Tag Archives: digital photo

Ohio says no to Real ID citing concerns about biometric collection, facial recognition

frt cctv

Kaye Beach

Dec. 16, 2013

Ohio is the first state to reject the federal Real ID Act solely on the basis of the biometric (facial recognition) collection.

(Read Biometrics 101 -Your Body is Your Id)

When people really understand that the mass collection of biometrics on ordinary people turns all of us into suspects and transforms our rights into privileges, sensible people will reject it.

State officials balked at the “one driver-one license” rule and at being required to store and share copies of personal documents, such as birth certificates, said Joe Andrews, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Public Safety…The objection is that it’s not acceptable in many circles in Ohio to do facial recognition on everyone who comes in to get a license,” http://www.dispatch.com//content/stories/local/2013/12/06/state-pulls-plans-to-comply-with-federal-id-law.html

Ohio had been set and ready to go with Real ID but when residents and legislators got a whiff of what Real ID with its facial biometric requirement was really about, they weren’t so happy.

 After Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
quietly added a facial recognition capability to the
Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway
, which gives government officials unified access to databases for their browsing pleasure, state residents became a tad creeped out that they’d been conscripted into an ongoing police line-up. Link

The actuality of harm to our rights inherent in mandatory biometric ID is beginning to become apparent.  Compared to a few years ago, it is now much easier for the people and their legislators to see what this technology is and how it is being used and they are taking issue with it.

Recently Missouri legislators completed an investigation into privacy violations of Missouri residents and found that the state’s Department of Revenue has  continued implementation of the federal Real ID Act in spite of state law prohibiting it.

Mo. House Committee Releases Report Accusing DOR Of Breaking 2009 Anti-REAL ID Law

 “The Department of Revenue adopted a system of scanning and retention of source documents,” Cox said.  “They acquired and they spent considerable money in obtaining biometric information on citizens, they adopted the central issuance of driver’s licenses, and finally adopted what’s sometimes referred to as Level Three security, which is also a feature of (the) REAL ID Act, according to the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.”

But the federal government says it still intends to force the Real ID Act on the states.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NSCL)
Oct. 2013

REAL ID Enforcement on Its Way

In a recent meeting with NCSL, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) confirmed it is on schedule to announce, later this year, a timeline for the phased-in enforcement of the federal REAL ID Act.

There will likely be four to six phases, with each phase focusing on the use of  REAL ID-compliant IDs in different settings, such as to board commercial aircraft.

Each phase will consist of three steps: 1) signage regarding the upcoming enforcement, 2) verbal warnings of enforcement and 3) hard
enforcement.

Full enforcement of REAL ID is expected to begin
in two to three years.  Approximately 21 states are expected to already be in full compliance when DHS releases the timeline this year.

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/TRN-Oct2013.pdf

While the stealth national/international biometric ID has remained largely hidden from mass awareness, that is going to change.  More and more citizens and legislators will become aware of the reality of mandatory biometric ID being forced upon the American people and we can expect that this reality will create a new wave of battles.   It won’t be a moment too soon though because the fact is that all states are collecting digital facial images suitable for use with facial recognition technology which means you can kiss your privacy, autonomy and religious freedom goodbye unless its stopped.

I am engaged in my own battle against mandatory biometric ID right now.  I want to know if I have the right NOT to be enrolled into this system of biometric identification and financial control.  Many would benefit from a favorable ruling in my lawsuit and I am asking for your support to help me win my case.

Please help me stop mandatory biometric enrollment by making as generous a contribution to my legal fund as you are able to today.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Advertisements

Taking A Sneak Peek at Real ID

Kaye Beach

April 19, 2011

Florida is one of the states that embraced Real ID early on and watching the policy as it progresses is instructive.

What can be done with  facial recognition technology and a database built up of driver’s digital photographs?  Mind you, the hard core criminals or terrorists are probably not the ones lining up to jump through the Real ID hoops to get their licenses, these would be the more law abiding of the citizens of Florida who are trying their best to comply.  And what do they get for their troubles?

They get to be tracked and monitored wherever they go.

The President of  National Motorists Association contemplates license holders learning to wear a paper bag.  For the more high fashion inclined, there is always the burka.

Florida, he writes “is on the cusp of implementing a full blown 24-7 universal government operated surveillance system that will monitor and track any person who ventures beyond the confines of their residence.”

“The heart of the Florida program, the key building block, is the digital image of faces currently applied to drivers licenses and state I.D. cards. Cameras, stationary and mobile, capture the faces of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and any other target of interest and those images are immediately passed to a central database that identifies the person, and gathers all recorded information on that person (e.g. Social Security number, criminal record, civil court activity, licenses, permits, registrations, and any other information accumulated by public agencies).”

Read More

From a 2010 FBI power point presentation on facial recognition (FR)/facial identification (FI),  here are some of the uses of facial recognition that we can look forward to.

Pay special attention to “Access Control”  After identification comes classification which will determine your level of access.  We are not talking about high security clearances here.  At a distance identification and classification as facial recognition is desired for means identification, classification and access control can be imposed upon ordinary citizens as they go about their daily lives.

FBI Facial Recognition and Identification Initiatives 2010


“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.”   LINK

(Read-Getting the GISt of GIS)

Now are you ready for the  no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in public rational?  (Hint.  Don’t buy it!)

Facial Recognition technology is not glancing at you in public, it is investigating you in public.  In this country we are not supposed to be investigated absent probable cause.  If we are all being investigated, we are all suspects.  It is that simple.

