http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Symbol=US:VISG&Feed=BW&Date=20010130&ID=509766

Viisage Technology Provides Face-Recognition Technology for Security At Raymond James Stadium January 30, 2001 09:15:00 AM ET

LITTLETON, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 30, 2001-- Technology Used by Multiple Law Enforcement Agencies to Identify Known Suspects and Deter Crime

Viisage Technology, Inc. VISG, a leader in enabling e-commerce through face-recognition biometrics technology and in providing digital identification systems and solutions, announced today that it provided a surveillance and face- recognition system to Graphco Technologies for use at both the Raymond James Stadium in Tampa and in Ybor City, Florida. The system was in place from January 21 through January 28, 2001, to monitor potential criminal activities during the sporting events and related activities at the two locations.

In cooperation with the Tampa Sports Authority, Graphco Technologies (G-TEC) also partnered with Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTNA, RTNB) Linthicum, Maryland, office and VelTek International, Inc., to provide its FaceTrac(TM) facial recognition system to the Tampa Police Department and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Viisage provided FaceFINDER(TM), its industry-leading face recognition surveillance technology. Viisage also provided the project with image acquisition and integration technology and services.

Tom Colatosti, Viisage president and CEO said, "Places where large crowds are present, such as sporting events, are tempting targets for all types of mischief, criminal behavior and larger threats. Using patented Viisage technology, G-TEC has introduced a new generation of tools for law enforcement officials to more effectively and non-intrusively provide for public safety. As an integral partner in the project, Viisage Technology provided G-TEC with the industry's leading and most robust face-recognition technology."

Viisage Technology's FaceFINDER(TM) software drives the FaceTrac(TM) surveillance and identification process. Viisage's face-recognition technology is also deployed in the world's largest image database for surveillance and investigative applications.

During the week of January 21, G-TEC deployed the FaceTrac(TM) system throughout the Raymond James Stadium to detect and identify individuals who are wanted or suspect, and may present a danger to the public. Using standard cameras to recognize human faces during entry to the sporting event, FaceTrac(TM) continuously compared faces in the incoming crowd to an extensive, customized database of known felons, terrorists and con artists provided by multiple local, state and federal agencies. A law enforcement task force of local, state and federal agency personnel monitored the system. Once individuals were matched with photo files in the database, officers of the joint task force, circulating throughout the complex, could be dispatched immediately to make possible arrests, quickly and discreetly.

Colatosti added, "The successful performance of our face-recognition technology, in this, the most challenging of physical environments, opens a new era for widely deploying the technology to a myriad of existing and new applications that will improve personal security and convenience."

G-TEC, headquartered in Newtown, PA, develops, manufactures, and markets secure database and secure communications systems worldwide. G-TEC combines information sharing, biometric authentication, secure access, and secure data facility technologies to provide technical infrastructure and applications in support of public and private law enforcement, corporate security, manufacturing, and secure web-enabled virtual communities. G-TEC's Intrapol Analysis Center offers secure-access data storage, sharing, and secure virtual community systems to corporate and law enforcement entities at the local, regional, state, national and international levels. Graphco Technologies is located on the World Wide Web at www.graphcotech.com.

Viisage Technology, Inc. VISG, Littleton, Massachusetts, is a world leader in biometric face-recognition technology and in digital identification solutions. Viisage's face-recognition technology is widely recognized as the most convenient, non-intrusive and cost-effective biometric available. Viisage's patented face-recognition technology, originally developed at MIT, and its systems integration and software design capabilities, improve personal convenience, privacy and security while deterring identity theft and fraud.

FaceEXPLORER(TM), Viisage's technology for image retrieval and analysis, is recognized for its leadership technology performance in real-time and large-database applications. FaceEXPLORER is deployed in the world's largest face-recognition application with a database of more than 6 million images enrolled and growing by 15,000 new images per day. The product family of face-recognition applications also includes: FaceNET(TM) for Internet and e-commerce security; FacePIN(TM) for point-of-sale transactions verification; FacePASS(TM) used for physical-access control; and FaceFINDER(TM) for surveillance and identification.

Additionally, Viisage's systems annually deliver, through 1,500 U.S. locations in 13 states, more than 20 million high quality and high security digital identification documents for government agencies responsible for issuing drivers' licenses, social services cards and law enforcement credentials.

