Iris Scans

[thedoll]

Originally Posted by bulletsinmyhead

true....very true. However, I understand why poeple think this is a violation of privacy. The fingerprinting elementary students is a bit far-fetched, but the government already has some people's fingerprints. It could be helpful to society, or it could be a waste of money. I don't know.

i guess the whole idea if youre not guilty then you shouldnt worry only stretches so far, i dont need to be THIS protected :P

[CptSternn]

I found this article today thats right in line with this topic...

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/164048

Technology giving DPS more power to spy on us

The Arizona Department of Public Safety has a new law-enforcement tool: a car-mounted license-plate scanner. Similar to a radar gun, it reads the license plates of moving or parked cars — 250 or more per hour — and links with remote police databases, immediately providing information about the car and owner.
On the face of it, this is nothing new. Police have always been able to run a license plate. The difference is they would do it manually, and that limited its use. It simply wasn't feasible for police to run the plates of every car in a parking garage or every car that passed through an intersection. What's different isn't the police tactic, but the efficiency of the process.

echnology is fundamentally changing the nature of surveillance. Years ago, surveillance meant trench-coated detectives following people down streets. It was laborious and expensive and was used only when there was reasonable suspicion of a crime. Modern surveillance is the policeman with a license-plate scanner, or even a remote license-plate scanner mounted on a traffic light and a policeman sitting at a computer in the station.
It's the same, but it's completely different. It's wholesale surveillance. And it disrupts the balance between the powers of the police and the rights of the people.
Wholesale surveillance is fast becoming the norm. Automatic toll-collection systems record when individual cars pass through toll booths. We can all be tracked by our cell phones. Our purchases are tracked by banks and credit-card companies, our telephone calls by phone companies, our Internet surfing habits by Web site operators.
The effects of wholesale surveillance on privacy and civil liberties are profound; but, unfortunately, the debate often gets mischaracterized as a question about how much privacy we need to give up in order to be secure. This is wrong. It's obvious that we are all safer when the police can use all techniques at their disposal. What we need are corresponding mechanisms to prevent abuse and that don't place an unreasonable burden on the innocent.
Throughout our nation's history, we have maintained a balance between the necessary interests of the police and the civil rights of the people.
The search-warrant process, as prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, is such a balancing method. So is the minimization requirement for telephone eavesdropping: The police must stop listening to a phone line if the suspect under investigation is not talking.
For license-plate scanners, one obvious protection is to require the police to erase data collected on innocent car owners immediately and not save it. The police have no legitimate need to collect data on everyone's driving habits. Another is to allow car owners access to the information about them used in these automated searches and to allow them to challenge inaccuracies.
We need to go further. Criminal penalties are severe in order to create a deterrent, because it is hard to catch wrongdoers. As they become easier to catch, a realignment is necessary. When the police can automate the detection of a wrongdoing, perhaps there should no longer be any criminal penalty attached. For example, both red-light cameras and speed-trap cameras should issue citations without any "points" assessed against the driver.
Wholesale surveillance is not simply a more efficient way for the police to do what they've always done. It's a new police power, one made possible with today's technology and one that will be made easier with tomorrow's.
And with any new police power, we as a society need to take an active role in establishing rules governing its use. To do otherwise is to cede ever more authority to the police.


I think yer man brings up a few good points. One thing they do in britain that they don't do in the states is automated fines now. For example if your car registration or decal expires normall you have to renew it before a cop pulls you and gives you a ticket. Now, their computer system tracks your number and if it expires before you pay for your renewal, the system automatically prints out and mails you your fine of like 150 quid.

Same with the automated speeding tickets now. But like the article says - the reason speeding tickets were 'supposed' to be high was they only caught persons on occasion, so they wanted to make a point as well as make a few bob. Today, they have increased the fines and guaranteed that EVERY time you speed you get a ticket, which goes against the original principle.

