13 ms·

FBI Wants to Exempt Its Biometric Database from Some Federal Privacy Rules

149 points by ycnews 10y ago

dang 10y ago
Url changed from http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-database/ http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-database..., which points to this.
King-Aaron 10y ago
Of course they do.
nxzero 10y ago
>> "Having access to your own records would help avoid detection or apprehension, the draft posting said." So, basically security through obscurity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  In the sense that passwords are security through obscurity, yes. Please try to avoid using this trope except when it actually applies; obscurity in the design of a system, not a system keeping some information secret. See the difference? As an extremely obvious example, imagine being able to screen getaway drivers whether or not their face is "on file". Now there's no "known wheelman Bobby was seen driving away with two other men". Helpful in avoiding detection, no? Note that I'm not arguing in favor or against, just trying to play devil's advocate. There's a great deal of group think on these issues around here, and the Other Side never seems to get brought up.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    This is about hiding what they have, how they got it, how they used it, etc. For example, if you discovered the FBI had data that made no sense for them to have, such as an iris scan, you'd not only know they had it, but they they had likely taken it from a distance, and maybe even doing passive scanning too. To be honest, aside from system design vs secret info, not following the position your presenting. To get some idea of how this has to do with sources and methods, look into how Stringray like devices work, how they're used to collect data, how the data is used, etc.
nashashmi 10y ago
> FBI posting claimed it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete” for “authorized law enforcement purposes.” > “With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light," A person is supposed to be investigated for a particular crime. Any actions clearly in association with such crime is considered relevant. But if during the investigation, it is revealed that their are other crimes that the person may be committing, any actions recorded in the past committed in association with a crime found later becomes relevant later. I do not understand the "intent" of the law. Is the FBI prevented from investigating other crimes other than the one initially authorized? Or is the FBI supposed to ignore crimes observed if not relevant to the crime being investigated?
- greglindahl 10y ago
  The intent of the law is to end the J. Edgar Hoover-era practice of keeping files on people who aren't even suspected of a crime... and if they investigate and find nothing, the files should be destroyed.
wmeredith 10y ago
The thing about the rule of law, is that it only works if it applies to everyone.
torkable 10y ago
crooked fucking dickheads
jflatow 10y ago
> The FBI wants to block individuals from knowing if their information is in a massive repository of biometric records, which includes fingerprints and facial scans, if the release of information would "compromise" a law enforcement investigation. These tactics have become so predictable, do the people proposing these things even realize how this comes across? I really wonder what the discussions inside the FBI that lead up to these "proposals" sound like.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  I would guess that request came from FBI agents thinking like criminals. One can imagine criminals using the biometric database as an early-warning system for fleeing the country, or for vetting accomplices. Wanted: safe-cracker whose prints are not in the FBI database. Must provide recent screenshot.
  - jflatow 10y ago
    Sure, but there are many things the FBI could be doing to be more effective. The only thing stopping them is constitutional protection of civil liberties. So I wonder what the conversation sounds like when they determine in this case, they should be exempt from the law.
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      I'm confused by this post, are you saying that you think their request in this case for an exemption during investigations needs further explanation? Or is this more a question of "why this" as opposed to other things that would, as you say, be more effective? "Ongoing investigation" is, in my understanding, a pretty normal reason for law enforcement to not provide information.
      - jflatow 10y ago
        What I mean is that I wonder what the internal dialogue is over this. This is more out of curiosity than indignation, I would like to be a fly on the wall to understand how this happens. It seems to me, no matter what the reason, this is the justification they would give, because its the only reasonable one. But the Privacy Act exists for a reason, so I wonder what prompted them to decide it was worth making this proposal, and the discussion that actually ensued with the lawyers, etc. before making it. In particular, did they weigh the costs/benefits of what they are asking for, or are they just pushing for whatever privileges they can get?
58028641 10y ago
Can the government go at least one day without doing something stupid?
- 58028641 10y ago
  No they can't
- pdkl95 10y ago
  s/government/humans/
throwawaykeno 10y ago
> Aside from criminals, suspects and detainees, the system includes data from people fingerprinted for jobs... or volunteer service, background checks, ... Gotta make sure we keep tabs on those shady volunteers... Jesus.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  It seems shady, but it's pretty common for people working with kids or elderly or disabled to be fingerprinted. There's the possibility of abuse. Volunteers have a weaker affiliation with an organization than employees so some organizations feel the need to go a little further.
  - throwawaykeno 10y ago
    And I can sympathize with that. But those prints should be destroyed -- with a verifiable chain of evidence witnessing their destruction -- immediately after the background check. And people should have the right to inquire about whether prints submitted for background checks of this form are retained. And LEO organizations, including the FBI, shouldn't be allowed to lie. More systemically, routine background checks on people who are not suspected criminals should be handled by an independent organization outside of the FBI.
    - DougWebb 10y ago
      They're not destroyed because the prints aren't just used to determine if the person has committed a crime in the past; they're used in case a crime is committed in the future, and the only evidence for the criminal's identity is fingerprints collected from the scene. Without the records, every potential suspect would have to be fingerprinted again. I'd rather have my prints on file and be automatically cleared of suspicion than have the police show up at my door to bring me in for prints and questioning, especially if there is a high-profile crime (involving children, for example) and the media are digging around the lives of every suspect.
      - caseysoftware 10y ago
jfoutz 10y ago
Information generated with public funds should be public. Law enforcement has two big caveats to that. Information obtained with a warrant should remain protected until trial, and only information used in the case should be made public. Second, Ongoing investigations clearly should stay secret. I'm sure there are sensible exceptions for tax, military and intelligence services. But seriously, what the hell. We're paying for it, why can't we see it? The general policy needs to be openness. Historically, i understand finding that stuff was a pain in the neck, shuffling around papers in filing cabinets. This is the information age. Read only access to everything is achievable and, i think, desirable.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Imagine if every email and report that you wrote at work was broadcast to the whole world and subject the vicious (yet shallow and unfair) scrutiny of the 24-hour news cycle. Can you see how that would hamper your ability to your job effectively?
  - geggam 10y ago
    I can see how it would cause a problem if you weren't doing you job right or had no intention to. Outside of that... not really.
    - DougWebb 10y ago
      "weren't doing your job right" and "had no intention to" are hugely subjective. Anyone with an axe to grind could go through your information and find whatever they need to twist the apparent meaning to prove that you weren't doing your job "right" and had no intention to. It's really easy to take information out of context and make it appear to mean something it doesn't.
      - geggam 10y ago
        I guess that means you don't want to be a public servant exposed to public scrutiny ? That is part of the job.
meowschwitz 10y ago
FBI is using this data in the lowest most incompetent way. Entrapment, coercion, blackmail, harrassment, falsified evidence, perjury, illegal open ended investigations, is their m.o. Corporations, foreign governments, cops, informants, christian hate groups all have direct or indirect access to this database. Why don't we? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfbi-admit-they-may-have-abused-hair-analysis-to-convict-hundreds-to-thousands-innocent-people.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfb...
the_ancient 10y ago
People are really focusing on the wrong thing... The issue is not the government wants to exempt themselves from FOIA, or Privacy Laws The issue is that the government is allowed to compile these databases in the first place. If I am not under active investigation, then the FBI has no business keeping records on me in the first place. If I am not suspected of a crime, they should not have my face, my prints, or anything else about me in their databases. I dont even agree with giving them the authority to keep records of people convicted of any crime in the past forever. There should be auto expunge say after 10 years with out any further criminal conviction especially for crimes that do not involve injury to another party (aka drug crimes, serious traffic offenses and other "victimless crimes" )
godgod 10y ago
In other words, The FBI doesn't want to play by the rules.

