Iris Scanners in Canadian Airports

Ian_Bailey writes "The Toronto Star is reporting that the first biometrics (Iris-scanning specifically) devices in airport will be in place in Toronto and Vancouver starting in March. These devices are meant to speed-up the check-in process for frequent travellers, without compromising security. It is stressed that privacy advocates have nothing to worry about, because they are completely voluntary and cannot be used to scan without a person's knowledge, but there is a brief note about using it in the future for staff."

Comments

Okay, I'll bite.

[Fat Casper]

And this makes things safer how?

"We've used the latest in biometric technology to confirm that the passenger manifest is accurate. You are cleared for takeoff."

Re:Okay, I'll bite.

[Ripplet]

Yeah right. Presumably all the terrorists on the 9/11 flights would have passed this with flying colours, all having perfectly valid documentation and no criminal records? It might help jump the queues though, for those that don't mind being on YAGD (yet another government database), and also don't mind having to prove every year that they're still one of the good guys! Waddaya mean OffTopic? It was a joke dammit!

Re:Okay, I'll bite.

[damien_kane]

it just is trying to replace outdated and unreliable technology

With state of the art, un reliable technology.

Re:Okay, I'll bite.

[kcelery]

Glass with sharp edges can cut throat, but we still use X-ray. Well everyone understands this gadget does not hold water. It could only give those who are boarding the plane a fake sense of security. And so everyone is happy.
If there is an high-tech invention to due with the 9/11 incident, I wish someone can invention a hate-meter to measure that amount of hatred those guy are bringing onboard.

Privacy or Security - pick one

[surprise_audit]

It is stressed that privacy advocates have nothing to worry about, because they are completely voluntary and cannot be used to scan without a person's knowledge, but there is a brief note about using it in the future for staff.

As long as Security measures have to take second place to privacy concerns, the terrorists will win.

Go ahead and flame me, I'm wearing a +2,+2 asbestos suit.

Re:Privacy or Security - pick one

[tanveer1979]

"As long as Security measures have to take second place to privacy concerns, the terrorists will win."

Wrong, privacy and security do not equate in the way you think. The terrorists win when the rulers use security as an excuse to monitor their subjects. Then the whole point of security is lost. Actual security should just prevent people from carrying dangerous weapons on board, and sadly confiscating nail clippers does not serve the purpose.

Re:Privacy or Security - pick one

[corian]

The terrorists win when the rulers use security as an excuse to monitor their subjects.

Actually, the terrorists win when they knock down your office building on your head, or blow up the bus you are riding in, and you DIE. That's how the terrorists win.

boiling the frog

[ard]

they are completely voluntary

yes, until more and more people have gotten used to do it. When the majority is doing it, I'll bet it will be mandatory for every passenger.

Its called the boiled frog syndrome.

Re:boiling the frog

[Anonymous Coward]

> Come off it.
>
> WE NEED WAYS TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO ARE
> BOARDING PLANES.
>
> If iris scanning makes this more accurate
> versus a driver's license or passport, they can
> go right ahead. I'll even sign up.

There are so many ways to attack this argument, so I'll only pursue two:

(1) Far, far more people are killed on highways every year than have ever been killed by terrorist attacks.

Why don't we make everyone buy a tank and drive at 5 mph on the highways. That way ~no one~ would die in a traffic accident.

You dismiss this argument as absurd? I agree, but I think you just put a price on life.

(2) How would we have had the iris scans of these people who boarded the various terrorist flights? HOW?

That quickly, you have seemed to convert a voluntary system, which appears to be a great idea, into a mandatory identification system that will promote "safety".

Take a look at history. Then tell me who you should really be afraid of: random acts of violence or central promoters of identification and other "safety" acts. Remember the "gold star"?

Thanks Goodness for Privacy Advocates...

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as it's a voluntary system, that's a great system and I applaud it.

One potential problem becomes what's "voluntary" soon becomes mandatory. We might as well learn from history. Two specific examples from US history:

(1) The Social Security Number was ~never~ supposed to be used as any kind of central identification number. Now, no one knows who I am without it. I would gladly dump my social security "promises of benefits" to not have a social security number.

(2) [More recent] To get a driver's license in the state I moved to, I had to give a thumbprint. I've never had fingerprints taken before in my life.

Are we safer as a result? All I know is that now my identity can be more easily tracked by central governmental organizations and those with sufficent access privileges, despite my wishes.

Technology is a tool, not a solution. Just like a hammer, it can be used for much good, but it's easy for those in power to convert it into something pretty sinister.

My concerns with biometric "passwords"

[johnburton]

My concern with all of these schemes is that if someone gets hold of your biometric data it may be passible to spoof the device in some way. At least with a password you can change your password if someone gets hold of it, but with these schemes, if someone gets hold of your data there is nothing you can do about it. Probably not an issue for this application, but I see it suggested for things like ATM machines or access to building (where swipe cards are used now) where they are used unattended. I expect that if these devices become widespread then someone will build a device to spoof them. and once someone has got hold of your data there is nothing you can do about it

Re:No

[will_die]

According to what I have read you can get around an 80% success rate with taking a picture of the eye you want to fool the system with then cutting out the pupils and placing the picture over your eye.
The picture gets the blood viens which are check, and when the pupil test is done your eye passes that.

Are smart cards and key pairs the answer?

[Neil Watson]

I'm no expert on cryptography. What if you had a smart card. You program that smart card generating an expirable key pair. You get the private key (burned onto the card) and the government gets the public key. Your private key has a "passphrase": your retina print (which never needs to be stored).

Now, to prove you are who you say you are you swipe the card. You private key is compaired to your public key and verified.

Every six months, your key pair becomes invalid and you generate a new pair.