From Your Face is Not a Bar Code ;

“Public is public. If someone happens to notice you walking in the park, you have no grounds for complaint if they decide to tell someone else where you were. That’s all we’re doing. You don’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, and I have a free-speech right to communicate factual information about where you were.”

A human being who spots me in the park has the accountability that someone can spot them as well. Cameras are much more anonymous and easy to hide. More important is the question of scale. 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.

[. . .]The chance of being spotted is different from the certainty of being tracked.


Drive time for facial Recognition

Drive time for facial Recognition

Biometric technology catches on with DMVs, but prirecognitionDrive Time for Facial vacy concerns slow broader reach

After a driver sits for a photo at the Illinois
Secretary of State office to renew a license,
officials use facial-recognition technology to
give the resulting image a close look.

First, state officials verify that the face
matches the images portrayed on previous
licenses issued under the driver’s
name. The second, more
extensive run-through determines
if the same face appears on other
Illinois driver’s licenses with different names.

Since starting the program in 1999, the
state has uncovered more than 5,000 cases of
multiple identity fraud, said Beth Langen, policy
and program division administrator at the
Illinois Secretary of State office. The state pays
Digimarc Corp. about 25 cents per license for
the service, she said.

“We are very pleased. It is a fraud for which
we have no other tool” to combat, Langen said.

About 40 percent of the nation’s drivers are
set to undergo such facial-recognition database
checks when they renew their licenses in
20 states. It is just one sign that after years of
ups and downs, facial-recognition technology
in government agencies is gaining momentum
on several fronts.

Facial-image-matching applications have
been available for more than a decade but are
just beginning to attain widespread use in government.
Using captured facial images that are
adjusted for lighting, the technology extracts
data from the image ? such as the length of a
nose or a jaw line ? and uses an algorithm to
compare the data from one image to other
images.

Facial recognition got a black eye when tested
at the Super Bowl in Tampa, Fla., in 2001.
Surveillance images of faces from the crowd
generated so many false positives that the test
was deemed a failure. Experts concede there
still are high error rates if facial recognition is
applied to images taken under less-than-ideal
conditions. That type of application also spurs
the greatest concern about privacy and civil
rights violations.

However, facial recognition is now considered
reliable in environments in which the
lighting, facial expression, angle of the head
and distance of the subject from the camera
can be controlled, and interference from hats,
sunglasses and such can be minimized. The
most recent test results announced in March
2007 by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology showed error rates of 1 percent
or less, a huge improvement compared
with previous tests.

Spending for 2008 on contracts related to facial recognition is estimated at $400 million, said Peter Cheesman, a spokesman at International Biometric Group, a consulting firm in New York. That includes $254 million for civilian agencies, $68 million for law enforcement and about
$75 million for surveillance and access control, he said.

State driver’s license bureaus are in the forefront. The 20 or so
state motor vehicle departments that have facial-recognition systems
or are in the process of implementing them typically perform
one-to-one and one-to-many matches within their states.

Growth in such applications is continuing, spurred by concerns about identity theft and fraud. Along with Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Washington and many others, Oregon is the latest state to install facial recognition.

“Doing facial matching in state motor vehicle departments is acceptable, logical and inexpensive. More states will move toward it,” said Raj Nanavati, partner at International Biometric Group, a consulting firm in New York.

PRIVACY CONCERNS LINGER

However, criticism is emerging, too, especially
in states in which the drivers’ photos are being
shared or may be shared with other states and
with law enforcement agencies.

Police departments, eager for more investigative
tools, are pressing for access to the
millions of photographs in the motor vehicle
databases. A few states prohibit such sharing,
but many allow it. In Massachusetts, there
have been media reports of the Registry of
Vehicles’ database of faces being used as a
crime-fighting tool. In Pinellas County, Fla.,
police officers use facial-recognition tools on
booking photographs. In Illinois, driver’s
license photos are shared with the state police
and on request with local law enforcement
agencies, Langen said.

Such mission creep poses a danger to privacy
and could lead to intrusive surveillance and
tracking, said Jay Stanley, a spokesman for the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Nonetheless, use of facial-recognition
technology for law enforcement
is an expanding area. An executive
at Digimarc, which currently
supplies facial-recognition technologies
to about 13 state motor vehicle
departments, said the capability is
shared with law enforcement in six
states, and there is growing demand
for it.

People use the technology to identify
the homeless, deceased,
Alzheimer’s patients and criminals,
said Kevin O’Leary, senior product
line manager for biometrics at
Digimarc. “We are also seeing interest
in using it in intelligence fusion
centers,” he said. “There is a growing understanding
of the connection between false identifications
and support for criminal activity.”

In addition to fraud control, the Real ID Act
is driving some opportunities, although it does
not explicitly require use of facial recognition
or sharing of photos, industry experts said. The
next frontier may be sharing photographs and
facial-recognition capabilities between states
to discover individuals who have multiple identities
in several states.

The American Association of Motor Vehicles
sponsors the Digital Image Exchange program,
a secure network that lets several states share
driver’s license photos. It is primarily used for
one-to-one matching, in which a state sends a
photo and name of an applicant to the state of
the applicant’s former residence, asking to verify
that the previous photos match the current
images. The system does not do one-to-many
searches to look for multiple aliases for the
same photo in other states, association
spokesman Jason King said.

Out-of-state sharing may become more
popular eventually if the privacy issues can
be addressed, Nanavati said. “It has strong
security benefits, but that is when you run into
greater privacy and legality concerns,” he said.

Several other projects and developments are
driving growth in facial recognition.