149 points by ycnews 10y ago

dang 10y ago

Url changed from http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-database/ http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-database..., which points to this.

King-Aaron 10y ago

Of course they do.

nxzero 10y ago

>> "Having access to your own records would help avoid detection or apprehension, the draft posting said." So, basically security through obscurity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Godel_unicode 10y ago
In the sense that passwords are security through obscurity, yes. Please try to avoid using this trope except when it actually applies; obscurity in the design of a system, not a system keeping some information secret. See the difference? As an extremely obvious example, imagine being able to screen getaway drivers whether or not their face is "on file". Now there's no "known wheelman Bobby was seen driving away with two other men". Helpful in avoiding detection, no? Note that I'm not arguing in favor or against, just trying to play devil's advocate. There's a great deal of group think on these issues around here, and the Other Side never seems to get brought up.
- nxzero 10y ago
  This is about hiding what they have, how they got it, how they used it, etc. For example, if you discovered the FBI had data that made no sense for them to have, such as an iris scan, you'd not only know they had it, but they they had likely taken it from a distance, and maybe even doing passive scanning too. To be honest, aside from system design vs secret info, not following the position your presenting. To get some idea of how this has to do with sources and methods, look into how Stringray like devices work, how they're used to collect data, how the data is used, etc.

nashashmi 10y ago

> FBI posting claimed it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete” for “authorized law enforcement purposes.” > “With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light," A person is supposed to be investigated for a particular crime. Any actions clearly in association with such crime is considered relevant. But if during the investigation, it is revealed that their are other crimes that the person may be committing, any actions recorded in the past committed in association with a crime found later becomes relevant later. I do not understand the "intent" of the law. Is the FBI prevented from investigating other crimes other than the one initially authorized? Or is the FBI supposed to ignore crimes observed if not relevant to the crime being investigated?

greglindahl 10y ago
The intent of the law is to end the J. Edgar Hoover-era practice of keeping files on people who aren't even suspected of a crime... and if they investigate and find nothing, the files should be destroyed.

wmeredith 10y ago

The thing about the rule of law, is that it only works if it applies to everyone.

