
FBI Wants to Exempt Its Biometric Database from Some Federal Privacy Rules - ycnews
http://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2016/05/fbi-wants-exempt-its-massive-biometric-database-federal-privacy-rules/128051/
======
jfoutz
Information generated with public funds should be public. Law enforcement has
two big caveats to that. Information obtained with a warrant should remain
protected until trial, and only information used in the case should be made
public. Second, Ongoing investigations clearly should stay secret.

I'm sure there are sensible exceptions for tax, military and intelligence
services. But seriously, what the hell. We're paying for it, why can't we see
it?

The general policy needs to be openness. Historically, i understand finding
that stuff was a pain in the neck, shuffling around papers in filing cabinets.
This is the information age. Read only access to everything is achievable and,
i think, desirable.

~~~
marcoperaza
Imagine if every email and report that you wrote at work was broadcast to the
whole world and subject the vicious (yet shallow and unfair) scrutiny of the
24-hour news cycle. Can you see how that would hamper your ability to your job
effectively?

~~~
geggam
I can see how it would cause a problem if you weren't doing you job right or
had no intention to.

Outside of that... not really.

~~~
DougWebb
"weren't doing your job right" and "had no intention to" are hugely
subjective. Anyone with an axe to grind could go through your information and
find whatever they need to twist the apparent meaning to prove that you
weren't doing your job "right" and had no intention to. It's really easy to
take information out of context and make it appear to mean something it
doesn't.

~~~
jflatow
Considering the government currently has the same power over citizens, I can't
see how this argument holds up. Especially when the government is granted
powers of total surveillance and mass hacking[1], there needs to be some
accountability and balance of power.

[1] [https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-
head-5c1b60db9086#.h...](https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-
head-5c1b60db9086#.hd5m52yso)

------
jflatow
> The FBI wants to block individuals from knowing if their information is in a
> massive repository of biometric records, which includes fingerprints and
> facial scans, if the release of information would "compromise" a law
> enforcement investigation.

These tactics have become so predictable, do the people proposing these things
even realize how this comes across? I really wonder what the discussions
inside the FBI that lead up to these "proposals" sound like.

~~~
Godel_unicode
I would guess that request came from FBI agents thinking like criminals. One
can imagine criminals using the biometric database as an early-warning system
for fleeing the country, or for vetting accomplices. Wanted: safe-cracker
whose prints are not in the FBI database. Must provide recent screenshot.

~~~
jflatow
Sure, but there are many things the FBI _could_ be doing to be more effective.
The only thing stopping them is constitutional protection of civil liberties.
So I wonder what the conversation sounds like when they determine in this
case, they should be exempt from the law.

~~~
Godel_unicode
I'm confused by this post, are you saying that you think their request in this
case for an exemption during investigations needs further explanation? Or is
this more a question of "why this" as opposed to other things that would, as
you say, be more effective?

"Ongoing investigation" is, in my understanding, a pretty normal reason for
law enforcement to not provide information.

~~~
jflatow
What I mean is that I wonder what the internal dialogue is over this. This is
more out of curiosity than indignation, I would like to be a fly on the wall
to understand how this happens.

It seems to me, no matter what the reason, this is the justification they
would give, because its the only reasonable one. But the Privacy Act exists
for a reason, so I wonder what prompted them to decide it was worth making
this proposal, and the discussion that actually ensued with the lawyers, etc.
before making it. In particular, did they weigh the costs/benefits of what
they are asking for, or are they just pushing for whatever privileges they can
get?

------
the_ancient
People are really focusing on the wrong thing...

The issue is not the government wants to exempt themselves from FOIA, or
Privacy Laws

The issue is that the government is allowed to compile these databases in the
first place.

If I am not under active investigation, then the FBI has no business keeping
records on me in the first place. If I am not suspected of a crime, they
should not have my face, my prints, or anything else about me in their
databases.

