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?
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.
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?
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.
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"
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...
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,
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.
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
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.
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...
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?
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
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.
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.
Automatic (+1, You Poor Bastard, how did you escape with your mind intact?)
> I'm amazed it only took 10 years to cut through enough of the beaurocratic B.S.
ObPeeve: "Bureaucratic".
But apart from that. Damn. At least INS and Customs have been integrated under the same department. That's a start, but it's only a start. The acid test for BICE will be whether or not they can integrate their back-end infrastructure to avoid the problems you outline.
> 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.
I'd like to think that today's printers and scanners have gotten good enough that one could steganographically embed biometric data in the photograph. Joe BICEpack at the immigration desk couldn't verify its presence/veracity by eye, but he could sure as heck stick it under a scanner at the port of entry and see if his terminal pops up a warning, like "Picture biometric does not match passport printed data. Picture appears to match Mr. Foo Bar, SSN/ITIN AAA-BB-CC, A#123456789, Mr. Foo Bar is/isn't on watch lists X, Y, and Z. Mr. Foo Bar has/hasn't a track record of customs violations, etc. etc. etc."
The one reservation I'd have about such an approach would be what happens if the scanner at the airport or border crossing gets coated with crud/residue after having processed thousands of passports a week. Perhaps a periodic recalibration with a "test card" (designed to be almost unreadable, worse than the average passport) after a spray on the scanner window with Windex or something could be part of the officer's morning routine. Get in, wipe window with rub, insert test card, re-wipe until test card says "OK", then open wicket for business with real passports.
Fer the record, I hereby place that idea in the public domain. Anyone in .gov who wants to take credit for it is welcome to do so, especially if they can get it - or anything more secure - implemented in less than 10 years.
To the privacy crowd: Privacy's good stuff. But the purpose of a passport is to provide proof of identity and citizenship. Unless you simultaneously advocate anonymous cross-border travel, policies which secure passports from exploits are perfectly compatible with privacy rights as they exist in law today, and as they existed in law before 9/11.
"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.
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
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'
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?
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.
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.
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.
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