Of course, thats in britian, but expect those things to move to the states soon enough. Another crazy thing they are in the process of doing is making ALL new cars come equipped with navigation systems, not to help the drivers, they would, but to track the drivers movements and store them for up to five years in a national database. Most people don't realise in both countries the governments do this will cell phones right now. The british government also wants to add a remove engine kill system along side that to allow police to stop your car if they need to via satellite. They also plan to have the system regulate your speed, meaning they can stop you from speeding, but only excessively. You can still go up to 15 miles over the limit, and be fined for it - but higher than that and the engine automatically slows itself.

Sounds crazy, but funny thing - OnStar in america does all that and is the same system - britian just wants to make it mandatory. In america, people are PAYING to have this installed as they have been told its some type of status symbol and have been sold basically a government monitoring system.

Ironic, eh?

[CptSternn]

Looks like I wasn't the only one thinking this...

http://news.**********/s/wews/109277...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

Woman's Lawsuit Threatens To Remove Red-Light Cameras

NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman has discovered a key lawsuit which may force cities to not only remove red-light cameras, but refund all the fines. Pohlman said it all started because an Akron woman drew the line.

In November 2005, Mendenhall got a ticket from a red-light camera. It stated she was going 39 mph in a 25 mph zone on Copley Road in Akron.

Mendenhall is married to Warner Mendenhall, an attorney known for fighting government.

"He said, 'Well, you're going to have to pay the ticket or I'm going to have to sue somebody.' I said, 'Well, I guess you're going to have to sue somebody,'" she said.

And he did, Pohman reported.

Warner Mmendenhall is now representing his wife in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging all red-light cameras in the state of Ohio.

"It is big brother absolutely," Mendenhall said.

The Mendenhall case challenges all red-light-cameras on constitutional grounds. He claimed the cameras and the tickets deny due process.

In the suit, Warner and his wife contend the cities have turned a criminal violation in to a civil matter with a sole purpose of making money.

"Cities cannot just take what are crimes and make them civil offenses. People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150," Mendenhall said.

In discovery, Mendenhall revealed thousands of mistakes, Pohlman reported.

Akron's cameras captured speeders 4,000 times, but because of problems or procedure, those tickets were tossed.

Pohlman caught mistakes in Cleveland, too. A ticket issued to the wrong plate, for the wrong vehicles and the wrong speed.

The red-light cameras are now facing a real legal challenge thanks to an attorney, Pohlman reported.

"The red light is a flashpoint of where we're going as a country, as a society about individual liberties," Warner said.

The exact point I was making - the 'automation' of the criminal justice system and turning crime into money is nothing more than a new tax that is able to skirt by current law.

[Tha Duckman]

If you got nothing to hide, why does it matter to you? Are YOU a sex offender, you dirty person you?

[Cyntrox]

I hate this. It's just one step closer to a society where we're just mindless drones controlled by the government...

[Circle V]

What, exactly, makes fingerprint/iris scan records any different than the records that the government already has? All it does is make it easier to verify identity. I don't complain about having license plates on my (hypothetical) car, nor do I complain about having a social security number, or having my photo on record.

Sure, iris scans sound scary, but all they really do is make it impossible to lie to government/security officials about your identity, as if it was really possible to deceive the government in that way anyway.

[Tha Duckman]

Finally, some one with a realistic view. I hate all the apocalyptic "Oh no! We're all going to be turned into robots by the Government!" bull shit. It gets pretty old when you hear it every day.

[CptSternn]

It's not that the government couldn't find out that information if needed, it is what it represents, in society as well as the judicial system that is the issue.

America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal and that they are also innocent until proven guilty. These new technological invasions go against the basic concepts as well as offer new levels of abuse of power and invasion of personal privacy, things that the framers of the constitution would be against.

For example, in the past if you wanted a DNA sample or fingerprints from a suspect in a criminal proceeding, you had better have some evidence to back up those allegations. You had to have some other real, hard evidence to futher the idea that the suspect was involved, not just a 'hunch' or 'gut feeling'. With the mandatory surrendering of fingerprints and now DNA police can merely arrest everyone that they think is a suspect, regardless of how much real evidence they have, then get all those samples and stick them in a database which they then run against all sorts of crimes. If I haven't broken any laws I wouldn't like my government forcing me to be basically tried by computer instead of jury in efforts to prove my innocence, which shouldn't even be in question.

