Posted on 10/06/2004 11:14:18 AM PDT by vannrox
Last January, on a warm afternoon in Tampa, 72,000 people walked into Raymond James Stadium and joined one of the largest, most high-tech police lineups ever.
As they passed through turnstiles leading into the stadium, closed-circuit cameras linked to computers scanned their features using face recognition software. In a fraction of a second, the software looked for matches in a database of thousands of criminals' faces.
Few people knew they were taking part in the police check. Most probably wouldn't have cared, since they were probably too preoccupied with taking their seats as lucky ticket holders attending Super Bowl XXXV.
In all, 19 matches were found, though no one was detained, said the Tampa Police Department.
But the criticism began once word of the check got out.
While everyone has a reduced expectation of privacy while in public, including sitting in the stands with one's family at a Sunday afternoon football game, we do not believe that the public understands or accepts that they will be subjected to a computerized police lineup, the American Civil Liberties Union protested in a letter to the city, which organized the scan.
Undeterred, Tampa has since linked the face recognition software to a system of 36 cameras in its downtown nightlife district.
Unlike some communities, Tampa residents are used to living with the cameras, which have been in the Ybor City district since 1997, along with signs warning of their use. But the accompanying face recognition software is new and has been running for about two weeks.
The newly computerized system has captured the interest of law enforcement officials in other cities, but also the rancor of civil libertarians, who had earlier decried January's "Snooper Bowl.
This kind of high-tech overkill goes way beyond the traditional video surveillance methods you see at your local convenience store, said Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Florida, in a press statement last week.
Based on a strand of software known as biometric authentication or identification, the program looks for imperfections in a person's face that are unique to him or her. Simpler versions of biometric software identify and record fingerprints and signatures, while other programs can be used for such sci-fi applications as voice recognition and human iris identification.
An easy way to understand the concept of biometrics is to look at one's own fingertip. Rather than taking in the swirl of the overall pattern, imagine placing a dot at every point where each of the tiny lines terminate or intersect one another. The resulting pattern of dots is unique to that person and, if placed on a grid, can be easily read and transmitted by computers.
Face recognition software similarly breaks up the face into digital pixels, explained Joseph Atick, president and chief executive officer of Visionics Corp. of Jersey City, N.J., which developed the software used in downtown Tampa. Rather than a dot on a fingerprint, the positioning of up to 80 distinct facial features can be pinpointed by ordinary light bouncing off one's face, which the cameras pick up.
Given the obvious complexity and diversity of an individual face, the software only has to pick up about 20 similarities to report a match. For instance, a person's eye, rather than being one complex feature, can be broken down into at least eight or nine details, such as the distance from the nose or the depth of the socket, Mr. Atick said.
Even if someone is wearing a hat and sunglasses, the software can look for 20 other tiny, distinct features elsewhere on the face. Another version of computerized face recognition matches features based on similarities with a number of facial templates. Visionics' method, on the other hand, looks for irregularities to identify an individual.
The image is then broken down into a mathematical formula that is checked by the software against individuals whose photos have similarly been reduced to a formula.
Visionics has installed its software in such far-flung locales as Iceland's Keflavik International Airport; Birmingham, England; and the Newham Borough of London. Other clients include the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, state police in Texas, Arizona and New Jersey, as well as Belgian national police. The Mexican government used face recognition technology to verify voter registration for its last national election, while banking kiosks in the United States operated by InnoVentry Corp., a joint venture of Wells Fargo Co. and Capital One Financial, use the software to identify customers, Mr. Atick noted.
Visionics' face recognition software also comes preloaded on some laptop computers made by International Business Machines Corp. with built-in cameras and, through another licensed software company, on Sony Corp. laptops, Visionics' said.
A mathematician formerly with Rockefeller University in New York and Princeton University, Mr. Atick also sees a great deal of potential interest in Canada, particularly in areas such as immigration control.
But to some, the idea of computers being able to automatically identify people in otherwise anonymous public spaces has obvious Orwellian overtones.
It's easy to see the potential for widespread abuse if the computerized information, including ordinary citizens' identities, were to make its way onto the Internet for all to see, or if the data were stored in a databank for use by governments or corporations.
Simply deciding where to place the cameras and conduct searches raises inciting questions. The ACLU warns that face recognition could easily lead to high-tech racial profiling if minority neighbourhoods are targeted. If matched with something such as the Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles' plan to store detailed 3-D computerized photos of all drivers, the software could also ultimately record the movement of all citizens.
Even as the technology was still emerging, Visionics and other developers saw the need to answer ethical concerns and try to nurture public acceptance for biometrics. It's putting Visionics in an interesting position, Mr. Atick said. Apart from furthering the technology, we are also leading the wave in the creation of responsible use, guidelines and legislation.
The company is a founding member of the International Biometric Industry Association, and the organization itself has criticized the surreptitious use of the software at the Super Bowl and insists that its members, who are mainly biometric developers, adopt a code of ethics. Members usually do business only with companies that follow this code, Mr. Atick said.
For example, the IBIA adheres to the principle that biometric systems not be used to store data on ordinary citizens, that the public be clearly told when the software is in use (normally by posting signs), and that the data be deleted when no match is found.
It's exciting times,Mr. Atick said. We are seeing the impact on a brand new technology on society, and we are participating in shaping the expectations and legislation that need to be in place so that people are comfortable with it.
But it is legislators themselves, from the California State Senate -- which is currently passing a bill restricting facial recognition technology -- to Congressional House Majority Leader Dick Armey in Washington, who have been increasingly questioning the technology, even as police departments and companies become interested.
No duh.
Plus, the cops have stack of default warrants that, if they ever got around to executing them, would jam the jails for months.
I took a cruise a few years ago and in every ports of call, upon returning to the ship, they used the 'face of surveillance test'. It sure felt good to know that someone who didn't belong on the ship was in all probability, not on the ship.
It'll be even better and safer when you get your chip from Applied Digital.
A washable mole might become the latest in gansta fashion.
these could be really useful in airports, to help identify terrorists.
Well, I've yet to hear a story about a chipped animal being misidentified.
This technology would make it extremely difficult for the rats to commit voter fraud.
Anyone skilled in voter fraud will not be dissuaded by this ruse.
There are simpler ways to dissuade vote fraud. Like requiring a valid I.D., checked by a policeman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.