Slashdot Mirror


Germany Begins Iris Scans at Frankfurt Airport

securitas writes "Deutsche Welle reports that at Germany's Frankfurt airport biometric iris scans of airline passengers have begun. The German government says that the six-month pilot project is part of Europe's 18-country Automated and Biometrics-based Border Checks initiative to improve 'border control routines' and domestic security, with a full-scale system to follow. The system uses an iris scan embedded in a passenger's machine-readable passport, which is compared to the passenger's iris with an onsite scan. Travelers must 'sign a data security document' and agree to be checked by border guards. The article also references the capability of an iris scan to determine drug and alcohol consumption. The European Parliament is considering replacing all of its traditional passports with a new European biometric passport by 2005. The IRISPASS system (press release) was built by Byometric systems, Iridian and Oki Electric Industry. More coverage at CNet/ZDNet, AP/USA Today and mirrors at AJC, and CNN."

322 comments

  1. Iris changes by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    greasy, dirty or peeling skin on the finger can easily distort fingerprint-recognition, a factor that plays no role in the case of iris-recognition.

    So, does this mean that folks with melanomas of the iris, cataracts, macular degeneration (which is common and can manifest initially through pigment changes in the iris), etc... will have to go through a bigger hassle than the other passengers when traveling?

    Also, since the iris does change throughout life, I would guess that one would have to renew their iris scan on their passport from time to time.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if an electrical discharge destroys your eyes?

      Neo in Matrix Revolution comes to mind.

      This means Neo cannot take a plane. I guess that's why he learned to fly.

    2. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      well think of it as free govt. sponsored testing that could lead to early warning signs of serious eye problems ..... or not

    3. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      6 months is too short a time frame to achieve anything. I am guessing it would probably take more than 6 months to get some percentage of Europe to use this. What about travellers from other countries. How can you keep your borders safe when people from other countries can come in without their IRIS scans on their passports.

    4. Re:Iris changes by erick99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From an interview that can be found on CNN's site:

      Rick Lockridge: Illness and aging cause changes to your eyes, but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death. That's why EyeTicket and others feel iris-recognition technology is superior to thumbprint recognition and other competitors.

      Happy Trails!

      Erick

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    5. Re:Iris changes by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 1

      Holy shit!!! Did they scan that as well?

      --
      Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
    6. Re:Iris changes by kolbeinn · · Score: 4, Funny

      but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death.

      So, does this mean that folks suffering from death (which is common and can manifest initially through pigment changes in the iris), etc... will have to go through a bigger hassle than the other passengers when traveling?

      --
      End of line
    7. Re:Iris changes by diablobynight · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If all the machine does is make sure that your IRIS, matches the Iris on your card you hand them, than isn't still going to be fakeable, because the control element is based on the idea that your passport is right about what that persons Iris is supposed to be?


      I submit this idea, does it even matter? How many terrorist acts are commited by people who snuck, 9-11 was commited by people who came into the US legally

      --
      Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
    8. Re:Iris changes by Greedo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Babies eyes don't settle down to their final colour until sometime bewteen 6 and 12 months (source, another).

      So, their irises do change, certainly in colour. There aren't many 6-12 month-old terrorists running around, so maybe that's not an issue. But what Lockridge said is clearly wrong.

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    9. Re:Iris changes by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Anyone have any info on how hard it would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner?"

      Print an image onto a contact lens?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Iris changes by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Didn't the movie Demolition Man (Stalone, Snipes) have a scene where Snipes used a victims eyeball to open some doors? Been a while since I've seen that movie, but could something like that actually work?

      I'm guessing that additional securty methods (security guards) would catch something like this, but I'm sure somebody out there will try it.

    11. Re:Iris changes by ncc74656 · · Score: 1, Funny
      but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death.

      So, does this mean that folks suffering from death (which is common and can manifest initially through pigment changes in the iris), etc... will have to go through a bigger hassle than the other passengers when traveling?

      While it shouldn't be a problem for the dead guy (he has a bigger problem than getting past airport security), it could be a problem if you gouge out someone else's eye to try to get past a scan.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    12. Re:Iris changes by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm also curious about the ability to detect "drug and alcohol consumption." Is this done by checking iris/pupil characteristics?

