(untitled)

Does anyone know the extent to which law enforcement would use automatic face recognition in searching for a fugitive? Assuming all other point of technological recognition are taken care of i.e. no cellphone, no computer, no cards with chips, etc Obviously it depends on the level of involvement, i.e. FBI and CIA would use anything at their disposal, who knows though about some town sheriff in Montana investigating a skipped court case. But what about a sheriff in Seattle, what kind of tools would he have at his disposal? I guess I'm most interested in knowing if there are set law gradients by severity for when to engage the technology or if it is all encompassing.

>I guess I'm most interested in knowing if there are set law gradients by severity for when to engage the technology or if it is all encompassing. that falls under a complex situation >does the LE agency have resources available >are those resources too costly to use >will using those resources compromise the fact that they have those resources if used in court >are they beta testing new tech in the area you need to consider a few important reulations that LE has at their disposal, PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE >The plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize objects not described in a warrant when executing a lawful search or seizure if he observes the object in plain view and has probable cause to believe that it is connected with criminal activities. The incriminating character of the object should be immediately identifiable. Evidence in a container can not possibly be identified by plain observation or touch and therefore should not be seized unless it is listed in the warrant. >Analogously, plain feel doctrine applies in pat-down searches when an officer by plain feel of the outside of clothes reasonably believes an item in the person’s pocket is a contraband or evidence. The basis for this also allows for watching or monitoring anything publicly available. the other part is pic related, depending on local laws, certain organizations may have more or less equipment available. sometimes government grants allow small town agencies to buy military surplus or other equipment to support homeland security and counter terror operations (these end up being used for swat and crowd control mostly). what should concern you more is companies selling their camera footage. Not to mention seattle has lots of tech that gets beta tested in public. as for tools, see https://theintercept.com/surveillance-catalogue/ for a price list of LE tools You also need to consider whose jurisdiction the case falls under, if the small time LE cannot get answers, they may find a way to use more sophisticated federal level resources. also many federal agencies use small time LE to supplement their agents

>>4387 Thank you for your reply, you linked some interesting info which I went through but I'm not sure if it fully answered my question. I was looking more for a response such as If you have a warrant out for a traffic violation the police will pretty much never use CCTV face recognition. If you have a warrant out for scamming the police will sometimes use CCTV face recognition depending on the severity, (i.e. over 500,000 lost) If you have a warrant out for mass murder the police will almost always use CCTV face recognition. Something like that, but I am also not even sure if utilizing nationwide face recognition software is something that LE is okay with people knowing (not sure if it's public info or something the NSA tries to keep covered (poorly)). Anyway I did find an answer to my actual question, which is that cops will not use CCTV face recognition software for most minor warrants such as for traffic violations or skipping jury duty. Good to know means I can still walk free in the city :)

>>4393 >Something like that, but I am also not even sure if utilizing nationwide face recognition software is something that LE is okay with people knowing (not sure if it's public info or something the NSA tries to keep covered (poorly)). there were a few high profile cases in recent years, where three letters stated that they would not divulge tactics, or even use tactics in a specific case, because of the fear that their tactics would be known. the assumption is correct >Anyway I did find an answer to my actual question, which is that cops will not use CCTV face recognition software for most minor warrants such as for traffic violations or skipping jury duty. Good to know means I can still walk free in the city :) so hypothetically speaking a friend of yours skipped jury duty? most LE is incompetent anyway. people who are federally wanted end up getting caught by shear luck all the time. Usually random speeding tickets are the cause of arrests like those. People getting automated tickets in another state or while traveling may never get them, and then have a warrant out for them, same with troops who abandon the military, they usually get caught years later when they went 5 miles over the speed limit and then they get flagged for arrest

>>4400 Thank you for your response, reconfirming other things I had heard in the wired. Seems that people unknowingly having warrants out for their arrest is not too uncommon. It's nice to know that we are not living in a COMPLETE police state, even though all of the technology is seemingly in place...

>>4406 the technology is in place, its the manpower that is lacking, look at how many cybercrimes are prosecuted versus the manpower it takes for one person to get got

FBI handles all domestic investigations so if your small town sheriff wanted access to more advanced information capabilities he would have to go through the FBI. Local LE do not like the FBI for the most part, which is good. NSA/CIA are mainly focused on overseas operations. I don't doubt they do domestic stuff, but it usually isn't worth the risk when it can be passed off to the FBI. You have to remember the vast majority of NSA staff are regular Americans and would receive harsh punishment for breaking any of the very strict and specific information collections rules. However, the compartmentalized nature of government intelligence agency makes it difficult to know what your work is really being used for. I don’t want to downplay the immense capabilities of these agency but Agent Smith has the right idea, LE is very incompetent. The requirements to work in ABC agency are so intensive that it rules out a lot of talented candidates. Manpower is severely lacking, I assume NSA/CIA has their hands full just trying to deal with situations overseas.

Montana may not have CCTV everywhere if that's your point but having lived in rural Montana briefly I observed that everyone seemed to be on a first name basis with Sheriff Rick. You have to buy food, gas or ammo eventually and those shop owners all have security cameras. They might just willingly hand over their footage to officer friendly if he asks. He needs a warrant to demand it; not to ask politely and receive it freely.

Anything that is publicly recorded can have biometric recognition technology retroactively applied. So any agency or org that maintains visual records has potential to use these technologies. Even if your local state agencies do not have the technology or do not currently use this technology it is kind of moot as they can down the line. Here is a talk from an electronic frontier forum conference regarding collection/retention of biometric identification data. https://youtu.be/GGIViTyFfJM?t=28m14s

>>4385 China already has it and ruskies use FindFace (similar technology deployed in main Russia's cities underground rail) to search porn actors on VK. Don't know 'bout the US, but it would be a shame the most powerful country in the world didn't use such a trivial technique to find fugitives. The main strength of the system is a consolidated network of cameras. Be it social network photos, Amazon's IoT cameras or transport CCTV.