Biometrics and Law Enforcement:

Staring Privacy in the Face

Antonio López

Information Studies 246

Social and Cultural Impact of New Information

UCLA

March 19, 2001

Introduction

Television programming has proven the appeal of law enforcement and science fiction. Put the two together and you’ve got a sexy package. Local police and federal law enforcement agencies are some of the biggest clients for the biometrics industry. The online magazine, Computerworld, gives the following definition for biometrics:

Biometrics literally means “life measurement.” In the realm of security, it refers to automated methods for identifying people based on their unique physical characteristics or behavioral traits. Types of biometric methods include fingerprint scanning, iris scanning, retina scanning, handwriting analysis, handprint recognition and voice scanning.[1]

Law enforcement has already widely adopted fingerprint scanning. Facial recognition is the new craze.

Tell someone it’s more than a movie plot, and they’ll tell you it’s a conspiracy theory. Now a days, however, nobody’s too surprised to find that yesterday’s sci-fi is today’s reality. One doesn’t want to swallow too much of the hype though. As much as television infomentaries frame law enforcement’s application of new technology as the harbinger of a belated 1984, and as much as the developers of the technology try to convince you that their technology is reliable, it may be too soon to start crying Big Brother. This isn’t to discourage the public’s diligence; the law enforcement and biometrics industries are already pushing the boundaries of privacy.

Facial recognition (or matching) has gotten a lot of public attention since Super Bowl XXXV on January 28, 2001 in Florida, and well it should. The Tampa Police Department had cameras installed at Raymond James Stadium in an ostensible search for terrorists and other criminals.[2] One of the companies involved in implementing the Super Bowl surveillance, Viisage Inc., touts their product:

The surveillance market is a perfect fit to the human face biometric. No other biometric can provide the passive, non-intrusive and cost effective performance that face does for the surveillance market.[3]

To get a handprint or retina scan, the subject must comply, so these biometrics serve user identification for entry into a secure area or system, but for general surveillance they have little covert potential. A camera can scan a crowd without crowd members knowing, or so biometrics industry publicity claims. A prominent biometrics company, which was not involved in the Super Bowl XXXV surveillance, Visionics, explains how useful its services are:

FaceIt® recognizes faces at a distance, in a crowd and at a glance. FaceIt® will automatically capture faces in the field of view, extract them from their background and compare them against a watchlist or database of certain individuals. These could be shoplifters, known terrorists or criminals....[4]

While it might seem unlikely that they could catch a moving target in a crowd, Office.com went out on a limb to mythologize about the reliability of the technology:

Factors such as lighting, skin tone, eyeglasses, facial expression and hair are irrelevant, and it can detect an individual face in motion, in crowds and at a distance.[5]

Someday the Office.com Nostradami will be vindicated. Meanwhile, Visionics claims that their FaceIt® system has contributed to a 34% reduction of crime in Newham, England, and that:

FaceIt® has already been deployed in some high-profile locations -- in casinos, European soccer matches and in town centers -- and has show [sic] significant results.[6]

Nobody argues with the importance of reducing crime, but covert surveillance of the public raises serious privacy issues.

Privacy

In 1998 the American Bar Association approved standards for electronic surveillance which address technologically-assisted physical surveillance. Standard 2-9.1, §b, Need for Regulation, states in its entirety:

Law enforcement use of technology-assisted physical surveillance can also diminish privacy, freedom of speech, association and travel, and the openness of society. It thus may need to be regulated.[7]

The ABA further defines the word “private” as it pertains to video surveillance. Standard 2-9.2, §f, Private, states in its entirety:

An activity, condition or location is private when the area where it occurs or exists and other relevant considerations afford it a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. A place is private if physical entry therein would be an intrusion upon a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.[8]

A lawyer could easily argue that according to this definition of “private,” the Super Bowl XXXV surveillance did not constitute a breach of privacy, but the issue is not framed in black and white terms. The ABA also provides an enumeration of conditions to be considered for the purpose of measuring invasion of privacy. Standard 2-9.1, §c, Factors Relevant to Regulating Use of Surveillance, provides four categories for consideration:

(i) The law enforcement interests implicated by the surveillance [including three subcategories, one of which is] (C) the nature and extent of the crime involved;

