Thread: FBI Wants Palm Prints, Eye Scans, Tattoo Mapping

FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping

Read VIDEO
From Kelli Arena and Carol Cratty
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi. ... index.html

The FBI wants to use eye scans, combined with other data, to help identify suspects.



The FBI currently has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. Critics fear the FBI could misuse the new data.
2 of 3


The FBI stores its information on databases like these 30-feet underground.



CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) -- The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people's physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.


The FBI wants to use eye scans, combined with other data, to help identify suspects.

1 of 3 But it's an issue that raises major privacy concerns -- what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

But it's unnerving to privacy experts.

"It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Project.

The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect.


A lot will depend on how quickly technology is perfected, according to Thomas Bush, the FBI official in charge of the Clarksburg, West Virginia, facility where the FBI houses its current fingerprint database. Watch what the FBI hopes to gain »
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi. ... nnSTCVideo

"Fingerprints will still be the big player," Bush, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, told CNN.

But he added, "Whatever the biometric that comes down the road, we need to be able to plug that in and play."

First up, he said, are palm prints. The FBI has already begun collecting images and hopes to soon use these as an additional means of making identifications. Countries that are already using such images find 20 percent of their positive matches come from latent palm prints left at crime scenes, the FBI's Bush said.

The FBI has also started collecting mug shots and pictures of scars and tattoos. These images are being stored for now as the technology is fine-tuned. All of the FBI's biometric data is stored on computers 30-feet underground in the Clarksburg facility.

In addition, the FBI could soon start comparing people's eyes -- specifically the iris, or the colored part of an eye -- as part of its new biometrics program called Next Generation Identification.

Nearby, at West Virginia University's Center for Identification Technology Research, researchers are already testing some of these technologies that will ultimately be used by the FBI.

"The best increase in accuracy will come from fusing different biometrics together," said Bojan Cukic, the co-director of the center.

But while law enforcement officials are excited about the possibilities of these new technologies, privacy advocates are upset the FBI will be collecting so much personal information.
http://topics.cnn.com/topics/information_privacy

Don't Miss
FBI investigates potential mortgage fraud
TSA tries new airline screening machines
"People who don't think mistakes are going to be made I don't think fly enough," said Steinhardt.

He said thousands of mistakes have been made with the use of the so-called no-fly lists at airports -- and that giving law enforcement widespread data collection techniques should cause major privacy alarms.

"There are real consequences to people," Steinhardt said. Watch concerns over more data collection »
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi. ... nnSTCVideo

You don't have to be a criminal or a terrorist to be checked against the database. More than 55 percent of the checks the FBI runs involve criminal background checks for people applying for sensitive jobs in government or jobs working with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, according to the FBI.

The FBI says it hasn't been saving the fingerprints for those checks, but that may change. The FBI plans a so-called "rap-back" service in which an employer could ask the FBI to keep the prints for an employee on file and let the employer know if the person ever has a brush with the law. The FBI says it will first have to clear hurdles with state privacy laws, and people would have to sign waivers allowing their information to be kept.

Critics say people are being forced to give up too much personal information.
http://topics.cnn.com/topics/privacy_rights
But Lawrence Hornak, the co-director of the research center at West Virginia University, said it could actually enhance people's privacy.

"It allows you to project your identity as being you," said Hornak. "And it allows people to avoid identity theft, things of that nature." Watch Hornak describe why he thinks it's a "privacy enhancer" »
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi. ... nnSTCVideo


There remains the question of how reliable these new biometric technologies will be. A 2006 German study looking at facial recognition in a crowded train station found successful matches could be made 60 percent of the time during the day. But when lighting conditions worsened at night, the results shrank to a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

As work on these technologies continues, researchers are quick to admit what's proven to be the most accurate so far. "Iris technology is perceived today, together with fingerprints, to be the most accurate," said Cukic.

But in the future all kinds of methods may be employed. Some researchers are looking at the way people walk as a possible additional means of identification.

The FBI says it will protect all this personal data and only collect information on criminals and those seeking sensitive jobs.


The ACLU's Steinhardt doesn't believe it will stop there.

