Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Biometric Passports By Late 2004
truthsearch writes "The Register is reporting 'Current plans call for the new passport books to include a contactless smart chip based on the 14443 standard, with a minimum of 32 Kbytes of EEPROM storage. The chip will contain a compressed full-face image for use as a biometric. European biometric passports, by contrast, are planned to feature both retinal and fingerprint recognition biometrics on their smart cards.' How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork."
Even though we have better-than-32K resolution in the
Analog photos in our passports, I bet that at least half
The Slashdot readership's back hair is standing on end.
Maybe this is a privacy concern. Maybe. Especially if
You're concerned about automatic face recognition and such.
Anyone could create a device which could match your face from a
Scan of your passport photo. And your retinas can even be
Scanned while you're in line. What's the big deal here?
Money exists only to be spent. Technology exists mostly to be bought (and occasionally to just look cool on its own). Politicians are known for spending money like it's going out of style.
Ergo, let's go burn billions on this new technology that wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference anyway. Cuz, like, it's cool.
"To err is human, to forgive is simply not my policy." --root
Excuse me, whoever posted this story forgot to add the following line somewhere in the summary:
"The privacy implications here are worrying, and this sets a bad precedent, IMO."
Slashdot editors, please make this correction immediatly.
badges we have to wear at work.
.sig
Well, I don't know about you guys but I feel so much SAFER now!!
Now our fears of terrorism are answered, I can now sleep well at night again.
God bless America!
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
It doesn't effect privacy either; it's just kinda worthless, since "Adbar" could be a terrorist, but hey, we don't know that; we just know he's Adbar! 100%!
They ratchet up security procedures, requiring everybody to show ID when flying, but when they decide that the aircraft went down not because of terrorism but because of a design flaw, do they roll back the tightened security?
Not on your life.
Face it lads, we're property. Nothing more.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It's nothing to fear, infact, it is about time that this technology got implimented. It is a secure way of verifying a person's identity. It's not tracking software, so you can still move freely about the globe as long as you are supposed too.
As for the 9-11 throwback, this technology wouldn't help so much, but it does have some excellent usages for preventing fake id's, as well as locating kidnapped or missing children.
Burninating the villagers, burninating the country side. TROGDOR!
Better to match on appearance than somethning more insidious and Ashcroftian (look mom, I made a new word!)...
Please bleed in the cup, Mr. Anderson. We need to match your DNA to this passport.
This freaks me out, quite like the rest of slashdot I imagine.
But I see a few problems with it:
1) How will the cost of getting a passport get passed on (no pun intended) to the customer?
2) What if i swipe it with a magnete? I mean, how many Americans are literate enough to know not to place a magnetic field over a little circuit-thingy that probably gets jacked over by it?
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
I think that life would be easier for everyone if the standards for passports were the same everywhere. Might as well follow suit with Europe and allow more info stored on the card. Here we are just setting ourselves up for upgrades within a short period of time. We could also switch to the metric system while we're at it.
"Make me some if you're making some"
Now no U.S. Citizens will be allowed travel to desitnations known to harbor terrorists.
Pretty much everywhere.
Welcome to Soviet Russia, let the jokes commence.
What is that? A challenge?
Makes sense for Europe. We'd have to coin a new phrase for our system here in America. Something that denotes that it's base 12...
biometric passports following the l337 standard -
EPROMs with biometrics that you wear in a necklace and access through your GBA
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
This honestly doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Consider that this changes very little: there's already a picture on your passport, and any country that wants could just photocopy or scan that. This probably won't help prevent terrorism, though it certainly seems to eliminate a less sophisticated avenue of fraud. Far fewer people have the technology to produce a fake passport with a smart chip than without.
Here's another interesting potential positive. When you want a visa to visit a country (something we americans don't need to do for most "westernized" nations) you usually need to send along 2 passport-sized photos, which means the PITA of going to get pictures taken. Now, if the embassy of Brunei has a smartcard reader for the passport, they could just download the picture from your passport instead! Electronic storage of visas and such might even eventually let us do all these things over the net.
There are privacy issues with any form of identification, but they rely less on what the identifier is but more on how it is used. If we want to preserve our rights, we need to fight against regulations forcing us to show or carry ID (a la Gilmore). The form these IDs take is not so important (well, unless they want to implant them in our skin, or make them checkable via radio, etc, but these are separate animals...)
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
Welcome to the United State of America. Allow the nice lady at the counter to take your picture, retinal scan, fingerprints, blood sample, stool sample, urine sample, hair follicle, oral swab. After that please check one of the two YES or NO boxes next to "I AM A TERRORIST" statement.
Trolling is a art,
Orwell couldn't even imagaine some of the scheisse that's goin' down.
How would you not tie it to 9/11? When you want total control, you will do anything to achieve it. Even using a tragic event as a means to what you want.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Woah! This is going way too far....A picture in a Passport! The audacity! Won't anyone think of the 4th admendment? I should quit my job and join the Michigan Milita. Viva La Revolution!
Come on people....If this had been done 5 years ago the response would have been "A digital picture in my passport? SWEET! One more thing I can try to hack..." Not everything is a facist government conspiracy to rob you of your freedom. Sometimes it's just using technology to make something better.
But they did get into the US from other countries...
We've got neo-con Alan Dershowitz trying to sell our government on why this is a good thing. No thanks, I didn't vote for the bushies, and even if I did I'd be mad as hell at this kind of garbage.
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
All of these security measures are useless until we come up with a solution to people killing themselves to kill us.
I don't mind having my biometric information stored in my passport. What I care about is having my biometric information in a government database. Once the government starts collecting this information, they're going to save a copy for themselves. Then the database will be available whenever they want to determine who someone is, such as when analyzing photos of protests.
It didn't mention this in the article so I thought I'd post here and ask. I just recently purchased a US passport which doesn't expire for 10 years. Will I be required to purchase the 'upgrade' to the new passport or can I continue to use it until it expires in 2013?
:(
With all the outstanding passports I couldn't imagine the US Gov would re-issue new ones for free. Hopefully we'll all be 'grandfathered' in, although since it is their property they could revoke them in Oct. 2004.
Thanks,
--
Matt
... that I just renewed my passport. So for the next 10 years I can travel without any of the biometric "security features".
After that? Don't know, stay at home I guess.
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I think it'd be more interesting to make the passport work on more levels, though, such as encoding your driver's license and other relevant information to make it more convenient to use for identification (irregardless of what you're doing, you'd only have to carry one ID wherever you go.) Maybe even include an ability to pay with the card, with a credit issuer encoding their information in the chip -- use the card in a vending machine/gas pump/computer peripheral, verify with a fingerprint, and away you go.
Is it just me? or is this an excuse to take away our liberties in the name of security?
The biggest problem with any system to prevent would be terriorists from getting in, is that no system can know a persons intentions. Look at the 9/11 terrorists. They had legal papers.
The other thing is, a terrorist doesnt have to come from outside. There enough christain fudmentalists that would be willing to do much the same thing.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
As someone who lives off his passport on a daily basis this seems like a gimick. Passports are totally insecure documents and always will be because they are used by people who leave their country and its laws behind.
The real wake up call about passports happened for me when my first one expired. I had memorized the number and assumed that naturally this ultra important piece of ID would be kept for life --not a chance.
I specifically requested to keep my old number and the feds said, no its not allowed.
This struck me as totally bizarre, but by that point I'd travelled enough to have met people who casually threw away their passports and got new ones whenever they got into visa problems so I wasn't all that surprised. Passports are a joke and always will be.
When will the government learn that forward thinking foreign policy is an infinitely more efficient means of increasing security than technological card-house building.
As much as I like the idea of more government tech jobs, I can't help but worry about our national security in the era of us-vs-them foreign policy.
Ah the Irony!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I'll be glad when the war on terrorism is over and there's no more terrorism, like that time we had a war on drugs and all of the sudden there weren't any drugs anymore. Which sucks, because I could really fucking use some marijuana right now.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Saddam rules, sucka. Death to the imperialist pigs !
As the original contractor/code-monkey on the INSPASS project, I'm amazed it only took 10 years to cut through enough of the beaurocratic B.S.
... with a photo.
Aside from the very REAL issue of "who owns the data," were battles over smart cards, chips, which biometric was better, how to store the data. I remember one prototype was a smart card augmented with a 2d barcode, a regular barcode, an OCR-B readable (for hand geometry), and a magstripe
Of course, precision of card printing being what it is, the photo would often obscure or otherwise make the data in the other formats unreadable.
