Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy Technology

Facial Recognition Gone Wrong 375

Posted by samzenpus
from the doppleganger-trouble dept.
An anonymous reader writes "John H. Gass hadn't had a traffic ticket in years, so the Natick resident was surprised this spring when he received a letter from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles informing him to cease driving because his license had been revoked. It turned out Gass was flagged because he looks like another driver, not because his image was being used to create a fake identity. His driving privileges were returned but, he alleges in a lawsuit, only after 10 days of bureaucratic wrangling to prove he is who he says he is. And apparently, he has company. Last year, the facial recognition system picked out more than 1,000 cases that resulted in State Police investigations, officials say. And some of those people are guilty of nothing more than looking like someone else. Not all go through the long process that Gass says he endured, but each must visit the Registry with proof of their identity. Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facial Recognition Gone Wrong

Comments Filter:
  • As Whitey Bulger proved, it's not who you are, in Massachusetts, it's who you know. And now, who you look like.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      in Massachusetts, it's who you know

      And here I was thinking the key question is whether your last name was "Kennedy".

  • Nice work. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:11AM (#36798532) Journal

    Massachusetts began using the software... to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue."

    Came up snake-eyes on that role, dincha?

    • Urg. (Score:3, Informative)

      by geminidomino (614729)

      And I cut myself with my own rapier wit by messing up a quote tag and using the wrong homophone.

      Coffee needs to brew faster...

    • Barring some research on the reliability of the humans previously used(or, if no checks were done, estimates of likely false negatives), it's sort of hard to say.

      It is well known that machine-vision is still rather dodgy outside of well-controlled applications(pick-and-place? the puny humans might as well surrender. general purpose object recognition in cluttered environments? not quite so good.); but it is also known that humans are quite fallible, and generally more fallible than they think.

      An anecd
      • by Entrope (68843)

        The anecdote doesn't tell you much, but the state probably is not going to release any information on the false alarm rate among the software's detections. Doing so would reveal how much of a waste the money was.

        This kind of system tends to suffer badly as the database size grows, because the false alarm rate per comparison tends to grow with the number of templates (which is probably the number of people with driver's licenses), and the number of comparisons is proportional to the square of the number of

        • I share your skepticism about the prospects for facial recognition software. Humans are bad enough at it, despite millenia of evolutionary pressure, drivers' license photos aren't exactly masterpieces(and aren't updated all that often, certainly not as often as makeup or hairstyle or % bodyfat, even among people who are trying their hardest to keep those constant as they age), and computers probably aren't good enough.

          It always just makes me nervous to see arguments pro or con complex systems based on an
          • by swalve (1980968)
            The computers don't care about that. They measure things like spacing between features. The recognition scanners often make *some* of the mistakes people make, ie, mistaking two guys of the same nationality for each other.
    • Hell they completely struck out 0 of 3. The only point that might be in question would be the fraud but I would argue that fraud was committed when the purchased the product since it doesn't deliver what it promises. If it can't correctly match faces how could it be expected to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and increase accuracy of identification. I will believe that facial recognition will work once we can get OCT that works on typed (not even hand written) text that has an accuracy of 100% until then
      • I would like to correct my previous post as I am not fully with it yet this morning and got my validation matrix confused.

        Hell they completely struck out 0 of 3. The only point that might be in question would be the fraud but I would argue that fraud was committed when the purchased the product since it doesn't deliver what it promises. If it can't correctly match faces how could it be expected to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and increase accuracy of identification. I will believe that facial recognition will work once we can get OCT that works on typed (not even hand written) text that has an accuracy of 100% until then software like this should be considered if junk if the false positives are greater than the true positives.

        This is especially true since there are negative consequences for the individual who was flagged as a false positive.

    • Re:Nice work. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942) on Monday July 18, 2011 @09:44AM (#36799950) Journal

      Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue.

      Why am I not surprised? The system probably returns the first 'hit' in the database. Okay terrorists - new strategy: Change your name to something at the tail end of the alphabet.

  • by yincrash (854885) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:11AM (#36798536)

    Kaprielian said the Registry gives drivers enough time to respond to the suspension letters and that it is the individual’s “burden’’ to clear up any confusion. She added that protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience Gass or anyone else might experience. “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege,’’ she said. “Yes, it is an inconvenience [to have to clear your name], but lots of people have their identities stolen, and that’s an inconvenience, too.’’

    • by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:17AM (#36798572)
      According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure using tax dollars and grants to use a system that illegally convicts innocent people without a trial or hearing is considerable different then a criminal stealing someones identity.
      • by TapeCutter (624760) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:25AM (#36798624) Journal

        you're guilty until you prove your innocent

        ...because it would be unfair to put an innocent person on trial.