"This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals," he said. "Now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody." E-mail to a friend

All About Privacy Rights • Information Privacy • Federal Bureau of Investigation




http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi. ... index.html

I don't always agree with the ACLU but on this issue I certainly would.

Its so true, you give an inch they want the whole foot.

Nothing is error free, especially technological stuff.

Dangerous times to be living in.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

All the data in the world won't protect the borders and keep the terrorists out until our borders and ports are secured and illegal immigration is halted.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

It also creates a 'justification' for more aggressive searches. "No tattoos? Prove it."

This falls in line with the Real ID.

"This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals," he said. "Now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody.

You could say track or identify illegal aliens. The whole system is set up to track everyone.


Hey, nothing to hide right? While we are at it, we cna give them DNA too....

Testimony of Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, FBI
Before the House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations
June 12, 2001
"The FBI's DNA Program"

Attachment A

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for inviting the FBI to provide an update on our activities relating to forensic DNA analysis specifically with respect to the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS, our National DNA database and our efforts to provide this technology and assistance to state and local forensic laboratories.

The importance of collaboration between federal, state and local forensic laboratories is illustrated by that first group of federal, state and local forensic scientists that were convened by the FBI Laboratory in the 1980's to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in laboratories. This group, the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or TWGDAM (now known as the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or SWGDAM), not only developed the guidelines which formed the basis for our national quality assurance standards but they also proposed the creation of a national DNA database for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles developed from crime scenes. This proposal formed the genesis of the development of our CODIS program - software that enables federal, state and local laboratories to store and compare DNA profiles electronically and thereby link serial crimes to each other and identify suspects by matching DNA from crime scenes to convicted offenders. The FBI Laboratory provides this CODIS software, installation, training and user support to other federal, state and local forensic laboratories at no charge. Additionally, the FBI continues to sponsor semi-annual meetings of SWGDAM for over fifty federal, state and local forensic scientists.

How does CODIS work? For example, a sexual assault is committed and an evidence kit is collected from the victim. A DNA profile of the perpetrator is developed from the sexual assault evidence kit. If there is no suspect in the case or if the suspect's DNA profile does not match that of the evidence, the laboratory will search the DNA profile against the convicted offender index. If there is a match in the convicted offender index, the laboratory will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. If there is no match in the convicted offender index, the DNA profile is searched in the forensic or crime scene index. If there is a match in the forensic index, the laboratory has linked two or more crimes together and the law enforcement agencies involved in the cases are able to pool the information obtained on each of the cases.

One of the underlying concepts behind CODIS is to create a database of a state's convicted offender profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects. Recognizing this, as early as the late 1980's, the states began to enact laws that required offenders convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes to provide DNA samples. These DNA samples were to be analyzed and entered into state DNA databases. As you know, all fifty states now have such DNA database laws. All fifty of these laws cover offenders convicted of sex offenses. Well over one-half of these state laws also include offenders convicted of other violent crimes - such as murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, and robbery. See Attachment A - Chart of Qualifying Offenses. Ten states have enacted legislation to include all offenders convicted of a felony offense; one state, Texas, has an all felon bill awaiting gubernatorial approval and proposals are pending in over twenty states to expand their databases to all felony offenders.

As developers of the CODIS system, the FBI has been in an unique position to observe the implementation of DNA databases across the nation. An identification tool that was initially thought to benefit the investigation of sexual assault cases has proven to have much wider application in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. States have observed this first hand and sought to expand coverage of their databases beyond sexual offenses - first to more serious violent felonies and then all felony offenses. Over the past several years, over one-half of the states have expanded the coverage of their DNA databases. So far this year, proposals have been introduced in over 30 states to expand their DNA databases yet again, and in most of these cases, to all felons. The enactment and now amendment of state DNA database laws is another area where the FBI Laboratory has offered assistance to the states. Beginning with the issuance of Legislative Guidelines for DNA Databases in 1991, the FBI Laboratory has provided numerous briefings to state Legislatures and their committees and reviewed legislative proposals to ensure compliance with the DNA Identification Act of 1994 and CODIS/NDIS procedures.