(ii) The extent to which the surveillance technique invades privacy [including eight subcategories, one of which is] (H) whether the surveillance is covert or overt;

(iii) The extent to which the surveillance diminishes or enhances the exercise of First Amendment freedoms and related values;

(iv) The extent to which the surveillance technique is less intrusive than other available effective and efficient alternatives.[9]

The ABA offers a broad array of considerations in addition to the ones above, including Standards 2-9.1: §a, Need for Surveillance; §d, Implementation of the Surveillance; §e, Rule-making and Decision-making Entities; §f, Accountability and Control; §g, Written Guidance to Law Enforcement Officers; and §h, Non-binding Effect of Standards.

Application of ABA Standards to a Specific Case: Super Bowl XXXV

Evaluating the surveillance at Super Bowl XXXV according to ABA standards, one is better equipped to judge the extent to which it was intrusive. Before applying these considerations to an event, however, the context must be well understood. In the case of Super Bowl XXXV, it should be understood that the biometrics companies involved were marketing their products to the Tampa Police Department by offering them “a tryout for free.”[10] The two biometrics companies involved were Graphco Technologies, Inc. (G-TEC™) and Viisage Technology, Inc. The G-TEC™ FaceTrac™ and the Viisage FaceFINDER™ operated together along with installations supplied by network security companies Raytheon Company and Veltek International, Inc. and the Tampa Sports Authority to provide the Tampa Police Department with a chance to try out their merchandise.[11] Furthermore the companies saw it as a way to test their products. According to the Washington Post:

Dave Watkins, managing director of Graphco Technologies Inc., said the event gave the company a chance to learn how the software would perform, which camera angles were most effective and how the lenses of the 20 video cameras should be focused in a public place.[12]

Another interested party was the FBI, who supplied images of people they claim are terrorists. Nobody was apprehended, and only one definite match was made, but Joe Durkin, spokesperson for the Tampa Police Department resorted to the conventional platitude:

Had the system been able to identify a known terrorist and had Tampa police been able to stop him, this tool would have been invaluable.[13]

The terrorist angle is the ace in the hole. There’s no argument against it, and it’s become so ubiquitous, there seems no context in which the authorities would refrain from using it if it could serve their ends. One could certainly speculate that the FBI saw Super Bowl XXXV as an opportunity to expand the already quasi-older-male-sibling grasp they have with Carnivore.

Let’s go back to the ABA’s diagnostic tool, applying Standard 2-9.1, §c, Factors Relevant to Regulating Use of Surveillance, clauses i-iv. Clause i: “the nature and extent of the crime involved” can be summed up as the potential threat of a terrorist strike (although there can’t be much justification for the scalpers in the database). Clause ii: the surveillance was covert. Clause iii: “the extent to which the surveillance [diminished or enhanced] the exercise of First Amendment freedoms and related values” might be interpreted in terms of a strategic positioning by law enforcement with the intent to erode regard for privacy and to adapt the public to perpetual surveillance. Clause iv: “the extent to which the surveillance technique [was] less intrusive than other available effective and efficient alternatives” may be addressed by the fact that it was a test of the technology, so that while there are more effective and efficient alternatives now, digital face-recognition applications have the potential to be optimal as a result of this and future tests.

At the same time that they were capturing images of Super Bowl XXXV ticket holders, Ybor City, FL visitors were being monitored as well. From January 21 through 28,[14] G-TEC™, Viisage, and the Tampa Police Department watched visitors to the entertainment district of Ybor City, using cameras already there, but newly attached to the database and facial-recognition system.[15] Referring back to the ABA standards, can this be justified with a concern for terrorism? Another old stand by for law enforcement is public safety. The Ybor City surveillance can be justified by a concern for public safety.[16] This clearly raises a more serious undermining of issues examined in clause iii.