Now the question is how fast will they be able to look up the data at the ports of entry? Hopefully, the squabbling between INS and Customs is done and over. Back then, INS accessed a variety of "look-ups" via Customs. It wasn't pretty.
Let's see if this not only makes the system more reliable, but speeds things up.
--- have you healed your church website?
and most people dont really take time to really think about what the government buys, or wants to buy. Most of them dont even know how this sort of technology will help, or that it already could exist. America gets obsessed about things, like biological attacks on New York and then people crash airplanes into the skyline. Bottomline is that America Europe or the rest of the world will do anything that they think will stop terrorism, they like it if it sounds good.
The point is that this wouldn't help because ALL the hijackers came here LEGALLY! The hijackers didn't try to use fake passports or anything like that. Also almost all the hijackers (if not all) were relatively unknown to us until they did their crime.
Hmmm... Pie...
*shrug* I actually think it's a good idea. Not nearly as intrusive as what the EU is doing, and makes things a bit harder to forge. Not more true security, I guess, but instead makes it better for the US to make sure everyone is legit.
Nothing to worry about, unless these things dislike magnets as much as PCs do...
For me, the issue isn't that this invades privacy (although it's not unprecendented for governments to sell personal information from their databases when they run low on cash). The problem is that this is a whole lot of effort to go through to fix a security problem that doesn't exist. So you don't have 100% biometric proof that so-and-so is the REAL so-and-so. Guess what? Even with this biometric information, you're STILL not 100% sure, just a lot surer. And what exactly does this information get you, security-wise? Well, you know that Mr. Psycho Bomber is the REAL Mr. Psycho Bomber, and you happily let him pass because he couldn't be up to no good if he's not concealing his identity.
Shit. We'd be more secure if we had a policy of only allowing women on planes, because there's actual statistical evidence to show they're less likely to cause problems. Sure it'd upset some people, but is it really better to implement a policy that doesn't even fix anything?
If you plan to kill yourself you can be a legitimate citizen with proper papers and still commit a heinous crime in your suicide for which you go unpunished. This doesn't make you more safe.
My issue is this. A passport should allow me to travel to countries that are on good terms with the United States. It should also have some personal identification because the U.S. has to issue it to me and not just any American.
But, is the addition of further features of personal identification the needless expansion of government knowledge of personal and private affairs (travel)? Or, is it a needful response to the the increasingly international and individual nature of crime and warfare (from international corporate criminals to terrorists)?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I can't wait to sneak someones passport into a microwave :-) A short range EMP device could then cause lots of trouble over lunch near the airport. I hope these things have regular pictures too, they're a little more durable.
I agree with you, its just something I pointed out in his post =P
I wonder what happens when you apply excessive and unnecessary ammounts of current across the chip :) "hmmmmm must be broken, you can see the image printed on the passport is still me though"
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire
I initially read that as
"both rectal and fingerprint recognition biometrics on their smart cards."
Of course it doesnt tie in, its just an excuse and grab at straws. The US government, in a desparate attempt to redeeme themselves is jumping on every bandwagon. If they would just admit that september 11 was their responsibility and that their lack of adaquate security, countermeasures and defense contributed to the attack then Bush and his loosers could resign and someone who could actually run the country could be elected.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Leaving aside the privacy concerns of the biometric data, smart chips in passports are not a bad idea per se. As Frank Moss is quoted in the article: "you can read a chip and confirm its validity, but you cannot create one. That is the beauty of public key technology". And I have to say that's actually a very good reason for including chips -- it will be impossible to create fake passports. It will of course still be possible to duplicate existing ones... I wonder what percentage of fraudulent passports are "fake" as opposed to "altered"? It would be interesting to know.
Having just received my first passport, I have to say I was impressed at how little time it took for it to be issued (less than 2 weeks). This article makes me wonder if it will take longer once the new passports are being used. Also, will you still be able to apply at any old post office, or will you have to go to regional offices which would presumably have the necessary camera to take digital identification images?
Does anyone have any documentation about the paperwork held by all the 9/11/01 hijackers? I've seen words bandied both ways about whether they were carrying valid identification.
I was working at the NJDMV recently and I couldn't even get a straight answer about it there. There'd been a lot of work on catching employees who were selling licenses, and then ones who might potentially (increasing criminal background checks, fingerprinting etc.)
Does that mean that someone (anyone?) can make a nice little data collection device and place it near a walkway at an international airport to collect this information? It is one thing to be forced to give this information when entering a country, it is quite another if someone can just sniff it. Am I missing something?
I propose each citizen at least 18 yrs of age and with no history of crime or mental illness be REQUIRED BY LAW to carry a firearm at ALL TIMES in public places, including public transportation.
M.A.D. worked to save the world from the cold war nuclear threat, now it can save us from terrorism.
Clean those guns. Lock and load.
they'll tie it in the same way they tied in the partiot act when they said the governemnt needed more surviellance powers even though the governemnt already had their eyes on at least some of the hijackers before 911. THey will use fear and paranoia and money.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
In Canada we have passport offices, which are very busy and have long waits to hand in the paperwork.
It is an okay situation, seems to work, and I got mine in less then 2 weeks too.
that they started putting full-face images in passports.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
So now the immigration officials can state with absolute authority:
"It's definitely you. I don't know who you are, or why you're here, but you're definitely you."
Great.
Cheers, Paul
Just a tip for the future...
/.'s traffic.
/.
Posting an entire article like that is typically frowned upon and will get you modded down. Especially when it is hosted on a large site that is able to handle
If you really want more karma, try comments like "Linux ru13z! M$ sux0rs! B1ll iz a luzr!" That's guaranteed karma on
And by the way, karma whoring went out of style when the karma was changed from a number to a word. The new thing is whoring friends and foes. Try it sometime, it is much more fun than trying to get karma.
Linux ru13z!
No matter what you all think, biometric identification does increase security because everyone is unique. You may see this as just "He's who he is, that's great!" but there are much broader implications. Now, i'm not an advocate of face recognition or iris scanning, one because face recognition is a very faulty system, and iris scanning is very awkward because you have to be right next to the camera for a good picture. Take a technology such as fingerprinting and there you have what you need for safety. A company called CrossMatch Technologies has a fingerprint identification system that is compatible with the FBI database of possible law-breakers and other things that state someone is a US citizen. If someone is scanned in an airport and checked against that database and either found to be a "not-so-good" person or someone who is not a US citizen, then appropriate safety measures can be taken. I think all of you against this technology need a reality check. No one is going to track us, they are merely keeping us safe.
"Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things" - Douglas Adams
I never understood why the imperial system is still used in the US actually...
Who gets to decide who is "supposed to" move from point A to point B? The government? Come on. No one has any right to tell you what countries you can or cannot go to. Beware of anyone who suggests otherwise.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Finally, with all his multiple faces, Michael Jackson will be shipped to Cuba under suspicion of terrorist ties.
After reading this, I thought the comment about 9/11 terrorists having valid paperwork was questionable. This article disputes that the passports were valid. Amazingly invalid, as it turns out.
I told you this was coming since the US put pressure on Canada to have National ID cards. I warned and warned and most people told me that they didn't care, there's nothing wrong with it. Now it'll be all over the world, try to escape if you can :)
Seriously, this is just another attempt by the U.S. government aimed to increase government spending and give a false sense of security to millions of Americans believe that yet another technological wonder will save our lives.
I am afraid that this so-called bio-passport will let us fall in the path of high-tech internet boom of late nineties: everybody thought that Internet would positively change our lives and the way we did business, unfortunately nobody thought of outsourcing and digitally imported foreign labor. Sure, the idea of something electronic that serves as a signature for our identity is nice; however, why would our government spend tons of money on something that might work instead of directing this money to proven methods like hiring security guards with common sense and proper training?
Additionally, I am afraid that this new technology will be another excuse for not paying attention to broader aspects of the issue; will the checkpoints rely more on the magic chip or on the skills of security officers? Personally, I would rather see well equipped security guards that are in excellent physical condition rather an old lady with "An Idiot's Guide to Biometrics."
P.S.: can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?
I love the quote "you can read a chip and confirm its validity, but you cannot create one. That is the beauty of public key technology," from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services. So they will digitally sign the data, how long will it take for some entity to crack the key and then they can sign the new passport. Once the key is cracked will the US government revoke all passports signed with that key?
I can imagine the h@x0r application W1NPa55P0r7 -- with a USB camera and a simple EEPROM burner you can make your own passport.
Since all the verification information is digital how will a simple security guard check to make sure you didn't just create a simple passport mimic circuit? At least with a physical passport a forgery requires printing equipment and skills that can't be purchased for under $20.00 at BestBuy.