        • No, The RMV could have a person investigate incidents flagged by the program, which would be presuming the program could be wrong. This is despite of the fact that they know and admit the program isn't 100% accurate. Regardless they seem to be using the assumption that the statistical computer program is infallible and the people it's flagging are guilty and thus the onus is on the innocent party to prove they just happen to look like someone who did something wrong.
          • by cHALiTO (101461) <elchaloNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday July 18, 2011 @08:41AM (#36799288) Homepage

            I used to work with fingerprint identification systems for some police forces, and that's how they do it. AFIS systems are only a tool to narrow down and (enormously) speed up the candidate search process. The decision to declare a match is ALWAYS up to a human expert, after careful review of the results from the system.
            The only kind-of-exception to this are from portable devices the police uses for example at football matches, on which they have loaded the patterns for wanted persons. They scan everyone going into the stadium, and if they got a match (automatic, 99.9% accurate, but false positives ARE possible), the person is taken into the nearest police station for a more serious AFIS check, with an expert determining if there's a match.

            Instant revoking of licenses or serious decisions like that shouldn't be left to automatic systems, no matter how accurate they might be. This has to be always a human decision, and one of the main reasons is that humans have to take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable. The identification system is just a tool to help people do their jobs better/faster (not to do it for them).

        • by rust627 (1072296)

          I thought the legal system in America had changed some time ago from the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" to "innocent until proven broke".

      • Because he could really drag me down with him.

      • by phiwum (319633)

        According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty.

        I don't like the cavalier attitude of the statement either -- after all, this fella lost wages because he drives for a living.

        That said, this has nothing at all to do with the principle that, in criminal cases, the prosecutor must prove guilt.

    • by indyogb (1517319) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:25AM (#36798632)
      “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege..."

      So says the government(s). I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, automobiles), is a natural right. Also, it is nice that a system used to "prevent terrorism" is being used to suspend driver's licenses of ordinary, non-terrorist, citizens.

      Government(s) in the US are at flank speed ahead towards power and control. Even the court system is on their side (e.g. imminent domain for increased tax revenues from a few years back, recent rulings about police entering homes w/o warrants in IN, etc., etc.). In the end, it is all about the $$$. Where is it, who has it, and how can we get more of it.
      • by c (8461)

        > Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, automobiles), is a natural right.

        There's also the bit in TFA about the guy driving as part of his job. Many western jurisdictions have some concept of a "right to make a living"...

    • So by their own admission, their error is comparable to stealing someone's identity. And they don't see this as a problem.

      Is there anything bureaucrats can't cock up?

    • “A driver’s license is not a matter of civil rights. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege,’’ she said. Yep, that "logic" is used to shred the Fourth Amendment and now to enable this junk. We've got to fix this bug. The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.
      • Therefore you have no rights while you are driving on a public thoroughfare.

        And people STILL dismiss "slippery slope" arguments.

      • by TheLink (130905)

        The right to travel unmolested by car should, inded, be a civil right.

        Driving licenses exist because most people want to travel unmolested by a car ;). And so it is a privilege.

        You can still travel unmolested by car without a driving license, as long as someone else does the driving.

        FWIW it's still a very easy privilege to get. if you want to kill somebody, you do it with a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ex6dHzcgOE [youtube.com]
        From what I gather the driver was "given a 12 month sentence suspended for two years, 200 hours community service, ordered to pay £500 compensat

    • “Yes, it is an inconvenience [to have to clear your name], but lots of people have their identities stolen, and that’s an inconvenience, too.’’

      So their defense is to list crimes that are worse than what they (law enforcement) are doing? I guess if you aim low, there's no chance of failure.

      So if I went up to someone and said, "Hey, I know you think I'm a jerk because I call you harmful names but lots of people get raped in a parking lot and that's harmful too." They should thank their lucky stars I'm just calling them names and not raping them in a parking lot? Isn't that more of a threat than an excuse? I don't get it, is the Registry of Motor Vehicles threatening to steal or sell everyone's identity if they don't like being wrongly accused?

      Facial recognition is not quite yet where it has to be. I worked on some of this stuff way back in college and the case studies we did on open face databases had abysmal recall rates [wikipedia.org]. Basically it should be concluded that until your chance of a false positive is equivalent with winning the lottery, you shouldn't implement this. I say "winning the lottery" because it is such a terrible violation of rights that you should be prepared to pay out a million dollars to the poor citizen that is wrongly accused of some crime or infraction just based upon the features of their face. It's a high stakes game and if you're going to use it as a short cut, you better be prepared to accept a high amount of risk.