  • The State Department uses it for its database
    of foreign visa applicants’ facial
    images, which it has been building since
    2004 under a contract with L-1 Identity
    Solutions Inc. The system was developed at
    State to reduce visa-related identity fraud.
  • The FBI’s $1 billion Next Generation
    Identification system is being built to add
    face and palm print biometrics databases
    to the crime-fighting arsenal. It also will
    make it easier to share data from the existing
    fingerprint system. The FBI chose
    Lockheed Martin Corp. Feb. 12 as the
    prime contractor.
  • The Homeland Security Department’s U.S.
    Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
    Technology program is experimenting with
    multimodal biometrics, including facial
    recognition, said Director Robert Mocny.
    US-VISIT collects fingerprints from visa
    applicants and shares that information with
    other agencies.
  • New technologies for 3-D facial recognition
    and new algorithms for greater accuracy
    are being developed.

For now, expect to see more motor vehicle
offices adopting the technology, industry
experts said. More sharing with law enforcement
and with other states might come later if
privacy can be protected.

“Facial recognition is getting to a point where
it really has a high degree of potential acceptance.
But it is not yet capable in covert and facein-
the-crowd applications,” said Walter
Hamilton, chairman of the International
Biometric Industry Association.

“In my view, facial recognition at state motor
vehicle departments is one of the most logical
applications. It works the best,” said Jeremy
Grant, senior vice president at Stanford Group
Co. investment research firm.

Alice Lipowicz (alipowicz@1105govinfo.com) is a
staff writer at Washington Technology.

Oklahoma working on Facial Recognition with DMV Photos

Posted May 12, 2009
Despite assurances from OK County Sheriff, John Whetsel in response to concerns by citizens about the planned use of digitized DMV photos (see SB 483), that the DMV photos are NOT biometric and that the concerns about remote surveillance of citizens is baseless, here is one bit of info that indicates the contrary.  There is much more…
Enough for me to conclude that our armed lobbyists at the Capitol are either lying or completely deluded somehow.
Will be posting more on this.
May 30, 2007
Better Face Recognition Software

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/News/FaceRecog2.html

For scientists and engineers involved with face-recognition technology, the recently released results of the Face Recognition Grand Challenge—more fully, the Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) 2006 and the Iris Challenge Evaluation (ICE) 2006have been a quiet triumph. (maybe a “hidden” triumph would be more accurate) Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the match up of face-recognition algorithms showed that machine recognition of human individuals has improved tenfold since 2002 and a hundredfold since 1995. Indeed, the best face-recognition algorithms now perform more accurately than most humans can manage. Overall, facial-recognition technology is advancing rapidly.

Jonathon Phillips, program manager for the NIST tests and lead author of the agency’s report, says that the intended goal of the Face Recognition Grand Challenge was always an order-of-magnitude improvement in recognition performance over the results from 2002. Phillips believes that the necessary decrease in error rate to achieve that goal was due in large measure to the development of high-resolution still-images (courtesy of your local Department of Motor Vehicles) and 3-D face-recognition algorithms.

“For the FRVT 2006 and the ICE 2006, sets of high-resolution face images, 3-D face scans, and iris images were collected of the same people,” Phillips says. “The FRVT 2006 for the first time measured the performance of six 3-D algorithms on a set of 3-D face scans. The ICE 2006 measured the performance of ten algorithms on a set of iris images. 3-D face recognition has come into its own in the last few years because 3-D sensors for face recognition have become available only recently. What 3-D face recognition contributes is that it directly captures information about the shapes of faces.”

Among other advantages, 3-D facial recognition identifies individuals by exploiting distinctive features of a human face’s surface—for instance, the curves of the eye sockets, nose, and chin, which are where tissue and bone are most apparent and which don’t change over time. Furthermore, Phillips says, “changes in illumination have adversely affected face-recognition performance from still images. But the shape of a face isn’t affected by changes in illumination.” Hence, 3-D face recognition might even be used in near-dark conditions.

According to Ralph Gross, a researcher at the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, in Pittsburgh, 3-D facial recognition can also recognize subjects at different view angles up to 90 degrees—in other words, faces in profile. “Face recognition has been getting pretty good at full frontal faces and 20 degrees off, but as soon as you go towards profile, there’ve been problems.” Gross says that the explanation for face-recognition software’s difficulties with profiles may be no more complicated than the fact that no one was focusing on the problem. The main applications of face recognition have been in contexts like ID cards and face scanners, for which the aim has been recognition of the full frontal faces of cooperative subjects under controlled lighting.

High-resolution still images have been another factor in the improvement of face-recognition technology, in part because highly detailed skin-texture analysis has also become possible. With such analysis, any patch of skin–called a skin print–can be captured as an image, then broken up into smaller blocks that algorithms turn into mathematical, measurable spaces in which lines, pores, and the actual skin texture are recorded. “It can identify differences between identical twins, which isn’t yet possible using facial-recognition software alone,” Gross explains. “By combining facial recognition with surface-texture analysis, accurate identification can increase by 20 to 25 percent.”

What about the FRVT report’s claim that some face-recognition algorithms equal or exceed humans’ recognition capabilities? Phillips explains: “Humans are very good at recognizing faces of familiar people. However, they aren’t so good at recognizing unfamiliar people.” Since many proposed face-recognition systems would complement or replace humans, the FRVT’s comparative tests of the face-recognition capabilities of humans and software–the first such testing–were important for measuring the potential effectiveness of applications. Phillips says that at low false accept rates (a false accept rate is the measure of the likelihood that a biometric security system will incorrectly accept an access attempt by an unauthorized individual), six out of seven automatic face-recognition algorithms were comparable to or better than human recognition. These were algorithms from Neven Vision, Viisage, Cognitec, Identix, Samsung Advanced Institute for Technology, and Tsinghua University. Unfortunately, Phillips adds, “because the majority of FRVT 2006 participants haven’t disclosed the details of their methods, it’s not possible yet to assess what’s distinctive about these algorithms.”

