-Caveat Lector- ~ ----- Original Message ----- From: "ScanThisNews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ScanThisNews Recipients List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:27 PM Subject: [FP] Watch It! Face-It developer claims "we need regulation" =================================================================== === SCAN THIS NEWS 8.12.2001 Watch It! Face-It developer claims "we need regulation" According to the following AP story, companies involved in development and sales of facial recognition systems are "calling on Congress" to "regulate the use of surveillance systems in public places." Watch out! If you just said anything like "good" or "it's about time," you simply do not understand the industry's objective. Don't believe them! Whenever an industry asks Congress to "regulate" its activities, rest assured the sole objective is to "legalize" or "authorize" some activity which may otherwise be unlawful or not protected by law. The reason these companies want Congress to get involved now is to secure federal protection for continued sales and use of their products, even in cases where state or federal laws might otherwise prohibit such use. You must read closely, between the lines, and with great skepticism, what these industry leaders are saying. Then, take into consideration what they are not saying. Rest assured, the best lawyers the industry can buy will craft these "regulations" so that they sound plausible to the public and at the same time protect the industry's interests with regard to the most profitable applications. Take for example the words of Dr. Joseph Atick, chief executive of Visionics Corp., speaking on behalf of the Security Industry Association: "police departments and others should be limited to only using the system to track convicted criminals, search for fugitives and other specific purposes." Notice that Atick's comments leave room for all other manner of surveillance of citizens, such as, for example, locating a parent who is delinquent on child support payments; or someone who has failed to pay a parking ticket; or any other "specific purpose." Be assured also that broad application of these systems will be facilitated through the use of driver license records. Provision for this is already in place under the mis-named, 1993, Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) which authorizes government agencies to use the now-common digital driver license photos for facial recognition programs and other uses "specifically authorized under the law of the State that holds the record, if such use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety." The DPPA also authorizes use of digital driver license photos "for use by any government agency ... in carrying out its functions." A very few so-called "privacy advocacy" organizations, such as EPIC, actually supported the above-mentioned DPPA which authorizes this abuse of driver license photos. Consider too the following quotes taken from an official booklet published by the US Department of Transportation with help from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for the benefit of law enforcement, titled The Highway Safety Deskbook: "With a central image database of every driver in a state, the public safety community has a ready-made storehouse of photos to be used in criminal investigations. Due to the electronic nature of these images, they can be obtained in seconds via a computer retrieval unit in the department or even faxed or thermal printed directly to the patrol car. These same images can also be brought into a photo array for suspect identification. "The uses for these images are limited only by the wants and needs : of the public safety community. "Work is progressing on digital standards (common data elements and compatible records) so that a national and, perhaps, an international network of digitized images can be established." Watch this soon-coming, proposed legislation very closely. Oppose all such legislation that authorizes public installation of these surveillance systems which can and will be linked to driver license records. The only purpose for these "regulatory" laws is to protect the industry, not individuals. House Majority Leader Dick Armey seems to truly understand this issue. There is NO public application of any facial recognition system that is acceptable. Scott ========================================================== Security Firms Call for Video-Surveillance Law By Andy Sullivan http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010808/pl/tech_privacy_surveill ance_dc_1 .html Wednesday August 8 5:24 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing a growing public backlash, the security industry called on Congress Wednesday to regulate the use of surveillance systems that match faces of people on the street with a database of known criminals. The developer of a prominent face-scanning system, along with the head of the industry trade group, said the federal government needed to step in to ensure that such systems could not be used by police or private corporations to track or compile profiles of innocent citizens. "This discovery was intended to bring a benefit to society and the world, and my feeling about it is I need help from the federal government to make sure there is no room for misuse," said Dr. Joseph Atick, chief executive of Visionics Corp. Since police in Tampa, Florida, first used Visionics' FaceIt system to scan the crowd at last January's Super Bowl football game, facial-recognition systems have come under fire from civil-liberties groups and lawmakers who say they invade privacy and create the potential for a Big Brother-like state of constant surveillance. Tampa has since linked FaceIt to 36 surveillance cameras in a popular nightlife district, but the City Council nearly discontinued its use in a 4-3 vote last week. Atick, backed by the Security Industry Association, said police departments and others should be limited to only using the system to track convicted criminals, search for fugitives and other specific purposes. Users should not be able to track ordinary citizens, he said, and should be penalized if they do so. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leading critic, predicted a chilly reception when the House of Representatives holds hearings on the issue in the fall. "We'll see how members of Congress feel. My educated guess is they're not going to be enamored of this," said Richard Diamond, spokesman for the Texas Republican. Privacy advocates reacted with skepticism as well. "I think the industry's getting very nervous," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "I rather suspect the stuff they're emphasizing, a lot of that is to protect business interests." VALUABLE ENFORCEMENT TOOL At a Washington press conference, Atick and Security Industry Association director Richard Chace sought to emphasize the benefits of facial-recognition technology. "It is time to stop focusing solely on how this technology could be potentially abused, and start talking about how this technology can be positively used in a responsible and effective way," Chace said. FaceIt creates a unique "faceprint" by analyzing facial structure. While the system measures about 80 different points, it can make a positive identification based on as little as 14, Atick said. It does not take into account skin color, hairstyles or other physical attributes. Newham, a neighborhood in London, has seen a 40 percent drop in crime since installing the system two years ago as police have been able to more effectively monitor trouble spots and track repeat offenders, Atick said. FaceIt has also been used in Mexico to deter voter fraud and in China to enable illiterate peasants to set up bank accounts, and can be used by private companies to control access to facilities, he said. "Facial recognition is significantly cheaper, is less intrusive than a massive police presence, and does not inconvenience or interfere with the lives of the honest majority," Atick said. U.S. courts have established that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces like streets and parks, Chace said. But Ari Schwartz, senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said courts have also placed limits on cameras that, for example, look up women's skirts. "Most Americans don't expect to be spied on everywhere they go," Schwartz said. ========================================================== See also: Supreme Court upholds privacy invading DPPA http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dppa-bigbrother.htm l Two Models for Protecting Privacy http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dppa-two-models.htm l ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM =================================================================== === Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. =================================================================== === Reply to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =================================================================== === To subscribe send message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. To be removed type "unsubscribe scan". For additional instructions see http://www.efga.org/about/maillist.html For information on contributing, visit our contributions web page: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-contributions.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml =================================================================== === <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
