans in real-time.1 NGI aims to impose an automated process linking state and local databases with a federal government biometric data warehouse.”

Read more about Secure Communites and Next Generation ID

States were told they could ‘opt-out’ of the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities but in reality states were only allowed to “opt-out” of receiving information back from federal agencies.  They are still required to send the information collected on individual to the federal government.   The states are being forced to funnel this personal information to DHS and the FBI to be used for purposes entirely out of the scope of Secure Communities.

States can’t opt out of Secure Communities program

The Obama administration has told governors the fingerprint-sharing program that targets criminals in the country illegally does not need their approval to operate in their states.

In Aug. of 2010 the state of Minnesota asserted that the personal and biometric data collected by the state was the property and responsibility of the state and that it was not to be used by the federal government for purposes not expressly permitted by the submitting law enforcement agencies.  The Department of Homeland Security in response to Congressional Questions for the Record that states have no choice about how personal biometric data was used or shared once they shared that data with the federal government.

If it is not somehow perfectly obvious how threatening NGI is to ordinary, law abiding individuals, everyone that has an encounter with law enforcement (as well as those who don’t!) and have their biometric data is collected (not necessarily just those who are arrested) will be included in this grand database which will enable the creation of incredibly detailed dossiers on the population and at a distance tracking and monitoring of individuals not accused or suspected of any crime.  We can expect increasing numbers of  encounters, such as on the street or traffic stops with police using handheld biometric devices for the purpose of feeding the federal government’s insatiable appetite for more and more personal information.

Advertisements

Tonight! AxXiom For Liberty’s Second Annual Surveillance State Edition

Kaye Beach

Dec. 23, 2011

Listen Live online at LogosRadioNetwork.com

6-8 PM CST

Last year on Christmas Eve, Howard and I presented the initial findings from Washington Post journalists, Dana Priest and William Arkin from their investigation into Top Secret America

Since then, the two have written a book, Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State and continue to update online on the Washington Post, adding to their body of research on ‘Top Secret America’

Tonight’s show will be our Second Annual Surveillance State edition of AxXiom For Liberty!

We will review some of the findings in Dana Priest and William M. Arkin’s book and Howard and I will add our picks for the most alarming advances in government surveillance.

We would like to invite you to call in and give us your views about the past year in the growing surveillance state of America.

The call in number is 512-646-1984

Chapter 7 “Report Suspicious Activity” will, no doubt, get some special attention from us tonight.  If you ever wondered just what it takes for a person to get a Suspicious Activity Report submitted on them or what happens to that report once it is filed-then don’t miss this show!

We will also explore key concepts that underlie the terrible assault to our most fundamental freedoms and hear Howard’s Surveillance State Edition rendition of “Santa Claus in Coming to Town”

www.LogosRadioNetwork.com

**This information is top security. When you have heard it, destroy yourself**

 

The Oklahoma MIPT turns Cops into “First Collectors” for Homeland Security

Kaye Beach

Nov. 8, 2011

The Oklahoma Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism just received a 2.2 million dollar grant from the Federal Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of training beat cops all over the country to become “first collectors” (of information) rather than first responders to the need of the taxpayers who pay their salaries.  We expect our police for to serve and protect our communities but Homeland Security has needs too-it needs information on everyone because this tips the balance of power away from the people to favor the government.  The federal government wants our police to serve and protect THEM from US.

Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism is happy to oblige.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Nov. 7 (UPI) — The Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism has received a grant from the U.S. government to continue training police officers nationwide.

The grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for MIPT’s Information Collection on Patrol training is for $2.2 million.

“This grant from the Department of Homeland Security through FEMA will bring the InCOP training program to tens of thousands of police officers nationally,” said MIPT Director David Cid. “Our training gives line officers skills that enhance our security and safety.

The  Information Collection on Patrol program is commonly referred to as InCOP.  InCOP is a a central component of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice have made InCOP a central component of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, or SAR [MIPT is an official training provider for SAR]. Agencies large and small, urban and rural, traditional and tribal, are successfully implementing InCOP concepts within their training.

From the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency (FEMA);

AWR-220: InCOP Build a Shield

InCOP 4 – Build a Shield is a two hour course that provides instruction on law enforcement’s role in the identification of behaviors that may be precursors to terrorism or other criminal activity. The course examines the deconstruction model for identifying indicators and warnings and explains how to populate a threat assessment in the context of the patrol environment. Understanding the way the intelligence community conducts threat assessments on emerging threats will enhance the ability to gather more useful information as related to indicators and warnings.

Date of Article: 07/06/2011

Read more

InCOP teachers officers to better “first collectors”  for the Department of Homeland Security via  Suspicious Activity Reporting (SARS)

Description

InCOP Police Training
MIPT’s Information Collection on Patrol (InCOP®) police training focuses on the basic and critical skill of information collection by the front line police officer. MIPT’s primary delivery model involves “institutionalizing” the training in departments via in-service cycle. Trainers come to MIPT for an immersive experience. While MIPT trains a few- those trainers go back to their departments and train thousands.The overall goal of enhancing line officer collection leads to better intelligence, tactical awareness, and crime and terrorism prevention. As a Department of Homeland Security training partner, MIPT offers police training courses funded by the Homeland Security National Training Program.

