The Failures Of Facial Recognition Software: Drivers Losing Licenses For Looking Like Terrorists

from the you-know-you're-a-terrorist,-when... dept

Over the years, we've discussed the technological failings of facial recognition software for law enforcement... but they just keep on trying. RichS was the first of a bunch of you to send in the story of the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspending licenses due to a match on facial recognition software designed to "detect" terrorists:

After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his as a possible fraud.

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.

Massachusetts bureaucrats seem positively thrilled with the system, claiming that they're sending out 1,500 suspension notices a day based on such reports. To be honest, I can't believe that they really mean per day, seeing as the article also notes that the facial recognition system only called out 1,000 such matches last year (and then later claims 1,860 licenses were revoked last year because of the software, so the numbers are all over the place). But, still, it sounds like a lot of folks in Massachusetts have to re-prove their identity every day because some computer falsely thinks they're someone else.

Either way, the bureaucrats don't seem at all concerned about relying on a highly questionable system to declare people guilty:

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.

Ah, the logic of clueless bureaucrats.

Filed Under: driving, facial recognition, massachusetts

Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member

from the if-you-do-that-sort-of-thing dept

I'm not a member of any political party. I even hate the term "independent." When I was first eligible to register to vote, oh so many years ago, the voter registration form told me to check off "Democrat," "Republican" or "Independent." There may have been other options, though I don't remember them. Instead I just skipped that section entirely, and I later received a confirmation of my voter status, which brilliantly listed my party as "BLANK." Since then, I tend to consider my political party to be BLANK and I'm pretty happy with that. However, for those who do like to align yourselves with a particular political party, James O'Keefe writes in to let us know that apparently Massachusetts is the first state in the US that will allow people to officially register as a Pirate Party member. Apparently, the state needs to approve political parties before they can become "recognized." While The Pirate Party has receive some attention, and been able to get two members elected to the European Parliament, it really has not received much attention stateside. I do think that the party pushes some important points concerning internet freedom, free speech and against censorship.

Filed Under: massachusetts, pirate party

Massachusetts Threatens Website For Publishing Info It Gave The Site After A FOIA Request

from the locking-up-of-information dept

An anonymous reader sends over the news that the website MuckRock.com -- an open records website -- has received a threat letter from the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, concerning some food stamp data that MuckRock had published. How did MuckRock get the data? It had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, who gave it to them. Apparently, the department now realized that it released the data in error and is trying to erase the mistake by ordering the site to delete the info.

I am writing to inform you that certain information found on the website http://www.muckrock.com, which lists individual retailer redemptions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is posted in violation of federal law.. [sic] This information was erroneously released by the Department of Transitional Assistance to Spare Change News. Federal law prohibits release of such information under 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c), and 7 CFR 278.1(q).

Failure to remove this information may result in fines or imprisonment. 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c) (“any person who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by Federal law (including a regulation) any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both).

The Department has told the press that it was the federal government which alerted it to the mistake and the department decided to inform the MuckRock owner that he might face potential legal problems from the federal government, but didn't intend the letter to be a direct threat from itself. Of course, now that the news of the demand has been made public, the original information will only get that much more attention...

Filed Under: foia, freedom of information, massachusetts, threats

Court Strikes Down Overly Broad Massachusetts 'Harmful To Minors' Law

from the free-speech-ftw dept

In another win for free speech rights over an overly aggressive gov't attempt to censor, a federal judge issued an injunction barring a Massacusetts law that tried to ban certain works from the internet for being "harmful to minors." The judge noted that since the law did not require that the works be "purposefully sent to a person the sender knew to be a minor," it went way too far. There have certainly been a lot of attempts by governments to legislate parts of the First Amendment away, and it's nice to see the courts still believe strongly in protecting at least that Amendment.

Filed Under: free speech, harmful to minors, massachusetts

Massachusetts May Be The First To Get A Right To Repair Law

from the about-time dept

For quite some time now there have been reports about how carmakers have been forcing car owners to take cars to the dealers for (expensive) repairs, by using special software to diagnose problems in the computer system, and only giving the necessary software to dealers. This is actually one of many nasty consequences of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules (pay attention Canada), whereby it should be perfectly legal for anyone you ask to work on your car -- but thanks to digital locks placed on your car's computer by automakers, other mechanics would be breaking the law just to figure out how to get around the locks. Every year for the past decade, there are attempts to pass a national "right to repair" act at the federal level to take care of this, but it never goes anywhere.

However, it looks like at least some states are trying to take matters into their own hands. jjmsan points us to the news that Massachusetts is apparently close to creating just such a statewide law, and many are hoping it will drive other states to follow suit. The automakers, of course, are fighting it, but their logic doesn't make much sense:

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an association of 11 vehicle manufacturers including Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co., said aftermarket parts companies are seeking information that would enable them to make inexpensive parts in foreign countries without incurring research and development costs.

"This is a thinly veiled attempt by parts manufacturers to lower the cost of remanufacturing original equipment of manufacturer parts," alliance spokesman Charles Territo said. "Once this information is released, that intellectual property will be in China by the end of the month."

So? If you can't compete with other aftermarket companies, that's your problem. You shouldn't be able to unfairly lock them out of the market and jack up prices just through some software code.