      • by Terrasque (796014)

        So their defense is to list crimes that are worse than what they (law enforcement) are doing?

        "Your Honor, it's true that I've stolen millions of dollars, and beaten people to within an inch of their lives, but remember that there are people out there who have KILLED hundreds of people!"

        "You know, you make a really compelling argument there. You're free to go."

        or, does this only work if you're in the government?

    • by martyros (588782) on Monday July 18, 2011 @08:20AM (#36799070)

      I think that some people need to make masks that look just like Kaprielian, and probably her boss, and some of the local senators, and get "caught" by some of these cameras doing something that results in automatic suspension of a license. Then we'll see how long the "It's just inconvenient" attitude lasts.

      In Michigan several years ago they passed a law that allowed a policeman to cut up your driving license right in front of you if you were caught driving drunk. That law was struck down as being unconstitutional, because even though the cop was right there and could smell the alcohol on your breath and hear your slurred speech, a cop is not judge and jury; you still have a right to due process under the law. If that was unconstitutional, I can't see how this isn't as well.

  • by captainpanic (1173915) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:18AM (#36798574)

    ... except my face apparently.

    Anyone still wondering why privacy is such an important issue? I never want to hear the "I have nothing to hide" argument again.

    • by Gideon Wells (1412675) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:51AM (#36798808)

      I tried explaining the TSA mess to my sister and mother this weekend. They said it sounded terrific that they were checking elderly people with diapers and making wheel chaired bound people prove they needed a wheelchair.

      Mother: "We'll be safer."
      Sister: "I have nothing to hide."

      Me:"Terrorists have announced plans to start trying to hide bombs surgically implanted in their skin."

      Mother: "So... they have to perform surgery mid-flight to blow themselves up? *laugh*"

      Me: "Remote detonation. First time they catch someone attempting this the TSA will start requiring medical records if they see an operation scar."

      Sister: "So what? I got nothing to hide. In fact, I think it is a good idea for them to have our medical records to make sure our flights are safe."

      They are the first to Google people, gossip, etc. My sister has been caught looking at homes with binoculars at night. When a family friend joking texted her saying he could see her at night you'd be surprised how fast her translucent curtains were replaced with thick drapes. Some people don't care about privacy until it affects them.

    • All you IAALs out there, can we get some ThisIsAdviceButNotLegalAdvice?

      Motorcycle riders would escape this system, wouldn't they? And they are almost the only group allowed to wear helmets.

      I thought I read (but it may have been an unreputable source) that we are allowed to wear helmets while driving our cars. Is that true? Or do the other characteristics of driving cars such as different view ranges negate that legality?

      What if a cop pulls you over and actually states that he doesn't like you wearing your h

      • by rbrausse (1319883)

        maybe I read a different article but the description sounds like a database search; they compared copies of the license pictures and similar pictures were selected.

      • wanna bet that someday

        1 when you get your motorcycle endorsement you will have to report to the office WITH YOUR HELMET(s)

        2 they will issue you (and charge you for) some sort of bar code sticker to be placed on your helmet so that photo id systems can recognize (you)

        3 make it illegal to use an "unregistered" helmet

        heck this would even be useful if they did a check of the helmet at the same time (for fitness of use ect)

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:22AM (#36798600) Journal
    The ethnic population in Massachusetts has shrunk to one black and one asian.
  • by TenDollarMan (1307733) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:26AM (#36798640) Homepage

    All you need to do is wear a welding mask as your Pastafarian religous headwear.

    It works in Austria. G'day mate.

  • Massholes do all drive in the same aggressive manner

    (I keed, I keed!)

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The difference between a Boston driver and a New York driver: The New York driver takes a right turn from the left lane at 45 mph honking and giving you the finger. The Boston driver does the same thing, but is also drinking coffee, reading the paper, and talking on his cell phone.

  • by sifi (170630) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:36AM (#36798696)
    I was looking at facial recognition algorithms some while back, the problem is you get too many false positives.

    The problem with all of these algorithms is that it doesn't matter how accurate they are, they are only ever going to be a way to reduce the search space - you should never base a decision solely on the algorithm telling you "this is person X".

    For example, some sales person says "Hey I've got this great facial recognition software it is 99.99% accurate!" (that's better than most facial algorithms out there) sounds pretty good right! - Wrong!. Suppose you set it up to look for one terrorist at Heathrow airport. The system is likely to flag up 650 000 people a year (based on 65 million passengers a year); of course it gets even worse if you start looking for more people.
    • by data2 (1382587)

      Except that it is only 6500 people a year, you are right.