Read more

What is a SAR?

Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) is the process of documenting the observation of behavior that may be indicative of intelligence gathering or pre-operational planning related to terrorism, criminal, or other illicit intentions.

Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI)

Integrates state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies’ SAR processes into a nationwide standardized and institutionalized effort

Read more about SARS and national information collecting here-

“If You See Something, Say Something” Re-Branding the Brown Shirts

What constitutes “suspicious activity”?

Successful surveillance detection efforts require immediate reporting of incidents similar to the following:

  • Multiple sightings of the same suspicious person, vehicle, or activity, separated by time, distance, or direction
  • Individuals who stay at bus or train stops for extended periods while buses and trains come and go
  • Individuals who carry on long conversations on pay or cellular telephones
  • Individuals who order food at a restaurant and leave before the food arrives or who order without eating
  • Joggers who stand and stretch for an inordinate amount of time
  • Individuals sitting in a parked car for an extended period of time
  • Individuals who don’t fit into the surrounding environment because they are wearing improper attire for the location or season
  • Individuals drawing pictures or taking notes in an area not normally of interest to a tourist or showing unusual interest in or photographing security cameras, guard locations, or watching security reaction drills and procedures
  • Individuals who exhibit suspicious behavior, such as staring or quickly looking away from individuals or vehicles as they enter or leave facilities or parking areas

Source: Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

LAPD online; http://www.lapdonline.org/home/content_basic_view/27436

That list was from the LAPD’s website (cited as the model for state collection of SARs –suspicious activity reports)

The MIPT is a Homeland Security training partner.
The MIPT’s Mission

The MIPT’s “mission is to enhance the public safety through training, professional development and education under the MIPT’s Homeland Security National Training Program Cooperative Agreement.”

The MIPT “is a U.S. Department of Homeland Security training partner serving the nation’s 850,000 uniformed officers and law enforcement leadership.”  Who We Are

Some of the underlying assumptions of MIPT training are listed as follow:

  • The local intelligence base is the bedrock of the national intelligence architecture.
  • The uniformed officer is the first collector.
  • Training that improves information collection broadly “lifts all boats,” with enhanced outcomes across all crime problems.
  • Training the entire cadre of uniformed officers creates a culture of information collection and sharing.

Here is a sample of what is being taught to police officers nationwide by the MIPT;

Which of these two people are most likely to pose a threat?

An Arab-American male in his mid-twenties is photographing the Golden Gate Bridge. While doing so, he takes time to stop and recite Islamic prayers after kneeling and bowing to the east.

Or

A Caucasian woman in her late fifties is photographing the Golden Gate Bridge.

Don’t jump to conclusions-fifty year old ladies might very well be the more suspicious of the two….it all, that depends on the context….

Read more (page 30)

Department of Homeland Security federalizing police?

Here is what one “un-named insider” has to say regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s meddling in law enforcement training;

During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training.  Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control.  Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Read more

InCOP puts heavy emphasis on the use of human informants and infiltrators which is a most intrusive and destructive form of surveillance to unleash upon the average citizens in a free society This type of policing breeds distrust between the people and their public servants.  This type of policing is for protecting the government and not the people.

Oklahoma Joint Committee Meeting on Healthcare Reform OK-SAFE Covers IT, Security and Privacy Issues

Kaye Beach

Nov 3, 2011

I attended the fourth Joint committee meeting on the effect of the federal healthcare reform laws on the state of Oklahoma.

Of course the highlight of the day, for me, was Amanda Teegarden’s presentationHealthcare Reform –
IT, Security & Privacy Issues/Concerns
, on behalf of OK-SAFE.

Amanda presented a clear, lucid and powerful 45 minute presentation of the research she has spent months working on.

The presentation laid bare the ugly guts of the federal health care reform by describing it by its most basic components.

}Health Care Reform – is really about the use of IT to implement a nationwide health information network (NHIN), that will enable the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and that allows a growing global surveillance system to function.

And that;

}Electronic Health Records  – Reform is predicated on the creation of a standardized, interoperable electronic health record (EHR) on every single individual
This system is;
}Cradle-to-Grave – EHRs are used for data collection, aggregation and reporting and are intended to track a person from birth to death. (Longitudinal)
And;
}EHRs are universal and to be shared globally – not only within our government, but with foreign governments, universities, and other third parties.
}Requires Standardization and Interoperability – to establish uniformity and compatibility in data collection, regardless of jurisdiction
It gets really personal;
}EHRs include each person’s genetic information – and will be used for research purposes without the knowledge or consent of the person
Not to mention;
}Rights killing – Health care reform, and other data collection networks, do an “end-run” around search warrants and nullify our inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The presentation was split into six sections

Part I The Federal Data Hub/IT/Digital Everything

Part II Health Care Reform Defined/National Standards/Global Adoption

Part III Office of the National Coordinator/                                             Government+Industry +Academia = PPPs /One “Fused” System

Part IV State Initiatives

Part V Privacy & Security

Part VI Conclusion

Your personal, medical information flows from you to the health IT data collection system to the prying eyes of the federal government and research universities to the private sector and even foreign organizations.


