Police To Begin iPhone Iris Scans 197
cultiv8 writes "Dozens of police departments nationwide are gearing up to use a tech company's already controversial iris- and facial-scanning device that slides over an iPhone and helps identify a person or track criminal suspects. The smartphone-based scanner, named Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, or MORIS, is made by BI2 Technologies in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and can be deployed by officers out on the beat or back at the station. An iris scan, which detects unique patterns in a person's eyes, can reduce to seconds the time it takes to identify a suspect in custody. This technique also is significantly more accurate than results from other fingerprinting technology long in use by police, BI2 says. When attached to an iPhone, MORIS can photograph a person's face and run the image through software that hunts for a match in a BI2-managed database of U.S. criminal records. Each unit costs about $3,000."
And Lemme Guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does a normal picture at a reasonable distance, even a distance as small as a foot, manage to get an accurate representation of one's iris? I don't think that even the highest quality cameras on the market are that good. The camera must be in one's face and the subject must not move, blink, or move one's eye (which could require some kind of restraining of the individual).
Obtaining an iris scan is probably invasive enough to require a compelling reason to perform it, and my guess is that under most circumstances that means that one is either 1) already being arrested, or 2) being served a warrant for the collection of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is there a constitutional right to privacy. There are certain searches and seizures that require a warrant, and certain protections against self testimony etc, but nowhere am I aware of any constitutional right to not be photographed.
You can argue about whether it is "police-state scary" or not, but to call it unconstitutional seems a little ridiculous.
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a picture of someone, fine.
Hold them down to scan their iris though? Gimme a break...
Re: (Score:2)
why? don't we have this awesome [youtube.com] tech today [youtube.com]? It will only get better in the future [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I think pretty much every lawyer would LOVE to take a case where police, with no warrant, court order, or probable cause, physically restrained someone. That would (IANAL, IMO, etc) seem to be a pretty clear violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
But im still not seeing how someone taking an iris scan of you unawares would violate that, or how it is substantially different than photographing you and then
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:4, Informative)
You might want to think again and look up all the lawsuits that celebrities have filed against paparazzi for using giant telephoto lens to take pictures through their house windows and all of that. The photographers are on public property but that still doesn't get them out of trouble most of the time. There is also the issue of you are not free to photograph just anyone for any reason you want. There are court rulings, thus laws against that as well. There is also the issue of recording people, and their expectation of privacy. There are loads of legal precedence to cover privacy. It isn't in the Constitution per-say but many will and have argued that "the pursuit of happiness" and right against "unreasonable search and seizure" are the foundations for expected privacy. Many people have argued quite successfully that those are directly things that show people have a right to be left alone, thus privacy. There is a lot of case law that backs up this idea as well. So while you think you may be right that there is no Constitutional right to privacy, I would bet that in fact most lawyers would say that is not the case and you are not looking at the intent of the founding fathers and what they wrote about before and while crafting the Constitution. Remember many of the states forced compromises on the federal government to sign the Constitution because they wanted the federal government to stay the hell out of the states business and let them run things rather than the federal government always telling them what they can and can't do. They also wanted the governments in general to stay the hell out of people's lives other than the absolute bare minimum that was required. Somehow this country has gotten so very far away from that idea. So clearly what you are saying is not correct in reality. You do have a legal expectation of privacy in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
per se.
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Informative)
The constitution limits what the government can do, not what you can't do. However, the US Supreme Court has declared that the "Right to Privacy" is inherent from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th & 14th Amendments.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html [umkc.edu]
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy [usconstitution.net]
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the same thing (mostly because the apple store trick has zero evidentiary value, whereas this tool has concerns of false positives), but it's worth saying that both are fine by me. actually, both are pretty nifty.
all this does is check against criminal records more efficiently. apart from possible false positives, what's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't really the use of this device in general. It's the specifics of when, where, and under what circumstances it's used.
To determine identity of someone who is arrested upon probable cause is one thing. To detain people simply to use it, absent probable cause, is something entirely different. Given the way many officers view their work, it is in no way unreasonable to believe there are many who would see no problem using them someplace like a DUI checkpoint. It's no different from stopping and
Re: (Score:2)
>all this does is check against criminal records more efficiently. apart from possible false positives, what's wrong with that?
exactly, false positives. I am OK with it being used to confirm identities. IE person claims to be Joe Smith, check against Joe Smith only, fine. But it is the guaranteed outcome of being search against a database without checks and balances, for no reason that scares me. IE I am scanned, and records get swapped with a bad guy, then scanned at airport and locked up for no oth
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension fail. My post was specifically addressing whether or not iris scanners were unconstitutional. Your reply indicated you read an endorsement into my post.