The system previously in place which requires warrants and other evidence is merely another fail safe in the system of checks and balances built into the judicial system to protect the innocent. To remove it in reality makes the system less safe to the innocent. Remember, fingerprints are NOT unique. 1 in 10,000 are exactly the same. DNA can resemble other DNA depending on the amount they test and the tests they run. Also lab error can cause false positives. In the past couple of years HUNDREDS of people have been FREED because DNA was either found to be corrupted and gave a false positive on suspects OR in a few cases police LIED to secure a conviction because DNA is ALL the evidence they had.

If you haven't committed a crime you shouldn't worry is a weak argument considering how many innocent people have been convicted over the past few years because of bad or incorrect DNA evidence. To remove the few safe guards and barriers in place that were put there to protect the innocent is a bad idea. Ask any of the wrongly convicted men and women or their families.

This same principle applies to the cameras, tracking devices, and other new big brother technologies that people are being told are there to 'help' them. For a police officer, or other official to abuse the system is easy and will result in a false conviction which the defendant will have no legal recourse to prove their innocence. Also bugs, hackers, and other unforseen errors may arise, but how does one claim that as a defence in court when you have already been basically tried and sentenced by a computer?

Bottom line is warrants, evidence, and the existance of proper police with evidence collected in a hands on method is the only way to insure that the judicial system doesn't become corrupt or allow innocent people to be wrongly convicted due to a 'glitch'.

For a system that supposedly considered you innocent until proven guilty and also is supposed to protect the innocent, these 'advances' fly in direct opposition of those ideals.

[Tha Duckman]

I couldn't be fucked to read all that, as it does nothing for my ADD. Bottom line, what's the difference between this and what they have now? The Government can find absolutely any thing on you. A massive percentage of America has their finger prints on file. You have birth and death certificates. They know when you get married. What's the problem? Are you thinking of going out and molesting some kids and that's why you don't like it? Short answer.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Tha Duckman

I couldn't be fucked to read all that, as it does nothing for my ADD. Bottom line, what's the difference between this and what they have now? The Government can find absolutely any thing on you. A massive percentage of America has their finger prints on file. You have birth and death certificates. They know when you get married. What's the problem? Are you thinking of going out and molesting some kids and that's why you don't like it? Short answer.

Sternn basicly said that there are chances of innocent people being arrested, and that goes against the innocent until proven guilty concept.

And I agree. Storing something on a computer is NOT SAFE no matter how you look at it. I know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure a dedicated hacker could really mess up those databases...

[Tha Duckman]

Of course. If it's connected to the web then you can get into it. It's not that hard if you know what you're doing. But if it means that people who commit heinous crimes do time for said heinous crime, then I'm all for it.
Look around the web. You can get absolutely anything on practically anyone. I was able to get the home phone number, address, marriage history, family back ground, previous convictions, etc on a guy called Michael Fumento. It's fucking easy to get that shit. Now, if a 19 year old can find all that shit out on a guy he's never met, what the fuck does it really matter what the Government have. 1984 exists already, people. They're just letting you know about it. If your kid was stabbed in the dick by some dude, you'd want that dude to hang. THat's what this is for. There's no problem with it unless you're looking to commit a crime.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

Sternn basicly said that there are chances of innocent people being arrested, and that goes against the innocent until proven guilty concept.

And how does that apply to iris scanners?
"There's a criminal with green eyes. Our scanner says you have green eyes. You're under arrest!" Makes no sense whatsoever.
"There's a criminal on the loose. He was wearing a mask. We augmented the image of the security camera. We have a clear view of the iris of the victim. Sir, place your eye in the machine *bleep* not a match, thank you for your time." What's wrong with that?