Especially noteworthy were the points made about the inclusion of health information into law enforcement and intelligence data fusion.

Fusion Center: A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorism activity. Source: Recommended Fusion Center Law Enforcement Intelligence Standards March 2005

Purpose – the elimination of any barrier to information exchange and sharing, regardless of jurisdiction.  Information is to be shared nationally and internationally.

As noted in the notes section of slide 31;

The Fusion Center Guidelines have now been updated to incorporate public health and health care community information.

This is possible due to policy changes allowing the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and because all state systems, including the health care system use common sets of standards and are interoperable.  Both the Fusion Centers and the Health Care System are NIEM Compliant – both are part of the Nationwide Health Information Network.

The result – one fused system.

Read more about the integration of “public health and healthcare communities into the homeland security intelligence and information sharing process.” here

and here- Health Security: Public Health and Medical Integration for Fusion Centers

In short, when it comes to privacy, there is none.

Slide 41 touches up our medical and genetic information used for research purposes.

There are a few other surprises and outrages contained in the presentation, so be sure to take a look at it.

Amanda concludes;

The American People Are NOT Slaves – Nor simply ‘carbon-based life forms’[as one federal document refers to us]

Government, via health care reform and other federal initiatives, is establishing a globally networked and integrated  intelligence enterprise – one that includes an extraordinary amount of extremely personal, detailed information about the America people.

Government, in it’s attempt to be an all-knowing technocratic “god” and to satisfy the IT industry’s insatiable, ever-changing appetite, is doing an end-run around human dignity and nullifying our God-given rights to life, liberty and property.

And gives the joint committee seven recommendations;

1.Repent – not kidding here
2.Do not establish a state-based Health Insurance exchange – it will be the same as the Federal government’s version
3.Allow people to escape HIT/HIE system without penalty;  do not penalize providers who opt not to adopt EHRs or participate in this system
4.Repeal state laws that prohibit individuals from seeking alternative health care services,  i.e. homeopathic medicines or non-traditional treatments
5.Terminate the Oklahoma Health Information Exchange Trust
6.Audit the Oklahoma Health Care Authority – expenses outweigh benefits
7.Adhere to the OK Constitution – work to restore liberty

View OK-SAFE’s presentation here

Go to  www.okhealthcare.info for information on this and past joint committee meetings.

FBI to launch nationwide facial recognition service

Kaye Beach

Oct 9, 2011

This is just the tip of the iceberg….

From NextGov.com

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.

Read more

Looking Back-A Refresher

A compulsory global biometric identification system for law abiding people is not, will never be justifiable.

Our government seems to have backed off on their denials that Real ID and similar legislation is in fact, a national ID.  But what you should know is that any national ID system is also international.  It’s all about sharing these days and that means with our “international Partners’ too

The following is just a mere sampling of news articles, government documents and sources of information that clearly show the absolute intention to use our state driver’s licenses and the biometric data collected for them, as a an instrument of global identification,  tracking and control.

2003

Viisage receives $12 million award from Oklahoma

FEBRUARY 19, 2003–Viisage Technology Inc. (Littleton, MA; http://www.viisage.com) has been chosen to fulfill the new digital driver’s license contract by the state of Oklahoma’s Department of Public Safety. The contract will include the design, development, and implementation of the statewide secure license production program. The total value of this new multiyear contract is approximately $12 million. Oklahoma is the 19th state to utilize Viisage in the production of identity verification documents and the third state in recent months to give Viisage a major driver’s license contract. The three latest contracts total approximately $35 million. The solution will integrate multiple, advanced identification security features, including FaceEXPLORER facial-recognition software and SAGEM Morpho finger imaging technology

http://tinyurl.com/ViisageOKla

Oklahoma has collected Face, Fingerprint scans and signature biometrics since 2004

Biometric Drivers Licenses Make Debut in Oklahoma

April 20, 2004

SAGEM Morpho, Inc. a proven provider of mission-critical biometric systems and services, announced the successful deployment of biometric technology solutions for the Oklahoma Department Public Safety (DPS) in conjunction with Viisage, a provider of advanced technology identity solutions. SAGEM Morpho will combine its finger imaging recognition technology with Viisage’s facial recognition technology to create accurate biometric records of the state’s approximately four million licensed drivers.  http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/apr/1033349.htm

NLETS the International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network, links together every state, local, and federal and International law enforcement (INTERPOL), justice and public safety agency for the purpose of exchanging critical information http://www.nlets.org


2004

The NLETS Candle Project In a related NIJ-funded project, NLETS is working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to standardize critical information from departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) around the country.