I nowhere in any of my posts on this topic indicated whether I am for or against such scanners; I simply want to eliminate the bad arguments on the topic, much as I try to do in the Millimeter Wave Scanner discussions any time someone tries to claim that they cause cancer (they dont, theyre different than backscatter machines, etc).
Po
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it WOULD be a search at that point. My post was only addressing the specific scenario of someone doing a scan only, from a distance, not restraining you.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, photographs are also detailed searches, once they hit a certain megapixel range. I do not believe that to be a correct interpretation of the constitution.
If youre against it, fine, push for legislation, but dont read things into the constitution that arent there.
Re: (Score:2)
O boys. The people who measure cameras in megapixels and learned photographing using the iphone have overrun us. For sure there a cameras which can photograph the iris in sufficient quality, even from a foot away. Just a matter of the optics. As a matter of fact, many compact cameras nowadays have excellent macro properties. I think for the quite cheap one i bought the resolution is better than .1mm in macro mode. And i wouldn't know why taking a photo i the iris should be slower than any other photo, under
Anonymity vs. Privacy (Score:2)
Iris scan works at 6 inches and requires corporation.
Face scan works at 6 feet and does not require corporation.
They are being treated differently.
The Chief of Police in Boston [I think - WSJ had an article on this last week] said that he was instructing his police officers to use the face scan whenever. That is was just like taking a picture or other observation techniques that the police use. I think this has been tested in court. Iris scans were only to be administered when there was probably cause. I t
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I suddenly have images of Minority Report in my mind... little spiders built with this technology in it, remotely controlled, identifying everyone in a building quickly... completely disregarding the rights of the people to be secure from unreasonable search...
Re: (Score:3)
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
Whether or not something SHOULD be in the constitution is irrelevant when discussing whether or not something IS unconstitutional.
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, anything in "plain view" is obviously not protected by the 4th amendment. Seems to me that although your iris is in "plain view", specific details about it are not. Anything that requires a $3000 lens assembly attached to a sophisticated piece of electronic equipment cannot possibly be regarded as "in plain view" by any reasonable person. The problem is that lawyers and police officers are usually far from reasonable and generally have little, if any, common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in actual practice, the 9th amendment means nothing. Since it is non-specific, the courts ignore it completely. That, and the 10th amendment.
What should have been two of the most important amendments in the Constitution currently mean jack, since they were written to essentially say again that the Federal government has no authority over anything not specifically granted them. The Feds have goatsed the Commerce Clause out to cover absolutely everything, which limits the 9th and 10th amendment
Re: (Score:2)
What if I had a really good dSLR with
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
People forget what the founding fathers said about rights. They said that all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever. Right absolutely do not come from the government in any way shape or form. You have every right you were born with, unless that right is specifically taken away. I do not see any laws passed or things added to the US Constitution that says I have to give up my right to privacy. So until such a law is passed by the majority of the people, I will always have my right to privacy and it doesn't come from the government to allow me the right to privacy. You have to understand what the US Constitution actually is, what it is crafted to do, and what powers and rights it gives to the Federal government. It also helps if you read the federalist papers, the letters and such written around that time, and the Constitutional Congress minutes to get an idea of what they were trying to do. You might want to look at what was going on in Europe and how it was run to get an idea of how they were trying to do things differently.
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are referring to Kyllo v United States [wikipedia.org] which ruled exactly the opposite of what you have stated. The court concluded that using infrared cameras to scan homes for leaking heat is a search and thus requires a warrant under the fourth amendment. The basis for the court's opinion was very similar to the grandparent post.
The ruling did indeed involve Thomas who joined the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision. Quite frankly I would consider any court that reverses the ruling to be less sane.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the ruling was a fucking joke.
The key wording is that the FLIR cameras were "not in general use by the public" and were therefore disallowed.
Several appellate courts have now ruled that in their jurisdictions, the cameras are "widely available to the public" and therefore "in general use" and therefore no longer covered by the Kyllo ruling.
