It's impressive and scary how close we are to some of the same technology, especially as the article noted, "The FBI’s NGI, if the right checks and balances aren’t in place, could very easily become a tool that decimates civilian privacy and freedom." Parallels nicely with some of the issues in Little Brother.
This would be a useful technology if it's sole purpose was to identify criminals and confirm a suspect's activity in a crime. The article brings up IAFIS, the system used today to identify criminals based on fingerprints. It takes about half an hour on average to get feedback on a print. With NGI this could take place in a fraction of the time, but is the extra time really worth the potential assault on all citizens' privacy? I don't think so. And the idea of the government being able to access everyone's DNA records...that's just too much. Every detail about you is in your DNA. Do they really need to know every detail in order to make a positive identification on a criminal? No.
I saw the "92%" accuracy and immediately thought about the "false positive paradox." Looks like I learned something! An 8% chance of catching someone innocent doesn't make me any more relieved. It's like throwing out a giant fish net...sure you will catch somebody doing something wrong (regardless of how wrong), but in doing so you will also catch numerous innocent people who still have rights and are now victims. You can't prevent every bad thing from happening all the time. That's just impossible and insane. However, you can focus your efforts on the events that matter and instead try to catch those who actually have acted criminally.
It's impressive and scary how close we are to some of the same technology, especially as the article noted, "The FBI’s NGI, if the right checks and balances aren’t in place, could very easily become a tool that decimates civilian privacy and freedom." Parallels nicely with some of the issues in Little Brother.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a useful technology if it's sole purpose was to identify criminals and confirm a suspect's activity in a crime. The article brings up IAFIS, the system used today to identify criminals based on fingerprints. It takes about half an hour on average to get feedback on a print. With NGI this could take place in a fraction of the time, but is the extra time really worth the potential assault on all citizens' privacy? I don't think so. And the idea of the government being able to access everyone's DNA records...that's just too much. Every detail about you is in your DNA. Do they really need to know every detail in order to make a positive identification on a criminal? No.
ReplyDeleteI saw the "92%" accuracy and immediately thought about the "false positive paradox." Looks like I learned something! An 8% chance of catching someone innocent doesn't make me any more relieved. It's like throwing out a giant fish net...sure you will catch somebody doing something wrong (regardless of how wrong), but in doing so you will also catch numerous innocent people who still have rights and are now victims. You can't prevent every bad thing from happening all the time. That's just impossible and insane. However, you can focus your efforts on the events that matter and instead try to catch those who actually have acted criminally.
ReplyDelete