How does the commercial payoff for face recognition look? Quite promising, (and here lies the bottom line-I think the real balance needs to be between profit and privacy NOT privacy and security) because dozens of companies aim to cash in on face recognition’s potential as a biometric for credentialing and verification purposes. For the FRVT, venerable corporations like Toshiba and Samsung competed alongside companies like Neven Vision—just acquired by Google—and Viisage and Identix (which have just merged into L1 Identity Solutions)(these are the guys that have no moral qualms with sharing their technology with the Chinese government to identify dissidents so that they can cork them good), as well as alongside researchers from universities as diverse as Beijing, Cambridge, and Carnegie Mellon. What applications does a company like Google foresee for the technology developed by its recent acquisition, Neven Vision? According to a Google PR person, “We believe it offers promising integration possibilities with Google’s services, such as Picasa and Picasa Web Albums, particularly in terms of helping users organize and search their own photos.”

At Carnegie Mellon, Ralph Gross says that among other efforts, he and his colleagues have been “involved with local DMVs in order to scan images for driver’s licenses. I’ve gotten reports from the state level to say that, using face-recognition technology, they caught quite a number of people who applied for licenses in either different states or in the same state under a different name because their previous license got suspended.” (really?  I sure would like to see those reports because we can’t seem to locate such eveidence.  In fact, OK reports that it has interecepted exactly ZERO such cases by using this technology)

It’s a growing trend. States using such technology include Massachusetts, Illinois, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, North and Southern Carolina, Oklahoma,(quick!  somebody let Sheriff Whetsel know!) North Dakota, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Nevertheless, Gross stresses, applying face-recognition technology to ID photos is a long way from having the capability that would let law enforcement search a city’s webcam networks for specific individuals.

“With driver’s license photos, you have a controlled background, an operator telling you exactly how to position your face; the images are collected under comparable conditions. It’s much more restricted than the random-face-in-the-crowd problem, where you’re sticking a camera on a building,” Gross says.

Still, Gross says, “you can already see the path building.” (No Kidding!  I thought you had to be a “tinfoil” type to recognize the obvious here)Until recently, the video-surveillance industry still mostly relied on analog cameras, requiring cable to be set up for long distances to connect those cameras to monitoring equipment. Now, “the industry is switching to IP-based cameras, with which you can pretty easily tap into already existing Ethernet networks,” Gross says. “So you have wireless cameras and cameras using POE [Power over Ethernet technology allows IP telephones, wireless LAN Access Points, and other appliances to receive power as well as data over existing LAN cabling] where you don’t need a separate power plug. You can buy commercial solutions that are essentially a TiVo for these cameras, with motion sensors built in so they only record when there’s motion happening. With digital storage, you can keep the data indefinitely and enhance it in ways that you can’t with analog images. So all these things are coming together.” (you should talk to our law enforcement officials because they seem to know nothing about this amazing technology)

In principle, therefore, as face-recognition software continues its rapid advance, it will likely be possible to search for specific faces across a network of webcams. Accordingly, Gross’s recent work at Carnegie Mellon, in conjunction with colleagues at the Data Privacy Lab there, has been the development of algorithms to protect individuals’ privacy while under video surveillance. (whew! what a relief.  I feel much better now)The usual methods that thwart human recognition of an individual’s features on video–for example, those pixelated fields sometimes covering faces and body parts on reality-TV shows—already won’t fool much face-recognition software. Completely blacking out each face in a video clip would do the job, but this would be of limited use if law-enforcement agencies wanted to follow up evidence of suspicious behavior once they had a court warrant. The function of the privacy-preserving algorithms that Gross is helping to create, he explains, is to automatically take the average values of individuals’ faces and, from those, synthesize new facial images, then superimpose those new images over the originals. “It may seem like the opposite technology,” Gross says, “but actually, it’s just the other side of face recognition

What’s the Problem Exactly? Digital Photo SB 483

Kaye Beach

April 10, 2009

Question posed by a friend-(condensed.  entire question bottom of post)

I think we need to clarify some of information on this digital photos issue with SB 483.  I’m not going to pretend to know everything about exactly what you mean, but when you keep saying digital photos, it comes off as either tinfoil-hatted or naive to me as I’m sure it does to many.  I’m sure there’s something to this, but the term digital photo just isn’t conveying it to me.
I’m not doubting you at all that there is something to be concerned about, and it may very well be in what manner they use to take the photos, but when you say allowing them to take digital photos for IDs is going to allow them more control of biometric information, the term doesn’t quite explain why, nor when the term is used in your arguments does it make any more sense to me.  There has to be a better way of describing what they are doing.  If there isn’t, I think we need to be proposing a superior alternative to digital photography for tax payers.

Response-

I hope you don’t mind me answering your question on my blog-but as you indicated, if you are wondering others are too.

 My head is so crammed with info on this subject it is nearly impossible for me to approach the subject simply or rather I try and overshoot.  When I say digital as if that had some special meaning what I should explain is that it takes a digitized photograph of specific quality to be used for biometric purposes and that is the significance.  Digital is as common as dirt.

Let me try to convey exactly the issue with regard to digital photos.

Facial recognition technology makes a map of the face.  The program or software used to render biometric data from the photo requires a certain pixel count or resolution to in order to read this “map” properly.