The trouble with most of these types of security measures is they offer no real security above what we already have.
One basic concept of security is you never trust the client -- verify everything! All these security measures have all the data stored on the client! To make this more secure, each passport should contain a unique id and each passport check point should be networked to a central database. The passport reviewer would then see the picture stored on the passport, the picture stored in the central database, and the face of the person standing in front of him. If there are any discrepancies simply punch his ticket for Camp X-Ray.
if i get my passport before the chip can i use it? how many people would have to renew because of it? how long would they honor the old style? how many people (like me) wouldn't leave the country simply because they can't stand they're fingerprint being in a MS database?
It will be interesting to see how the public reacts to this. Done correctly, it will increase the security of the passport without really compromising privacy. If the format of the data on the smart card is completely documented, it will be easy to verify that the only information is being stored appears in printed form on the passport itself. Since all of the information in printed form is being stored someplace now, it's hard to argue that a smart-card version of this information disadvantages the traveler somehow.
The presence of the digital signature, however, provides MUCH stronger assurances that these identity credentials aren't forged; this seems to me to be a very good thing indeed.
Do you think they will add the EVIL BIT to the id cards too?
For years, the brutal French regime has held down us Corsicans!
When will the occupation stop?
The French have brutally inflicted their culture on our home in a cultural whitewashing reminicent of the NAZIS. Since the 1750s they have worked tirelessly to wipe out any remaining Corsician culture!
FRANCE OPPOSES OCCUPATION WHEN IT MAKES POLITICAL SENSE -- SUCH AS IN PALESTINE -- BUT USES THE SAME TACTICS AT HOME!
Boycott the FRENCH OCCUPATION! Burn, Eiffel, BURN!
Is the guy winning the fight for non-freedom or what? We're learning from him, not the other way around.
I give up. I wanna be a troll now.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
pH00|
> Adding a smart chip with biometrics is going to make it a lot harder for people to counterfeit these IDs.
:), so now you're always going to be identified as the person who did _whatever_the_thief_did. It's not like a username/password or email address or telephone # - those can always be exchanged for new ones when your 'identity' is stolen. But when your biometric data gets stolen - your actual identity is stolen, and it's stolen forever. The US passport version, with just a photo, is okay, as it's only replicating what is on existing US passports, but any more biometric data than that is a REMARKABLY bad idea.
The problem with biometrics and government-issued 'encrypted' biometric data is that once the technology IS cracked (and it WILL be cracked - make no mistake about that!), then what do you do? You can't change your biometric data (well, not without plastic surgery or eye replacements
"How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork."
The 9/11 hijackers had valid paperwork because various government agencies were not doing their jobs. These agencies are now under intense scruitiny, and are trying to do a better job to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country again. Smart chip passports will be much harder and more expensive to forge, making it harder for terrorists to travel using false identities. Overall, it's a small, important step in a larger program to keep the USA safe.
Biometrics seems great. But expect the number of amputees to increase (missing thumbs, eyes and - God forbid - heads)
While I see why they would want to implement a system like this, has anyone answered the question of just how accurate biometrics are? I've heard that fingerprints taken from a crime scene can be 30-40% different from a "matching" print.
So how accurate is facial recognition? or retinal scans? or even electronic fingerprint scans? I mean, with 32Kbytes, is that more than enough information to positively id someone?
Right, that's why the US is no longer allowing non-cockheadasians into the country. Problem solved.
This honestly doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Consider that this changes very little...
... seems to eliminate a less sophisticated avenue of fraud...
This sort of matches my viewpoint too. I mean, as a Brit living in the USA I already have an ID card with multiple features to make it hard to fake and biometric data (photo and fingerprint) - its called a "green card" although only the lettering on the back is green anymore. Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover that theres all sorts of data encoded on it in machine-readable form from my visa application through to the final interview when they authorised giving me the card in the first place. I havent looked into it in any detail because I dont give a rats ass. They have the data anyway and the rules that govern its use dont change just because they stick it on a card. The harder it is for some jerk with a semtex fetish to fake one of these and maybe pretend to be me the happier I'll be. Personally I'd rather not get a vacation in Cuba thanks to identity theft....
I had a
One step closer to the mark of the beast technology.
wow. yea, thats a bright idea.. give everyone a weapon. Sure, it might prevent terrorism, but it will also increase murder, robbery, and gang violence rates. last night i was almost jumped over a cigarette, and if I had a gun, I probably would have shotten that got dumb spick. Where would I be now? Jail.
MAD only worked inthe cold war because Soviet Russia and The United States had intelligent, educated decision makers resisting a catostophe like nuclear war.
How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork.
The paperwork could have been forged. People do forge U.S. passports, and having a smart card would make it a lot more difficult.
Even if the the hijackers did have valid paperwork, the government is cracking down so that people like them don't get valid paper work. So therefore they have to try to forge their paperwork. See 1.
No, this isn't flaimbait! I've thought about this quite a bit!
/usr/bin/complain >
I don't think the problem is 'Americans getting over 9/11'. I think the problem is a government using 9/11 to stir up the general population as a cover for a power-grab (clawing-back our civil-liberties). I'm not sure I consider a biometric Id a big deal compared to "Patriot act" kinds of legislation and the "tow the party line" trend in our media -- but I'm sure our nobel leaders will find a way to abuse the data that just hasn't occurred to me.
What if it were your Microsoft .NET Passport(TM)?
Don't worry about the government robbing you of your freedom; businesses will do it themselves and charge you for the service.
I mean do we know for sure what exactly will the chip contain? It's not open source and we have no idea what kind of info will be put on this chip.
I'm pissed off.
And still make it in.
Offhand, every male in Israel comes to mind.
Some guy obviously found out a way to use this technology to cut corners and costs.
Not to mention increased profits for whoever builds the passports.
1 Majority dumb asses buy into changing passports because of 9/11
2 ???
3 Profit
Several people I know (all college students... ironic...) have fully funtional--including a magnetic strip--21 year old driver licences. I didn't enquire too far into the details, but they cost $150 each.
Granted a biometric chip is quite a bit more complicated, but where there is a will there's a way. The question being asked is whether or not it is really going to stop someone from getting [a]into the US and [b]onto a plane? Answer: No. I think the best viable solution lies in the new refraction x-rays machines, I'd rather have them looking at my body than hand searching.
-Brad
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"
The size of memory they specify for storying the biometric information in the passport seems extremely limiting. Even assuming that image is compressed, will they really be able to get enough information out of the low resolution/lossy image to run a proper face recognition?
KappaStone
Obviously this is just another grab at our rights and freedoms by an out of control government in the name of 9/11. Here they are changing U.S. passports, which will have no effect on third world country passports and people using them to gain entry into this country. At the same time the illegal allien problem gets worse in this country by the day, and those not caught at the boarder are free to do whatever they want in this country, and are not even deported when they are caught! Just last night I saw a report on the local news about illegals being arrested on identity theft charges, and the reporter acknowledging that the people caught just post bond and vanish, only to resurface again with a new stolen identity (and post bond again when caught).
The government isn't doing this to protect you; clearly the U.S. passport change will do nothing to protect you. They have no interest in protecting you. Their only interest is in gaining more control over you. These statements may sound crack-pot, but are repeatedly born out by the government's own actions.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Statistics be damned!
What the article fails to mention is the most important aspect of the new design: the Terrorist Bit.
As the above biometrics only help to ascertain that you are you, it was felt an added feature to easily separate the terrorists from the regular population was necessary.
As such on the application form for your new passport will be a Terrorist checkbox. When the application is processed the Terrorist Bit is set accordingly.
The bit may also be set at anytime by authorized representatives of the US Gov't such as the RIAA, and MPAA. In addition undercover officers looking for any Anti-American expressions or beliefs - including privacy advocates, anti-war activists, free software advocates, alternative energy supporters, and anyone generally disagreeing with the supreme-leader-of-free-nations, George W Bush.
To ensure your security is of the highest order, each passport will include a unique license, the continuation of which requires an annual subscription fee. This license guarentees that no illegal copies of your passport can be made, its likeness replicated, or your identity compromised. The exact nature of the security measures taken are restricted for National Security reasons.
Blockwars: a free multiplayer game
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Every ID we own already has a picture. This is just adding a level of electronic security to the picture. I'm totally 100% OK with this. I'm totally NOT OK with the European versions with fingerprints, retinal scans, etc.
Push this proposal through. Maybe it will satisfy the unwashed masses and we can avoid something far more dangerous.
