Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was on a lunch break in Ybor City. He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news media.
That should violate their policy - if they have one. BIG TIME. Furthermore, use of somebody's picture as background for an article that produces a substantial falsehood about them because of the content of the story = lawsuit, although here I would probably think there was a substantial connection. But the media didn't even take the pic - the police did. I understand the article said he wasn't wanted, but that was still highly suggestive and in bad taste considering the nature of the content. See, e.g. Mertzger v. Dell Pub. Co 207 Misc. 182, 136 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1955)(picture as part of story about gangs falsely portrayed plaintiff as a gang member). Visionics has released a statement in regard to their controversial CCTV facial recognition technology, calling for federal legislation and referencing their "responsible use guidelines." The WIRED story is here: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,45687,00.html (not by Declan)I asked them for their "guidelines" and was directed to their "privacy principles." http://www.visionics.com/newsroom/biometrics/privacy.html ...."In the months to come, the Company will work closely with federal legislators, privacy interest and industry groups to share its knowledge, experience and privacy protection principles pertaining to all applications of face recognition technology. The Company will continue to promote an improved public understanding of the creation, use and control of facial recognition systems and will support public policy that ensures that deployments of facial recognition are conducted in a way that upholds all privacy rights." [...] "Privacy rights" are based on legal doctrines, and not threats identifying activities that are considered privacy-invasive to the average person. The term "privacy rights" is not conducive to societal impact analysis or future technological advances. The International Biometric Industry Association position is that biometrics is "electronic code" and not personal information: http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm The IBIA has always advocated protective legislation. For an idea of industry sentiment, the IBIA response to one California bill is here: http://www.ibia.org/newslett010606.htm (bill would have required a warrant.) The push for legislation is pre-emptive in nature. Curious to hear from our privacy advocates as to whether or not they have been contacted by Visionics for this initiative. Visionics has come under fire from within the biometrics industry. ~Aimee