This device is quite spooky but we need some perspective.

As used currently in the USA, suspects are approached by the police and asked to pose so that an eye can be photographed. The suspect has to be a willing participant in the process; iris scans don’t work well if the subject is moving around. This bit of the process alone takes a couple of minutes.

A digital fingerprint (a checksum) of the photo is generated on the iPhone, submitted to a database and compared with existing digital fingerprints. If the digital fingerprint matches a record, more searches, based on name, are conducted because criminal and immigration records are stored in hundreds of databases. You could probably make another cup of tea while this happens.

The process only differs from current stop and search in the technology that is used. If you are asked for ID by a police officer, that ID is used to confirm identity. In the UK, of course, most people do not carry formal ID (passport, identity card), and it takes a while to establish identity.

And in the UK, of course, there are few ID databases of iris scans. The technology can only work if police hold the biometric data and the only large scale database of iris scans is maintained by the UK Border Agency (based on samples provided by travellers who wish to use a fast track immigration clearing system at four UK airports). The UKBA system called IRIS takes about 20 seconds to process a scan accessing a single white list database.

I am not arguing for complacency, but I think that civil libertarians are winning the argument about state storage of biometric data. We are still waiting for the state to purge DNA data from innocent people who submitted a voluntary sample.

Thankfully, the state does not own a database of iris scans. To kill off the MORIS system in the UK, we have to resist creation of a police managed database and to restrict access to the UK Border Agency database (I suspect that this is already the case under the Data Protection Acts because the scans were provided for a specific purpose).

Later, perhaps, we can discuss false positives.

Here is another description of the MORIS system:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=3292804&pagtype=samechandate

“Would police abuse this face-recognition tech if it came here?”

They abuse everything else don’t they?

“Would police abuse this face-recognition tech if it came here?”

I’d call that a racing certainty. Indeed I’d say the system itself is abusive.

@2. Cylux: “They abuse everything else don’t they?”

Who are “they”?

The police currently hold databases of finger fingerprints and DNA samples. The police does not have a database of iris scans. Abuse of an iris scan database by the police can be thwarted by not creating a database, or by imposing limits on use of a database.

Technology isn’t the problem. The problem is humans.

@3. Trooper Thompson, quoting OP: “Would police abuse this face-recognition tech if it came here?”

Facial recognition systems are crude. Real world trials of them deliver comical results.

The utility of any biometric identity system is whether the technology works better than a human being. For speedy immigration control, an iris scan works. But currently there are no facial recognition systems that are as accurate as a half-pissed human. On the basis of scientific research into cognition and computer systems, accurate facial recognition is future science.

Yes Charlieman but from MORIS it is only a step up before the technology is upgraded and iris/facial scans can be taken from even further away and whilst the subject is moving.

It has to be nipped in the bud before we have MORIS upgrades on the streets being used by the police.

@6

Fair enough, Rizwan, but this technology doesn’t work by Moore’s Law. We are many years away from the police owning cameras that can iris scan from a distance. And what about spectacle wearers like me? My special ultra thin lenses are thicker than the bottom of a beer bottle.

In essence, the concern is about policing, not the technology. If citizens have control of policing and the quality of evidence that is used in court, technology is irrelevant.

@5

Genuine question – Facebook appears to already have quite well-developed facial recognition technology – although not without its problems – what is to stop the police importing this into their arsenal?

@5 Charlieman,

agreeing with Rizwan (I think!) it’s only a matter of time. I don’t believe we should be complacent on the grounds that the technology is currently lacking.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how my civil liberties are enhanced by making police identifications less accurate. My preference would have been for the DNA database to be universal.

btw I hadn’t read your comment @7 when I wrote the above

For a Lib-Dem non-conspiracy see -
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/search/label/Tobin%20Tax

Another huge problem with this technology is that although there are potential problems associated with exporting it to a (more or less) regulated democracy like the UK, imagine the problems associated with exporting the technology to non-democratic nations with histories of infringing civil liberties!

It just seems as if this technology can harm freedom in a lot of ways…

@Charlieman, you do raise very good points. This is an issue which definitely needs to be discussed more.

@8. Mr S. Pill: “Facebook appears to already have quite well-developed facial recognition technology…”

Facebook, naturally, do not say much about how their technology works. It obviously works best with photos that are mug shots — full on facials or profiles. The image quality of the photograph is also important.

Wikipedia has a tolerable article about how the technology operates at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system

If you are familiar with Crime Watch, the limitations of CCTV cameras are obvious. You could watch your brother robbing an off licence on CCTV and be unable to identify him. CCTV cameras record hours and hours of stuff, and the recording has to be stored on tape or disk. Digital cameras do not solve the problem because we have the same storage problem, with the additional problem of managing QoS (Quality of Service) over a network link.

In order to manage the data storage/transmission problem, CCTV operators drop the quality. And if you reduce quality, you cannot perform facial recognition.

If the police know that Sid wishes to bomb the Olympic stadium, they’ll erect hi-res camera points specifically to spot Sid’s face; they’ll use computers and humans in combination; the computers will throw up lots of false positives and a few spectators will get strip searched at a tube station.