      And, drugs---you mean like antidepressants and anxiolytics, both of which are wont to induce mydriasis?

      "I'm sorry, sir. Dilation says can't let you on the plane. You're either on speed, or you're on happy pills, and either way, we don't want you."

      If there are other detectable characteristics in the iris area besides pupil dilatation, I'd love to know. Any ocular pharmacology researchers out there?

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    13. Re:Iris changes by Safety+Cap · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Didn't the movie Demolition Man (Stalone, Snipes) have a scene where Snipes used a victims eyeball to open some doors?
      Yes, and there was a similar scenario in The Minority Report (Tom Cruise).

      The beauty of identity theft + biometrics is that there's no way to issue another account. :)

      --
      Yeah, right.
    14. Re:Iris changes by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death.

      This is absolutely wrong. Especially with pathological changes.

      And yes, I am a vision scientist.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    15. Re:Iris changes by furiousgeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>Anyone have any info on how hard it
      >>would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner?

      You don't have to fool the scanner. According to the article the iris print is stored on a card/passport that you present. So all you have to do is forge the source.

      If they were looking up your iris in a master database that would be a different issue.

    16. Re:Iris changes by demaria · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, you can just check them in the cargo hold.

    17. Re:Iris changes by deadbadger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once you've got a decent image of the iris, these systems are really rather good. This one in particular uses algorithms developed by John Daugman from the Computing Lab at Cambridge, who claims all-but-perfect results for his algorithms. While he's chosen to commercially exploit his work rather than make it widely available (as well he might), his basic techniques have been re-implemented by other researchers who've obtained similarly astounding results. The list of results from his webpage is really quite spooky - technology shouldn't rightly work this well.

      As I understand it, the main challenge now is to ensure the genuine nature of the image obtained. You can do this by simply watching people using the checker, thus preventing them from holding up detailed iris photos, or you can check more subtly. Some systems shine lights through your pupil to check for a live retina, but this is also avoidable if you cut a little hole in the iris photo and look through it. It's an interesting topic...

    18. Re:Iris changes by orthogonal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well think of it as free govt. sponsored testing that could lead to early warning signs of serious eye problems ..... or not

      Your eye scan has revealed serious problems, Citizen!

      It appears your iris is not Aryan. We're not sure, these days, if the problem is that your iris is Arab, Turk, or Jewish, but to be on the safe side we'll be sending you for Aussiedlung im Osten, "resettlement in the East"; you'll be going to a special clinic there!

      Before you mod this flamebait for its allusions to the Nazi era, please recall that the Holocaust began with (comparably) innocuous decrees announcing that all Jews would be peacefully "resettled" in the "the East", and that even with Germany's "rehabilitation" since the Nazi era, ethnic violence and discrimination against Turkish "Gastarbeiter" ( "guest workers") has continued despite official condemnation.

      Given the general feeling among the younger German generations that Naziism is "merely" historic, and something they have no special responsibility for as a people, and abetted by those Germans who, growing up in Communist East Germany, were taught that they were the victims, not the perpetrators, of the Nazi crimes, I don't thing it's flamebait at all to question a renewal of the "your papers please!" mentality in Berlin.

    19. Re:Iris changes by deadbadger · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't quite right - while the passport is scanned, this isn't for iris data, merely to ascertain who you claim to be. The iris code corresponding to this identity is then retrieved from a central database and compared with the results obtained by the security terminal. From the press release:

      "First, passport data is captured by a passport scanner and checked against a database. The iris recognition system then identifies the individual's iris to verify a match between the individual and the legal passport holder."

    20. Re:Iris changes by deadbadger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bugger - I could have sworn I put links in that post. John Daugman's website, and the list of results from a variety of sources.

    21. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the "f" is a "Vision" Scientist?

    22. Re:Iris changes by eth00 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that but when you die your blood pressure will go down. If you take the eyes out of somebodies head the eyes are probably going to deflate. I remember back in bio lab we were disecting some cow eyes and they were not all that around and the shape readily changed. I wonder about the macular degeneration and stuff though, that would change the retina and possibly make it reject the person unless they constantly update it.

    23. Re:Iris changes by Charles+Dart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not an eye scientist but I can say you are right because I have witnessed my grandfathers eyes changing from brown to blue as he got older.