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

And I agree. Storing something on a computer is NOT SAFE no matter how you look at it. I know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure a dedicated hacker could really mess up those databases...

True, but don't forget that humans are more likely to make mistakes than computers, and that computers can't succumb to greed or coercion. Physical evidence can be stolen, people can be bribed or have ulterior motives.

I understand why the idea of "trial by computer" is frightening, and I agree. I believe that technology should be integrated into our existing system-- but it should not replace it.

[Tha Duckman]

Just out of interest, what y'all think would happen if we WERE sentenced by a computer, and before a sentence could be carried out, the computer BSOD'd? Would that be considered an act of God?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Circle V

True, but don't forget that humans are more likely to make mistakes than computers, and that computers can't succumb to greed or coercion. Physical evidence can be stolen, people can be bribed or have ulterior motives.

But computers are only as honest as their operators. As we saw in the fbi dns cases where two fbi crime scene agents falsified dozens of results to secure convictions just a year ago proves that this system is flawed. The one operator in one location makes the call with no oversight. The word of one federally paid employee sets the field for the court case. In many of those cases where the agents perjured themselves you see the police had other leads, suspects, and evidence, but the federal government pushed the jury to recognise the fact the dna evidence 'doesnt lie', which led to dozens of false convictions and YEARS of imprisonment for dozens of innocent people.

They interviewed many of those men who were imprisioned, and prior to their lengthy false imprisonments they had similar views on dna evidence, and shared the 'if your not breaking the law then why worry' mind set. Now, however, after spending years away from their families in american prisons they have a very different way of thinking.

People are always thinking its ok to crack a few eggs while making an omelette, until they find out its their family that will be the proverbial eggs. And have no doubt, when you sentence an innocent man, father of four, bread winner, husband, brother to a decade or more in prison, you sentence his whole family.

[ArtificialOne]

First off..

Why does captstern like the US so much? Jeez.... I haven't seen anyone this excited since my x neigbors poodle doin' the leg humpin thing.....

Anyways..
Yay for tech!!
I think everyone should be dna printed at birth. I can see no cons in this.
No more paternity test result waits, tracking of diseases and malformations easier, and also migration. Also track killers and rapists easier.

Retina scans? No need with faster dna testing. Just look at how fast the tech accelerated from since it's inception for testing.

As long as the govt doesn't stop us from moving place to place or taking away other rights why worry?

I'm sure is a victim of a horrible crime would appreciate this tech very much.

[Circle V]

Sounds like the problem is with public misinterpretation of computer-analyzed evidence and with the system itself, not with the computers.

[CptSternn]

In the next 'big brotheresque' move the new full body x-ray machines are being unveiled.

http://news.**********/s/csm/2007022...gjW3Bm_SPMWM0F

Two things I think are ironic here are this...

First, people in the states don't see alot of boob. I mean, we have page 3 here and see topless birds on telly all the time - even in the adverts. No so much in the states. However, now all Americans flying are happy to let a bunch of minimum wage workers look at them nekkid in the name of 'security' and no one bats an eyelash.

Second thing, it says on some of the machines that they are so detailed they 'blur out' the public and breast region as to you know, offer some sort of cover for the unmentionables. Ummm...whats the point of a full body x-ray if you block out any areas? Isn't that just saying, if your going to bring in a weapon, hide it in yer knickers as even though we do the full body scan, we don't want anyone seeing a little nip.

So what is it? A wee bit o nipples or security?

Also, its got to suck to know now that the lads working those security booths get to look at the size of every mans willy when walking through security and if they are aroused or not.

Aahh..the life of a security screener. Minimum wage and staring at cock all day.

Thats got to rank up there next to jizz mopper.

[Binkie]

"I don't understand why no one wants to talk about my articles!! I post deadlinks to them!!! It's not like people can't read them!!! They just have to totally repaste the URL into their browers and type out yahoo!!! I shouldn't have to post the article cause they're the lazy ones - not me!!! It's not fair!!!"