The project, entitled Collaboration between AAMVA and NLETS for Driver’s License Exchange (Candle), seeks to develop and deploy standards and solutions to exchange standardized driver and motor vehicle records over the NLETS network.

Candle builds upon the existing NLETS infrastructure, as well as the Web services advancements made in the Aisle project, and seeks to deploy an international capability for driver and motor vehicle exchanges based upon XML standards, greatly increasing the efficiency. . .

The Candle project provides a first step in transitioning AAMVA to a new generation of technology. This effort will result in consolidating interstate DMV transactions into a single standardized service for both the DMV and law enforcement communities.

From The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 6, June 2004. 
Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

AAMVA was directly involved in the crafting of the Real ID Act 2005. In the DHS-published final rules document for the Real ID Act, the AAMVA was referred to as its “hub” and “backbone.”’ UPDATE: Real ID

2006

Source-THE NEW PARADIGM—MERGING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGIES Secure Cities 2006 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970726/IACP-Intelligence-Led-Policing-2006-New-Paradigm

2007

SB 474-Oklahoma prohibited participation in the REAL ID in 2007. (So far, 25 states either by law or resolution have done the same) Although Oklahoma lags behind other states in full implementation of Real ID, there is no reason to believe Oklahoma will not eventually come into full compliance with the act.

2007

FBI Seeks to Build Massive Identification System

 The Federal Bureau of Investigation awarded a $1B, 10-year contract to design, develop, document, integrate, test, and deploy the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System to Lockheed Martin. This new database will expand on the current fingerprint-based system; the FBI will increase its collection and storage not only fingerprints but also iris scans, palm prints and facial images.

The FBI is also in talks with the U.K. police to establish a unified database for the tracking of this biometric information.

The UK has said that the new NGI System could easily be integrated with the U.K.’s current Ident1 database

http://epic.org/privacy/biometrics/

2007 News article;

–The Homeland Security Department’s plans for sharing biometric information internationally designed to counter the threat of terrorism — face resistance from domestic privacy advocates and European governments that follow stricter privacy laws that protect personal data.

Senior DHS officials speaking at a recent conference on biometrics and privacy policy outlined the ethical imperative for technical standards that would foster unrestricted biometric data sharing.

Robert Mocny, acting program manager for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, sketched the outline of a Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with their personal data held by governments and corporations.

“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”

—-Robert Mocny

Read more… http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html

2007 The National Information Sharing Initiative ;

The Bush Administration’s 2007 National Information Sharing Strategy established state and local fusion centers as the federal government’s primary mechanism for collecting and disseminating domestic intelligence. 

The federal government has fueled the growth of these state and local intelligence centers, and has organized them into a national network that feeds information gathered at the local level into the Director of National Intelligence’s Information Sharing Environment (ISE), where it becomes accessible to all participating law enforcement agencies as well as the larger intelligence community. Link

The Biometric Interoperability Program promotes biometric-based information sharing between the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other federal and international biometric systems.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/FBI_CJIS_0808_One%20Pager_8%205x11_BIOMETRICS_v3.pdf

2008 -Fusion Centers Tap Into Personal Databases

Many fusion centers have not shared with the public what databases they use. This was demonstrated in an April 2, 2008 article in The Washington Post titled “Centers Tap into Personal Databases.” It revealed that several fusion centers in the northeast have access to millions of people’s information including unlisted cell phone numbers, insurance claims, driver’s license photographs

–Rebecca Andino, PMP, CIPP/G, president and founder of Highlight Technologies

______________________________

Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. (Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario) and Alex Stoianov, Ph.D. point out that in the not too distant future a person’s unique biometric template could be used as an identifying key to link together all the different databases that contain entries for that person. It would enable someone to build up a complete picture of that individual without their knowledge or consent.

“When the use of biometrics grows, an ordinary person will be enrolled in various biometrically controlled databases, such as travel documents, driver licenses, health care, access control, banking, shopping, etc. Current biometric systems can use the same biometric template for all of them. The template becomes the ultimate unique identifier of the person. This is where biometric data mining comes into effect: the different databases, even if some of them are anonymous, may be linked together to create comprehensive personal profiles for all the users. To do this, no fresh biometric sample is even required. The linking of the databases can be done offline using template-to-template matching, in a very efficient one-to-many mode. The privacy implications explode at this point.”

 

2008

DHS Human Factors Division:  Social-Behavioral Threat Analysis

Mission:

To apply the social, behavioral and physical sciences to improve identification, analysis, and understanding of the threats posed by individuals, groups, and radical movements; to support community preparedness, response, and recovery to catastrophic events; and to advance national security by integrating the human element into homeland security science & technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037194/Behave-Fast-Tsadhs

MONITORING EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR

In April 2008, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times both reported on a new Los Angeles Police Department order that compels LAPD officers to begin reporting “suspicious behaviors” in addition to their other duties—creating a stream of “intelligence” about a host of everyday activities that, according to documents, will be fed to the local fusion center.