What conclusion do these analyses bring us to? According to the Los Angeles Times:

USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a nationally recognized authority on constitutional law, said the right to privacy doesn’t extend to places quite so public.... “People have no reasonable expectation that when out in public, they cannot be photographed.”[17]

Maybe what’s more at issue is that they are being treated as suspects in a crime. The police can’t just come to your door and start comparing your face to pictures in a collection of mug shots -- not if they don’t have justifiable cause to regard you as a suspect in a crime which they know has been committed. The issue is analogous to random traffic checkpoints for drug possession. The covert facial matching scenario is a situation in which the authorities have no reason to suspect you, and rather than searching according to a specific crime, they are searching according to many unrelated crimes -- perhaps thousands or even millions. In the case of Super Bowl XXXV, according to David Watkins, Managing Director of G-TEC™, the captured images were compared to “a database of known felons.”[18] If we live in a nation where one is ostensibly innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how could they have “a database of known felons” unless it was actually a database of known escaped felons? Or are they attempting to persecute people who have already served their time -- once a felon always a felon?

Covert Surveillance can be interpreted as an example of unlawful search and seizure without the seizure. Nobody reads you your rights. Referring back to ABA Standard 2-9.1, §c, Factors Relevant to Regulating Use of Surveillance, clause iii, and applying the above considerations, the Super Bowl XXXV surveillance can certainly be interpreted as a compromise of “First Amendment freedoms and related values.” The Super Bowl XXXV issue isn’t a matter of whether the technology worked (because eventually it will work), but whether we are acquiescent in the face of growing surveillance and loss of privacy.

Digital Facial Matching Applications Elsewhere

Though Super Bowl XXXV was a landmark for major sporting events in the United States, video surveillance and even biometric applications are not that rare. The biometrics industry has found our and other security-conscious (i.e., fear-laden) societies to be an ideal environment for hawking their wares. Their target market can be inferred from advertising like that of G-TEC™:

Position a digital camera at a customs station, check-cashing window, jail entrance, or any location where security is a concern and suspicious individuals may try to pass.

Match compared images to catch a thief, a shoplifter, check fraud, or a terrorist.[19]

Beyond surveillance, biometrics companies push facial identification units in the personal computer market, to departments of motor vehicles, and manufacturers of security doors and automated teller machines.

The market is expanding as the industry’s profits grow. Two weeks after Super Bowl XXXV, Business Wire reported economic success for Viisage:

Tom Colatosi, president and chief executive officer [of Viisage], said, “our financial results for the quarter and for the full year continue to demonstrate very solid, top-line growth and consistent growth. We are especially pleased that we have been able to achieve a consistent, predictable revenue and earnings improvements both quarter over quarter and sequentially for eight quarters in a row, culminating in five sequentially profitable quarters.”

Colatosi went on to say. “The successful performance of our face-recognition technology, in the most challenging physical environments, opens a new era for widely deploying our technology to a myriad of existing and new applications that will improve security and personal convenience.”[20]

Some examples of places where facial recognition surveillance and security can be found follow.

The gambling industry has been contributing to the success of facial recognition. Casinos apply the technology in their attempts to prevent cheaters and card counters. Six months before Super Bowl XXXV, Security Information Management Online Network (SIMON) reported:

Imagis Technologies Inc. (“Imagis”) is pleased to announce the official launch and installation of CASINO-ID and its biometric Facial Recognition Software at Gateway Casinos Inc. in Canada.[21]

A few weeks before Super Bowl XXXV, Office.com Inc. reported on the growing use of facial recognition applications:

FaceIt.... can also scan a crowded area and trigger an alert when a live image matches one in a databank of photos.

Griffin Investigations of Las Vegas, the intelligence provider to casinos such as the Venetian, Bellagio and MGM Grand Las Vegas, has embraced this variation. FaceIt-enabled cameras now continuously scan these casinos for matches against Griffin’s databank of known card counters and cheats.

“Prior to this, our investigators went from casino to casino looking for people who were known to us,” says Griffin owner, Beverly Griffin. “Now, they’re recognized in a matter of seconds.”

The same system is in place at several international airports and border crossings, and the Department of Defense has tested it as an aid in anti-terrorism.[22]

In 1997 the Sovereign Citizens Against Numbering sponsored online Scan This News Letter reported that:

Drivers renewing their licenses in West Virginia will soon have their pictures taken by a system that will compare the photos with stored images to make sure they are who they say they are.

The system, being provided by Polaroid Corp., will take each applicant’s picture for inclusion on the license and at the same time store the image in a database.