    24. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant to say "Vision Scientologist", who is someone who's read the 'Occulating III Thetan' literature.

    25. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Given the general feeling among the younger German generations that Naziism is "merely" historic, and something they have no special responsibility for as a people...

      Posting AC since this is offtopic, but younger generations of Germans should not be held responsible for what their grandparents might have done...no more than younger citizens of the US should be held responsible for slavery, or that Jews should be held responsible for the death of christ.

      Your racist suggstion that the opposite is true is little better than the more blatant racism that you claim to oppose.

    26. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so easy: all iris recognition systems scan the iris using infra-red, and it is the IR reflectance of the iris that is compared. You would have to print the iris image using special IR-absorbing inks.

    27. Re:Iris changes by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      To clarify:

      As far as I can tell, iris recognition is not based on the COLOR of the iris but the PATTERN, which in fact is set from the eighth month of gestation. Go ahead and paint your fintertip blue, it won't affect your fingerprint...

    28. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said they should learn from their history, not repeat it.

    29. Re:Iris changes by Trelane · · Score: 1
      younger generations of Germans should not be held responsible for what their grandparents might have done...no more than younger citizens of the US should be held responsible for slavery, or that Jews should be held responsible for the death of christ.


      Extremely true. One should remember the past in both cases, and strive to avoid repeating it. It also should be noted that nationalism is currently a rising problem in Germany, esp. in the East, so the parent is somewhat correct.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    30. Re:Iris changes by s0m3body · · Score: 0

      cool down i've heard that it just counts the number of your eyes this is not changing that often, is it ?

    31. Re:Iris changes by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      younger generations of Germans should not be held responsible for what their grandparents might have done...no more than younger citizens of the US should be held responsible for slavery, or that Jews should be held responsible for the death of christ.

      Your racist suggstion (sic) that the opposite is true is little better than the more blatant racism that you claim to oppose.


      I'm afraid that you, in your haste to remove the racist label from Nazis and place it on me, missed my point.

      I'm not saying that Germans born after the Nazi era are responsible for the Nazi sins of their ancestors.

      What I am saying is that Germany went from awarding Iron Crosses, and otherwise accepting Jews into mainstream German society, circa World War I, to putting those same Jews on train to the East in 1942.

      What I am saying is that even self-described "liberal" Germans today feel it's acceptable to refer to Turkish Gastarbeiteren as "Germany's niggers" while denying Turks born in Germany the franchise and full citizenship (as cited in Father/Land: A Personal Search for the New Germany by Wall Street Journal reporter and German-American author Frederick Kempe (I don't have the book at hand to give the page number, sorry)).

      What I am saying is that as it was possible for Germany to slip from basic acceptance of Jews in 1914 to the Nuremberg laws by 1935 to genocide in 1942, Germans have a special responsibility, not so much to repent for the sins of their fathers, but to be watchful that they don't repeat similar sins today.

      To be frank -- if not politically correct -- and with the risk of offending our German friends, the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide), than Germany is to oppress its Turkish or other minorities.

    32. Re:Iris changes by netsharc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I call Goldwin, or maybe not, besides, it's the great fucking USA who's turning to the 1984 fascist state. I'm an Asian living in Germany, and I'd rather be here than in USA.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    33. Re:Iris changes by cicho · · Score: 1

      Fuuny, yes, but strike out 'free' and replace with taxpayer-sponsored.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    34. Re:Iris changes by cicho · · Score: 1

      Are they really storing the full print, or is the article possibly inaccurate? I was under the impression that biometric systems only store a hash of the original data, password-file style.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    35. Re:Iris changes by quax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having lived in Germany as well as the USA (currently back in the USA again). Being German and married to an American and I can hardly claim to be objective. For what it's worth I will share my oberservations with you anyway.

      Never have I heard somebody using the N word for Turkish people, although in Eastern Germany I wouldn't completly rule it out, but where did you get the idea that this would be acceptable bahaviour in Germany?

      Before coming back to the states my wife and I lived in Heidelberg for the last 4 years.

      Our neighbors Wolfgang and Inchy were German and Turkish respectively. They had the cutest little boy who they raised bi-lingual. She is running her own hair salon while he is working as an Audi car mechanic. They are both great people and very much liked in the neighborhood.