LAPD Special Order #11, dated March 5, 2008, states that it is the policy of the LAPD to “gather, record, and analyze information of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism,” and includes a list of 65 behaviors LAPD officers “shall” report. The list includes such innocuous, clearly subjective, and First Amendment protected activities as:

– taking measurements

– using binoculars

– taking pictures or video footage “with no apparent esthetic value”

– abandoning vehicle

– drawing diagrams

– taking notes

– espousing extremist views

LAPD’s Program is now the Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI)

Nationwide SAR Initiative Vision: By 2014, every Federal, State, local, tribal and law enforcement entity operating domestically will participate in a standardized integrated approach to gather, document, process, analyze, and share terrorism-related suspicious activity

28 C.F.R. part 23

28 CRF Part 23 is a US Federal Code that basically says you cannot be entered into a criminal data system unless you are a legitimate suspect.  Not so anymore.

The April 2003 GIWG meeting minutes record approval for the weakening of 28 CFR 23 and note that GIWG member Daniel J. Oates indicated he was excited about the proposed changes to 28 CFR Part 23, specifically the area dealing with changing the reasonable suspicion collection criteria to reasonable indication. If the rule is passed, officers on the street can gather small bits of information that can be entered into an intelligence database. Under the old standard, this could not be done. Read more

28 C.F.R. Part 23 was promulgated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3789(g)(c) which requires state and local law enforcement agencies receiving federal funding  to

“…collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal intelligence  information in conformance with policy standards which are  prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and which are written to  assure that the funding and operation of these systems further the purpose of this chapter and to assure that some systems are not  utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.

 

Why did we need 28 CFR 23?dep

The Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 1993 explained;

“Because criminal intelligence information is both conjectural and subjective in nature, may be widely disseminated through the interagency exchange of information and cannot be accessed by criminal suspects to verify that the information is accurate and complete, the protections and limitations set forth in the regulation are necessary to protect the privacy interests of the subjects and potential suspects of a criminal intelligence system.”

They have decided that now-we are no longer due these legal protections.

It actually took them until 2008 before the desired weakening of federal code was officially achieved

In July  2008, the Department of Justice proposed a rule to amend the primary federal regulation governing criminal intelligence databases (28 CFR Part 23) to expand both what information can be collected by law enforcement agencies, and with whom it may be shared.  (see 73 Fed. Reg. 44673) read more

. . .the Department of Justice has relaxed restrictions on when the Federal Bureau of Investigation can begin investigations, and worked to increase intelligence-sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies as well as with federal (intelligence) agencies in ways that will compromise civil liberties (through a change in federal regulation 28 C.F.R. part 23).

Read more FBI Guidelines 28 C.F.R. part 23

2008

Comments on proposed amendments to 28 Code of Federal

Regulations Part 23 –

. . .intelligence fusion centers universally claimed  compliance with 28 CFR Part 23 as the appropriate regulation governing the conduct of  their intelligence collection efforts.

The Congressional Research Service reported that “many state and local law enforcement and fusion center staff” expressed concerns regarding sharing law enforcement sensitive information with non-law enforcement personnel including analysts working under contract to the Department of Homeland Security.10

In January 2008 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) published “functional standards” for suspicious activity reports (SAR) produced by state and local law enforcement.

The DNI standards actually encourage state and local law enforcement to report non-criminal suspicious activities to the intelligence community by defining the scope of suspicious activity as “observed behavior that may be indicative of intelligence gathering or pre-operational planning related to terrorism, criminal, or other illicit intention.”

READ MORE

Oklahoma Information Fusion Center Privacy Policy;

The OIFC may retain information that is based on mere suspicion, such as tips and leads. Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) information will be retained in the future once the SAR project is finalized and guidelines are issued to Fusion Centers.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732421/Oklahoma-Information-Fusion-center-Privacy-Policy

**Please Note-This is NOT a genuine OIFC Notice. If the OIFC files a suspicious activity report on you-You would never know it.

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative IJIS (Fusion Centers)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41496999/Nationwide-Suspicious-Activity-Reporting-Initiative-IJIS-Fusion-Centers

NSI

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970535/Nationwide-SAR-suspicious-activity-reports-Initiative

SAR and Amtrak

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44933611/Nationwide-SAR-Initiative-Partnership-With-Amtrak

Oct. 20, 2008

International Police Organization Proposes Worldwide Facial Recognition System.

An Interpol face-recognition database would permit Interpol member nations to search records containing travelers’ personal biometric information, and could be used in conjunction with travel watch lists.