According to [Richard Grimm, program manager at Polaroid], West Virginia is the first U.S. state to implement such a system.[23]

The Guardian Unlimited online newspaper reported on March 1, 2001 that Britain has more surveillance cameras “than any European country.” They go on to explain how biometrics are being applied to some British surveillance cameras:

Most, at the moment, are connected to video-tape recorders. But computerization is coming, allowing cameras to “recognize” a face in a crowd.

In 1998, the London borough of Newham connected the US firm Visionics’ software to cameras covering one shopping area, and this year will extend the system to its fifth. With the face-recognition software, Bob Lack, group leader of security services, says Newham has improved crime rates relative to other boroughs. “In street robberies and burglaries in particular, we’ve seen a dramatic drop,” he says (although some academics say that cameras merely displace criminals to other locations or activity).

The article then reminds us how unoriginal the Super Bowl XXXV surveillance was:

Visionics has tried the system with a different watch-list -- of known football hooligans -- at a West Ham match against Manchester United in January [2000].

The same article touches upon the legality of general surveillance in public places:

“We don’t build a database of where people are,” says Tim Pidgeon, Visionics’ business development director. He says that would breach the Data Protection Act, as it is illegal to build a database on the activities of the public.[24]

Biometrics in Perspective

Webster’s defines biometrics (biometry) as “the statistical analysis of biological observations and phenomena.”[25] In the historical context, one could take the application of biometrics according to this definition at least as far back as Leonardo De Vinci. In terms of current use, as stated in the introduction, it refers to automated security.

The extent to which something is automated is relative, however. We are not taking into account security officers who watch closed-circuit television feeds from surveillance cameras for example, but surely that is automation. Neither are we considering open-circuit, hand-held monitoring and remote control devices, which police can use to “view [encrypted] footage from a camera or manoeuvre its position,” like those developed by the electronics company, Shawley.[26] We are ignoring these, not because they aren’t automated enough, but because they aren’t statistical analysis. Traditional fingerprinting, on the other hand, is definitely statistical analysis. It is not, however, automated.

Under consideration are automated methods of statistical analysis in which algorithms assess the characteristics of humans. We could be talking about “fingerprint scanning, iris scanning, retina scanning, handwriting analysis, handprint recognition and voice scanning,” as mentioned above, or “heat emission patterns, the layout of wrist veins or skin pores, even body odor.”[27] Of all the imaginable forms of this high tech phrenology, we are focusing specifically on facial recognition because at the present time it has the highest potential to undermine privacy rights, due to its applicability to covert surveillance of the public. As Visionics puts it, “No other technology gives law enforcement the ability to identify suspects without their active participation.”[28]

Facial biometrics uses two recognition processes for security purposes, one-to-one and one-to-many matching. One-to-one matching is used to verify identity for entry into a secure area or system. In the one-to-many matching process, a single image is compared to many images. One-to-many is the application used in surveillance. While London Metropolitan Police in Newham keep a database of only 100-150 “criminals” in their system at any time,[29] industry marketing and media reports claim a newly captured image can be compared to one million database images in one second.[30]

Technological solutions that can accommodate the many variables and subtleties of facial recognition biometrics are recent, so we are limited to a very recent time frame for our discussion. As early as 1992 the Department of Defence had plans to:

Start development of ... Facial Recognition Surveillance System. Development of a non-interactive surveillance system capable of identifying suspects through facial recognition patterns and automatic comparison to a database.

Of course the intent was “to counter terrorists.”[31] A 1996 article in Advanced Imaging described the first efforts to “computerize human face recognition”:

It actually dates to the mid-1980’s with the development and commercial availability of neural network chip technology....

With neural nets came the ability for visualization systems to be “taught by example,” as opposed to traditional, labor-intensive programming via keyboard. A number of small businesses began applying conventional pattern recognition techniques to human facial identification, under the umbrella of U.S. Army Small Business Innovative Research grants....[32]

Not surprisingly the military motivated development.

Facial-recognition technology has now reached mainstream commercial applications. Since the late 1990’s, major players in the field have been Graphco Technologies, Inc., Visionics Corporation, Viisage Technology Inc., Imagis Technologies Inc., Neurodynamics, Miros Inc., I/O Software, Digital Biometrics, Inc. (DBI), and Image Software, Inc., but with recent mergers such as that of DBI and Visionics,[33] and a highly dynamic market, it may be difficult to keep track of the names in the near future (it already is). All of these companies engage in a variety of biometric applications, especially facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, and voice identification, and most of them cater to casinos and law enforcement, with a new trend toward PCs and ATMs.