 The lower the pixel count, the less accurate biometric facial recognition is.   International standards call for 90 pixels between eye centers.  Our DMV photos, by design, meet this standard as was called for by the Real ID Act of 2005. 

The difference between the international standard for digital photos to be used as biometric samples and a resolution that is approximate a quarter of the resolution required by the ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Standards) 90 pixels between the eyes is practically indistinguishable since these photos are not printed at high resolution anyways, so there is no reason except for the facial recognition requirements to photograph with such detail. And the purpose for this standard is so that we have a globally interoperable system for data exchange.

I am not an expert in photography so I will have to check to be sure, but I believe that many if not most digital cameras operate easily at this resolution.

I appreciate you asking this question.  I wish everyday to prove this fear wrong so that I can go back to my normal life and pursuits and the more I know….the worse it gets so far.

Thanks!

AxXiom

 

 Read this letter to the IACOhttp://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/rpt/icaobackground.html

Original question in full;

I think we need to clarify some of information on this digital photos issue with SB 483. I’m not going to pretend to know everything about exactly what you mean, but when you keep saying digital photos, it comes off as either tinfoil-hatted or naive to me as I’m sure it does to many. I’m sure there’s something to this, but the term digital photo just isn’t conveying it to me.

Just the term “digital photo” indicates to me an image taken by digital means, such as a digital camera. Nothing very ominous about that at all. The only thing opposite to this would be capturing an image by some analog means, such as 35mm film or photographic plates. Obvious beneficial reasons to going to digital photography are that it’s cheaper, images are easier to reproduce, and easier to store. These are all things most tax payers can appreciate. Additionally, even if photos were taken by an analog method, could they not be readily converted to a digital image via a high resolution scanner? Sure, it leaves the possibility for a rendering error, but in the end, they get the image anyway. Proportions of the face, a metric commonly used in facial recognition, will remain the same, assuming the analog photo is copied properly. To note, analog photography is always more capable of higher resolution, and thus higher quality, images than digital photography. This is because all analog signal transmission has the potential for infinite signal resolution.

I’m not doubting you at all that there is something to be concerned about, and it may very well be in what manner they use to take the photos, but when you say allowing them to take digital photos for IDs is going to allow them more control of biometric information, the term doesn’t quite explain why, nor when the term is used in your arguments does it make any more sense to me. There has to be a better way of describing what they are doing. If there isn’t, I think we need to be proposing a superior alternative to digital photography for tax payers.

Greg

PS

http://www.samson.de/pdf_en/l150en.pdf

The first few pages are basic explanation of how signals are digitized. The process works the same for converting any sort of wave pattern from an analog to digital, whether it be sound waves, light waves, or radio waves. All digitization is doing is converting the continuously variable line of the wave into a series of 1’s and 0’s.

Are Digital Photos “Biometric”? In a Word-YES!

To directly answer to the disinfo campaign being waged on Oklahoma House members-Digital photos are specifically mentioned in SB 483 for a reason.  We have been using software since 2003 at state DMV’s to render Biometric identifiers form the digital photo taken for your license.

  Digital photo’s are a BIOMETRIC SAMPLE .  When the program (FaceExplore) is applied then it is renderd to produce your BIOMETRIC DATA.

Here is some simple explantions for how this works and evidence.  I have many volumes more if this does not suffice.

Please, make sure your Representitives have this information. 

AxXiom 

 

http://www.nesbary.com/class/621w02/articles/coleman.htm

Are photographs biometric information?

Speaking of biometrics, people often think of fingerprints, iris scans, hand geometry and DNA samples. Photographs are often viewed as not falling under the definition of biometrics as biometrics have to include some form of automated recognition system. While this view might be valid with respect to analogue photography, it is not so with digital photography. Given improvements in digital scanning technologies, even traditional photographs should be treated as biometric information.

 

Is biometric information necessarily associated with an identifiable individual?

Yes. It is the very purpose of biometric data to establish a connection between an individual and additional identification information, for example a name or a membership number.

The answer depends on what kind of biometric information is being collected, and under what circumstances. Also, a distinction has to be made between consensual and non-consensual collection of biometric information.

Consensual collection

Anyone can collect and store biometric data, if a person validly consents to its collection. With respect to digital photographs, this is already done on many occasions: Biometric data are being collected by credit card companies (photo credit cards), passport authorities (passports), motor vehicle departments (driver’s license), universities (student cards), libraries (patron cards), public transportation (bus passes) etc.

See also: What problems arise when biometric data are collected with consent of the individual?

Non-consensual collection

Non-consensual collection of biometric data can be divided into overt collection (with the knowledge of the individual, but against his or her will) and clandestine non-consensual collection (collection unbeknownst to the individual).

Overt non-consensual collection of biometric data occurs most frequently in surveillance and forensic contexts. The collection of data is conducted by police, court officers or representatives of government agencies and has to be mandated by statutory or common law in order to be legal.

Overt non-consensual surveillance is also conducted by private entities (e.g. CCTV systems visible to patrons). Surveillance proponents might argue that private surveillance systems that are not hidden to the customer constitute consensual collection of biometric data. However, this argument is weak as the alternative is not to enter the premises at all. This might not be a viable option if someone needs to return an item or has to contact an employee in person. In addition, unless there is a warning of the use of surveillance systems before the patron enters the premises, the collection of data potentially has already taken place by the time the patron spots the cameras.

What problems arise when biometric data are collected with consent of the individual?

There are two major problems with the consensual collection of biometric data.

