EFF Sues FBI: Hey Before You Launch New Face Recognition Tool, Can You Respond To Our FOIA On Old Tool?
from the just-saying dept
The folks over at EFF have now sued the FBI concerning a set of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the FBI has failed to respond to concerning its use of various biometric tools, such as face recognition. The EFF finds this to be especially pernicious, since the FBI has gleefully announced plans to expand these efforts, without any information or public debate on how its existing programs have worked (or, as the case may be, not worked):In the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, EFF is asking a judge to enforce EFF's FOIA requests, which were sent to the FBI in June and July of last year. The information sought includes agreements and discussions between the FBI and various state agencies regarding the face-recognition program; records addressing the reliability of face-recognition technology; and documentation of the FBI's plan to merge civilian and criminal records in a single repository. EFF is also seeking disclosure of the total number of face-recognition capable records currently in the FBI's database, as well as the proposed number at deployment.Yet again, with our intelligence agencies, it appears that the federal government seems to feel that it can do whatever it wants, and any attempt to answer to the public is to be ignored at all costs.
NGI will have an unprecedented impact on Americans' privacy interests, and yet the FBI has not updated its Privacy Impact Assessment since 2008, well before it built the system and signed agreements with several states for an early roll-out of the program.
"Before the federal government decides to expand its surveillance powers, there needs to be a public debate," Lynch says. "But there can be no public debate until the details of the program are presented to the public."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: biometrics, face recognition, fbi, foia
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
You wonder why the FBI thinks EFF supporters are “bad guys”.
“Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
Let's assume you're making a serious proposal (I have my doubts about how serious you were—but lay that aside.)
I would say that oversight is a core function of the legislature. Oversight, of course, is not quite in the same vein as the enactment of bills into public law. Thus there wouldn't be quite the same non-delegation concerns. Still, though, I would have some different concerns along the lines of non-delegation, even though I'm not saying oversight is an exclusive function of the legislature. It's just that oversight is a responsibility the legislature should not shirk.
Take the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), described as “hitherto a toothless watchdog”. It's all too easy for the government to dump off its oversight responsibilities onto some obscure commission and then declare “problem solved!”. Politicians are prone to that.
But note that the PCLOB does not have the benefit of the speech and debate clause. It does not have subpoena power. It has no sergeant-at-arms with the inherent power to jail recalcitrant and obstructive persons. It doesn't even have its own journal in which may freely publish. I don't know if it even has the power to make its own rules for its own proceedings.
You want to elect the EFF to Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
You know, we see this scenario play out all the time in Washington:
There's a problem, so Congress or the President selects an official, or group of officials, and puts them in charge of Doing This™ or Doing That™. And then, Congress, or the President, puts out a press release trumpeting how they've addressed the problem.
But the politicians don't give any budget authority to the Officials In Charge™ of Doing This™ or Doing That™.
So you know what? What a funny joke! Without budget authority—you're nothing.
The reason why Congressional oversight committees work at all —to the extent that they do work— is most of all due to their relationship with the appropriations committees. Forget the impeachment power, Congress doesn't use it often enough to make it a credible stick.
Structurally, it's not really so much that Congress can't delegate its oversight authority per se. It's that Congress can't —or won't— —but often, in a definite sense, can't— Congress can't really delegate the powers and authorities needed to make genuine oversight more than a laughing stock.
Do you want to give the EFF power to make appropriations from the treasury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security, Bitches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't get me wrong, I respect the EFF and ACLU. I just don't see how they expect to change anything using channels the government control.
Kind of like how congress set up official whistle blower channels for whistle blowers to use. What a joke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I consider this type of action, much like voting, as "necessary but insufficient". I don't think real reform can come without it, but I also don't think real reform can come if that's the only kind of effort being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait, it's not FISA, it's FOIA!
Who cares at this point? We burned the Constitution, we ignored due process, we ignore any shred of ethics and honesty. Why stop now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]