The next generation of facial-recognition technology is 3-D imaging. According to the federally funded organization, Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, there is a system in development called Integrated Law Enforcement Face-Identification System (ILEFIS):

It is based on a completely 3D framework which constructs face (head) surfaces by utilizing the available 2D face images (e.g., frontal and profile view or other angled-view poses) of arrested persons currently maintained in local and federal mug-shot depositories. ILEFIS incorporates a novel 3D-composite technology that can identify angled-view face images of non-cooperative subjects, such as from a video surveillance camera at a distance.[34]

As of late 1999, ILEFIS was still in its beta version. At that time, according to Federal Computer Week, Miros Inc. president, Keith Angell, said that:

Attempts to combine 3-D technology with facial recognition [had] not been successful. “I would think they would have a hard time making that function quickly,” he said.[35]

It remains to be seen if 3-D facial recognition will catch on. While it sounds very high-tech, it could be more efficient for computers to process discrete units of data about a face rather than trying to imitate how humans recognize things, as a whole.

Moderately Paranoid Conclusion

We are already adapted to constant surveillance. Every time we go into a bank or a “convenience” store, there is a camera pointing at us. Many intersections have cameras and many neighborhoods have helicopters. The American Civil Liberties Union associate director, Barry Steinhardt, was quoted by the Washington Post as saying:

We are quickly moving to the point where law enforcement and the private sector will be able to identify us no matter where we go, no matter how anonymous we think we are.

Not only is it going to rob us of our anonymity, but it’s going to be used as a tool of law enforcement to round up “the usual suspects” and to hassle people on the streets.[36]

As though junk mail weren’t bad enough already.

The vast majority of “articles” about biometrics read like advertisements, which is what they appear to be. Maybe all this recent attention to biometrics is the result of a carefully planned marketing ploy. The lack of available social research on the topic points to a huge knowledge gap in our understanding of how this will alter our environment. Not enough precedent exists for us to resolve the questions raised by the ABA Standards, but they are a start.

Fear tactics like those used to lure TV viewers (Do you know how to protect your family from Satanists? Tune in tonight at eleven.) and pharmaceutical customers (Do you experience anxiety?) are so pervasive, it seems almost reasonable when the police say they are monitoring you for your own protection. After all, what if you are a terrorist? Hopefully someone will invent a biometric technology to detect older male siblings.

Works Cited

“3D Face-Identification System.” Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization (Current Technologies) [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.oletc.org/technologies/ilefis/ilefis.asp.

American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: Electronic Surveillance, 3rd Edition, Section B: Technology-Assisted Physical Surveillance [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standard/taps_blk.html.

Basch, Reva. “Can I See Your Biometric Identification?” In Computer Life 5. March 1998. 44-7.

Clark, James and Dipesh Gadher, “New Camera Extends Watch on Crime.” Sunday Times. 11 March 2001 [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/22001/03/11/stinwenws02016.html.

“Criminal Justice Solutions.” Visionics Corporation (FaceIt® Applications and Uses) [Online 2001] Accessed 11 March 2001. Available: http://www.visionics.com/faceit/apps/cjs.html.

Department of Defence, Counterterror Technical Support (CTTS), 18 August 1992, Program Element Descriptive Summary - FY 1993, §c-6, Current Year Plans [Online] Accessed 17 March 2001. Available: DIALOG® File 388: PEDS: Defense Program Summaries.

“Digital Biometrics, Inc. and Visionics Corporation Complete Merger.” Visionics Corporation (Newsroom: Press Releases) [Online 2001] Accessed 9 March 2001. Available: http://www.visionics.com/newsroom/press/PRs/2001/0215.html

“Face Recognition Markets: Surveillance.” Viisage Technology (Face Recognition) [Online 2000] Accessed 11 March 2001. Available: http://viisage.com/market.html.

“FaceTrac™” G-TEC™ [Online 2001] Accessed 11 March 2001. Available: http://www.graphcotech.com/facetrac.shtml.