[CptSternn]

Most computer attacks originate in U.S.

http://news.**********/s/ap/internet...6v.GGA7U2s0NUE

SAN JOSE, Calif. - The United States generates more malicious computer activity than any other country, and sophisticated hackers worldwide are banding together in highly efficient crime rings, according to a new report.

Researchers at Cupertino-based Symantec Corp. also found that fierce competition in the criminal underworld is driving down prices for stolen financial information.

Criminals may purchase verified credit card numbers for as little as $1, and they can buy a complete identity — a date of birth and U.S. bank account, credit card and government-issued identification numbers — for $14, according to Symantec's twice-yearly Internet Security Threat Report released Monday.

*snip*

This is exactly my point with the whole thread here. With all the new technology thats out the designed to track everyones actions constantly, it's only a matter of time before that information gets to the wrong people.

I mean, think about it - most law enforcement are not tech savy. Sure, you can train them how to use the equipment, but teaching them how to use it securely is a whole new ball game.

Since law enforcement salaries in the states start in the low 20k a year compared to techy jobs which start at least 30k-50k a year, its safe to say those with the ability to manipulate the data will not be working in law enforcement.

As I said before - the new ID programme the bush admin is now pushing is going to be a HUGE failure - Defcon last year showed us that. With companies now tracking what items you buy at the shop, mobile phone companies tracking where you visit, and cable companies tracking what you watch - is it any wonder that finding someones proper name/address/bank information for someone living in America only is worth $1 (thats 70 cents for us in Europe, and only 35 cent to those in the UK).

Why try and beat the system when you can buy someone elses good credit and criminal history for a buck and just become them?

Ahhh...technology.

[Firestorm]

Boiling the frog.

[ArtificialOne]

And how is that any different than people getting your info from the garbage or a store? Which is where most of the identity thefts occur...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

And how is that any different than people getting your info from the garbage or a store? Which is where most of the identity thefts occur...

Actually 'dumpster-diving' has been shown to be present in less than 1% of identity thefts (that was on CBS news last week).

However stores and restaurants ARE the next up-and-coming source of stolen identities. With credit card companies storing more and more personal data and people using cards everywhere, from the local super market, to dinner at <fill-in-the-blank-chain-resutrant> all the time, all it takes is one employee with a card reader, available for $30 and can be hooked to any PDA, to take dozens of cards a day with no way to trace back the crime (if they are careful).

But as I said, that is the problem. I was pointing out that the info is available, readily, not HOW they are doing it. I suspect many of those stolen ID's came from people using their cards at legitimate businesses.

The more people use technology in leui of things like money, the more their personal information is spread.

I just find it humorous that people are so 'security conscious' these days but yet tens of thousands of Americans are getting their identities stolen every year and no one sees where that is a HUGE chink in the armor.

AS I said, if I were a hacker or person of nefarious values, I don't have to hack a system to get into a bank account nor do I have to hack a system to clean my criminal record so I can buy I gun - I just need to work for a day or two at a place that takes credit cards so I can get the personal information of one person who has led a good life, then become them, to bypass all the security checkpoints setup in todays society.

[CptSternn]

Librarian warns against govt. secrecy

http://news.**********/s/ap/patriot_..._44zDOfZvMWM0F

WASHINGTON - A librarian who fended off an
FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday the government's secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.

"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection Inc., a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area that share an automated library system.

In prepared testimony for a Senate panel, Christian said his experience "should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution" about the strain that the government's pursuit of would-be terrorists puts on civil liberties.

The government uses the USA Patriot Act and other laws to learn, without proper judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review, what citizens are researching in libraries, Christian said.

A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general that found 48 violations of law or rules in the FBI's use of documents, known as national security letters, during 2003 through 2005. Some congressional critics want to tighten legal safeguards on the letters.

"'Trust us' doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage," said Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can use the letters to acquire telephone, e-mail, travel and financial records without a judge's approval. Letter recipients are not allowed to disclose their involvement in a request...


Quite possibly one of thwe best quotes to date...