Sounds pretty outrageous to me, and unadulterated invasion of privacy. I am so flabbergasted by this I am at a loss for words. Unusual state for me, eh?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 05, 2001

Answers

FS, An invasion of privacy? I find nothing wrong with this. If a criminal doesn't want to show his face in public, then he shouldn't go in public. This is a non intrusive biometric, using a database for matching. Do you have a problem with fingerprint matching? I don't get your outrage.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 2001.

Finger print matching is not the same. If you have been bonded, you have made a decision to have your prints taken. If you have committed a crime and been arrested, you have "volunteered" to have your prints taken. There is always a measure of choice with fingerprints-you are not compelled by law enforcement to have your prints taken unilaterally.

People entering the super bowl had no idea they were being monitored by law enforcement. The NBA, the NHL, and Major League Baseball have refused to go along with this surveillance as the NFL has done.

Wherever, and whenever your behavior is monitored by camera or phone, and is generallt the law that those being monitored must be advised of such. In the workplace, telephone monitoring done of employees without their knowledge is illegal. You are advised at ATM machines and supermarkets that the premises are under camera surveillance.

This is why I have a problem, Maria. It is amusing that you and I nver agree on anything. This technique used by law enforcement is subjecting people involuntarily to this camera. In all other instances you have a choice to, say, not enter the supermarket with the cameras.

There has been an uproar in New York City over cameras being mounted in parks, obstensibly to catch drug dealers, but in effect putting ALL behavior of people under surveillance.

-- (gray@matter.think), February 05, 2001.

They have cameras posted all over the UK these days. Gonna happen here sooner or later.

Definitely wouldn't want them on my street corner but at HUGE crowds like the Super Bowl draws they may come in handy.

I've got mixed emotions on this one.........good on one hand and not so good on the other....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 05, 2001.

"People entering the super bowl had no idea they were being monitored by law enforcement."

Is this true? Are you sure there were no signs at the entrances?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 05, 2001.

Yes it's true Buddy..

Link

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), February 05, 2001.

Mixed feelings here also. If they can catch a sarin-carrying terrorist at the gate, they can save thousands of lives. But then it becomes OK to have hidden cameras in more and more places, and our standards for privacy and freedom get slowly lowered with each new camera installed... It's a toughie.

Rules laid down asap about what kind of events can be monitored this way would really help.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 05, 2001.

oops, my bad...there were signs..

snip

Signs outside the stadium warned fans they were under video surveillance, police said.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), February 05, 2001.

FS, it is funny how we differ on lots of topics. :)

Then I guess you would be against your employer monitoring your activity. There has been some media attention because cameras were installed in the break room of a particular (can't remember which one) company. Lots of people became outraged over this too. I guess you would differ with my opinion on this also. I think the employer has a right to monitor any activity going on in the business place.

The point I'm making on this one, is that when you are in a public place, there's nothing very private about it. People can watch you with or without cameras, you don't have "privacy" in public. Let me ask another question. If I brought a video camera to a hockey game and I taped you talking to someone, or whatever, because you were in my line of view of the game, would I have to tell you that I was taping you?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 2001.

Deano's initial statement is correct. GB has employed camera surveillance in public places for years.

Just as I dislike speed traps & roadblocks set up by cops to check a driver's credentials without due cause for a search, which I ran across both in NJ and now in VA, the use of cameras to spy on people - to look for potential criminals and criminal activity - is fine and dandy for those individuals wishing to live in a police state.

I'm not of that mindset.

The process used at the Super Bowl matched faces against a database of known criminals' photos. Obviously (to me) this technique provides for a wide margin of error and leaves innocent people open to cases of mistaken identity and outright hassling by cops.

I don't like it. Not one bit.

Selective law enforcement is a fact of life. This tool gives cops yet another opportunity to pick and choose their targets merely by monitoring the cameras and looking for reasons to annoy people.

Bottom line is I don't want cops looking for trouble before it happens unless they have a target in mind. Most people I know, myself included, break laws every day. There are many ridiculous laws on the books in each locality across the country. Some of them are tremendous income-generating devices for police departments. Cameras (database matching aside) will provide another avenue of increasing this revenue stream.

Give 'em time. Smile and look innocent, you might be on candid police camera.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 05, 2001.

Everytime I see one of those cameras,and I can get away with it,I moon the hell out of it,sometimes I throw in the ol' red eye and give em' a wink.Just a little courtesey from yours truly...

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 05, 2001.