“Graphco Technologies, Inc. Provides Surveillance for Raymond James Stadium to Identify Known Suspects, Deter Crime on Jan. 28th, Criminals No Longer Another Face in the Tampa Stadium Crowd.” Business Wire 29 January 2001. As reproduced in The Motley Fool [Online 2001] Accessed 16 March 2001. Available: http://quote.fool.com/news.

“Human ID at a distance.” Visionics Corporation (FaceIt® Face Recognition) [Online 2001] Accessed 11 March 2001. Available: http://www.visionics.com/faceit/apps/humanid.html.

“Imagis Installs a Casino-ID and Biometric Facial Recognition Software in Gateway Casinos.” Security Information Management Online Network-SIMON. 20 July 2000 [Online] Accessed 6 February 2001. Available: http://www.simon-net.com/pressRelease.

Lynch, Lynch. “Who’s Watching You? As Face-Recognition Biometrics Beefs Up Mainstream Security, Some are Questioning the Ethics.” Office.com (Industries). 11 January 2001 [Online] Accessed 9 March 2001. Available: http://www.office.com/global.

Mathieson, S.A. “In Sight of the Law: The Police and Local Authorities Are Using Technology to Keep a Close Watch on Our Every Move.” Guardian Unlimited. 1 March 2001 [Online] Accessed 9 March 2001. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143807,00.html.

Nelson, Lee J. “Commercializing Face Recognition: How to Judge Fresh Players & Approaches.” Advanced Imaging 11. March 1996. 86-7.

“Quick Study: Biometrics.” Computerworld (Resource Center) [Online 2000] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://198.112.59.30/home/features.nsf/all/981012qs.

Sahagun, Louis and Josh Meyer. “Secret Cameras Scanned Crowd at Super Bowl for Criminals.” Los Angeles Times, 1 February 2001 [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_cameras010201.html.

Slevin, Peter. “Police Video Cameras Taped Football Fans: Super Bowl Surveillance Stirs Debate.” Washington Post. 1 February 2001. Sec. A, p.3 [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9757-2001Jan31.html.

Tillet, L. Scott. “Law Enforcement Agencies Working on 3D Face Recognition Technology.” Federal Computer Week. 24 September 1999. As reproduced in CNN.com (Technology) [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/24/3d.face.recognition.idg/.

Trigaux, Robert. “Cameras Scanned Fans for Criminals: Super Bowl Fans Had Their Privacy Invaded by the Technology, Critics Say. Law Officials Cite Security.” St. Petersburg Times. 31 January 2001 [Online] Accessed 9 March 2001. Available: http://www.sptimes/News/013101/TampaBay/Cameras_scanned_fans_.shtml.

“Viisage Technology Reports 57% Fourth Quarter Revenue Growth.” Business Wire 2661. 15 February 2001 [Online] Accessed 17 March 2001. Available: DIALOG® File 148: Gale Group Trade & Industry DB.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. S.V. “biometrics” and “biometry.”

“West Virginia to Use Face Recognition for Licenses.” Scan This News. 11 September 1997 [Online] Accessed 14 March 2001. Available: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-wv-facescan-article.html.

[1] “Quick Study: Biometrics,” Computerworld (Resource Center) [online 2000] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://198.112.59.30/home/features.nsf/all/981012qs.

[2] Peter Slevin, “Police Video Cameras Taped Football Fans: Super Bowl Surveillance Stirs Debate,” Washington Post, 1 February 2001, sec. A, p.3 [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9757-2001Jan31.html.

[3] “Face Recognition Markets: Surveillance,” Viisage Technology (Face Recognition) [online 2000] accessed 11 March 2001, available: http://viisage.com/market.html.

[4] “Human ID at a distance,” Visionics Corporation (FaceIt® Face Recognition) [online 2001] accessed 11 March 2001, available: http://www.visionics.com/faceit/apps/humanid.html.

[5] Lorna Lynch, “Who’s Watching You? As Face-Recognition Biometrics Beefs Up Mainstream Security, Some are Questioning the Ethics,” Office.com (Industries), 11 January 2001 [online] accessed 9 March 2001, available: http://www.office.com/global.