Where we are now is that facial recognition can only work in the wide world when dedicated systems are deployed and that they don’t work well. The next link is nine years old and technology hasn’t moved on much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/13/ukcrime.jamesmeek

Following on to my inept reply to Rizwan regarding Moore’s Law. When computer science became an acknowledged discipline in 1950, computer scientists reckoned that it would be a few decades before computers could mimic humans. But it took them 30 odd years to build a computer that could beat a human at chess. See also Turing Test.

I don’t read science fiction and have no long term predictions. All that I can say is that you have to look at the humans.

@9. Trooper Thompson: “I don’t believe we should be complacent on the grounds that the technology is currently lacking.”

It is not about “this particular example of technology”. There will be another tech tweak next month or next year. And we don’t solve civil liberties concerns if we explicitly address “this particular example of technology”. We maintain civil liberty independently of technology.

@13. Rizwan Syed: “Another huge problem with this technology is that although there are potential problems associated with exporting it to a (more or less) regulated democracy like the UK, imagine the problems associated with exporting the technology to non-democratic nations with histories of infringing civil liberties!”

An authoritarian state can pluck a citizen from the street and use an iris scanner to determine identity. But the central database only works if all citizens are in it. Or perhaps, for a new citizen, wait 15 minutes and refresh.

But if you operate an authoritarian government, why bother? You are in control anyway.

“Would police abuse this face-recognition tech if it came here?”

Yes.

This has been another simple answer to a simple question.

As Goebbels used to say: Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. And look what happened to him. He murdered his children and committed suicide.

As I keep suggesting, I think it would be useful to have personal ID cards with biometrics. We had ID cards during WW2 – less the biometrics, of course – and we have passports which are including biometrics.

I would certainly find it helpful to have handy proof of ID when collecting undelivered mail or applying for pensioner passes. Lots of European countries have ID cards without having to grapple with the hysteria generated here. I suspect face recognition technology is already deployed to an extent to pick out football hooligans at matches and in passport control in Europe:
http://www.3dface.org/files/papers/busch-Net-ID08-3dface-border-control.pdf

Like Jimmy I have never understood the problem of having everyone’s DNA or iris scans on a universal database.

@19. Fungus: “Like Jimmy I have never understood the problem of having everyone’s DNA or iris scans on a universal database.”

It is about the false positives. Biometric fingerprints are not unique and it is easy to fake stuff by distributing bio evidence at a crime scene.

If a computer system generates loads of false positives, you ignore it.

It’s worth remarking that terrorism and crime have driven this quest for better and foolproof personal identification systems. My grand parents related how it was possible to cross international frontiers without passports before WW1.

If this technology makes convictions safer then with the proper control measures in place it may have it’s uses. Indont see it being Thst much different to fingerprint identification but let’s say after a terrorist attack has taken place and the suspect is still at large strategically placed retina scanners found be very useful.

Like I say it is all about have transparent control measures to prevent abuse.

@20

Agree there is no point in introducing the technology if it generates lots of false positives.

However isn;t the OP about potential abuse of the technology? How can this technology be abused anymore than the current technology? Distributing fake evidence has always been possible.

Plus, lets not forget the Police’s current habit of taking photos of attendees at peaceful protests.

But I’m sure if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to fear…

“Would police abuse this face-recognition tech?”

How would it be abused, exactly? I don’t understand the knee-jerk paranoid reaction to these things like CCTV, DNA databases etc.

Given the rioting in Tottenham tonight – maybe the focus should be on making forces like the Met open up and stop hiding away from the people whose trust they have never deserved and that would be of massive value to them in tackling crime?

y’know, rather than on giving an untrustworthy state authority new technologies that gloss over real problems London has.

Yes – some will go for maximum usage, as ever.

2 other thoughts:

1 – How would failure to provide a scan be treated?
2 – We’ve seen repeated attempts to loosen up DP protection.
3 – In the UK compliance may not be voluntary – we do not have a pat-down opt out from full body scan searches at airports; other places do by right iirc.

The reasons for resisting a universal DNA database have not changed, being in principle, operational one (abuse), technical (doesn’t work well) and financial (the results have not been impressive).

Bollocks.

Why do I always have a third thought and forget to update the counter?

WE DEMAND AN EDIT BUTTON !!!!

I don’t understand the knee-jerk paranoid reaction to these things like CCTV, DNA databases etc.

Perhaps look into it a bit more and you might discover thoughtful, reasoned criticism.

There is always is the dilemma with these types of issues in becoming Luddite in response to new technology. However, the fault lies with our spineless politicians. The police by the nature of their role are always going to ask for more powers. There has never been a time that I am aware of when the police have ever said to the politicians. ‘ You know what, we have enough powers why not take some of them away from us.’

See the recent case when a court ruling restricted police powers in questioning suspects. The knee-jerk response from the politicians was that we must have emergency legislation to give the police back those powers. Their default outlook was the police must be more powerful, they never for one moment even considered whether the police having less power in holding suspects was preferable. Of course, that would be soft on crime. The useful idiots in our screeching absurd media lambast any politicians as soft on crime if they in anyway try to contain the increase in police powers. Therefore, the move is always remorselessly in the one direction towards the police with our spineless politicians too terrified in just saying, no. So, the problem is not technology or even the police, it is as always the fault of our spineless politicians.

@29

Every time I’ve looked all I’ve seen is, like I said, knee-jerk “I don’t really like this” criticism with no substance. I’m genuinely curious what rational criticism people have of things like this.

What abuses can the police have for a device such like this? It’s a serious question.