I feel this is the least worrying database around, because of a the simple check on its accuracy and the biometric used.
Facial recognition is what we humans are all about - we have surprisingly strong taboos about covering up this very useful and universal biometric already and any flaws in the algorithm or software are much much easier to challenge than DNA tests (I can stand up to a jury all day and say it was not me, and they will most likely believe a DNA expert. show them a picture of someone who just looked like me and they will all use millions of years of evolution to set me free)
Yes it is worrying that any mass databases are being compiled, and yes we must debate as a civilisation how we are going to mitigate the downsides and promote the upsides, but this is not a disaster. not like PRISM.
There are many things to be concerned about, but it is worth having a fuller discussion about the problem.
I think we are all talking about passive surveillance - My views are that mass passive surveillance has always been with us. We are surveilled by our neighbours and strangers all day everyday. Until recently that was entirely based on the facial biometric recogniser "Human Eyeball v1.0".
Generally our neighbours do/did nothing with their metadata collections - maybe some salacious gossip, occassionally criminal behaviour.
Privacy has till now been the politeness of our neighbours.
However on the Internet everyone is now a neighbour. A Good Thing mostly but it has implications for that metadata store. PRISM shows what a meta-metadata store looks like, and history shows us what will be done with it.
It is worth noting that what in civilian circles is called "private" most governments see as "secret". They are going to freak when we really start handling Big Data. Even now I would be surprised if the Chinese / Russian intelligence services have not hoovered up all Facebook and LinkedIn.
Those PhD Students from MIT 10 years ago will be doing some interesting work for the government now, and thier connections will map the halls of weapons researchers and government quite well. OpenMapping, satellitte and UAVs, a flood of data will pierce everyone's privacy.
Anyway, people now are able to monitor others not physically close to them. Some like NSA are going for total knowledge, others like Tesco or Walmart have a more narrow focus but deeper focus (I am pretty sure the NSA will not know my wife is pregnant before I do. Or that Gen. Alexander is really in for it!)
But we have no framework for dealing with this, no laws or even ideas of laws we want. The idea of Big Data will give us such benefits that "stop progress" is not a viable response. But what is? Data cannot be labelled. So ...
Please recall the recent announcement that algorithms have surpassed human fidelity in facial recognition. On top of that recall a somewhat overlooked NSA/CIA/DIA project called TRAPWIRE that taps into all surveillance systems to allow facial recognition triggered surveillance. Now take a look at those cameras in the McDonalds drive-through that are perfectly trained on your face and will also capture your license plate as you drive up. There is no legitimate reason that warrants that at McDonalds. It obviously is a factor at all kinds of places like ATMs and store surveillance, but I could easily see how McDonalds would be a great partner to roll out the system; global reach, cultural draw, nourishment (somewhat), driver-vehicle association, etc.
But McDonald's knows who I am when I hand over my credit card, the server recognises me as the fat one. Really its not about how and where we will be recorded - the answer is everyhow and everywhere. The problem is what can someone do with that information, and how do I know they are doing it?
"may include as many as 52 million face images by 2015"
Huh? If you've had a drivers license or passport photo taken then it's in a federal database. Maybe they aren't shared well across all federal organizations yet but that's only a brief matter of time.
Oh, it's far worse, and there's nothing voluntary about it (just as there's nothing voluntary about GMail). And even if it were voluntary, Facebook (and Google, which is far, far worse, IMO) tries not at all to make it clear to the public how they pay for Facebook's services. The massive spying and data collection by Google and Facebook is probably the largest , and possibly most dangerous, surveillance campaign in history. Worst of all, unlike the FBI (or the NSA), Facebook and Google constantly analyze and use any piece of personal data they can get their hands on.
I don't necessarily disagree, but intent plays a role here too. Google's intentions and the FBI or NSA's intentions differ quite strongly when they have your personal information in their system.
Of course they might. But so would Google and Facebook. And in either case it doesn't even have to be an order from above, but an action by a single employee. At least I'd like to hope that the FBI performs more thorough background checks on its employees than Google or Facebook.
Sure, but they look for certain things, because their job is to prevent crime/terrorism. It is Google job to mine your private information for whatever they can use to make profit. Google and Facebook are in the business of turning surveillance to money. The FBI/NSA aren't.
There's also an element of practical coercion in Facebook. Numerous academic studies have found it both addictive and leveraging social necessity (I.e. You don't actually need it, but practically, many people suffer actual impacts -loss of contact, social ostracism) if they don't have it. Fb's facial recognition system is at least as worrying as the FBI one, in part because the FBI and CIA will soon start using it, if they're not already.
Facial recognition is what we humans are all about - we have surprisingly strong taboos about covering up this very useful and universal biometric already and any flaws in the algorithm or software are much much easier to challenge than DNA tests (I can stand up to a jury all day and say it was not me, and they will most likely believe a DNA expert. show them a picture of someone who just looked like me and they will all use millions of years of evolution to set me free)
Yes it is worrying that any mass databases are being compiled, and yes we must debate as a civilisation how we are going to mitigate the downsides and promote the upsides, but this is not a disaster. not like PRISM.