Always gotta watch for the weasel words that bribed assholes like Thomas slip into the rulings. The devil's in the details...
Re: (Score:2)
Name a few please.
It seems like you just have a boner for thomas and think anything you can imagine that makes him look bad is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Always gotta watch for the weasel words that bribed assholes like Thomas slip into the rulings.
There is one problem with this comment...Justice Thomas did NOT write the majority opinion, therefore, he didn't put any weasel words into it. Just because you are a racist who thinks that any black who is not a liberal must be corrupt, does not make Justice Thomas the source of evil.
Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution was not intended to be about citizens. It originally enumerated responsibilities of the government, and placed restrictions on the government.
The Bill of Rights were amendments placed there to appease the fears of certain states who worried the federal government might get out of hand.
These amendments are not some whitelist of rights that the founders generously allowed us little people, they are lines in the sand that indicate when the federal government is becoming the master instead of the servant.
This "there is no constitutional right" thinking is bullshit. We The People have the right to do anything the hell we want that doesn't infringe on the rights of our brothers.
What the government thinks our rights should be is [supposed to be] irrelevant - if we want their opinion, we should give it to them.
But alas, we have collectively accepted a role as obedient subjects to a higher authority, and The Constitution has become just another brand of toilet paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% correct. The founding fathers point blank said all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever but they absolutely do not come from the government. It is not the government that gives us rights, they believed we are born with them and they all believed that they came from our creator. The only thing the federal government is suppose to be able to do is make rules/laws about when someone's rights are trampled on by someone else. You are 100% correct that the 10 Amendments ar
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume a warrant is necessary? There's no constitutional right to not be photographed.
Except that I've copyrighted my face and all derivative works. And patented my DNA and its derivative works.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't understand what the US Constitution is and exactly what it is crafted to do. It is list of what the Federal government is allowed, along with a few examples of what they can not do. They set it up not to limit people but to severely limit the Federal government. If it isn't allowed in the Constitution for the Federal government to do it, then they can not do it period. The courts and the Supreme Court over the years have been allowed to get completely out of hand. They have been allowed to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list.
It was intended to be. The Constitution was intended to be an exhaustive list of the powers of the Federal government. The Tenth Ammendment was written to emphasize this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Further, James Madison said this: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevole
Re: (Score:2)
Is there really no constitutional protection against arbitrary surveillance in the US? In the EU the state photographing a particular person is unlawful without a good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, sorry - that should say "in Europe" not "in the EU" - the law comes from the European Convention on Human Rights so it's wider than the EU (or Europe, really).
Re: (Score:2)
There is, but it's ignored. That would be the 9th amendment, but it has been ignored for the majority of US history since it's completely open-ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is, in fact, a right to privacy. The 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments make that abundantly clear. So do many Supreme Court rulings, though the Roberts court has made great strides in reversing that.
In addition, the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in limiting technology used against individuals. In general, if it cannot be accomplished by a human without the technology, it requires a warrant to use against an individual. Someone can be identified via photograph or by visual recognition. The same
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you assume those renegades are red?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is indeed a very slippery slope. Once you start sliding there is no stopping and boy have we slid far.
Re: (Score:2)
But in order to scan you well enough to put you into the database they have to line you up against a wall and have you hold your eye open, etc
Or a little device on a building roof / policeman's helmet will quickly scan your irises before you even notice (like the devices in public areas in Minority Report). The policeman's helmet could even project an AR display over the world, showing the prior arrest records, warrants and suspect status of everyone who walks by. It would also turn all police officers, police vehicles (manned and unmanned) and public surveillance cameras into one big hive mind that can work together to locate anyone.
Iris-obscuri
Eeh. In private hands? (Score:2)
As many problems as there are in government databases, they generally don't use the contents of the databases for marketing, and they're supposed to attempt to keep access to the data restricted to only those with legitimate reason. That could include law enforcement or legal officials, or the person who is the subject of the file, with the proper request. It's also easier (note, I didn't say easy) to get improper data corrected. Law enforcement, being a portion of the executive branch in whatever jurisd
Re: (Score:3)
You can continue to think that.
