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.
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.
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 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;
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;