-A
it's a lot more fun than trying to hold a reasonable conversation with this bunch of stupid fucking assholes. set your preferences to threshold=-1, nested mode and watch your cares fade away.
- a troll
The USA is also insisting that any country which enjoys visa free travel into the USA also meets these requirements - affecting places like the UK.
:o)
Not that visa free travel is the same as less hassle, I was almost deported crossing the Mexican border into the US last year for failling to carry enough proof that I was a student. Apparently the only thing they will accept officially is proof that you have paid the fees for the next semester - even for countries like the UK where not all students have to pay university fees
Beep beep.
The 9/11 attackers had real US passports, some attempted legally, others obtained via such out-of-band means as by murder, and bribery.
So these lovely smartcard based passports will only provide better tracking of lawful citizens, while criminals and terrorists are still free to walk amongst us.
32 Kbytes of EEPROM storage
EEPROM -- Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory
This means that the smarter slashdot geeks can sell $2 worth of parts to let people update their passport photos.
Excellent.
What I find funny is that we try even harder keeping our moneys from being counterfeited, but it still is. Now, the government is wishing to put our info on a chip that we will carry around. The problem is that the government ppl will count on this being good info. And for the majority of citizens it will be. It will also allow for the government to catch minor criminals once they start requiring the carrying of this "passport" (or simply implicate them in crimes that they did not commit). But the "bad guys" will find it easy to carry modified versions that will be trusted to work correctly.
If you thought that they had it easy before, wait till this is enforced.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"ALL the hijackers came here LEGALLY!"
Really! I'd love to have confirmation of that assertion... funny thing is, the info about the hijackers that's available through the net all seems to me to be either spoon-fed from the government, or conspiracy theory, or avoids issues like their true origins, why their names weren't on the passenger lists (and which lists are real and which ones are um mistakes), and whether they're accounted for or not, instead assuming the premises of prior reportage.
This is a world-shattering, watershed event, yet has the poorest investigative climate I've ever seen for a major issue (vs. Lewinsky for instance).
So I wonder at how people come to firm conclusions about the hijackers, since I haven't been convinced by any one source.
Damn those pesky terrorists
And further considering that your country has made hundreds of these little, and some not-so little, changes over the past twenty years (remember the War on Drugs and Patriot Act?) there's little worry that you'll ever lose basic rights and freedoms. After all, hundreds of these little steps never add up large steps, right?
I love the infidels who crash planes into America. GOD BLESS TERRORISM!
But it's not like anyone is forcing you to.
Im ok with retinal scans, its the rectal scans that worry me!
So the 9/11 terrorists had valid passports. Are there no security issues beyond 9/11?
Upon seeing this, I checked out the story in which was stated:
This is editorializing. They cited no source regarding the implementation of biometric passports to fight terrorism, this was only assumed by The Register's reporter John Leyden (or maybe it was an Editor who added it).
But go figure, we know that even the world's most renowned newspaper, the New York Times, can have writers on their staff making up parts of stories for their lack fo research in order to collect a paycheck.
That doesn't mean that better documentation wouldn't help in the future, nor that it wouldn't have helped prior to 9/11. From the PBS Frontline documentary on the 9/11 hijackers: A note about these statements. If some of the hijackers really were using the stolen passport we no longer sure of their actual identities and so less capable of effectively pursuing the investigation. If they really were using stolen passports biometrics would obviously been one more difficult obstacle for them to overcome and possibly get tripped up on prior to 9/11. Even if they didn't use stolen passports and we had biometrics we would more easily discount this possibility saving time pursuing the possibly bogus lead of the stolen passport.
Also, we know that these 19 hijackers were only the point of the spear. Their operations required at least *some* support personnel and perhaps oversight from superiors and others with access to the resources of the larger organization. Nabil al-Marabh was caught with a faked passport, might we have caught others with fake, stolen or shared passports? Who knows? As for the 19 themselves we don't have all their travels accounted for, do we know that they *never* used falsified documentation? Might they use their real documents with the least likelyhood of causing them problems on the big day but take the risk of using false papers during other travel necessary to set up the attack thus keeping their activities and travels secret? Again, who knows?
In any event it is obvious that fake identity papers DO play a part in Al Quada's operations. Indeed every report on the known workings of Al Quada includes the compartmentalization of operations cells that perform terrorist acts and support cells which have as one of their primary purposes the provision of any necessary (usually false, or misused) documentation.
Well my concern is, like you say, how this data is being used. I do not oppose to having to carry a passport when going abroad, not at all! But IF they were to add such a thing like fingerprints or DNA data to my passport and then store that in a database... Then i am a little bit concerned. I mean: ......
[x] I agree that identity may have to be confirmed at times when travelling.
[ ] I agree that having a complete database of DNA samples of all citizens is a good thing.
[ ] I agree that this database should be used for other purposes.
[ ] I agree that medical insurance companies have this information.
[ ]
As long as there is a system someone will be abusing it or selling information or whatever. I did not vote for their sysadmin or the police...
True ravers don't need drugs
Fucking racist moron.
Why does every security "enhancement" have to have something to do with 9/11?
The more "minutia" there is to provide identification, the more reliable the identification is. The more heterogenous technologies are involved in the identification, the more difficult, time-consuming and risky it is to falsify the identification. "Smart" paperwork is harder to forge than "dumb" paperwork. That's it.
There is no effective way of screening out a heretofore model citizen who just this morning decided to go and blow up a building. But, with "smart" papers, you can be much more certain that it is that individual, and not someone else using false identification, that actually did (or attempted to do) $WHATEVER.
From a security stand-point, the authentication aspect is valuable information after the fact.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
32K of memory should be enough for anybody.
YAFIRL (Yet another Free iPods referral link)
On the surface it doesn't seem like much. What they are not talking about is the reality that they will all be connected to a database. No one on an American black list will be able to travel anywhere in the world.
The bottom line is, the government is going to decide what people can and cannot do, and if you resist you are going to lose your home, job, license and ability to travel.
For those who think it is only fantasy. Let me tell you. Over the last few years, I went from being self directed and being with my children every day to paying 80% of my earnings plus $1000.00 per month just to see them for 24 hours! I never even did anything criminal, just couldn't keep my spouse happy. They took my license and have put liens out. They've notified me that they can cancel my passport at any time. You wouldn't believe how powerless you are and how much of a slave you are.
All this was without any crime. When the government can just take away your children (and everything else) like this without accountability, they can take anything. This is just one of many avenues the government takes to claim property. It has or will probably happen to you or someone you know.
I did months of research on the law and discovered that our constitution and the principles it was founded on are glorious and beautiful. Then I discovered that all of those principles are gone.
The reality is that the county is not ruled by the people, but by a collection of elites acting on what they believe are their own best interests. They have the money and influence to do anything that the collective people do not absolutely, positively rebel against. Even people who care and who disagree with what the govenment does cannot do anything effective to resist because they are too busy taking care of their families, paying the mortgage and just generally trying to live thier life.
America is the new russia in many ways. You have to have "your papers" to do anything. Most people don't truly "own" anything. There are more people in jail and prison in the US than all the rest of the world combined. Our own private Gulag Archipelago. Many, if not most of these people have never committed a crime. Crime by definition is harming another person or thier property with malicious intent.
Most days I think, oh why oh why didn't I swallow the blue pill.
Wouldn't it make sense if other countries adopted this technology, since other countries who are not up to the tech standards of the US would be creating the standard passports that don't contain the chips, which really wouldn't help the US in identifying in suspicious characters. It would only help in keeping the fake US citizens from doing things that the US could be blamed for.
How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork.
Many of the terrorist hijackers had expired visas for more than two years and the FBI didn't do anything about them. I just don't get how I have a video rental that is two days overdue and Blockbuster is all over my ass.
I think we should put Blockbuster in charge of immigration!
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
just like most other legal documents and identification, this will probably become nothing more than a race between the authorities and the forgers. much like fake IDs in the US among young people. Every time the government comes out with a more secure form of ID, forgers find new ways to make passable copies...
The best security relies on people knowing people and knowing things about people. An example: made to measure suits. If you belong to the social group that wears them, you will probably be able to recognise them on someone else. Unlike a car or credit card that can easily be stolen, a made to measure suit is effectively a biometric form of recognition. Nowadays, when a billionaire may wander around in jeans and T-shirt, it's harder for an investment banker to recognise a prospect.
There are examples in the Bible (the ability to pronounce "shibboleth" being used to distinguish friend from foe.) and from WW2 (the Navajo talkers being used as an ultra-secure communications channel.) The upshot is that we now live in a society where people can be extremely anonymous, and this is a huge benefit to both terrorists and criminals.