Florida made $62 million by selling Florida drivers' license information [wptv.com]
Drivers histories $40 [ustrace.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You have been sadly deceived. The states have sold their databases to the highest bidders on many many occasions. You should also look at the Fusion Centers that are not government groups/divisions but rather private companies that are supported with grants from the federal government and full database access to all the government criminal and regular databases. They have full access to law enforcement and routinely send out information to law enforcement as to what they should be doing and the types of peo
Why iPhone? (Score:3)
Re:Why iPhone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because procurement and purchasing managers are suckers for marketing, just like everyone else.
If a department issues smartphones to its officers then I could understand possibly integrating some other technology into the smartphone. If the department issues digital-trunking two-way radios, it would make a lot more sense to add a digital, non-voice component to the radio system to allow equipment to speak through the officer's radio to a central computer, then on to whatever remote database is in use. Com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My question is the opposite - why is this a big bulky hardware add-on instead of simply using the camera already in the phone? I think somebody could approximate this functionality in a $2 app. (Perhaps it would require a close-up focus lens as well?) Hmm, it looks like it may have a fingerprint reader built-in, too. (Just like my Thinkpad!)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says it performs an "iris scan". From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
iris recognition uses camera technology, with subtle infrared illumination reducing specular reflection from the convex cornea, to create images of the detail-rich, intricate structures of the iris.
What a waste. (Score:3)
I don't understand why an iPhone is necessary here. Surely they could have included all the necessary components an iPhone would provide and it would even be cheaper. Sounds like unnecessary baggage tied in to look more trendy. Since when do police apartments need to look trendy?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't catch the Slashdot story on the Army issuing iPhones to soldiers, did you? Everybody's enamored of the things.
Re:What a waste. (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. I can't afford an iphone, but taxes are being taken from my meager paycheck in order to give them to police officers and soldiers?
You probably can't afford a tank or fighter plane either and taxes are taken from your paycheck in order to give them to soldiers. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not very much up to date with American history so please remind me when was the last time tanks and fighter planes were used in the *defense* of *your* country.
Re: (Score:2)
Fighters: December 7, 1941.
Plus the fighting in the vicinity of Wake Island shortly thereafter.
Arguably, that could be extended to the fighting that followed immediately thereafter in the Philippines.
Tanks. Couldn't say that they ever have. Course, we never bothered with them all that much till we had to bail Europe out of that little disa
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK, high school history never makes it up to WW2. There was this Pear Harbor thing, and then the Aleutian Islands.
Why the rush to identify the suspect? (Score:3)
Why is it so important to reduce the amount of time to seconds to identify a suspect? At this point, when you're taking a picture of a suspect's eye, the person is either freely cooperating or has been beaten down and is cuffed and forced to cooperate. And the cops already had a good idea of who they were after (at least in some, but admittedly not all) cases.
Before this is seen as solving a problem I think we need to know how long it takes to identify a suspect now, and what happens in the time allegedly saved with the old system and new one?
Finally, this will only work if you're already in the system, right? So it will only reduce time on those folks that have already been caught, had their picture taken, and are then caught again by a cop with this application in a jurisdiction where the cop can access the data?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, this will only work if you're already in the system, right? So it will only reduce time on those folks that have already been caught, had their picture taken, and are then caught again by a cop with this application in a jurisdiction where the cop can access the data?
Ever take an eye exam while renewing your driver's license? Your iris scans may already be on file!
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it - I can't remember ever having an exchange with a county, city, state or federal agency where I had a measurement like that taken. Height and weight? Self-reported by me for my driver's license and passport. Never divulged blood type, and hair and eye color were also self-reported. Even may race was. Too bad I didn't use my last passport renewal (done in person) to see what I could have gotten a
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it - I can't remember ever having an exchange with a county, city, state or federal agency where I had a measurement like that taken
I am in Ohio and when you renew your driver's license they require you to take a rudimentary vision test. It takes a minute or two but it would be a perfect time to acquire this information if you happen to be a member of the tinfoil hat crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
'Reducing the time to identify' is merely a byproduct. The next step will be to incorporate this into the routine DWI roadblocks.
Years ago, a roadblock on the street to stop everyone would have been laughed at. Years from now, 'Look into the camera' will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DWI/DUI laws were the first place where many of the most egregious abuses by law enforcement started. The first time a blanket stop-and-search without probable cause was allowed was because of such laws.
Re: (Score:2)
So that I don't have to spend the night in jail because you raped your social worker and we have the same haircut.