Firstly, consent is not always given freely, especially in situations where the service that requires the collection of biometric data is essential. For example, if the monopolist public transportation company requires the collection of a digital photograph for issuing monthly bus passes, there is no real choice regarding collection of the biometric identifier, unless the person in question is able to afford a car or willing to pay the higher rates of single tickets. The problem of free consent also arises when biometric data is collected by employers, universities, passport authorities and motor vehicle departments. Where the alternative to giving biometric information in these cases is losing the job, not attending university, not traveling or not driving a car, consent cannot be considered meaningful.

Secondly, even if consent is given freely, problems can arise with the subsequent use of the information. Because biometric data is stored digitally, it shares the main attributes of all digital information: it is easily copied, it is easily communicated, it is easily searchable and it is easily altered. If a government agency or even a private entity take a digital photograph of an individual and store it digitally alongside with other personal information, the individual loses control over the data. Even if the individual in question initially consented to the collection of the data, what does this mean in terms of duration of the storage? Who is allowed to access the data and how is it protected against unauthorised access? To whom is it communicated and for what purpose? These and other questions remain in many cases unanswered.

 

Why are biometrics controversial?

Biometrics are controversial for many reasons.

The first controversial issue is the collection of the biometric data themselves. Most people regard the measuring of their bodily features as more or less intrusive. Individuals often perceive the collection of biometric data as being catalogued and ‘reduced to biometrics’ or ‘even reduced to a number’. Moreover, many people view the collection of certain identifiers such as fingerprints or facial patterns as stigmatizing and feel being treated ‘like a criminal’. While psychological factors plays an important role in these perceptions, they should not be dismissed lightly as being ‘merely emotional’. To many, the sense of privacy manifests itself in a feeling of intrusion or exposure.

Another issue has to do with the fact that biometric data are digitally stored. Digital information is easily copied, transmitted, altered and searched. Biometric databases can be merged or cross referenced with other biometric or non-biometric databases gain even more information about individuals. Biometric data are particularly useful for data mining and cross referencing of databases, since they represent a unique identifier that does not change over time. While names, addresses, membership numbers or user handles can change, biometric data stays fixed, making it an extremely reliable and thus a valuable ‘commodity’.

Another problem is posed by the fact that biometric data cannot easily be substituted because every person has only one set of biometric identifiers throughout their life. Unlike credit cards, passports and driver’s licenses, which can be relatively easily invalidated and replaced in case of loss or theft, such a replacement is not possible with biometrics. Once a biometric identifier is compromised, it stays compromised. Therefore, all attempts to use biometric identifiers instead of replaceable identifiers must raise concerns.

 

Read the entire paper here;

http://www.cippic.ca/biometrics/

The following links and information corroborate there is a deliberate effort to collect and share American’s most personal information.  Further we can and should be expect that our personal information is being shared with other governments. .  When we do not use PDF documents we supply a web link to a specific story that corroborates a point we make or fact we state.

2)  ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), an agency of the United Nations, adopted standards for the use of facial recognition technology are the standard for the digital facial image/photo required by the Real ID Act.  Facial recognition maps your face, converts your biometric sample, the photo, to numbers which results in you facial image mathematically being stored in a database.  The standard called for is hidden in the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) issued by the DHS.  http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/index2.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=12  page 68 footnote 17, at the bottom of page 68.  Nearly no state or national lawmakers understood the significance of the aforementioned footnote.  Even today many groups that are opposed to Real ID call Real ID a national ID card.  It is much more given the standards for Real ID and the organizations that played a role in U.S. policy, law and the implementing of the law, Real ID Act 2005.  Real ID is international ID.  It’s sister, the EDL (Enhanced Driver’s License) is used in lieu of passports.   

More…if you dare;

 

https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/clarification-on-significance-of-digital-photo-sb-483/

http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:a-few-minutes-of-your-time-for-a-lifetime-of-freedom&catid=4:articles

 

Oklahoma STOP SB 483!

Kaye Beach

March 29, 2009

STOP! SENATE BILL NO. 483

By: Jolley and Lamb of the Senate and Terrill of the House.

An Act relating to public safety; amending 47 O.S. 2001, Section 2-110, as last amended by Section 1, Chapter 199, O.S.L. 2005 (47 O.S. Supp. 2008, Section 2-110), which relates to the release of records by the Department of Public Safety; directing the Department of Public Safety to establish procedures for access to computerized images; prohibiting use of images by certain persons; establishing consequences for unintended use; and providing an effective date.

It looks like we have not made any headway at all in trying to educate our state representatives about the threat to our safety and security that government data collection and sharing presents. 

 

Get used to the new “Fusion” of information Oklahoma because our legislature is going right along with the program!

 

What is The Program? 

  Read for yourself, straight from the horse’s mouth.

https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/dhs-directorate-update-people-screening-tech/

 

Read the section on “people screening’

It will not be hard to figure out which of our officials are complicit in this.  But, maybe I should not speak this way.  How will those of us who know we were not born to be ruled over by all-seeing masters survive this transition?  How do you reconcile the “quaint” notion that you should be free from scrutiny as long as you don’t harm others or their property?  I do not wish to have my life, my person under constant observation and judgment.  This is a violation that carries with it implicit threat of force.  It is coercion.  We may as well all have the ankle bracelet of the mobile prisoner.  Do you think that this system will support the liberty that is our birthright?

Science and technology has been issued a Directorate.  We are to be pre-judged.  Our behaviors and physiology scrutinized using devices and algorithms unknown to us.  We are in the game, whether we like it or not, the rules of the game are unknowable.

Fusion Centers

As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers.

The Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN), which allows the federal government to move information and intelligence to the states at the Secret level, is deployed at 27 fusion centers. Through HSDN, fusion center staff can access the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), a classified portal of the most current terrorism-related information.  http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm

But time is short on this particular aspect of it-we have to stop SB 483!