If we want to live in a society with high levels of security - and on the whole we seem to - we have to sacrifice some of our anonymity somewhere. Is it better to sacrifice anonymity at the local level (nosy neighbours) and have lots of little things that identify you to small groups of people who may be small minded, annoying or intrusive, or to sacrifice anonymity at the highest level (have a single point of identification which is apparently secure, but which is available to many people in government who may be corrupt or criminal?)
I don't know the answer, by the way
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Yes, the terrorists had valid paper work, however as they passed through customs there was no way for the customs official to check to see if these individuals were under any sort of watch by the FBI or CIA (unless you support racial profiling). Being able to quickly pass that info into a computer that can search a database is an invaluable tool.
But you've missed my point. If you're standing, facing towards the line of civil liberties, and you take hundreds of small steps forward, they will add up to you crossing the line, but you can take little steps to the left or right forever and never cross. I don't see digitally encoding a picture onto a passport as in any way consisting of a little step away from civil rights. The form of the content being stored doesn't make any difference. In any case, even if this is a small step in the wrong direction, not taking this step makes no difference. The proper response is to enact legislation guaranteeing rights and freedoms, such that they would outlaw this move if it were in fact a step in the wrong direction...
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
Please tell me where does it say that you have the right (not just privilege) to demonstrate anonymously?
This question has stumped several activists already.
The "Borrowed Ladder" concept in Gattaca would seem to indicate that even DNA based ID's aren't impossible to thwart.
I agree with the Gefiltefish11 tho, I'd prefer to tote a Smart Card passport around than be implanted with a chip or bleed on command to confirm my identity.
Ah. A PBS documentary. Nothing like a left-wing, show-us-the-extent-of-your-paranoia, public cesspit of a channel to inspire your confidence.
Ha they're already copying this one. Very secure indeed :)
Every step seems like another step to that System. And one day, a crisis will happen, and the right man is there to push it, and the mobs will cheer him for it.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
A photo (even a well protected photo with hologram overlays and other cool bits) can be hacked with enough money and sufficient skills. If the digital photo stored on the passport also include a hash of the photo data and passport ID number which is signed by a state department public key you are not going to be able to drop another photo in an make it work. This also means that JoeBob working the immigration desk at the airport will only need to confirm that the photo and ID number printed on the passport match the digitally encoded data, he will not need to examine the printed photo closely to make sure that it has not been tampered with. This is probably the largest point of failure in the current system and adding some digital backup to the person manning the front lines is a good thing.
As far as your claim about people taking apart the mechanisms goes, that does not happen in this sort of crypto. Anyone who can break the public key crypto has better things to do than forge a passport, like taking down global banking systems. There is also no protocol to be negotiated between signer and verifier, so the hacks that occasionally hit online crypto protocols do not apply (e.g. tampering with random number generators or causing discrete failures in the protocol, etc.)
"Can you identify yourself?"
(points to self) "This is me!"
"Well I guess you wouldn't kid me about something like that."
Anybody else besides me find it unusual that Mohammed Atta's partially seared passport photo was splashed all over the news on 9/12? He ran his plane in on the 80-something'th floor of the north tower, and somehow his passport landed on top of the rubble rather than under an extra twenty-something floors' worth of rubble. Come on! This building had an acre-sized footprint--that's a huge mess.
But back to the subject at hand: I'm sure the U.S. will move forward this plan despite the grumblings of civil liberties fanatics, and certain technology companies will benefit from millions of Americans paying beacoup bucks for this technology. Meanwhile America will savor its newfound false sense of security.
I think we should go with Plan B and start being nice to other countries.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
thank you because to question any thing done in the name of 9/11 makes *YOU* a terrorist.. (or unpatriotic at the very very least)
I'm annoyed by all the harping "the terrorists had valid visas." True, but that thinking is shortsighted.
Like it or not, a digital passport makes it much easier to track where people go over a long period. The information could be mined to find suspicious movements. Your valid visa terrorists might possibly have looked suspicious to a computer model somewhere before they were admited to the country. (Didn't they all "lose" their visas that showed visits to Afghanistan? I wonder if the digital visa would have made that loophole harder to use)
The current trend is that if you add the word "digital", or some other computer-techie words to something, it's instantly better. It's just smokescreens and mirrors.
Let's think about how a person would get one of these new passports:
Like today, a person would conceivably need to have a photo taken somewhere to submit with the paperwork. A simple walk to a 1-hour-photo place will take care of that. Then this person, like today, will go to a govt. office to file the paperwork and sumbit the photo. Like today, the govt. employee will take the photo and paperwork, send it to someone who doesn't care if the photo and name match up - it's not his job, he just makes the passport - and several weeks later the applicant will get a letter in the mail with his passport. So what in this digital "biometric" data is stopping someone from getting a false ID (say, state drivers' licence), getting a photo, and submitting false paperwork to the govt. clerk in the hopes of getting a false passport? Better yet, since the digital photo is "signed" by the US Govt's private key, this false passport is even more authoritative and "legit" than my current (real) passport. Just wrap something in computer-speak, and instantly it's a whole lot safer, apparenly.
The security of any system is only as good as it's weakest link. That weak link in this new passport system still is the human element. True security has three aspects: something you have (like a key), something you are (like a fingerprint or retina scan), and something you know (like a passphrase). Combining these three elements, it is extremely difficult to comprimise a system.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
It doesn't say that, hence technology that would enable the government to do that would worry me. It *should* say that, but it doesn't. I think the US needs to pass an amendment guaranteeing privacy, personally.
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
I wonder if they realize that this pasport is for US citizens. That's right people already living in the united states. Last time I checked the hijackers weren't US citizens. Hell, they didn't even have US passports, they wouldn't need them! They don't need US passports folks, just valid ones from any country. Ah, thank god for american post 9/11 brilliance once again.
I wonder if these new id's will implement the "red crystal on the hand" technology as demonstrated in the movie "Logan's Run"? If so and you are nearing your 30th birthday then you might want to leave it at home....or you could just explode...
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Just an in voting, you cannot force civic duty on those either unwilling or uninterested in it. Sure you can force them to carry, but they will not have training and or interest in doing it in a responsible manner. You could however repeal all laws which stop people from doing so. That IMO would be a much preferable option as armed people in such a situation are much more likely to respect guns, and know how/when to use them.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I think they could have done crypto-signed pictures with a largish 2-dimensional barcode on the passport instead of a chip. The only advantage I can see of the chip over the barcode is that the chip gives them the eeprom. Any idea what they will be doing with the eeprom?
The greencard project was pretty fun, and I only worked on it briefly (no, I can't help you get one, I have no real ties to the folks that took over the project, and the project was run well so that "inside" information really didn't help you much -- everything I know that isn't useless serial driver crap, you can pretty much get by reading the press releases).
The really funny part for me was the requirement that the card needed to be durable enough to remain readable for up to 5 years, stored in the shoe of a migrant worker. QA on that has to suck
it says so in aisle 11 where they sell bandanas, ski masks, clown masks, ronald reagan masks, etc
privileges are granted through legislation and little bits of paper, rights are enforced through direct material action. going back to the boston tea party, the federalist papers and beyond there is a long standing tradition of the use of disguises and anonymity as necessary tools for effective protest and resistance. china provides an object lesson in what happens when the government is able to watch every protester and exact revenge upon them, and apparently there are those in the US who want big mommy to have the same power over their lives and reduce us all to working on the collective farm. anonymous protest and resistance provide effective means of working against this, the most effective methods will win out in the marketplace. If your pieces of paper don't acknowlege this fact they are meaningless.
The weak link here is the multitude of passport offices. A terrorist need only bribe or blackmail or extort or otherwise convince the relevant official to create falsified passports for them.
And please tell me where it says I don't have a right to demonstrate anonymously?
The very concept of free speech revolves around anonymity. Pamphleting was upheld by the Supreme court to be a necessarily anonymous activity, for the pamphleteer could be subject to persecution (think Tom Paine).
There won't be any protests if the protesters know that a mad administration is cataloging their names. And that's the whole idea of cataloging the protestors... isn't it? To get them off the streets, and shut them up.
This administration already has come up with the idea of a "first amendment zone". You see, if the Appointed President is scheduled to show up in public, the Secret Service calls the local law. The local law will set up a pen, usuallly a mile or more away from the AP's speech location, in which all protestors are required to stay.
Needless to say, Republicans are bussed in from the burbs if necessary to swell the AP's crowd numbers. And no protestors are in evidence.