“There will be such a large role in the future for fingerprints and facial recognition”

— Mark Branchflower, head of Interpol’s fingerprint unit

2009

BIOMETRICS TASK FORCE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26083198/Army-War-College-Bio-Metrics-Task-Force-April-15-2009

Across All Government Biometric Information Coordination

Collaboration Data Sharing Biometrics Mission Sets Population Census Targeting / Tracking Base & Checkpoint Security Police, Military, & Govt. Official Vetting Border Control / Ports of Entry (POEs) Detainee Operations

2008-2009

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

FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives

October 12, 2009

RALEIGH, N.C. — In its search for fugitives, the FBI has begun using facial-recognition technology on millions of motorists, comparing driver’s license photos with pictures of convicts in a high-tech analysis of chin widths and nose sizes.

The project in North Carolina has already helped nab at least one suspect. Agents are eager to look for more criminals and possibly to expand the effort nationwide. But privacy advocates worry that the method allows authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.

http://www.publicintelligence.info/fbi-delves-into-dmv-photos-in-search-for-fugitives/

October 13, 2009

According to the AP’s report, the FBI has assembled a panel of experts tasked with standardizing drivers license photos and push use of biometric-mining nationwide. But the value of mining DMV records with the biometric software is limited for one simple reason, expressed perfectly by Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “We don’t have good photos of terrorists,” he explains.

 “Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that’s where the good photos are

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/fbi-mining-dmv-photos-for-fugitives

Fusion Centers “fuse” information shared between Military and Civilian forces, Public and Private Institutions, State Federal and International Governments.

September 15, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Monday that it was giving state and local fusion centers access to the classified military intelligence in Department of Defense (DOD) databases. The federal government has facilitated the growth of a network of fusion centers since 9/11 to expand information collection and sharing practices among law enforcement agencies, the private sector and the intelligence community.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/fusion-centers-obtain-access-classified-military-intelligen

2009 Biometric Consortium Conference

Biometric Enabled Intelligence has been a powerful tool in the law enforcement community, linking individuals to events, evidence and ultimately to solved crimes. That same concept can make biometrics a so what enabler of military operations, physical security, logical security, and forensic analysis by linking people, places, activities and events.

As we learn to link biometrics to biographic, geospatial, social networks and other forms of data, we can develop patterns of activities for both individuals and organizations

Mrs. Del Greco initiated two high profile, multi-million dollar  development efforts: “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), which will expand biometric and criminal history capabilities; and “Biometric Interoperability”, which will ensure information sharing between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other key biometric-based systems within the Federal Government and international partners

http://biometrics.org/bc2009/bios/delgreco_k.pdf

 

 Tag!  You’re It!

“Face recognition already exists through photo IDs, which can be used of individuals that are not enrolled”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44675297/Sensor-Nets-the-Business-of-Surveillance

2010

Stripping Away Anonymity-The Secretary of Defense Funding Doc

“Biometrics technologies can be used to both verify an individual’s claimed identity and, when combined with additional intelligence and/or forensic information, biometrics technologies can establish an unknown individual’s identity, thus stripping away his anonymity. “

“This program will develop the technology that will improve the quality of biometrics derived information provided to the operational forces for the purpose of identifying and classifying anonymous individuals. It will enable execution of a DoD and interagency coordinated biometrics science and technology plan that supports technology transition to acquisition programs in FY10 and the out-years.”

See the document; www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/OSD/0603665D8Z.pdf

 

2010

Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA)

Warfighter, Business, Intelligence, and Security & Law Enforcement

The Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) 2010-06, signed by the Secretary of the Army (SecArmy), redesignated BTF (biometrics task force) as the Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA) on 23 March 2010.

Sept 1, 2010

Get REAL . . .

But open rebellion against REAL ID, which was so heated two or three years ago, has calmed considerably. States are no longer lining up to add themselves to the list of those refusing to fund of implement the federal law’s requirements.

Instead, many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks. According to DHS, all but the 14 holdout states say they’ll be able to meet the law’s operational requirements by the end of this year.

Read more

June 22, 2011

Making REAL ID a Reality: Next Steps for Congress

At least 32 states are close to REAL ID material compliance, while a total of 44 states and territories have indicated that they fully intend to meet REAL ID compliance

State unveils new, secure driver’s license

Starting Monday, Alabama residents will be able to obtain a new, more secure form of identification.In compliance with REAL ID Act of 2005, the Alabama De­partment of Public Safety has developed a driver’s license and identification program called STAR I.D. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in re­sponse to acts of terrorism against the United States.

Connecticut to begin controversial Real ID program

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a drivers license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states

And Many. Many more!

Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out

Kaye Beach

Oct. 8 2011

Read more about FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology), or as it was formerly known as, Project Hostile Intent. link

Declan McCullagh  reports;

Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out
October 07, 2011

An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public, CNET has learned.

If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called “Minority Report,” or the CBS drama “Person of Interest,” it is. But where “Minority Report” author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it’s building a “prototype screening facility” that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to “detect cues indicative of mal-intent.”

