news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: Driver's license photo match can result in arrest

Article
Comments (4)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Using facial-recognition techniques for Spaceship Earth riders at Epcot Center may be good for a chuckle. But using it to match driver's license photos with a databank of wanted criminals is no laughing matter.

That's not to say an N.C. Department of Motor Vehicles pilot project that does just that hasn't enjoyed some initial success. By comparing a wanted photo from California with 30 million photos stored in Raleigh, DMV officials identified a man living in High Point under an assumed name who was wanted for a double homicide in Los Angeles in the 1990s. He awaits trial.

The emerging field of biometrics opens new avenues for identifying people, but at the risk of it happening without their knowledge or consent. Besides facial characteristics, iris patterns in the eye, voices and walking gait are being used to narrow the field.

However, two basic concerns emerge: privacy and accuracy. First, driver's licenses are public documents, and the state has considerable latitude on how they can be used. On shakier legal ground are proposals such as the one by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that hidden surveillance cameras on public land be used to ID criminal suspects.

A state DMV official told the Associated Press this week, "We're not interested in housing a bunch of photos of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong." Yet, without specific safeguards firmly in place, the possibility for abuse exists.

As for accuracy, at some point the human element kicks in. While biometrics can spit out the matches, old-fashioned legwork must follow. For the most part, facial recognition techniques remain unproven. Tests in Europe have produced mixed results.

Among other questions: How will juries weigh new-technology evidence? Can surgically altered appearances be detected? There's much more involved than a ride at Disney World.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

AirDoc

October 14, 2009 - 9:00 am EDT

I am puzzled by what is implied in this story. The value of using the system to apprehend criminals is identified and yet the statement, "without specific safeguards firmly in place, the possibility for abuse exists". That suggests that we should reasonably expect this system to be abused. I would suggest that the "possibility for abuse" exists in almost every facet of our lives. When you drop your car off for repairs, it could be driven off the lot for personal use, or driven in an abusive manner while on the premises. When you visit your dentist, how can you be certain your tooth really needs filling? When you purchase food from the corner bakery, how can you be certain your muffin was prepared under sanitary conditions? What purpose does it serve to imply that this system could have a negative effect, before such effects of any type have been identified? I'll gladly let my picture be taken by the DMV examiner. It looks to me as if I only need to worry if I decide to become a crook.

Left Wing Troll

October 14, 2009 - 9:14 am EDT

Maybe a re-reading of 1984 is in order. Orwell did a fantastic as well as entertaining job of pointing to the possibilities of "Big Brother" intruding into everyone's lives and freedoms, not just the lawbreakers. When the government is allowed to keep watch on us all, we all become suspect. I for one am willing to give up a few steps to the criminal if it helps safeguard decent society's personal freedoms.

AirDoc

October 14, 2009 - 10:00 am EDT

Thanks for the thoughts Left Wing. I am not familiar with 1984, but I might be soon. I think I will hold off on knowingly giving up any further "steps" to the criminals. It's clear they have had the upper hand for a long time now, especially with the ACLU constantly pursuing the "rights" of rapists and murderers. I'm not sure there's a lot left to give them anyway.

jstevenh1952

October 14, 2009 - 9:36 pm EDT

"A state DMV official told the Associated Press this week, "We're not interested in housing a bunch of photos of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong." Yet, without specific safeguards firmly in place, the possibility for abuse exists."

Could someone from this paper with a semester of high school journalism identify who this "state DMV official" is. Heck for all we know he/or she could be the person that gave me my last eye exam. As usual the News & Record falls short on real journalism. If this person was in authority for policy purposes, then identify him or her or at least let the reader know that this is a qualified quote of some one speaking in annominity. C'mon guys, write the story complete.