I dont even agree with giving them the authority to keep records of people
convicted of any crime in the past forever. There should be auto expunge say
after 10 years with out any further criminal conviction especially for crimes
that do not involve injury to another party (aka drug crimes, serious traffic
offenses and other "victimless crimes" )

------
throwawaykeno
_> Aside from criminals, suspects and detainees, the system includes data from
people fingerprinted for jobs... or volunteer service, background checks, ..._

Gotta make sure we keep tabs on those shady _volunteers_... Jesus.

~~~
jfoutz
It seems shady, but it's pretty common for people working with kids or elderly
or disabled to be fingerprinted. There's the possibility of abuse. Volunteers
have a weaker affiliation with an organization than employees so some
organizations feel the need to go a little further.

~~~
throwawaykeno
And I can sympathize with that. But those prints should be destroyed -- with a
verifiable chain of evidence witnessing their destruction -- immediately after
the background check. And people should have the right to inquire about
whether prints submitted for background checks of this form are retained. And
LEO organizations, including the FBI, shouldn't be allowed to lie.

More systemically, routine background checks on people who are not suspected
criminals should be handled by an independent organization outside of the FBI.

~~~
DougWebb
They're not destroyed because the prints aren't just used to determine if the
person has committed a crime in the past; they're used in case a crime is
committed in the future, and the only evidence for the criminal's identity is
fingerprints collected from the scene. Without the records, every potential
suspect would have to be fingerprinted again. I'd rather have my prints on
file and be automatically cleared of suspicion than have the police show up at
my door to bring me in for prints and questioning, especially if there is a
high-profile crime (involving children, for example) and the media are digging
around the lives of every suspect.

~~~
lutorm
If it's a background check, it's a background check. Otherwise it's "mandatory
registration in the government's database", not a background check.

There's a difference between retaining the fingerprints of convicted criminals
as part of their case file and pre-emptively collecting fingerprints on people
who are not even suspected of a crime.

If there's anything less than a 0% false-positive rate, having a massive
database of fingerprints to scan without any criterion will just make it
_more_ likely that the police will show up at your door because "your prints
were found at the scene" of some crime.

------
nashashmi
> FBI posting claimed it is “impossible to know in advance what information is
> accurate, relevant, timely and complete” for “authorized law enforcement
> purposes.”

> “With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new
> significance when new details are brought to light,"

A person is supposed to be investigated for a particular crime. Any actions
clearly in association with such crime is considered relevant. But if during
the investigation, it is revealed that their are other crimes that the person
may be committing, any actions recorded in the past committed in association
with a crime found later becomes relevant later.

I do not understand the "intent" of the law. Is the FBI prevented from
investigating other crimes other than the one initially authorized?

Or is the FBI supposed to ignore crimes observed if not relevant to the crime
being investigated?

~~~
greglindahl
The intent of the law is to end the J. Edgar Hoover-era practice of keeping
files on people who aren't even suspected of a crime... and if they
investigate and find nothing, the files should be destroyed.

------
wmeredith
The thing about the rule of law, is that it only works if it applies to
everyone.

------
nxzero
>> "Having access to your own records would help avoid detection or
apprehension, the draft posting said."

So, basically security through obscurity?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity)

~~~
Godel_unicode
In the sense that passwords are security through obscurity, yes. Please try to
avoid using this trope except when it actually applies; obscurity in the
design of a system, not a system keeping some information secret. See the
difference?

As an extremely obvious example, imagine being able to screen getaway drivers
whether or not their face is "on file". Now there's no "known wheelman Bobby
was seen driving away with two other men". Helpful in avoiding detection, no?

Note that I'm not arguing in favor or against, just trying to play devil's
advocate. There's a great deal of group think on these issues around here, and
the Other Side never seems to get brought up.

~~~
nxzero
This is about hiding what they have, how they got it, how they used it, etc.

For example, if you discovered the FBI had data that made no sense for them to
have, such as an iris scan, you'd not only know they had it, but they they had
likely taken it from a distance, and maybe even doing passive scanning too.

To be honest, aside from system design vs secret info, not following the
position your presenting.

To get some idea of how this has to do with sources and methods, look into how
Stringray like devices work, how they're used to collect data, how the data is
used, etc.

------
King-Aaron
Of course they do.

------
58028641
Can the government go at least one day without doing something stupid?

~~~
pdkl95

        s/government/humans/

------
dang
Url changed from [http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-
database...](http://undergroundreporter.org/fbi-quiet-biometrics-database/),
which points to this.