The latest developments, which reveal efforts to “collect, process, or retain information on” members of “the public,” came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its “pre-crime” system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.
“If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic,” says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
It’s unclear why the June 2010 DHS document (PDF) specified that information is currently collected or retained on members of “the public” as part of FAST, and a department representative declined to answer questions that CNET posed two days ago.
Elsewhere in the document, FAST program manager Robert Middleton Jr. refers to a “limited” initial trial using DHS employees as test subjects. Middleton says that FAST “sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements from the employees,” with a subgroup of employees singled out, with their permission, for more rigorous evaluation.

Peter Boogaard, the deputy press secretaryfor the Department of Homeland Security, provided a statement to CNET that said:
The department’s Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm. The FAST program is only in the preliminary stages of research and there are no plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this time.


FAST is designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterationsin the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns. Occupation and age are also considered. A government source told CNET that blink rate and pupil variation are measured too.
A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast. “It is not an airport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting,” DHS spokesman John Verrico told Nature.com in May.

Read more;  Declan McCullagh, CBS News, Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out

Virtual Alabama

Kaye Beach

July 23, 2011

“The real danger is the gradual erosion of individual liberties through automation, integration,
and interconnection of many small, separate record-keeping systems, each of which alone may seem innocuous, even benevolent, and wholly justifiable.”  U. S. Privacy Study Commission
GIS stands for  Geographic Information System
“GIS is a computer system for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, manipulating, analyzing  and displaying data related to location. What separates GIS from other types of information/databases is that everything is based on location (georeference).”
“GIS organizes geographic data so that a person reading  a map can select data necessary for aspecific project or task. A thematic map has a table of contents that allows the reader to add layers of information to a basemap of real-world locations. For example, a social analyst might use the basemap of Eugene, Oregon, and select datasets from the U.S. Census Bureau to add  data layers to a map that shows residents’ education levels, ages, and employment status.” Link
Read more about GIS “Getting the Gist of GIS

Here is an excerpt about a program called Virtual Alabama which is based on GIS  from Surveillance in the Time of Insecurity By Torin Monahan

Pg 44-49

“Virtual Alabama”

Virtual Alabama is a complex database replete with three-dimensional imagery of most of the state (including, for example, buildings, roadways, power plants, refineries, and airports), GIS overlays for additional contextual information, building schematics, video surveillance access for all public cameras, algorithmic scenarios for likely direction of chemical plumes in case of a toxic release, and so on (see figure 1).

Modeled after the Google Earth platform, this science fiction- like surveillance system allows real-time access for all first responders in all counties within the state. James Walker explained that at first DHS had a very difficult time convincing local sheriffs that they should participate and share their data. This obstacle was overcome, however, when DHS promised to include a GIS overlay for all registered sex offenders in the state, showing exactly where each of them are supposed to be residing.

. . . The vision for Virtual Alabama, and for similar applications in other states, is to map everything and share data liberally. DHS envisions being able to share data regionally and nationally so that all emergency responders have access to the system, from local public safety providers to the National Guard—and, one must suspect, private contractors as well, especially because in addition to security contractor companies like Blackwater, which has been rebranded as “Xe Services,” fire departments have jumped on the privatization bandwagon too.27 DHS would like to achieve total “situational awareness” from the system, including real-time GPS data on the location of all state troopers, real-time readouts of available beds in hospitals, and GIS overlays for hunting licenses issued and chicken farms (in case of an avian flu outbreak).

There may be perks for businesses too. James Walker said that he would like to make the data available to corporations as an incentive for them to relocate to Alabama. Or, he continued, insurance companies and FEMA might like to have access to before-and-after aerial photographs of disaster sites so that they can determine who should really qualify for reimbursement to repair damaged property. In other words, this high-tech security application can be used to protect the assets of private companies or the state from the “security threat” of fraud.

. . . What is glaringly absent here is any discussion of the extent to which systems like Virtual Alabama could create new security threats. The detailed mapping of critical information can be as dangerous as it is useful if it falls into the “wrong hands.” This possibility, however, is not on the agenda of those advocating for such systems, which reveals that the goal of generating profitable data may be just as important as protecting the public, if not more important.

. . . the privacy of individuals is at significant risk with current levels of liberal data sharing among private companies and government agencies, along with the absence of serious privacy regulations in the United States.29 DHS Fusion Centers promise to institutionalize the data sharing that has been ad hoc to date. Second, while it is unclear if Google or similar companies will have access to data entered into security applications like Virtual Alabama, the centralized stockpiling of diverse data elements will certainly allow for intensified surveillance of people, whether for purposes of public safety, consumer marketing, fraud detection, or other unimagined possibilities enabled by these systems.  The limited information currently available on these nascent systems indicates that DHS is more than willing to approve the sharing of public data with private companies to encourage them to relocate their businesses or help them detect fraud. It is only a matter of time before other mutually profitable—but probably liberty-decaying—arrangements are discovered.