    • Give it 10,000 people to look for (Which the US No Fly list will soon have) and it could flag everybody as someone on the list ...

    • Almost all of these systems are set up on the opposite principal to the basis for our justice system. The U.S. justice system was established on the principal that it better to fail to identify the guy you are looking for than to identify someone else as that guy. These systems are set up on the assumption that it is better to get the wrong person occasionally than to miss the correct person. This is part of why security systems (not just the computerized ones) are tending to get out of hand. It is complica
    • "Suppose you set it up to look for one terrorist at Heathrow airport. The system is likely to flag up 650 000 people a year (based on 65 million passengers a year)"

      Eh, probably not, as many of those people are repeat visitors, and the guys who you arrested because they looked like your terrorist are unlikely to come back and try again :) //And of course if your terrorist is non-white you can reduce your search space significantly on that as well.

  • Bayesian statistics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denoir (960304) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:41AM (#36798738)

    I work for a company that develops neural network software which is used for face recognition on a number of airports. The problem we've had over and over again is that government officials and airport security personnel have great difficulty understanding some elementary statistics.

    Let me give you an example. One version of the software offers 99.99% accuracy (symmetrical true positive and true negative), a number that always seems very impressive to various officials.

    What they don't understand and what we have to remind them all the time is that they need to take into account the large number of faces that are scanned by the software and that a 0.01% false positive rate isn't something you can ignore.

    For instance in a large airport that has say a million people getting scanned yearly it means that 100 people will be incorrectly flagged by the system. The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000. Plugging the number into Bayes' theorem you get that when the system flags a passenger, the probability that the passenger was actually a person of interest is around 9%.

    The officials typically only listen to the 99.99% figure and ignore the reality of the relatively large numbers of false positives when dealing with huge numbers of people. Subsequently they treat the people the systems flag much worse than they would if they realized that the probability of a 'catch' being correct was less than 10%. We've done our best to try to educate them but usually they don't want to listen as it's an uncomfortable truth and it's much more convenient to say that the system has an accuracy of 99.99%.

    • by captainpanic (1173915) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:45AM (#36798758)

      If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!

      • by djmurdoch (306849) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:52AM (#36798822)

        The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.

        The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

        • by martyros (588782)

          The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

          I wouldn't call the Base rate fallacy [wikipedia.org] basic numerical reasoning. I didn't learn about baysean probability until my senior year, and I didn't hear about the base rate fallacy until I was a researcher.

          Maybe a better technique would be to say there's an "effective true positive accuracy", which varies depending on the circumstances. Maybe have it as a feature of the software, that

        • The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.

          You're a typical scientist. You have 1 figure which is always reliable and true, but it is misleading. The other one depends on too many variables but is a lot more insightful. The scientist will choose the first misleading figure, all other people would go for the second. Adapt to your audience: present a simple case in which you can calculate the useful figure.

          The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.

          Changing the educational system will only give results in 20-25 years, if not even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't change it... but it does me

        • In defense of the politicians, they aren't as bad at math as it might first appear. Remember, they're looking at the systems and factoring in the money that will be added into their political campaigns. Approving the systems might also multiply their opportunity to land cushy lobbying jobs after they leave office. As a bonus, approving this subtracts any chance that their opponents could call them weak on terrorism. Thus, these systems get their undivided support.

      • If the 99.99% figure is apparently misleading, and if the 99.99% figure is apparently the only one that the politicians look at, stop presenting the 99.99% figure!!!

        The skillset required to be a successful politician has a very small overlap with the population that can actually understand higher mathematical concepts (like the result of the application of fractions to large numbers).

    • I work for a company that develops neural network software which is used for face recognition on a number of airports. The problem we've had over and over again is that government officials and airport security personnel have great difficulty understanding some elementary statistics.

      Let me give you an example. One version of the software offers 99.99% accuracy (symmetrical true positive and true negative), a number that always seems very impressive to various officials.

      What they don't understand and what we have to remind them all the time is that they need to take into account the large number of faces that are scanned by the software and that a 0.01% false positive rate isn't something you can ignore.

      For instance in a large airport that has say a million people getting scanned yearly it means that 100 people will be incorrectly flagged by the system. The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000. Plugging the number into Bayes' theorem you get that when the system flags a passenger, the probability that the passenger was actually a person of interest is around 9%.

      The officials typically only listen to the 99.99% figure and ignore the reality of the relatively large numbers of false positives when dealing with huge numbers of people. Subsequently they treat the people the systems flag much worse than they would if they realized that the probability of a 'catch' being correct was less than 10%. We've done our best to try to educate them but usually they don't want to listen as it's an uncomfortable truth and it's much more convenient to say that the system has an accuracy of 99.99%.

