Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Child ID App

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–249 of 249 posts

Re: FBI Child ID App

#241

Post by dredmorbius »

ahazred8ta wrote: post #231
dredmorbius wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a science-fiction short story I've been trying to remember for quite some time. I'd all but certainly read it in an anthology during the 1970s or early 1980s, probably one of the award compilations (Hugos, Analog, etc.). A computer programmer and his boss are working on a large data tracking system that is about to be activated, in which everyone's identification and personal information are entered. The boss…

three short stories by Roger Zelazny - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Legion_(short_sto...

And yes, that does seem to be the piece / include the scenario.

(There may well have been others.)

Re: FBI Child ID App

#242

Post by giancarlostoro »

okwubodu wrote: post #117
giancarlostoro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea you could do querying for twitter like that...

Yep, it has almost the same feature set as the dev API. You can get really specific without knowing what exactly you’re searching for.

Do you always have to put it in parenthesis to make it know you're trying to do an advanced query?

Re: FBI Child ID App

#243

Post by mleonhard »

procombo wrote: post #158
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happened to me as well. Now the FBI has my fingerprints on file even though I've never committed a crime. I had a discussion with my Mom a couple years about this and she admitted she screwed up. I can't blame her of course. Especially since at the time there was plenty of FBI propoganda about missing kids terrifying parents and claiming this was a solution.

In the U.S. we used to collect palm/foot prints on every child within a few days of birth. Newborn fingerprints are difficult to collect, as skin is very delicate. Now we require DNA collection at birth. https://www.aclu.org/other/newborn-dna-banking With my youngest I found a clever way to "opt-out". Unfortunately at my child's 6 month pediatric appointment at a private clinic, the nurse charged in and demanded a sa…

California destroys the newborn's blood sample when the parents ask [0], but their privacy policy says that sometimes they don't do it [1]:

> You have a right to ask the Newborn Screening Program not to use or share your or your newborn’s information and/or specimen in the ways listed in this notice. However, we may not be able to comply with your request.

[0] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/MyBabysB...

[1] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/nbsnpp.a...

Re: FBI Child ID App

#244

Post by SapporoChris »

Tade0 wrote: post #239
SapporoChris wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While most people do have stable iris patterns it is not the case for everyone. Numerous conditions can cause changes in the eyes. Glaucoma being the most obvious one, but there are a whole host of other conditions like lisch nodules, Uveal melanoma, etc. However, perhaps with training, identification could be made in spite of changes to the iris.

The algorithms used are pretty robust - your typical iris scan won't be done with a fully opened eye and there's also the question of eyelashes. Some examples: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-outline-boundaries-s...

Interesting link, thank you. Sorry for the late reply. The idea of wearing camouflaged contact lenses, and the work to defeat the attempt is interesting.

Re: FBI Child ID App

#245

Post by pwython »

nobody9999 wrote: post #193
pwython wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That unconstitutional overreach has been used to do what exactly? No I really want to know. It’s not keeping us safe..." Unpopular opinion, but you know the old saying: No one hears about the times the FBI, CIA, etc has stopped a terrorist act, you only hear about the disasters that eventually played out. For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happen…

>I don't understand the upset for "warrantless wire-tapping" unless you have something to hide, especially when these days people are begging the government to protect us from extremists/terrorists and not sit on their hands. Okay. Let's assume for the moment that you "have nothing to hide." Let's go to your house and set up cameras and microphones covering the premises. Then, let's do the same for your automobile(s)…

> "Once that's done, we can set up a website where we can all watch/listen to you... What's that? You don't consent to such monitoring?"

Having a system for counter-terrorism agencies to check phone logs for keywords is vastly different from setting up cameras in everyones houses for the world to see. I'm not even sure how anyone would think that's remotely similar.

Re: FBI Child ID App

#246

Post by pwython »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #204
pwython wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That unconstitutional overreach has been used to do what exactly? No I really want to know. It’s not keeping us safe..." Unpopular opinion, but you know the old saying: No one hears about the times the FBI, CIA, etc has stopped a terrorist act, you only hear about the disasters that eventually played out. For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happen…

“hundreds have been caught“ [citation needed] You are going to get flagged to death. Rightfully so.

Here's one of many examples, just from a small county in Florida, relating to the "Sex Money Murder" gang:

https://www.fox13news.com/news/41-arrested-in-racketeering-i...

"We did a gang wiretap... where we listened to social media apps... where we listened to cell phones and their communications... In total, 41 suspects are facing charges..."

That's what I'm talking about. Suspects being monitored. Even if there's not a court warrant for such individuals, I'd be happy with the LEO using any means to catch criminals involved in sex trafficking, murder, etc.

Re: FBI Child ID App

#247

Post by [deleted] »

int_19h wrote: post #202
pwython wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That unconstitutional overreach has been used to do what exactly? No I really want to know. It’s not keeping us safe..." Unpopular opinion, but you know the old saying: No one hears about the times the FBI, CIA, etc has stopped a terrorist act, you only hear about the disasters that eventually played out. For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happen…

They're welcome to tell us all about all those terrorist acts that they have supposedly prevented. And if you don't understand the upset for having some stranger rife through your private data, may I have a full dump of your email inbox?

[deleted]

Re: FBI Child ID App

#248

Post by pwython »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #190
pwython wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That unconstitutional overreach has been used to do what exactly? No I really want to know. It’s not keeping us safe..." Unpopular opinion, but you know the old saying: No one hears about the times the FBI, CIA, etc has stopped a terrorist act, you only hear about the disasters that eventually played out. For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happen…

>For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happened. If their dragnets had even a shred of utility for that purpose they'd be telling you about it at every opportunity.

They do put it out there. But what makes headlines that people actually see?

"500 murdered in a terrorist attack"

versus:

"We caught some bad guys" [who potentially could've killed more]

Re: FBI Child ID App

#249

Post by pwython »

Taek wrote: post #199
pwython wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That unconstitutional overreach has been used to do what exactly? No I really want to know. It’s not keeping us safe..." Unpopular opinion, but you know the old saying: No one hears about the times the FBI, CIA, etc has stopped a terrorist act, you only hear about the disasters that eventually played out. For every one sick person that went on to do something crazy, hundreds have been caught before anything happen…

Unpopular opinon because its not backed by data. We can use terrist events in countries that don't live under a panopticon as a control group. Mass surveillance is not improving general safety.

Data: https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm
Post reply on HN