Back in the Pen, or First Amendment Zone, the cops and the Secret Service set up cameras on tripods and recording equipment galore, all pointedly pointing at the traitorous ones.
Imagine if Clinton had penned up and cataloged the Monicaites. I can't imagine it, 'cause the local law and the SS would never have done it. But for a 'publican? No problemo!
In such a situation, privacy is obviously being removed in order to intimidate any future protestors from ever trying to protest Bush ever again.
After all, imagine what could be done with that info the SS are gathering. Employers could be called, a goodly majority of which are hard-right 'publicans. A large number of people in the U.S. have been fired already because they disagreed with Bush in public. That info is obviously going into an "enemies of conservatives" file somewhere, as well. Who has this info? WHY do they have it, and who the hell told them they could pen up people and catalog their identities?
Where the hell are the reporters? No one seems to care.
This is why the Ninth Amendment regarding unlisted rights not specifically enumerated exists: the right to privacy does indeed exist, altho not listed specifically. The government is not only bound by rights enumerated, but implied.
If this does not seem to go over well with the radical right, then we do need to enumerate our rights with new laws. The pity is, those laws can be rescinded, whereas the Constitution cannot be, easily anyway.
big mommy? curious phrase, does she have a website?
This is probably a stupid question, but just how versatile is a passport with a smart chip embedded in it going to be? I'm just thinking of the times I might shove my passport in my back pocket and then later on sit down... is this type of smart chip able to survive such a horrible fate?
"How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork."
They have to justify the 100s of billions of dollars they stol^H^H^H^H allocated somehow. This just proves that our government doesnt care about us.
The first was a signature analysis system. They tell you to sign on a pad. The computer tracks where you start your signature on the pad (top left, middle, bottom, etc, etc). It also looks at the pressure you exert on the pad at different points in your signature. So it would notice if you pressed especially heavily on the up swoop of an "I". I think that it also looks at your signature rythym. And then the final step is the most obvious check: does the signature look like the one you have on file.
The great thing about signature analysis is that people might be more comfortable sharing data that could only be used to identify them if they WANTED to be identified. Also the discomfort of having your iris scanned can be avoided.
The last technology they showed us was an entire hand scanner. They didnt demo it, but it looks at the positioning of your knuckles and the size of the hand.
The hijackers DID use fake ID according to the BBC But the trouble is they didnt use the new improved USA passports with added Biometrics, as they were 'foreigners'.
where is the '+1 insightful' for this?
personally, id give it a +5 or +6.
The right to privacy only pertains to governmental searches. If you read the constitution it expressly states that. Any business can do what they will with your personal information and the most you can do is sue them, and probably not win.
If you dont believe me break out a copy of the constitution and read it for yourself.
Red Hat is for people who hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.
www.putertech.net
Ah. A PBS documentary. Nothing like a left-wing, show-us-the-extent-of-your-paranoia, public cesspit of a channel to inspire your confidence.
;). I have seen a few (and I was heartily suprised) that have if they were biased at all were from a distinctly conservative bias. Usually it depends less on the spin (which is always minimal in those documentaries I have seen) but on the choice of topics. A frontline documentary on Enron may come across as being liberal but only because conservative and business interests were caught behaving badly, the one on 9/11 came across as somewhat conservative because the event itself stresses themes that conservatives themselves stress - the existence of evil people (aside from ourselves, the only evil people that liberals generally acknowledge) and the need to at least on occasion defend ourselves from such evils.
I usually share your opinion of PBS. However the frontline series of documentaries are often quite good. Any particular one may skew left or right but bias is at the level of making a rational and reasonable and dispassionate argument for one or the other viewpoint. (the voice of the frontline narrator just oozes dispassoinate rationality - if such a quality can be said to "ooze"
In this particular case there is nothing "left wing" about it - as you can see in this example the evidence they bring to light (without commenting on) would probably be considered friendly to the conservative case that sricter security and more oversight of foreign nationals is required for homeland security. I would say that perhaps this documentary could be construed as "liberal" by Buchananite paleo-cons to whom John Ashcroft and GW Bush are liberals and Rumsfeld is a closet troskyite. But the facts uncovered are largely supportive of their isolationist arguments as well. The only group that would find these facts uncomfortable and their presentation as biased would be open-borders leftists.
pass an amendment guaranteeing privacy? ... generate publicity?
In a public place, at a public event, the purpose of which is to
OK, I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but WHY would anyone participating in a public event, in a public place, for the purpose of generating publicity have ANY expectation of privacy?
That's like me going swimming and getting mad that I got wet.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
This is a world-shattering, watershed event, yet has the poorest investigative climate I've ever seen for a major issue (vs. Lewinsky for instance).
This is what bugs me the most. Six years ago we spent millions of dollars on an investigation concerning whatever sexual relations the president did or did not have and which ones he did or did not lie about. Yet, when there's over 3,000 casualties, we get an investigation that's even less supported both by finances as well as by personnel than what we spent on trying to find the Oklahoma bomber. It's nuts. And if there's somebody out there who doesn't think there's something shady going on here, he must have the famous "sh*t for brains".
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
How can this prevent suicide attacks? Have you ever seen anyone committing suicide two times?
Another idea might be to label humans with barcodes on their butts. They can live like chicken in small cages and being controlled by their politicians.
Adolf Hitler said: "To trust is good. To control is better." We are moving with high speed to accomplish what this insane man has begun.
1) Build Hoover Dam
2) Wealth created!
Unlike 99% of free market yahoos who profit from the speculative, ie imaginary, economy.
I am NOT Trolling here. So let me continue. Passports are necessary for the security of nations. Considering that in the grand scheme of things a fake passport is not beyond the means of anyone who has the use for it, a secure alternative is a good idea. If it scares you, don't travel! Think about it, do you let strangers into your home? Well a country is just a big home for a lot of people. I traveled to Mexico a few years ago on vacation and just used my birth certificate because they said a passport wasn't needed and it ended up wasting a lot of my time while various people squinted at it. One person asked me if I had the "original" because this one was issued by the county and not by the hospital. And I'm thinking damn, what an idiot I am, I didn't have the foresight to ask the nurse while she was shoving tubes into me if I could have a hospital issued birth certificate. So in my opinion if I'm outside my country, I want NO question as to the validity of my identity at any time. If I can shove a card into a reader that shows my thumb print and face. The last thing I want is to become the spokesperson for someone elses over zealous trainee at a border or airport.
The United States Supreme Court said it in:
FOUNDATION, INC., et al. No. 97-930
DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION No. 93-986
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Once again, the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution:
m endment09/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Annotations
Rights Retained by the People
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
----
In other words, in order to protect the First Amendment rights of an individual, a right to privacy must be construed, else, as my "First Amendment Zone" abuse citation illustrates, there is no First Amendment right to free speech, if the speaker knows that his identity is being serriptitiously deduced and cataloged by opponents in the government, presumably to harrass or destroy the speaker.
The Ninth implies rights necessary to enable the enumerated rights. It denies the goverment the ability to increase its powers in the areas not enumerated, if those new powers exist soley to disable enumerated rights.
How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork
While I'm alarmed at the extent the U.S. government has curtailed civil liberties in response to 9/11, I did not lose my creativity or imagination in the process. We are asked to believe that the story writer cannot understand how this relates to 9/11. Taking the writer's lack of imagination at his work, I find a connection easy to make. Just imagine for example, how this new passport system would reduce forgeries by potential terrorists. Imagine also that, with new restrictions in place, terrorists are finding it hard to obtain even valid, legal paperwork.
I guess I understand what the writer was getting at when they pointed about that the 9/11 hijackers had valid visas. Yes, this particular restriction would not prevent entry of the 9/11 crew. But it only takes a small imagination to suppose that invalid visas could have been used instead (and may be used in the future). I'm very active in lobby my government to use sensible restrictions in response to 9/11. I fly to D.C. once a month to meet with my state delegation. (If you're in D.C., by the way, your representative will gladly meet with you. This is not always the case if you are in your home state.) But I find it very hard to even get some traction with my legislators when (pardon the expression) whack-jobs like the writer just can't imagine how improved authentication systems can improve security. His concerns might have been better couched in statements about diminished liberties, restrictions on the flow of the newly electronic forms of identification, and possible weaknesses in the authentication systems. He could have made a good note about privacy; instead, he chose to pick nits.