I have no problem with this. Like Maria said, by definition there's no "privacy" when you are out in public. And, as Deano and Bemused pointed out, if the possibility exists that it could prevent potential disasters at major events such as the super bowl, then I'm all for it. I don't find the arguments against the use of this technology to be very puruasive. As far as Rich's comments that this is potentially another tool for cops "looking for reasons to annoy" and/or "outright hassle" people... This discussion is about face- recognition technology, Rich. This technology is far more "critical" than a simple surveillance photo. I have little doubt that if you are "hassled" by the police as a result of this technology, even an ambulance chasin' lawyer would be able to prove your case after reviewing the evidence.

Side note: All casinos have surveillance cameras. However, for quite some time the larger casinos have also been utilizing this face- recognition technology to identify known cheats.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

LOL, Capn! I was thinking the same thing. And I was reminded about several scenes in Orwell's book "1984" when I scanned the article.

Some high school was installing cameras in the washrooms. As I recall, they were aimed at the hall, not the fixtures. Still, it's a bad sign for society when one can't be alone outside of the house. I used to think that Winston Smith (protagonist of "1984") might be my great-great-grandson. At this rate, he might be my son.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

"At this rate, he might be my son."

Take that thought to the memory hole and dispose of it properly.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 05, 2001.

OK. Somethin' funny goin' on here.......

Never, EVER before have 3 (count'em THREE!!) folks on this board agreed with me about ANYTHING.

What the hell is wrong with you people today??!! :-)

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 05, 2001.

LOL Deano.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

Hey Deano, I always agree with you. :)

Rich, you make a point of harassment. I agree that we do get harassed by the cops when we may be completely innocent of any wrong doing. When I was driving through Montana once, I was pulled over by the cops. It seems someone who cut us off, phoned into the cops that *we* were driving recklessly. We could have been fined $100 on the spot and forced to appear in court. After we explained the incident, the cop let us go but we were held up for over an hour. Made me mad, I didn't like it at all but that's the price we pay, I guess.

On the technology, it's come a long way since I first tested it ten years ago. But mistaken identity is something we (as a society) have dealt with for some time. It happens and I don't think this will make it happen any more than it does already; it may even reduce the number of incidents, depending on the thresholds set by the computer.

Capn, I usually just wave but I know my son would (like you) drop his drawers. Too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 2001.

This just in.....

Deano has cyber agreeable friends....(encourages forum members to applaud NOW)

Also, in headline newz....

Capn Fun and Kb8 are both exhibitionists (as IF we didnt know:^)

Side note, I do agree Public IS public.?

Why the worry, when the government can see what we do anyway?

Or am I the only paranoid one who believes that? :-)?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 05, 2001.

sumer! Glad to see you. *hug* How are you today?

Mooning is a guy thing. I had a long discussion about that with my girlfriend not too long ago. (Don't ask how we got into that topic. You don't want to know. Trust me!) This is one of those basic gender differences:

you see it as exhibitionism.

I see it as making a strong statement, wordlessly.

Somehow, I don't think it would have the same meaning if a woman did it.

I'm not saying that women don't moon anyone, but a woman dropping her drawers in public in front of a peeping camera is going to affect the moron monitoring it differently than a butt ugly guy doing the same thing.

Unless he's transgendered or gay, and I'm not going there. Not today.

How about some fresh squeezed orange juice? Looks like Capn or someone has been to the green grocer.

-- kb (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

Hee Hee.

Well, i did once do a itty bitty OH NEVER MIND...its a girl thang for the truckers......:-) VEry evil big grin.

Yeh nothin like a guyz hairy ass to discourage anyone snooping. ewwww.

OJ, hmmmmmm, Eco Domani Red instead, please? No oj today.

I'm feeling abit down today. Must be the PMS thing going on.

BTW, good to see ya too. Good to see you and the girlfriend are having some excellent topics of discussion.

As for me and hubby Feb 24th, couples massage day......

Ohhhhhhhhhhwwwwww Cant wait :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 05, 2001.

Gee, thanks CD.

I brought into the mix a few techniques cops currently employ to stick their noses into my business BESIDES this latest gem of a program. But I guess it is their business because I have NO right to privacy. Am I right, CD? It's ok with you that cops can keep surveillance on "Places where large crowds are present, such as sporting events, are tempting targets for all types of mischief, criminal behavior and larger threats" without cause to suspect any one person. TPTB only need decide a particular area should be watched. After all, they might catch SOMEONE doing SOMETHING illegal.

(Yes I'm pissed and yes I'm extrapolating.)

Where does the article speak to the accuracy of this face-recognition process? What is the tested error rate? Which facial characteristics are used in analysis? How detailed does it get?