The DNA Identification Act of 1994 [contained within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and hereinafter referred to as "DNA Act"] provided the statutory authority for creation of the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and specified the type of data that could be included in this national index. Only the following types of DNA data may be stored in the national index administered by the FBI Director:

* DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes;
* analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes;
* analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains; and
* analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons. See 42 U.S.C.S. §14132(a).

In accordance with the DNA Act, the FBI recommends that states include all felony offenders and misdemeanor sex offenders within the scope of their database laws. A review of other states' experiences indicate that it is valuable to include what may not be traditionally characterized as violent felony offenses, such as burglary and some drug-related offenses. States have been identifying offenders for subsequent offenses based upon their inclusion in the DNA database for such non-violent felonies.

As states have enacted and then expanded their DNA database laws, there has been a similar increase in the number of laboratories participating in CODIS. CODIS began as a pilot program in 1990 with a dozen participating state and local laboratories. Today, CODIS is in 137 laboratories across the nation representing 47 states and the District of Columbia (FBI Laboratory).

Is CODIS successful? Our primary method of gauging the effectiveness of the CODIS program is the number of investigations it assists by either identifying a perpetrator or by linking serial crimes. Thus far, CODIS has assisted in over 1,900 investigations in 31 states.

In addition to the software, the most significant feature of the CODIS program is the National DNA Index System or NDIS. The National DNA Identification Index has been in operation since October, 1998. Today, there are a total of 108 laboratories representing 35 states participating in the national index system. There are currently over 600,000 convicted offender DNA profiles in NDIS and 26,000 forensic samples. All DNA records in NDIS are protected from unauthorized access through administrative, physical and technical safeguards. For example, DNA records in the national database contain only the following limited information: an agency identifier representing the agency submitting the DNA profile; the specimen identification number; the DNA profile; and the name of the DNA personnel associated with the DNA analysis. It is also important to note that the DNA profiles generated according to national standards do not reveal information relating to a medical condition or disease. The Short Tandem Repeat (STR) core loci selected for use in CODIS were specifically selected as law enforcement identification markers because they were not directly linked to any genetic code for a medical condition. As previously mentioned, the DNA Act also specifies the type of information that may be maintained in the National DNA Database as well as disclosure requirements for those participating in the national database.

Requisites for Success

As the states address both their convicted offender and casework backlogs, CODIS will begin to realize its full potential as an investigative tool. One of the reasons for the convicted offender backlog is the fact that states may have implemented legislation covering a larger number of convicted offenders than could be accommodated by their laboratory. Rather than risk letting a qualifying offender be released from prison or parole and probation, the state collected those DNA samples but was unable to analyze them and enter the data into CODIS. Federal grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs within the Department of Justice provide funding for states to analyze their samples in-house or to contract out the analysis of these collected offender samples. In just one year's time, approximately 300,000 convicted offender samples have been analyzed and entered into state DNA databases, thereby reducing the nationwide backlog. This number is expected to more than double during 2001. Thus, the continuation of federal grant funding for the analysis of these convicted offender samples coupled with the use of designated private high-throughput contract laboratories should result in a significant reduction, if not elimination of, the convicted offender sample backlog.

Equally as important as the analysis of the convicted offender samples, is the analysis of the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. A large national database containing the DNA profiles of convicted offenders alone will not solve crimes. We know that. We also know that state and local laboratories do not currently have the capacity to analyze all the cases with biological evidence that are submitted to them. Because of limited capacities, laboratories are forced to prioritize their cases based upon court dates and whether or not a suspect has been identified. This oftentimes leaves those cases for which there are no suspects - and the cases for which CODIS was specifically designed - unanalyzed in laboratory storage. Federal grant funding pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 will soon be available to address these needs. Until the laboratories have the capacity to analyze every case with biological evidence, CODIS will continue to be underutilized.