Re: (Score:2)
Scanning suspects (Score:2)
Remember, that as a *suspect* you can be scanned, cataloged and the records kept forever, even if its found that you have no part of the crime being investigated.
Its not just criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm a few years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most current images probably do not have the resolution for that; but give it a year or two.
My understanding is that while megapixel counts are still increasing those extra megapixels are generally wasted because the optics aren't up to capturing any more information and sensors with smaller pixels are also noisier.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the crazy-high resolutions cameras are reaching now, I wouldn't be surprised if current professional DSLRs could do the job. Optics have been the limiting factor for a few years now.
Better not be doing it without consent. (Score:2)
If a civilian did this to a police officer they'd be arrested for wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is a very backward place where police are using wiretapping laws against citizens..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain that if you used an electronic device to identify a police officer based on their facial appearance or iris scan, you wouldn't be accused of wiretapping. I won't claim that you won't be accused of *anything*, but certainly not wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely with that confidence you can point to a court ruling where photography (not video) was determined to be wiretapping.
Facial Recognition Screws With the Wrong Man (Score:4, Informative)
From gizmodo [gizmodo.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facial Recognition Screws With the Wrong Man (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, if the sample from the crime scene came from a white male of non-jewish decent, then that sample profile will match something like 15% of all white males of non-jewish decent. Even more, it will match all the males in a particular blood line. (depending on sample).
Re:Facial Recognition Screws With the Wrong Man (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up.
DNA testing is far more useful to prove exclusion with great confidence, because the 'match' size is only one to one. But - that does NOT mean we can extend this methodology to prove a positive match against a database with thousands of random entries. If a sample does not match the suspect, then it can generally be shown that the sample did NOT originate from the suspect - the inverse however, is not necessarily true.
When samples do match to some degree, it can only be shown that there is some likelihood that a sample came from the suspect - a likelihood that is completely dependent on the search criteria and database size when matching the sample to a list of 'suspects'. The bigger the database, the less reliable the result.
For example, if a there are three unrelated people in a room, and I take a sample from each one of them, then a lab could determine with extreme confidence which sample goes with which person. If I do the same with 10000 random people in the room, the probability of correctly identifying a given sample falls dramatically - in fact, it is likely that the sample will 'match' hundreds of people.
As can be seen from the above examples, Gataca / [insert favourite TV crime show] style DNA matching is still far from realistic with current technology.
Re: (Score:2)
If a sample does not match the suspect, then it can generally be shown that the sample did NOT originate from the suspect
It has recently be proven false in some cases, see human chimerism [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What it IS useful for (Score:2)
What happens (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What happens (Score:5, Insightful)
You pre-suppose that I did anything.
If I am randomly stopped by a police officer who wishes to take an iris scan, this isn't about me being innocent and 'working with the police to prove my innocence' ... This completely violates the assumption that I am innocent in the first place. On what basis have you established that I might not be innocent? Because you don't like my hat?
I seriously don't get people who think it is natural that I should subject myself to being arbitrarily catalogued and identified on the whim of some cop with a shiny gadget.
There used to be a presumption that I was free to go about my business, until a police officer had probable cause. In your version of things, random stops and 'papers please' becomes the norm ... This is not what a free society does.
What you are effectively saying is "think of the children" ... The mistaken belief that we should allwaive our rights so that the nebulous concept of "the greater good" can be served.
Fuck that.
Police don't get to walk up to me on the street and 'suggest' that I allow myself to be fingerprinted ... WTF is different about this just because it s fast and automated?
If you don't get this, you are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't get this, you are part of the problem.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of the population in one way or another. If you're singled out, obviously you must have done something wrong. No cop ever singles someone out for reasons other than cause based on actual evidence. A cop is never prone to personal bias, or retaliatory behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I am probably exagerating a little, but there's no good that can come from this. Living in the UK sometimes I dream that we had a beautiful document
Why iphone? (Score:3)
No, that's still going to be too expensive relative to the additional safety provided to citizens. Just scrap the whole idea.
UK does mobile fingerprint already (Score:3)
One small step ahead of the kit readily available the UK police for a while now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8549875.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Of course we've got decent Data Protection Legislation and one dat we'll get a DPC with teeth to enforce them !
Re: (Score:2)
No, just bite the bullet and tattoo bar code (Score:2)
Just drop all pretense and laser burn bar code onto everyone's forehead already.We're nothing but numbers to them anyhow.