Filed Under: automobile, digital locks, dmca, freedom to tinker, massachusetts, right to repair

Teens Face Felony Charges Over Girl Who Committed Suicide

from the lori-drew-redux? dept

In a case that at least brings to mind the Lori Drew lawsuit, prosecutors in Western Massachusetts have figured out how to charge nine teenagers over the suicide death of a fellow student. Like the Drew case, there's an emotional issue here: which is that the bullying and the suicide are horrible stories, and it's a situation where certainly people have a natural inclination to want to punish someone. But it's a lot trickier than that. Punishing people because someone commits suicide sets a really dangerous precedent that could encourage more kids to commit suicide -- thinking that it will get their tormentors "punished." Now, there may actually be much more to this case -- and some of the charges at least suggest there's a possibility of additional activities, such as statutory rape, that happened with some of the teens. However, all of the news reports seem to focus on the fact that these charges were brought because of the suicide.

Filed Under: crime, massachusetts

Massachusetts Says Cops Need Warrant To Stick GPS Device On Your Car

from the that-makes-two-states dept

For the past few years, it's become increasingly common for police to put GPS devices on suspects' cars to track where they are. But, that's kicked up a bunch of legal questions concerning whether or not it's legal to do that without a warrant. So far, the courts have not really agreed. Earlier this year, we saw one court (a federal appeals court, 4th circuit) say that police didn't need a warrant, but then, just days later, a court in NY ruled the other way, saying that it was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Now, the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts has weighed in as well, again saying that a warrant is needed to put a GPS device on your car. So that makes NY and Massachusetts as states where police can't randomly stick GPS devices on your car. The other 48 states? Good luck...

Filed Under: gps, massachusetts, police, warrant

Got That New iPod Nano? You Might Risk Arrest In Massachusetts

from the that's-not-good dept

You may have heard that the new iPod Nano that was just released happens to include a voice recorder among other new features. But if you get one, you might want to be careful how you use it -- especially in certain states, such as Massachusetts. Slashdot points us to a story about a guy who was arrested in a dispute-gone-wrong with a car repair shop, but the really odd part is that beyond disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the guy was charged with both "unlawful wiretapping and possessing a device for wiretapping." Wiretapping? In a dispute involving a mechanic? Apparently the guy had a simple Olympus digital voice recorder in his pocket, which was on during his argument with the repair shop. And Massachusetts is one of twelve states with a law that forbids taping conversations without the approval of everyone involved. Even if you accept such a law (and it doesn't make much sense to me), the inclusion of "possessing a device for wiretapping" seems really problematic. Digital voice recorders are quite common. Plus, many mobile phones and even cameras include similar things. And, of course, now with the new iPods including that, does it mean it's illegal to carry one in Massachusetts (or those eleven other states) without first announcing it and getting permission? Obviously no one's likely to get arrested just for carrying around an iPod Nano, but the fact that the law makes such a scenario possible demonstrates a pretty serious problem with the law.

Filed Under: massachusetts, voice recorder, wiretapping

Truth Is No Longer An Absolute Defense Against Libel?!?

from the um...-that's-not-good dept

Thanks to Jon, for pointing to us a very scary recent court ruling that appears to have done away with one of the most basic free speech rights: that truth is an absolute defense against libel. Apparently, a federal appeals court in Boston feels that there are exceptions to this rule, and that even the truth can be libelous. If that seems incredibly problematic, you're right.

The case involved the office supply company Staples, who had fired an employee for abusing the company's travel and expense reporting system. After letting the guy, Alan S. Noonan, go, the company sent an email to many employees letting them know why Noonan was fired: "A thorough investigation determined that Alan was not in compliance with our [travel and expenses] policies." Noonan sued for libel, but Staples pointed out that since it was entirely accurate, there was no case.

However, the appeals court noted a century old Massachusetts law that suggests that truth is a defense against libel except if the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the defendant in publishing the statement. Even though an earlier ruling had ruled that particular law was unconstitutional, the appeals court said that earlier ruling didn't apply. Instead, it said that since Staples had never named an employee fired for similar reasons, there was "malice" in sending out the email it sent. This may only apply in Massachusetts and it's highly likely to eventually be overturned (either in a rehearing by the entire appeals court, or eventually the Supreme Court), but in the meantime, it represents a very troubling change in the commonly accepted understanding that true statements can't be found as libelous.

Filed Under: libel, malice, massachusetts, truth
Companies: staples

Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too

from the big-brother dept

For several years, authorities in Oregon have been pursuing a plan to put GPS units in every car in the state to track and tax drivers' mileage. Now, Massachusetts wants to get in on the act, and replace its gas tax with a mileage-based tax (via Boing Boing) generated by GPS units in cars. The state wants to ditch its gas tax because rising fuel efficiency is leading to decreasing tax revenue, so the new plan would instead charge drivers a quarter of a cent for each mile they drive. The state's governor is talking not just about boosting tax revenue, but says he likes ideas that are "faster, cheaper, simpler." It's not clear how replacing the current gas tax by forcing drivers to install GPS trackers in their cars and building an infrastructure to gather data from them, then assess and collect a mileage tax will be fast, cheap or simple. This doesn't even mention the myriad privacy concerns of giving state employees access to records of Massachusetts drivers' activity. This idea continually pops up, whether as a tax idea or a new way to charge for auto insurance -- but it never seems to hold any more value beyond a soundbite.

Filed Under: driving, gps, massachusetts, monitoring, tax