The expansion of state DNA database laws to include all felony offenders translates into an increased number of profiles entered into and searched in CODIS. While the FBI has funded research efforts to design a new matching algorithm capable of searching millions of profiles in minutes and even seconds, further research and evaluation into this effort is needed before it can be integrated into the CODIS software. Moreover, as the number of CODIS laboratories has steadily increased over the years, the initial tiered architecture has not changed, necessitating the contractor's maintenance of and user support for three levels of software. Other approaches for the delivery and maintenance of the CODIS software and development of a new platform need to be evaluated. And lastly, as all public DNA laboratories seek participation in the national system, the telecommunication circuits and routers must be upgraded and network maintenance provided to the participating state and local laboratories.

Another key element for the full utilization of CODIS as a law enforcement investigative tool is the continuing research and exploration into new technologies that can offer the forensic community more efficient mechanisms for analyzing convicted offender and casework samples while maintaining the highest quality work. An example of such a new technology is the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) found in most human cells. Certain tissues, such as hair, bones and teeth, that have little nuclear DNA, can often be successfully analyzed for mtDNA when conventional DNA technologies would not be effective. Biological evidence recovered in missing persons cases is often in advanced stages of decomposition, with little or no nuclear DNA remaining intact. In such cases, mtDNA may be the only form of DNA testing possible. After four years of research and validation, the FBI Laboratory began forensic mtDNA analysis in June 1996. To date, nearly 700 cases have been completed and testimony has been provided in 26 states, Canada and Australia. As its success and admissibility in court have grown, demands for mtDNA testing exceed the FBI Laboratory's current or likely future capacity. Anticipating the need for other forensic laboratories to develop their own mtDNA capabilities, in 1998, the FBI Laboratory began training forensic scientists in mtDNA during a two week course at the FBI Academy.

CODIS includes a Missing Person Index which can match the DNA profiles of nuclear DNA technologies or mtDNA. This Index contains very little DNA data because the FBI Laboratory remains the only public crime laboratory conducting mtDNA testing. While the laboratory equipment for mtDNA analysis is similar to the other current forms of DNA analysis, three factors significantly increase the cost and difficulty of establishing mtDNA analysis. First, and most importantly, stringent quality assurance standards require dedicated laboratory rooms and equipment that cannot be used for any other purpose. Second, supplies and laboratory reagents required for mtDNA are more expensive than for any other routine forensic analysis technique, including conventional DNA analysis. Lastly, mtDNA requires special software for data analysis which is costly. One solution might be a nationwide mtDNA laboratory network of six to eight state and local forensic laboratories, affiliated with the FBI Laboratory, to provide mtDNA analyses to state and local criminal justice agencies. The FBI Laboratory could provide administration for the network and select the laboratories, train personnel, provide annual funding and ensure adherence to the quality assurance standards.

One final area for discussion is the availability of forensic scientists to implement these new technologies. There a very few advanced degree programs currently available for forensic scientists. Science majors in colleges and universities may earn a Bachelor of Science degree and if offered a position in a forensic laboratory, complete an in-house training program under the direct supervision of a forensic scientist for one to two years. The forensic scientist trainer cannot provide total dedication to his/her casework because the time must be apportioned between casework and training. One of the important contributions of SWGDAM has been the development of a training program for forensic scientists performing DNA analyses. The FBI has worked with the University of Virginia in designing a Master of Science degree program in which newly hired DNA analysts will participate in a 12 to 18 month program of study at the FBI Academy and work and validation at the laboratory where hired. Support for these collaborative arrangements with universities would assist these efforts to produce well-qualified forensic scientists.

Commitment to Quality

The DNA Act also authorized the creation of a DNA Advisory Board to recommend quality assurance standards to the FBI Director and funding for the CODIS program and for state and local laboratories to enhance or expand their DNA testing capabilities. Over its five year life, the DNA Advisory Board recommended quality assurance standards for both forensic DNA laboratories and convicted offender DNA databasing laboratories. The FBI Director issued these quality assurance standards as national standards for CODIS and participation in the national DNA Index. Compliance with these quality assurance standards is also required for laboratories receiving federal funding for DNA purposes under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Byrne Grant Program and the National Institute of Justice's DNA Grant Programs. Also required by the DNA Act for participation in the national index and receipt of federal funding is compliance with a semi-annual external proficiency testing program by each analyst performing forensic DNA analyses. Compliance with both the quality assurance standards and the external proficiency testing program are monitored by annual audits of laboratories.

The Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories [hereinafter referred to as "Quality Assurance Standards"] cover the following subjects: organization and management, personnel, facilities, evidence control, validation, analytical procedures, equipment calibration and maintenance, reports, review, proficiency testing, corrective action, audits, safety, and use of subcontractor laboratories. Several of the quality assurance standards specifically address contamination. Standard 6.1 provides that the laboratory "shall have a facility that is designed to provide adequate security and minimize contamination." "The laboratory shall ensure that the laboratory follows written procedures for monitoring, cleaning and decontaminating facilities and equipment." See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 6.1.4. This means that during the annual audit of the laboratory, the laboratory will need to identify their procedures designed to minimize contamination as well as document that those procedures are in place and have been followed.

The Quality Assurance Standards also require that laboratories retain or return a portion of the evidence sample or extract, where possible. See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 7.2. Specifically, laboratories "shall have a procedure requiring that evidence sample/extract(s) are stored in a manner that minimizes degradation. See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 7.2.1. Again, these procedures and their implementation are reviewed during the annual audit. Beginning in July 2001, all DNA audits will be conducted by forensic scientists trained by the FBI Laboratory. Finally, the DNA Act provides that access to the National database is subject to cancellation if the quality control requirements are not met.

*

We are often asked how can we maximize CODIS and again, having observed the implementation of CODIS across the country, we identified several factors that contribute to a successful DNA database program. First is enactment of a comprehensive DNA database law that covers the retroactive and supervised offender populations. To their credit, all 50 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of DNA samples from certain categories of convicted offenders. As states have found, the larger the size of the database, the more crimes that are solved, a fact that is evidenced by the dozens of proposals now pending before state Legislatures to expand the coverage of their convicted offender databases. Second, ensure that DNA samples are collected from all eligible offenders and that those samples are analyzed and entered into CODIS. We know from our annual CODIS survey that the majority of states' analyses efforts have been unable to keep pace with the collection of these convicted offender samples. Convicted offender samples, unlike casework, have been shown to be more amendable to automation and thus high throughput so that the per sample analysis costs of these samples is significantly less than casework samples. We would expect that the continuation of federal funding would assist in correcting this imbalance and enable the states to have these samples analyzed and entered into CODIS so that if one of these convicted offenders reoffends, he/she will be identified for that first offense.

Third, and equally as important as the analysis of the convicted offender samples, is the analysis of the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. To maximize the potential of DNA as a law enforcement investigative tool, federal, state and local forensic laboratories should develop the capacities to analyze all the cases (containing biological evidence) submitted to them. And fourth, compatible analysis methods must be used for both convicted offender and casework samples. With the acceptance of the 13 core STR loci as the national standard, this final factor for success has been institutionalized.

The foundation for the use of CODIS as an investigative tool has been established. The continuation of federal funding to support these efforts in state and local forensic laboratories will ensure its full potential is realized. The FBI Laboratory is committed to the support of the CODIS program and will continue to work with state and local forensic laboratories towards that end.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and provide this update on CODIS and our DNA program. Thank you.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/dwight061201.htm

I wonder how those parents feel that have had the DNA done for their children in those police sponsored days at schools concerning children's safety?

I have yet to see one parent here (Ct.) not in agreement with it.
So now we will have a nation of children under the governments eye.

Every parents worse nightmare is something happening to their kids, but I don't think they ever think of the far-reaching consequences of some actions. Its promoted totally as a benevolent good thing to do.

Most of the people I speak with for most part, seem to still take the attitude I have nothing to hide, so I would rather the gov. do everything it can to protect us. They forget the main problem, gov's never give back what they take, and its not a question of no skeletons in the closet, its a question of civil liberties.

The whole problem as I see is, is we still have rosey eyes, for the most part about our government and we can't if we want to salvage or keep any of our liberties as given by the Constitution or common sense.

Our government policies are changing in part to 9/11, but there are a lot of other reasons. Societies change, our has, but still there are other "not so innocent reasons" why, in my opinion.