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%!
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.
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,
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.
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
Flying is now a conventional method of travel, a regular part of the average citizen's life.
Once you go that far, you could use the same argument to justify intrusive security anywhere.
"Hey, it's not like people are pushing you out on the sidewalks which are continually video monitored."
"You don't have to drive a car on highways where all vehicles are scanned at regular intervals."
"Nobody's forcing you to live in a city that requires surveillance cameras in every bedroom and bathroom."
"You aren't required to get that IRS identification implant unless you are an employee, business owner, or shareholder, and participation in those activities is 100% voluntary under the law."
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'
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.