Read More

Next Gen ID-pulling it ALL together

Link

Kaye Beach

July 19, 2011

Back in 2008 some were raising concerns about the FBI’s Next Gen ID Database

FBI’s Next-Gen ID Databank to Store Face Scans A Good Idea?
Lockheed Martin is building a massive digital warehouse of criminal information, set tobring facial recognition and eye scans to local law enforcement within 10 years. The FBImay use biometric technology to bolster mug shots, fingerprints and DNA to catchcrooks²but privacy advocates say there’s reason for law-abiding citizens to worry.

The FBI has already begun gathering iris scans, and says it will need to expand its photograph database to ramp up inputs for the NGI system growth that could be the basis for our facial recognition,´ says an agency official. (Image Courtesy of Lockheed Martin)

The Electronic Freedom Foundation updates us on the progress of NGI, linking to Freedom of Information Act acquired documents that show the how biometric data is being gathered and consolidated. The slides that you see are from NGI presentations I have collected.  As you can see from slide 24 (below)  the NGI program is progressing exactly as promised.  (the powerpoint that these slides are from was produced in 2009 if my memory serves)

The Electronic Freedom Foundation lists a few of the major problems with the collection, sharing and consolidation of biometric information but, to me, number three says it all-

The third reason for concern is at the heart of much of our work at EFF. Once the collection of biometrics becomes standardized, it becomes much easier to locate and track someone across all aspects of their life. As we said in 2003, “EFF believes that perfect tracking is inimical to a free society. A society in which everyone’s actions are tracked is not, in principle, free. It may be a livable society, but would not be our society.”

It is worth highlighting the fact that this system is NOT limited to identification data of criminals.

The FBI’s Next Generation Identification: Bigger and Faster but Much Worse for Privacy

July 8th, 2011

This week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and several other organizations released documents from a FOIA lawsuit that expose the concerted efforts of the FBI and DHS to build a massive database of personal and biometric information. This database, called “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), has been in the works for several years now. However, the documents CCR posted show for the first time how FBI has taken advantage of the DHS Secure Communities program and both DHS and the State Department’s civil biometric data collection programs to build out this $1 billion database.

. . .Currently, the FBI and DHS have separate databases (called IAFIS and IDENT, respectively) that each have the capacity to store an extensive amount of information—including names, addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, fingerprints, booking photos, unique identifying numbers, gender, race, and date of birth. Within the last few years, DHS and FBI have made their data easily searchable between the agencies. However, both databases remained independent, and were only “unimodal,” meaning they only had one biometric means of identifying someone—usually a fingerprint.

LINK

In contrast, as CCR’s FOIA documents reveal, FBI’s NGI database will be populated with data from both FBI and DHS records. Further, NGI will be “multimodal.” This means NGI is designed to allow the collection and storage of the now-standard 10-print fingerprint scan in addition to iris scans, palm prints, and voice data. It is also designed to expand to include other biometric identifiers in the future. NGI will also allow much greater storage of photos, including crime scene security camera photos, and, with its facial recognition and sophisticated search capabilities, it will have the “increased ability to locate potentially related photos (and other records associated with the photos) that might not otherwise be discovered as quickly or efficiently, or might never be discovered at all.”

Read More

LINK

Homeland Security’s Office of Health Affairs Integrating Public Health Information through State Fusion Centers

Kaye Beach

July 17,2011

This document is a 2011 overview of the Department of Homeland Security’ s Office of Health Affairs.

“Established on March 31, 2007 the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) is the Department of Homeland Security’s principal health and medical authority.”

“. . .OHA established the framework to assist States with integrating the public health and healthcare communities into the homeland security intelligence and information sharing process. (Emphasis mine) This will be achieved by promoting the representation of health security communities within the national network of State and Local Fusion Centers. . .”

What Is a Fusion Center?
A fusion center is an effective and efficient mechanism to exchange information and intelligence, maximize resources, streamline operations, and improve the ability to fight crime and terrorism by merging data from a variety of sources. In addition, fusion centers are a conduit for implementing portions of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP).”  More on Fusion Centers

FISCAL YEAR 2011 HOMELAND SECURITY
GRANT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE :OFFICE OFHEALTH AFFAIRS OVERVIEW

This document is ten pages.  Give it a read and see what you think.

Original link

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2011/fy11_hsgp_oha.pdf

on Scribd

 

D.C. Circuit on the New “Advanced Imaging Technology” Airport Searches

Kaye Beach

July 16, 2011

Analysis by Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy

The new airport screening measures involving millimeter wave technology and backscatter technology — together with the opt-out of a pat-down — have received a great deal of public attention. Back when the new measures were first widely introduced, I blogged about why a Fourth Amendment challenge to the new practices was an uphill battle. Today, the DC Circuit handed down an opinion in EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security holding that the new practices comply with the Fourth Amendment. I believe this is the first clear court ruling on the question, and it’s certainly the first from a federal court of appeals.

Read More

Read EPIC’s review (it’s a bit more encouraging)