torkable 10y ago

crooked fucking dickheads

jflatow 10y ago

> The FBI wants to block individuals from knowing if their information is in a massive repository of biometric records, which includes fingerprints and facial scans, if the release of information would "compromise" a law enforcement investigation. These tactics have become so predictable, do the people proposing these things even realize how this comes across? I really wonder what the discussions inside the FBI that lead up to these "proposals" sound like.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
I would guess that request came from FBI agents thinking like criminals. One can imagine criminals using the biometric database as an early-warning system for fleeing the country, or for vetting accomplices. Wanted: safe-cracker whose prints are not in the FBI database. Must provide recent screenshot.
- jflatow 10y ago
  Sure, but there are many things the FBI could be doing to be more effective. The only thing stopping them is constitutional protection of civil liberties. So I wonder what the conversation sounds like when they determine in this case, they should be exempt from the law.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    I'm confused by this post, are you saying that you think their request in this case for an exemption during investigations needs further explanation? Or is this more a question of "why this" as opposed to other things that would, as you say, be more effective? "Ongoing investigation" is, in my understanding, a pretty normal reason for law enforcement to not provide information.
    - jflatow 10y ago
      What I mean is that I wonder what the internal dialogue is over this. This is more out of curiosity than indignation, I would like to be a fly on the wall to understand how this happens. It seems to me, no matter what the reason, this is the justification they would give, because its the only reasonable one. But the Privacy Act exists for a reason, so I wonder what prompted them to decide it was worth making this proposal, and the discussion that actually ensued with the lawyers, etc. before making it. In particular, did they weigh the costs/benefits of what they are asking for, or are they just pushing for whatever privileges they can get?

58028641 10y ago

Can the government go at least one day without doing something stupid?

58028641 10y ago
No they can't
pdkl95 10y ago
s/government/humans/

throwawaykeno 10y ago

> Aside from criminals, suspects and detainees, the system includes data from people fingerprinted for jobs... or volunteer service, background checks, ... Gotta make sure we keep tabs on those shady volunteers... Jesus.

jfoutz 10y ago
It seems shady, but it's pretty common for people working with kids or elderly or disabled to be fingerprinted. There's the possibility of abuse. Volunteers have a weaker affiliation with an organization than employees so some organizations feel the need to go a little further.
- throwawaykeno 10y ago
  And I can sympathize with that. But those prints should be destroyed -- with a verifiable chain of evidence witnessing their destruction -- immediately after the background check. And people should have the right to inquire about whether prints submitted for background checks of this form are retained. And LEO organizations, including the FBI, shouldn't be allowed to lie. More systemically, routine background checks on people who are not suspected criminals should be handled by an independent organization outside of the FBI.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    They're not destroyed because the prints aren't just used to determine if the person has committed a crime in the past; they're used in case a crime is committed in the future, and the only evidence for the criminal's identity is fingerprints collected from the scene. Without the records, every potential suspect would have to be fingerprinted again. I'd rather have my prints on file and be automatically cleared of suspicion than have the police show up at my door to bring me in for prints and questioning, especially if there is a high-profile crime (involving children, for example) and the media are digging around the lives of every suspect.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago

jfoutz 10y ago

Information generated with public funds should be public. Law enforcement has two big caveats to that. Information obtained with a warrant should remain protected until trial, and only information used in the case should be made public. Second, Ongoing investigations clearly should stay secret. I'm sure there are sensible exceptions for tax, military and intelligence services. But seriously, what the hell. We're paying for it, why can't we see it? The general policy needs to be openness. Historically, i understand finding that stuff was a pain in the neck, shuffling around papers in filing cabinets. This is the information age. Read only access to everything is achievable and, i think, desirable.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Imagine if every email and report that you wrote at work was broadcast to the whole world and subject the vicious (yet shallow and unfair) scrutiny of the 24-hour news cycle. Can you see how that would hamper your ability to your job effectively?
- geggam 10y ago
  I can see how it would cause a problem if you weren't doing you job right or had no intention to. Outside of that... not really.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    "weren't doing your job right" and "had no intention to" are hugely subjective. Anyone with an axe to grind could go through your information and find whatever they need to twist the apparent meaning to prove that you weren't doing your job "right" and had no intention to. It's really easy to take information out of context and make it appear to mean something it doesn't.
    - geggam 10y ago
      I guess that means you don't want to be a public servant exposed to public scrutiny ? That is part of the job.

meowschwitz 10y ago

FBI is using this data in the lowest most incompetent way. Entrapment, coercion, blackmail, harrassment, falsified evidence, perjury, illegal open ended investigations, is their m.o. Corporations, foreign governments, cops, informants, christian hate groups all have direct or indirect access to this database. Why don't we? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfbi-admit-they-may-have-abused-hair-analysis-to-convict-hundreds-to-thousands-innocent-people.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfb...

the_ancient 10y ago

People are really focusing on the wrong thing... The issue is not the government wants to exempt themselves from FOIA, or Privacy Laws The issue is that the government is allowed to compile these databases in the first place. If I am not under active investigation, then the FBI has no business keeping records on me in the first place. If I am not suspected of a crime, they should not have my face, my prints, or anything else about me in their databases. I dont even agree with giving them the authority to keep records of people convicted of any crime in the past forever. There should be auto expunge say after 10 years with out any further criminal conviction especially for crimes that do not involve injury to another party (aka drug crimes, serious traffic offenses and other "victimless crimes" )

godgod 10y ago

In other words, The FBI doesn't want to play by the rules.