 

Here is the problem:  (excerpts from SB 483)

  “the release of records by the Department of Public Safety”

  The Commissioner of Public Safety is authorized to establish procedures and enter into agreements with any other law enforcement agency of this state or political subdivision of this state for the purpose of providing direct electronic access to the photograph or image in computerized format of any person who has been issued a driver license or identification card by the Department of Public Safety. 

Any record required to be maintained by the Department may be released to any other entity free of charge when the release of the record would be for the benefit of the public, as determined by the Commissioner or a designee of the Commissioner.

For the entire text, go to http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/TextOfMeasures/TextOfMeasures.aspx

And click SB 483

So, this bill would allow direct access, meaning no need for a warrant, no paper trail, no form to sign.

  Just Ask! 

The Commissioner or whomever he designates can arbitrarily decide when to release this data and whom to release it to.  If it is for the benefit of the public, in the commissioner’s opinion-that is reason enough to allow access.  

 Since when is the “benefit of the public” enough to over ride our Fourth Amendment guarantee?

** go to https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/urgent-kill-sb-483/  DOWNLOAD the flyer at the bottom of the page and distribute to your Representatives**

‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

Just because this manner of searching you doesn’t tickle doesn’t mean it is legal.  Probable cause, the presumption of innocence, these concepts that do not apply with our government anymore.

This kind of data sifting is referred to as being non-invasive. 

Physically it is not, unless you end up on the receiving end of an arrest due to an error or perhaps a strip search as this lady did.  She maintains that the outstanding ticket she was apprehended for was paid. “They said I had an unpaid ticket, but the ticket had been paid off back in 2003 or 2005,” Since when is a traffic ticket grounds for degradation?

 Oh, she did have a tail light out too.

 Understand this little piece of legislation is only one small aspect of the overarching plan to combine multiple sources of information about citizens in order to monitor them and analyze their “transactional footprint” for the purpose of preempting crime or terrorism.  If you saw the movie Minority Report, then you get the picture and if you read the Missouri Information Analysis Center  (MIAC) Strategic Report you can see just how valuable the “Fusion” concept is.

  Everything we do leaves a trail of data in our wake.  The intent is to bring all of our information together in order to comb it for anomalies.  Don’t dare to be different-conformity is the best way to avoid trouble.

 The Fusion concept is the method by which the MIAC came up with a report that put a large number of innocent citizens under suspicion by Law Enforcement.  It’s also a very effective method to shut you up. I bet the tyrants of history would have given their eyeteeth for something like this. 

 This is the minimum list of data sources that the Fusion Center

 

Oklahoma does have a federally funded Fusion Center and Public Safety is one of the key sources of data.  This is why SB 483 is more than what it might seem at first glance.

 

  In the Fusion Center Guidelines Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Fusion Centers at the Local, State, and Federal Levels document,  one recommended method of partnering with these various agencies is ;

5. Utilize Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), Non- Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), or other types of agency agreements, as appropriate

The Commissioner of the Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, Kevin L. Ward admitted that the department was utilizing a Memorandum of Understanding.  At this time, it is not known what parties are the beneficiaries of this memorandum agreement.

 Our lawmakers who passed this bill in the Senate (late Thursday March 26)and the Committee of Public Safety , headed by Rep. Sue Tibbs, (unanimously) early on the 27th,  are agreeing to the transfer of our information, possibly without even knowing who will have access to it.

 It now goes to the House.

  And while open ended agreements to collect and share data on citizens slides through the OK. State Legislature like pudding through a goose, measures like SB 289 that would offer us some protection, suffers from a critical case of constipation. 

 It will not be enough to call just your Representative about this.   I suggest calling and emailing yours as well as several others.

 http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/MemberListing.aspx

If you are willing and able to give this issue some personal attention that would be most effective. I plan be at the Capitol on Monday to take information to our legislators and would be grateful for some assistance. 

 If you would like to help, send me an email at ladyaxiom@yahoo.com 

***********************************

Here is an Alert issued tonight by OK-SAFE

 Calls, emails and faxes needed ASAP – starting Monday, March 30, 2009!
Known among concerned citizens as the “direct electronic access” bill, language contained in SB 483 makes the DPS a gateway agency for the distribution of personal biometric information (digitized photo) of unsuspecting citizens and is linked to the controversial fusion center being developed in Oklahoma.  Enrollment in a global biometric identification system is a concern for all, especially Christians.
SB 483 has moved out of the OK Senate, and is now on the House calendar –  it is imperative that calls begin on Monday, March 30, 2009 and continue this week to stop this bill.  Problems with SB 483:

  • SB 483 (page 4) would give the Commissioner of DPS the authority to enter into “agreements” with other state agencies and allow these other agencies “direct electronic access” to the DPS database of computerized photos.

· The “agreements” refers to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between state entities (see 28 CFR Part 23, www.iir.com/28cfr/FAQ.htm). Who is involved? What do the MOUs agree to? ALL MOUs should be disclosed before this bill is even considered.
· Why access the photos and not the fingerprint data? The computerized photo is the most desired biometric data; fingerprint data is considered “old” tech and is not usable for remote surveillance.
· Due to the increased prevalence of surveillance cameras and CCTV, allowing “direct electronic access” to the DPS photo databases allows for more “remote surveillance and identification.”  Can you say Big Brother Is Watching You? (Not even politicians would be exempt from surveillance.)
· Due to the size, complexity, and interconnectivity of today’s computer systems, and the unknown number of “agreements” between state agencies and/or the private sector, it is not possible to secure or keep the data accessed within the four walls of this state.  There is no such thing as “downstream only” information sharing.
· The federal government funds the fusion centers – it is only logical that they would want access to the data.  Arkansas state officials have confirmed that federal access is allowed.
· Allowing  “direct electronic access” to the DPS database is ripe for abuse.    It is essential that the legislators Vote NO on SB 483!