Let's consider another possible visa restriction. Suppose the government prohibits convicted felons from entering the country, if the conviction related to firearms or explosives. A sensible precaution perhaps, and one that can also be taken to extremes for old convictions or felons that have long since served sentences and reformed. But it seems the writer would dismiss any benefits of such a rule, since none of the 9/11 hijackers were similarly situated. The restriction is not illusory, nor is it perfect. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
I'm sorry, but this sort of hair splitting is fine for debate about software, what language is better, or how has the better sports team. When it is turned to civil liberities, it makes all the other responsible objections look equally ridiculous. I for one am tired of being called a fuzzy-headed libertarian simply because a few fools (like the writer) don't carefully craft their objections to the slew of regulations we're being shackled with. A little less posty-posty, a little more study-study, perhaps.
I say good day, sir.
at least until there are more people with passports than particles in the universe. What more could they possibly need beyond an ID?
Would it matter? What country would risk the wrath of Rumsfeld and dare imprison an American with an unexpired passport?
Please don't take that as a compliment to rummy...
One that is based on fear. CEOs now capitalize on fear insted of benefits.
And no Arabs found. DNA was used. So, every passenger has been found and placed on each flight. Where are the extra hijackers? They are not in any of the flight lists...
Hmm... Maybe the biometrics can help the DNA sifters?
If we were living under a dictatorship, having such a constitutional background would make some sort of sense. However, no matter much the desperate left-wing "intellectuals" wish to paint the current situation in black, we still have the freedom of speech and more than adequate protection against the government (yes, those "Americans" in Quantanamo deserve everything they're gonna get).
A 32k jpg. OH MY GOD! And you can be sure that they don't get any other biometrics by simply not submitting to them at the passport office (bitch about it if they try to get your fingerprints/rental scan/etc). I suppose they could be really sneaky and try to get some DNA, but I doubt it would be legal for them to do so, or keep it quiet. They already have a picture of your face, this will simply let them make it difficult (or impossible with digital signatures) to create a fake passport.
The EU system seems a lot worse.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
first of all, a 'publican' is a tax collector. Which would make the epithet more applicable to Democrats.
More particularly, the insult implied that a 'publican' was someone skimming the tax money for their own gain, and their fellow citizens be damned.
And just to make you seethe in unholy rage, the word is used in the Bible (KJV), and even worse, Jesus still loved publicans.
Jesus loves you even though you're stupid.
And Clinton had the same setup to keep protestors away. Actually, he holed up in the White House and cordoned off blocks around it where only bribers and terrorists could enter.
So is the US going to purchase Readers for every nation on Earth? And distribute them? And how does this make me more secure from the guy who comes into the country with a Saudi passport?
It probably DOES make it easier for France to keep out Rush, and there's no harm there.
The United States Supreme Court doesn't make the laws. They can overturn unconstitutional laws, but even that it really based on a shakey precedent (lookup Marbury vs. Madison) which turned out to be a good idea, though still is not codified.
Also, precedent, or case law, is not the law of the land. We live in a constitutional democracy where laws are written by elected representatives of the people who are *specifically* divorced from the administration or interpretation of those laws, a separation that is very much more sacred than that of church and state.
The reason the buying alcohol with a fake trick works is that if you show reasonably-close ID, then the clerk is no longer at fault if you're underage. Consider the difference between these two situations:
Officer: You just sold alcohol to a 16-year old. Did you card him?
You: No
Officer: You're in trouble, then.
vs.
Officer: You just sold alcohol to a 16-year old. Did you card him?
You: Yes, and the picture looked like him.
Officer: Well, it turns out it was his older brother. Try to be more careful next time.
At that point, it's the 16-year-old's fault for posessing a fake id and using it to misrepresent himself. Both are crimes in the US.
Also, it's in the store's best interest to sell to as many people as they can. After all, they're in the biz to make money. Not to enforce our puritanical drinking laws.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
How do you deter with the prospect of death someone who is willing to die in the process of killing you?
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
when a Libertarian gets elected.
Who does DirecTV sue?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
"split the clouds and divide the sea and show those evil guys how nasty the Tiki gods can be."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but just as with those proxmity cards used for buildling access nowadays, the range is not determined so much by the card, as by the reader. A higher powered field will allow those cards to be read at a greater range.
I do agree, privacy concerns only go so far. We take measures to make sure your passport identifies YOU. I, for one, wouldn't necessarily mind if this was in our passports... what I WOULD be concerned about is who could use that information.
would make dealing with stolen passports easier.
People who don' travel that much might not realize the value of a passport, espeically an American or Canadian, or any EU passport... you can travel amost unfettered around the world, and it's an accepted form of identification everywhere. Want a bank account in another country? Often all you need is a passport, the rest of the documents are easy to fake.
Want to travel basically anywhere? The only entry requirement for an American or Canadian, or EU citizen in most places you'd actually want to go is a passport.
WITHOUT that passport, you can hardly go anywhere.
Also, if you are not from one of those countries, travel is a very difficult thing. The visas and requirements needed to get into other countries can be astounding, and expensive..
I can fully see how stolen passports are a valuable thing, and although 9/11 should not be the reason for doing this, going to better forms of authentication of documetns like this should progress with the times.
I mean it all well and good for America to have these, but if places like the Sudan and Afghanistan can't afford fancy digital passports, how will it make getting a fake non-US passport any harder?
So non-US terrorist gets fake passport from home country, is this any different from pre-911. It only seems worthwhile to crack down on illegal immigrants and the like, not terrorists.
A few things about passports:
- As an American, you do not need a passport to enter the US from outside, you only need proof of citizenship. Driver's license, birth ceritficate, something like that is probably enough.
- As an American, you can travel to Canada and some other countries in the americas without a passport, you only need proof of citizenship as above.
- The biometrics are there to prevent others from stealing passports and modifying them and/or making fake US passports. This is not a bad thing; a US passport is worth a lot of money to someone who can't get one.
- You are not required to have a passport to fly within the US. A passport is an international travel document, and the only universally accepted form of ID for travelling abroad.
- Other countries will not necessarily have readers for these passports. How another country wants to verify your identity is up to them, not up to the US Government.
- Biometrics stored by other countries is not covered by the US constitution anyways. Photographs, signed documents, and many other things are required in some countries to enter them, and the US constitution does not come into play.
My point, I guess, is that in the case of a passport, having biometric doesn't seem like a bad thing.. the potential for abuse is extremely low, as the passport is only requried for foreign travel anyway.
Some people already automatically get searched every time they try to board a plane.. imagine that at every border crossing.
:P and the US in theory shouldn't be keeping it's own citizens (ie the ones with passports) out.
Oh wait, hopefully no other country would give a rat's ass about the US's prognostication
But you're right, it'll probably have something pleesant like this.
How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork.
Duh, there will be a little yes/no boolean flag as to whether or not the guy who holds the passport is planning on hijacking the next plane. Problem solved! Right?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Imagining that the white man's burden can be applied to Iraq in the way it is applied to Mexico is ignorance, but it is not racism, any more than imagining Africans to be inferior because they are composed of molasses and melt in the water would be. The poster you're criticizing just doesn't know what Iraq is.
What makes the ID cards mandatory?
Do the UK police get to stop every person walking down the street and demand ID?
I understood that in the UK a drivers license was an A4 size legal document that was kept at home in a safe, and never expected to be carried on one's person.
I think that if it's just a large 2-dimensional barcode, then you could just make a copy of a passport that looks reasonably like you. People use their friend's IDs all the time to pretend to be 21, so there is precedent...
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
I can't imagine what pre-1860 passports would have been like, considering the cost and state of photo technology and the lack of real secure printing technologies.
The history of the passport and its name are closely tied together. Prior to the invention of photography, the primary visual representation of a human face was through painting or sculpture. Any of a number of government authorized artisans could be hired to craft an accurate facial representation. After completion of the work, the artist would inscribe their name someplace on the work, certifying its authenticity.
Early passports took the form of stone busts, often carved from marble. These early passports were often heavy and bulky, requiring some transportation assistance. This was typically provided by a porter, or in the case of a boarder crossing a pass-porter.
As pigment technology was discovered, oil paintings on canvas begain to replace the marble bust. These oil portraits were typically lighter than the marble busts, but still bulky enough to require a pass-porter.
The porters refered to their burdens as "passports." Over time, this shortened form of "pass-porter" came into common usage and was later applied to the photo based document we now know as the passport.
Extremely fast processing. You enter the gateway, put your passport into a special slot, and off you go. It's a godsend in the Singapore Malaysia border where millions of people cross the causeway daily.
The passport has all the regular pages and stuff and only gets stamped by countries who don't share the similar chip system. The downside to it all is that the Malaysian immigration office don't stamp your passport anymore. And that's bad considering I'd love to have those little stamps telling me when I left the country and what not.
Sure. But none of the fake papers you mentioned were US passports. Evidently then they're already secure enough.