[b]Librarian warns against govt. secrecy

http://news.**********/s/ap/patriot_..._44zDOfZvMWM0F

[i]WASHINGTON - A librarian who fended off an
FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday the government's secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.

"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free."

[CptSternn]

I found this article to be troubling as well as informative. In a few other threads discussion about the de-sensitizing of Americans to violence starts at a young age. Even though America blocks womens nipples and love scenes on basic television and in their dialy papers and popular magazines there, they have no problem running films with large amounts of violence, uncersored, all day, and exposing children to it.

Myself and others feel that this is done on purpose to help de-sensitize this generation, as it was in the 80's when the practice began. It's not Hollywoods fault - the make what people want to see. They of course enforce a rating system. I find it odd though that games like GTA get pulled in areas, while TV shows and films depeicting the same behavior are displayed for all to see on telly.

Well, to further back my point that the government does have a hand in this, they recently released a full violence video game to help recruit children into the military. Make them think killing is a game. Get them started young, get them accustom to war and violence, and get their personal details so you can target market them to become cannon fodder later for the next invasion of a small 3rd world country to plunder its resources.

US Army's computer game recruiting plan takes fire

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007042...33vmqilObMWM0F

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Anti-recruitment groups are slamming a US Army deal to sponsor a computer war game channel, charging that real war is no game.

In June, the Army is set to sponsor a channel at the Global Gaming League website, a popular spot for Internet computer game lovers.

"It is part of this campaign for the last 20 years to invade youth culture with militarism," Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities co-founder Rick Jahnkow told AFP.

"It affects the way young people think. It affects their world view. That is a very dangerous thing."

A first-person shooter game based on the army training manual will be a centerpiece of the channel, which will feature other games in the same genre.

The "America's Army" game was released about five years ago and ranks in the top 10 most popular computer games of its kind, according to McCann World Group vice president Anders Ekman, who is handling the project for the Army.

Play at the channel will be free, but agreeing to "additional contact from the Army" comes with signing up as a player.

The Army's investment, estimated at two million dollars, is aimed at finding potential soldiers among gamers in the cherished recruiting age range of 17 to 24.

Oskar Castro of the "admittedly anti-war" American Friends Service Committee said it is wrong for military recruiters to use technology and pop culture to entice young people to enlist without showing them the ugly sides of service.

"If it is virtual reality, why don't you see people screaming for their mother while they die?" asked Castro, who said he had played America's Army.

"If you are going to show what war is like you should show what war is like. You don't have 'game over' and start again. 'Game over' means you come home in a body bag and a casket."

Castro recounted meeting young gamers inspired to be soldiers by their love of playing America's Army.

"It was really bizarre to actually see that," Castro said. "They had every plan to go into the military and they didn't have a full vision of how the military works."

Army recruiters resorting to online games is the newest development in a pattern that has "alarmed" Jahnkow since the United State eliminated the military draft near the close of the Vietnam War.

The military began using mass marketing and sophisticated sales techniques that not only win recruits but make US society more accepting to war as the way to deal with problems, according to Jahnkow.

"The emphasis went from asking people to join military as a patriotic gesture to more along the lines of the ways companies sell tooth paste," Jahnkow said.

"Having the military making and marketing entertainment and computer products has never been their mission in our society."

Recruitment ads that depict soldiers as valiant knights in shining armor and computer games in which battle is exhilarating glamorize militarism as opposed to democracy, Jahnkow said.

"Soldiering is being popularized when in fact we are supposed to be teaching people from an early age that civilian democratic rule is the ideal," Jahnkow said.

"I can only imaging what James Madison and George Washington -- all of the founding fathers -- would have thought. They must be turning over in their graves right now."

Jahnkow cited the war in
Iraq as a "prime example" of the result of letting the military use games and advertising to sell soldiering to the public.

The US launched a war in Iraq even though there was no threat to the United States and no connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington, Jahnkow said.

"You need to influence people from early childhood to have people grow up and support those kinds of war," Jahnkow said. "It is really a question of militarism; not whether there is a military."