[7] “Standard 2-9.1. General Principles, §b, Need for Regulation,” American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: Electronic Surveillance, 3rd Edition, Section B: Technology-Assisted Physical Surveillance [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standard/taps_blk.html.

[8] “Standard 2-9.2. Definitions, §f, Private,” ABA.

[9] “Standard 2-9.1. General Principles, §c, Factors Relevant to Regulating Use of Surveillance,” ABA.

[10] Louis Sahagun and Josh Meyer, “Secret Cameras Scanned Crowd at Super Bowl for Criminals,” Los Angeles Times, 1 February 2001 [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_cameras010201.html.

[11] “Graphco Technologies, Inc. Provides Surveillance for Raymond James Stadium to Identify Known Suspects, Deter Crime on Jan. 28th, Criminals No Longer Another Face in the Tampa Stadium Crowd,” Business Wire 29 January 2001 as reproduced in The Motley Fool [online 2001] accessed 16 March 2001, available: http://quote.fool.com/news.

[14] “Viisage Technology Reports 57% Fourth Quarter Revenue Growth,” Business Wire 2661, 15 February 2001 [online] accessed 17 March 2001, available: DIALOG® File 148: Gale Group Trade & Industry DB.

[15] Robert Trigaux, “Cameras Scanned Fans for Criminals: Super Bowl Fans Had Their Privacy Invaded by the Technology, Critics Say. Law Officials Cite Security,” St. Petersburg Times 31 January 2001 [online] accessed 9 March 2001, available: http://www.sptimes/News/013101/TampaBay/Cameras_scanned_fans_.shtml.

[19] “FaceTrac™” G-TEC™ [online 2001] accessed 11 March 2001, available: http://www.graphcotech.com/facetrac.shtml.

[20] “Viisage Technology Reports 57% Fourth Quarter Revenue Growth,” Business Wire.

[21] “Imagis Installs a Casino-ID and Biometric Facial Recognition Software in Gateway Casinos,” Security Information Management Online Network-SIMON, 20 July 2000 [online] accessed 6 February 2001, available: http://www.simon-net.com/pressRelease.

[23] “West Virginia to Use Face Recognition for Licenses,” Scan This News, 11 September 1997 [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-wv-facescan-article.html.

[24] S. A. Mathieson, “In Sight of the Law: The Police and Local Authorities Are Using Technology to Keep a Close Watch on Our Every Move,” Guardian Unlimited, 1 March 2001 [online] accessed 9 March 2001, available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143807,00.html.

[25] Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “biometrics” and “biometry.”

[26] James Clark and Dipesh Gadher, “New Camera Extends Watch on Crime,” Sunday Times, 11 March 2001 [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/22001/03/11/stinwenws02016.html.

[27] Reva Basch, “Can I See Your Biometric Identification?” in Computer Life 5 (March 1998), 44.

[28] “Criminal Justice Solutions,” Visionics Corporation (FaceIt® Applications and Uses) [online 2001] accessed 11 March 2001, available: http://www.visionics.com/faceit/apps/cjs.html.

[30] Lynch; Sahagun; “FaceTrac™” G-TEC™.

[31] Department of Defence, Counterterror Technical Support (CTTS), 18 August 1992, Program Element Descriptive Summary - FY 1993, §c-6, Current Year Plans [online] accessed 17 March 2001, available: DIALOG® File 388: PEDS: Defense Program Summaries.

[32] Lee J. Nelson, “Commercializing Face Recognition: How to Judge Fresh Players & Approaches,” Advanced Imaging 11 (March 1996): 86.

[33] “Digital Biometrics, Inc. and Visionics Corporation Complete Merger,” Visionics Corporation (Newsroom: Press Releases) [online 2001] accessed 9 March 2001, available: http://www.visionics.com/newsroom/press/PRs/2001/0215.html

[34] “3D Face-Identification System,” Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization (Current Technologies) [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.oletc.org/technologies/ilefis/ilefis.asp.

[35] L. Scott Tillet, “Law Enforcement Agencies Working on 3D Face Recognition Technology,” Federal Computer Week, 24 September 1999 as reproduced in CNN.com (Technology) [online] accessed 14 March 2001, available: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/24/3d.face.recognition.idg/.