Perhaps you have not had the pleasure of dealing with mistakes by police as well as harrassment, CD. I have had the pleasure of both wonderful experiences. I even cut my f*cking hair back in 1993 because I knew sooner or later I'd end up crippled, in jail or dead thanks to low-life cops picking "the long-hair" for a traffic stop & then taking their frustrations out on me. I had three close calls.

The bastards who perpetrate this crap day in and day out have ENOUGH tools at their disposal as it is. Monitoring a place and sorting through people to find a bad guy is bullshit EXCEPT in the case of threatened terrorist activity, IMO.

But here's the quote: "provided a surveillance and face- recognition system to Graphco Technologies for use at both the Raymond James Stadium in Tampa and in Ybor City, Florida. The system was in place from January 21 through January 28, 2001, to monitor potential criminal activities during the sporting events and related activities at the two locations."

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 05, 2001.

Gee, thanks CD. I brought into the mix a few techniques cops currently employ to stick their noses into my business BESIDES this latest gem of a program.

I realize this, Rich. If you'll note however, my remarks were in reference to your comments made about the use of this specific technology. (To quote you: "Obviously (to me) this technique provides for a wide margin of error and leaves innocent people open to cases of mistaken identity and outright hassling by cops." "This tool gives cops yet another opportunity to pick and choose their targets merely by monitoring the cameras and looking for reasons to annoy people.)

But I guess it is their business because I have NO right to privacy. Am I right, CD?

C'mon, Rich. You're above using this kind of sarcasm.

Where does the article speak to the accuracy of this face- recognition process? What is the tested error rate? Which facial characteristics are used in analysis? How detailed does it get?

I find it interesting that you have vehemently stated your entire argument up to this point without yet having this information. I can't give you the specifics you ask for but I have seen a documentary about both it's use and the technology involved. I'm sure Maria could give you the details.

Sorry to see this upsets you so much, but no need to get irate at me for stating my differing opinion.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

Italics off

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

You're about to lose something. It's already slipping from your grasp. And once it's gone, you'll never get it back.

As a people, we are facing the most serious threat to humanity in recorded history – the systematic stripping away of traditional freedoms by governments worldwide. And that includes all governments.

It is a situation far more serious than the plagues of the Middle Ages that nearly wiped us out as a species. It is a threat never before seen in ten thousand years of human history.

You are about to become the property of the government.

Spy vs. CounterSpy

-- Quite Scary, Actually (they're@watching.us), February 05, 2001.

And I'M paranoid?

Click on that link....again, I'm paranoid?

Yep whatever. But I tell you what, IF we REALLY KNEW how much THEY KNEW...(who are they anyway? Figure it out)

We'd be scared as shit. IMHO.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 05, 2001.

You're right, CD. I apologize. Note my tail is tucked (but I'll be damned if I'm gonna show you my belly) :)

I think being called a Christian on another thread must've pushed a button in me. I sure did fly off the handle. Sorry to have taken it out on you, CD. Time for a vacation methinks.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 05, 2001.

Actually, I experienced a few flashbacks while reading and writing on this thread. Too many bad experiences with law enforcement all those years ago.

Not an excuse, but a reason. My bad.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 05, 2001.

Class post, Rich. Appreciated.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

I don't see what's particularly "paranoid" about the following facts from the Spy vs. CounterSpy site linked above. He's got the CIA and FBI down cold. These are simple facts, folks, and it took a Canadian to report them to Americans. Go figure.

FS's post just illustrates what is printed here -- nothing "paranoid" about it. This Canadian's warning came to life at the Superbowl.

.... A number of separate threats have recently converged. An extremely dangerous situation has been created. Governments have been given the opportunity – and the means – to permanently wrest control from their populations. Bureaucrats are about to realize their dream of absolute power. It is a nightmare far worse than anything George Orwell might have imagined.

Technology is providing the tools to government. We are now at a point in human evolution where your government – if it so chooses – can control every aspect of your life from cradle to grave.

We face three separate threats. Together these threats combine to give government a stranglehold on our civil liberties – a death grip on our traditional freedoms.

Threat #1 – Computers have taken over surveillance. Surveillance is now automated. Entire populations can be supervised and monitored in real time. Half your life, including your last credit card purchase, is already on a database. Computers eavesdrop on all electronic and telephone communications using word-recognition and voice-recognition software. Video cameras are everywhere – inside and outside – they can recognize vehicle license plates and even human faces. And all this information, all these databases, are cross- referenced and tied together – by computers. Taken together, it's called dataveillance. It makes it easy to track certain classes of people. Like minorities. Or dissidents. Or grassroots political movements. Or anyone who dares think for himself.

