Home > Identity Theft > Could Law Enforcement Leverage Facebook to Identify You?

Comments 0 Comments

Facebook’s privacy policies have always been the subject of debate among its users — especially when they change, as they did this month for underage users. After all, when you’re putting so much information online where anyone can see it, how upset can you be when the public sees it?

But what if “the public” is law enforcement, and their idea of fair use is uploading all your pictures into a vast database used to identify persons of interest in crimes? As a former member of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, I’m in favor of catching the bad guys — just not at the expense of the privacy rights of every other American.

The feasibility of such a scenario, while common in television shows like “Blacklist,” “NCIS” and even “Person of Interest,” isn’t a reality, yet — but a new report by Martin Kaste at NPR shows that it might be possible, even in the near future. As he wrote, “Last year, Facebook bought Face.com, whose company’s founders had published a paper titled ‘Leveraging Billions of Faces to Overcome Performance Barriers in Unconstrained Face Recognition.'”

And while University of Washington computer expert Neeraj Kumar told Kaste that the technology doesn’t yet exist to upload the billions of pictures on Facebook into a law enforcement database, there are plenty of databases available for their use that contain thousands of pictures. In fact, Kumar admitted that the biggest problem with facial recognition is matching poor-quality surveillance footage with the large database of pictures the police are allowed to utilize: mug shots.

But what if law enforcement was allowed to use a large database of pictures from multiple angles — like the ones created when we “tag” Facebook photos? They could build what Kumar called “models,” exponentially improving the accuracy of existing facial recognition.

When Law Enforcement and Privacy Collide

That’s what was apparently behind the thinking in the state of Ohio, which recently grabbed all the photos from driver’s licenses issued in the state and uploaded them into their facial recognition system. It was only after the system went live — and after police used it 2,600 times — that the Ohio Attorney General thought it might be a good idea to establish an advisory panel to help safeguard people’s privacy.

The Ohio database threw new light on Senator Al Franken’s (D-MN) concerns expressed during a hearing last year into the privacy concerns associated with facial recognition software. FBI deputy assistant director Jerome Pender testified that the FBI’s database — which didn’t include pictures from sites like Facebook — contained 12.8 million photographs, and Maneesha Mithal, the Associate Director of the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, promised the agency was “studying” the privacy concerns of facial recognition technologies for companies like Facebook, whose users add 2.5 billion photos a month to the service.

Facebook responded, saying that their encryption wouldn’t allow third parties to access their photos database — though, in 2013, their new “graph search” might do just that.

What This Means for You

So what is the average Facebook user to do? All we privacy advocates can do is tell you to turn up your privacy controls only allowing friends to see your pictures, making sure you approve any photo tags before others can see them and limiting the photos you decide to post. But, of course, that makes things less convenient. And, based upon the tsunami of disclosures regarding NSA snooping, doing so may not prevent the government from accessing your photos anyway.

In an interview with the Smithsonian last Friday, one of the men behind the dystopian surveillance-state TV series “Person Of Interest” — who is intimately aware of the potential vulnerabilities of participating in the surveillance culture — talked about the trade-offs between what he knows to be smart security and what is increasing the normal level of connectedness online.

Greg Plageman, the executive producer on “Person of Interest,” told the Smithsonian, “There’s a bit of a scare, and we all react and say, wait a minute, do I need to be more privacy-conscious in terms of how I operate technology? And the truth is it’s a huge pain in the ass. I’ve tried a couple of these web-surfing softwares, but it slows things down. Eventually, if you want to be a person that’s connected, if you want to stay connected to your colleagues and your family, you realize that you have to surrender a certain amount of privacy.”

“In terms of whether or not we’re entering another era, it’s difficult to say when you realize that the assault on privacy is both public and private now. It’s Google, it’s Facebook, it’s what you voluntarily have surrendered,” he said.

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team