How long before they actually implement those rectal scanners I keep hearing about?
-psy
I started to read that, and it looked interesting at first, but then it degenerated into BUSH IS BAD NOT ELECTED NO BLOOD FOR OIL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
If you want to make a point, try to not let your personal "politics" (if BUSH IS BAD can even be considered a political opinion) out of it.
This is a terrible idea. Aside from privacy concerns, the smartcards are open to abuse and can be rendered useless. A clever person could carry around a jammer transmitting at the same frequency as the passive antenna in the card. Or some malicious person could carry a smartcard scanner around to get pictures of everyone.
I fail to see how having a 32k ROM with just my digital photo encrypted in it actually improves passport security, let alone national/international security. Why? Well:
After that there's privacy issues:
Does this system actually solve any existing security problems? Probably not. What can be done to enhance the proposed identity matching:
Sure. But none of the fake papers you mentioned were US passports. Evidently then they're already secure enough.
Well that and these weren't Americans or faux Americans abusing American passports in another country but Saudi's or faux Saudi's abusing Saudi and Canadian(!) passports in America.
Also, read the article. This is America conforming to a new international standard that will just happen to also apply to Canada and (I think) Saudi Arabia - two countries that did have false passports at least peripherally involved in the 9/11 attack. The U.S. will require of any country that enjoy's visa free travel to the U.S. to use these measures - those would be the countries you would most want to get a passport from if you were a terrorist since you would enjoy open travel in the US without the US vetting you the way they would if you came from a country that required the US to issue a Visa to you.
That's great. A 32k picture of your face on a chip. Fab. Err. Isnt there already a real picture in your passport though? and an EEPROM? Pardom me for being a complete idiot here but wouldnt it be rather simple to just erase the eeprom and replace the picture with whatever you liked?
As for us Europeans using retina scans and so on, that's wettening but one gets the feeling that with Europe as it is it will not happen, or will happen in a rather crap way (as usual). Will we be able to get mod chips for these things? Will there be writers available like there are for credit cards? Will we be able to go to r3tin4z.com and download illegally copied retinas?
What confuses me is, why is this information stored on a chip that the holder has total access to? Wouldn't it be more sensible to store the information in a big database and then allow airport security to look up a person's name or identity number on said database to retrieve a picture or retina info which can then be used to verify that this person is who they say they are? Perhaps this is not done because of connectivity or legal reasons, but it seems to me that storing this sort of information on an EEPROM only serves to make it considerably easier and cheaper to forge convincingly by just rewriting the chip. I know this thing will be small, but if airports can read it, SOMEone will start selling devices to write it.
The problem, if there is one, is not false passports, but real ones issued under false pretenses. Or real ones issued to people with clean records who have evil plans. Or real ones issued by corrupt civil servants to anyone who pays enough, or is sympathetic to their aims.
And at the risk of repeating myself, there were no problems(AFAIR) with US passports, so these measures won't help anything except justify reducing the headcount of human security checkers who might use their brains to assess risk.
Ok, so it would use an EEPROM? Like, my PC's BIOS chip, or whatnot? It wasn't too long ago that I upgraded my BIOS...
Photoshop and an EEPROM programmer... the fun would never end. And by fun, I mean impromptu rectal exams.
-phish
One of the real annoyances of the new US government's attitude to passports is that they are forcing other countries to change their passport systems as well. Basically, it's a "change your passports or we won't let you in" kind of attitude. Ultimately it comes down to the people who have to spend (in some cases) a fair amount of money getting a new passport when their old one shouldn't expire for years, just to visit the US and spend some money on vacation.
Actually form can be very important. One of the biggest fears of a traveller is that they will have their passport stolen while in a foreign country. Then you're basically screwed.
For this reason many travellers carry photocopies of their documents (separate from the real thing). This makes it a lot easier to deal with the various authorities that can get involved in investigating the theft and getting you a new passport, VISA, etc.
With a Smart Card you have no such luck.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Ummm, what if the chip ahhh, gets damaged somehow?
If not a microwave, then how about a rubber mallet? Ball peen hammer with a towel wrapped around it?
You can't really read dead chips (ok, ok, so there is the tunnelling electron microscope, but....)
What happens when the chip is unreadable? What if 40,000 chips are unreadable? (per month)
Sure, some security features may be poorly thought out, or leave gaping holes that renders them useless but in general more security features == more secure. Another important question is: is the added security from any given security feature worth the costs. But, you have to *dispassionately* evaluate both the increase in security and the cost rather than immediately assuming that the cost is to high.
The problem, if there is one, is not false passports, but real ones issued under false pretenses. Or real ones issued to people with clean records who have evil plans. Or real ones issued by corrupt civil servants to anyone who pays enough, or is sympathetic to their aims.
NO, read my original post. In several instances the problem was indeed FALSE PASSPORTS and STOLEN PASSPORTS. (To add to the evidence of this problem the recent arrest of an al Queada cell in Saudi Arabia with a cache of FAKE PASSPORTS).
And at the risk of repeating myself, there were no problems(AFAIR) with US passports
Again, read the article, or my post. The united states is adding biometrics to their passports in order to get OTHER COUNTRIES to add them to their passports. Including not coincidentally the countries that had their passports stolen or faked as part of the 9/11 attacks. The United States is conforming to a standard that they will require of any country taking part in the visa-free program. Here is a relevant quote from Janes Intelligence Review (I bolded a particularly relevant example)
As my own note I would add that the Millenium bomb plot involved a fake Canadian passport as did the Nabil al-Marabh who was involved at least peripherally in the 9/11 plot
You also seem to assume that because US passports were not a problem in this one particular instance that they are never a problem. I'm sure Indonesia and Australia would beg to differ.
so these measures won't help anything except justify reducing the headcount of human security checkers who might use their brains to assess risk.
I don't see any indication that this move to biometrics on identity papers is being accompanied by any reduction inthe quantity or quality of security personell.
If the existence of documentation leads to less security and/or making existing documentation more reliable and less easy to forge leads to less security perhaps you would be willing to use the services of
Funny how people think that saying that allows them to insult you with impunity.
renders the entire exercise of debate futile.
With that attitude, it certainly is.
Funny how people think that saying that allows them to insult you with impunity.
I think that is a little unfair... I am not trying to insult you, but I DO have to point out a flaw in your argument, the pointing out of which can be taken as an implicit insult. Frankly you simply ignored my post and apparently didn't read the article. Pointing that out may sound insulting (which is why I apologized in advance) but it's hard to avoid.
renders the entire exercise of debate futile.
With that attitude, it certainly is.
I don't think my attitude towards debate is the problem. If you had and argument that rendered the facts I presented irrelevant that - would be debate. If you had presented your own evidence that cast doubt on the facts I presented - that would be debate. Simply ignoring the facts as though they hadn't come up is NOT debate and conversation on that basis IS a futile exercise.
As another Brit living in the USA, I also have a "green card" but as I like to point out to people who see the "cool, hard to fake" card... I have three rubber stamps in my passport that would be much easier to fake and mean exactly the same thing.
If you're worried about people faking "green cards" don't. They just need a passport and some rubber stamps... If you're worried about someone faking YOUR green card then that is harder to fake... (Nothing to stop them using your A# in their passport though...)
Did whoever designed the new cards worry about the rubber stamps, or even know about them?
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Who said we were in a "debate"?
You ignored and restated my arguments to make a better straw man, and gratuitously insulted me in the process. Good debating technique, but I don't want to play.
I have three rubber stamps in my passport that would be much easier to fake and mean exactly the same thing.
Only three? They processed yours in jigtime then :)
All joking aside, though, those rubber stamps are a joke. Hell, the visa itself used to be a rubber stamp before what was then the INS moved over to requiring the fancy sticker full of security-print features. I'm sure there were folks who wanted the entire system to use these stickers but I'd bet it got shot down by the cost of implementing on-demand printing of them at every port of entry and immigration office. Ultimately, no matter how careful a nation is in designing and implementing a "secure" system, anyone with good enough fake documentation can be passed through that system with nobody the wiser - even to the extent of giving the fake documents some legitimacy in the eyes of the target country by virtue of their being in the targets official database as valid. There have, in the past, been cases of legitimate travellers being detained at national borders for using false documentation because a fake with the same number/name/whatever was used first so when the real one turns up it gets flagged.
Border security is hard enough in an island nation like the UK, the USA will never achieve it to the level the current administration seems to want. The best anyone can ever do is know where most of the holes are.
I had a
Aggghh!! I've been trolled!
Had me hooked. congratulations