      Stop selling them you shit software!

      Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?

      • Stop selling them you shit software!

        Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?

        Too true - I wish I had mod points for you. It seems that most commenters are arguing about the math or the technology. Not nearly enough of us are addressing the issue of just how seriously fucked up it is that this kind of situation is even allowed to occur.

    • you work on the Future Attribute stuff?

    • by Timmmm (636430)

      You should just have your software flash a big sign saying "Probability of match: 9%". I don't see how they could ignore that.

    • by vlm (69642)

      The prior probability that a traveler is a 'person of interest' is less than 1/100,000.

      That high? Maybe in the general population 1 in 100,000 are being oppressed by the govt. Think about it, if you know that you'll be oppressed, you wouldn't go to the airport...

      So either most of the people being oppressed are innocent thus not expecting to be oppressed, or are too stupid to accomplish anything evil, in which case they're also irrelevant.

      Is it even possible to accomplish anything with a system like that?

      The other problem with 1 in 100,000 being oppressed is that my local "big" airport proce

    • What is needed is the matrix that shows the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. Additionally I would like to see some numbers not just percentages. I would start with an overestimate of the number of terrorists in a population a good overestimate would probably be that 0.001% (reality is it is probably a couple of orders of magnitude lower but lets over hype the threat) are terrorists and then pick a reasonable population size that is in the same ball park as the
  • I did find the /. quote earlier today quite funny in this context. For those that missed it the quote was about QA and testing 1 in 1000 products to ensure that only 1 in 100 fails products work.
  • "Last year, State Police obtained 100 arrest warrants for fraudulent identity, and 1,860 licenses were revoked as a result of the software, according to Procopio."

    Okay, so that sounds to me like a 94.7% error rate among the positives. Unless they just kind of said, to over a thousand people with fraudulent licenses, "Oh, that's okay...just stop doing it, and we'll let it slide"?

    • 1860 licenses out of what, like 4 million registered drivers? So, like 99.95% of the voting public wasn't directly affected and we got 100 bad guys! Sounds like a win - from a certain point of view.

      It will probably continue to happen until somebody gets complacent and doesn't notice that a major politician's wife or daughter got snagged by the system and lets their license get revoked...

  • Let Clarkson show you how it's done:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3i-HRxf8z4#t=04m39s [youtube.com]

    (Skip to 4:39 if the link won't do it for you.)

  • by wcrowe (94389) on Monday July 18, 2011 @09:01AM (#36799508)

    Computers used to be tools used by a minority of professionals and hobbyists. But for almost 20 years now, certainly for the last 15 years, computers have become ubiquitous -- practically everyone in the United States has one on their desk and/or at home. And yet, after all these years of working with computers, people still naively, stupidly, assume that any output from a software program is 100% accurate and trustworthy. "The computer says it is so, therefore it must be true."

    My unscientific, gut feeling is that this is a distinction within my generation -- the generation which is now running things -- who grew up with simple devices like digital watches and foolishly have extended the reliability and accuracy of those baubles to machines and software which they barely comprehend.

    I hope and pray that the next generation, my daughter's generation, who have grown up with spam, spoofing, malware, faulty operating systems, and software inaccuracies, will have the intelligence to treat software as a useful tool to help us make decisions, rather than as founts of truth that make our decisions for us.

  • by operagost (62405) on Monday July 18, 2011 @09:31AM (#36799796) Homepage Journal
    She had the nerve to claim in the article that it's the driver's burden to prove he's not a criminal. We know that driving is not a right, but people DO have rights to liberty and property, and arbitrary removal of people's vital privileges without a hearing affects both of these. What if they decide to start revoking licenses because your name's spelling is similar to someone else's? How about if they find some data that claims people with brown eyes are likely to be terrorists? Haughty bureaucrats like these need to be educated.
  • Massachusetts began using the software after receiving a $1.5 million grant from the US Department of Homeland Security as part of an effort to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states issue.

    In what way is using this technology to issue speeding tickets preventing terrorism, reducing fraud, improving the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents?

    If the money really was earmarked to be used in that specific way, I think somebody has some 'splainin to do.

  • by tverbeek (457094) on Monday July 18, 2011 @11:43AM (#36801134) Homepage

    According to the clerk at a convenience store near my house, there is someone who looks just like me and comes in all the time to buy cases of Bud Light. He commented on it because I was purchasing a six-pack of a local craft brew, instead of "the usual". Granted, the consequences aren't quite as harsh as being misidentified as a chronic traffic violator, but being mistaken for a Budweiser fan is almost as offensive.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...