Threat #2 – Militarization has taken over the police. The cops are now using some very nasty weapons. Half the stuff they use is prohibited by the Geneva Convention and the Hague Declaration. The government can't use it in war, but their own population is fair game. Modern police technology gives a whole new meaning to crowd control – they use sticky foam laced with chemical irritants. It gives a whole new meaning to interrogation – they use new mark-free interrogation tools. And new friendlier, more humane weapons like plastic bullets, pepper gas, and stun guns – that still maim, scalp, burn, mutilate, and kill.

Threat #3 – Big business has taken over proliferation. Any government bureaucrat can buy this stuff. Most of these high-tech gadgets are dual-use. You can use them for benign things like traffic control – or nasty things like people control. Private companies are reaping huge profits manufacturing and exporting this nightmarish technology. Research and development has gone berserk. Who cares about trivial things like human rights when there's a buck to be made? Heck, if anyone complains just order the $100,000 mobile execution vehicle – it comes complete with lethal injection machine, steel holding cell, and areas for "witnesses" and "staff".

www.chymerick.com/orgs/spyvsspy/home.html

-- Rather Frightening, All the Same (they're@watching.us), February 05, 2001.

Two major concerns with technologies such as this come to mind.

The first is with the use of these data collection tools being completely at the discretion of law enforcement. This creates much greater potential for abuse than if a tool could only be used after obtaining a court order. Irrespective of how often a request for a court order is denied, at least the process of having to get one is a limiting factor on the tool's use.

My other concern is with the difficulty of effective cross-examination of evidence. If the police were to claim to have recorded your presence at the scene of a crime, but their system had mistakenly associated another person's digital identification system with your name and address (or whatever is used as a "key"), it might not be so easy to disprove that evidence. It's not possible to have an airtight alibi for every minute of one's life.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 05, 2001.

Oops. In reading "another person's digital identification system," kindly drop the word "system."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 05, 2001.

Kb8,

I dunno bout moonin' bein' just a guy thing,Iv'e known several women, whom you would never suspect,who were quite adept at showing you their ass in disdain ie.mooning and givin' the red eye wink to boot.These women were ladies through and through with quite reputable vocations, but when the time was appropriate,look out!!!

There were times I would just hope someone would piss them off : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 05, 2001.

Your last line is exactly my point, Capn. Mooning isn't an effective political statement if the audience enjoys the view.

-- kb (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

That said, I'm sure I can think of a couple of ladies who had similar inclinations. Massive consumption of alcohol helped along those lines.

-- kb (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

VISG sold for $13.00 in Jan 2000. It fell to $0.75 in Dec 2000. Geo W Bush was decreed to be president. Now it sells at $2.75 on rising volume. Hmmmmmmmmm.

VISG

-- (LeonTrotsky@Red.Square), February 05, 2001.

LOL, Leon. I guess one could also say...

VISG sold for $13.00 in Jan 2000. It fell to $0.75 on Dec 27, 2000. On January 30, 2001 Viisage face-recognition technology was utilized for security at the Super Bowl. Now it sells at $2.75 on rising volume. Hmmmmmmmmm.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean there aren't people who want to kill me (or you)--

Terrorist trial

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 06, 2001.

FS, where are you?

Rich, when you wrote about your "run ins" with the law I thought about the song "...almost cut my hair..." Geez, just getting old here but I can't remember the title or the artist. Glad to see you came back around with CD, though.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 06, 2001.

CSNY I believe, Maria.

I sensed as I was writing that post I had a bug up my ass, but I kept writing anyway. Sometimes we have to dump our crap, I guess. Sorry CD was the one it fell on. If he and I ever meet up, I'm buying dinner. And I won't expect him to put out afterwards.

But one can always dream... ;)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 06, 2001.

You're about to lose something. It's already slipping from your grasp. And once it's gone, you'll never get it back.

The thing is, you can get it back. The presently living generations in the U.S. are not morons (some of the present company excluded.) If we take action against terrorism, and then later decide we've gone too far, we can change things. Look at our history if you want proof of this. Prohibition, it's enaction and repeal, leaps to mind.

And I want to state for the record that I'm all for female mooning.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 06, 2001.

Bemused,
I would suggest that the "drug war" offers a far better illustration than does prohibition, of what degree of success to expect (miniscule) in rolling back powers granted to today's law enforcement, such as their ability to seize property without having to accuse its owner of a crime.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 06, 2001.