Please call your House Representative and ask him/her to vote NO on SB 483. To find your OK House Rep. click here.  Calling several Representatives will help, too!    The OK Capitol toll free number is 1-800-522-8502.   OK-SAFE, Inc. thanks you for your prompt action on this important issue.
Check out the new information page on Fusion Centers www.ok-safe.com .

REAL ID-lifting the curtain……

Jan 1, 2009

From the Stop Real ID Coalition;

L-1 Identity Solutions shares with China, Biometrics, AAMVA and the Drivers Liscence Agreement-partnering with Mexicao and Canada.  North American Union?

The federal government under the provisions of the 1994 Driver’s Privacy Protection Act has access to our personal information stored in any State’s DMV database. This is precisely why DHS wanted the digital facial image required by the Real ID Act to be in accordance with ICAO adopted standards for compatibility with facial recognition technology. DHS added the requirement for the digital facial image to the Real ID Act so DHS could get around the provisions of the 1974 Privacy Act. They argue now it is not DHS but rather the States that will be collecting the biometric facial image. Although perhaps that is technically true, it is undeniably true that DHS is mandating the States collect the biometric facial image and that DHS knows they can get it from the State DMV databases without a warrant or probable cause. The digital facial image and the standard for it create a biometric sample which is then used to create biometric data from which a template is created.

Th FBI announced they are going to spend $1 billion to create the world’s largest biometric database. Where does anyone think the biometric data for the database will come from?

Yes, there are databases that the federal government does have that currently do contain some biometric data but the Real ID Act will allow for the collection of all licensed drivers biometric samples. The Real ID Act’s primary motivation is to enroll Americans into an international biometric (facial recognition) identification system.

REAL ID WILL CREATE A SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY.

L-1 Identity Solutions has become the de facto issuer of Real ID compliant driver’s licenses and the enhanced driver’s licenses that can be used in lieu of passports to cross our borders. They also have been awarded a contract to produce Passport cards. This same company has provided their facial recognition technology to a Chinese businessman that is competing in a trial by Red China to acquire facial recognition technology. There is a valid question that must be asked, Has L-1 broken federal law that prohibits the transfer of this technology to China. The company’s argument will be they did not provide the technology directly to Red China. That being said they did provide it to a Chinese citizen knowing he would provide it to the government. In fact Chinese authorities have already approached the Chinese citizen and asked that he use the technology to identify dissidents. L-1 gets a percentage of all revenue this “businessman” would get from the Chinese government.

L-1 a few months ago announced they were purchasing Digimarc’s license division. Between the two companies they control nearly 95% of the U.S. production of State driver’s licenses. You would have thought there would be anti-trust considerations. Instead of L-1 having face anti-trust issues they were granted a free pass by the Federal Trade Commission. That should be of no surprise to anyone. The Board of Directors of L-1 reads like a Who’s Who list of former heads of government agencies and departments incluing the likes of George Tenet and Admiral Loy among others.

L-1 formerly known as Viisage Technology has a PDF page that is titled “Real ID Solutions”. On that page is picture of a driver’s license that has a person’s political party on the front of the license. I cannot speak for everyone but I believe it is a fundemental right of all Americans not to have to divuldge their party affiliation unless they want to. Obviously when voting a voter registration card serves the purpose if needed to provide a person’s politcal party of choice. A driver’s license is seen by retailers, banks and others that have NO business knowing yours or mine politcal affiliation.

Robert Mocny of DHS has made no secret of the fact that DHS not only intends to share biometric and other personal information with other governments but also with corporations. He asks the question, How is it right not to share?

The DHS went to great lengths to hide the fact that facial recognition samples are going to be collected under the provisions of the Real ID Act. It is only in the footnotes of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the standard for the photo (digital facial image) mandated by the Real ID Act can be found. Many of the state and national lawmkers I have met with including the committee staffers and counsel I have met with had no idea of the significance of the standard for the digital facial images. In short, they were not aware the standard was international or that it meant the photos collected by States for driver’s licenses would allow the federal government to be able to spy on each of us.

Many times I have heard people say that if a person is doing nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about. That is not true. Facial recognition technology does not work well in a surveillance application. An IBG (International Biometric Group) study conducted specifically states that facial recogntion technology will not work when large databases such as the one called for by the Real ID Act are used. As a matter of fact there is a very good chance a person will be misidentified as someone other than who they are.

Aside from First, Fourth and Tenth amendment issues, the Real ID Act has another major downside. DHS has named AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) the “backbone” of the Real ID Act. AAMVA is an international organization. AAMVA is promoting the Driver’s License Agreement. The agreement calls for the United States, Mexico and Canada to share all drivers information stored in each country’s respective DMV databases. Grant money from the federal government has been available to States to participate in the DLA. http://www.aamva.org/aamva/DocumentDisplay.aspx?id=%7BC600908E-2538-4135-8166-1B25BB682698%7D This is the precusor to the North American Union otherwise named the Security and Prosperity Partnership. If we want to stop the NAU or SPP we MUST repeal the Real ID Act. I have the actual DLA paperwork. Scary does not do it justice. It threatens State’s rights and U.S. sovereignty.

http://stoprealidcoalition.blogspot.com/