      Inchy being a self asserted, independent woman is maybe not your typical example, but she is very much representative for the 2nd generation of Turkish immigrants.

      There are hot-spots were integration didn't happen and did not work. You will find these mostly in large cities such as Berlin, Hamburg etc. It is there were Islamic fundamentalism finds willing followers. Immigrants to distant lands tend to glorify and idealize the state of the culture that they left behind. That is why I find anything that is regarded as typical German in the US either hilariously quaint and completely out of sync with modern Germany or simply embarrassing. That is also why young Turkish people that my parents met in the southern Turkish city of Antalia told them that it is Germany were you can find the worst backwards Turkish people who cling to completely outdated ideas of what is supposed to be Turkish.

      I am 100% with you that the citizenship laws in Germany are completely bogus. They are one of the main reasons why I voted for the Green party in the last election because they sincerely want to let go of these stupid ethnic focused definitions of what is considered German. Being fluent in German and sharing the values of modern-day multi-ethnic Germany is what should count and nothing else.

      I am very much in favor of Turkey joining the EU. Once this happens this issue will be moot anyway (EU citizens are free to live and vote on the town council level anywhere in the union).

      The main difference between Germany and the US is that there are hardly any neighborhoods in Germany that I don't feel save to walk in at night.

      Inner city segregation is much worse in the US. And the school diversity is back to the level before the busing started in the 70s.

      I don't think the US is in any position to point fingers at Germany for not learning of its mistakes.

      The lesson that we drew from history is that democracy has to be defended at all cost. I don't mind that an administration that I trust knows who I am and where I am knowing that this information will not be abused. I have this level of comfort and faith in the German as well as EU institutions and the contemporary German governments (may they be social-democrats or conservatives). But I don't blame any American for not having the same level of comfort with American institutions because I certainly don't have either.

    36. Re:Iris changes by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Not entirely sure what the point will be either. True you can't pretend to be a German citizen at the airport, but the rest of the world doesn't give you a retina to scan against. I don't see the point in this really, I mean they can't really skip searches for people who match the id because they could just as easily be terrorists or whatnot(well not quite as likely, but ya know). It might serve a little more purpose if the EU adopted it since then you couldn't just drive over the border without showing your passport, but still it's not really useful.

    37. Re:Iris changes by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lesson that we drew from history is that democracy has to be defended at all cost. I don't mind that an administration that I trust knows who I am and where I am knowing that this information will not be abused. I have this level of comfort and faith in the German as well as EU institutions and the contemporary German governments (may they be social-democrats or conservatives)

      I'm going to ignore your other points not because they are not valid, but because they'll lead us far off topic, and are very much subject to argument.

      (As to Germans referring to Turks as "niggers", I gave the reference for that (Kempe's Father/Land) when I originally posted about it.)

      You say that you're comfortable with the contemporary German government having information about you and your whereabouts, because have a "level of comfort and faith" in the German government and the current European Union institutions.

      Fine. I congratulate the German people on living under a democracy, and I do not seek to minimize the effort that must have taken, emerging from dictatorship, ruin, and division in 1945. (And to some extent I must also claim credit for my country and, specifically, the Marshall Fund and the US policies toward the BRD after the war.)

      But that's not my point. Currently you see no reason to fear the German government, and its retention of information about you.

      You also wrote that "[t]he lesson that we [Germans] drew from history is that democracy has to be defended at all cost." I've noticed that Germans often talk about defending "democracy" and less often about defending "liberty". Perhaps it's merely a matter of translations, but I'm not sure -- perhaps it's also a matter of outlook or Weltbild. But it's not a matter of opinion that Hitler was democratically elected, winning a plurality votes and seats in the Reichstag in 1932.

      So in addition to defending democracy, I think we need to defend liberty. Part of that is never allowing government -- no matter how good a government, no matter how well intentioned, no matter what checks and balances the Constitution promises -- to accumulate too much power over, or information about, the individual. Because a good government today can become a Fascist dictatorship tomorrow -- and more often than not it will do so with the enthusiastic support of the people, a people often fearful and hungering for the security only a Fascist government can promise ("A Volkswagon in every garage and death to the Bolshevik and Jewish untermenschen!").

      I suspect that, like you, Berthold Guthmann also felt no reason to fear the German government, or its records on him.

      In World War I, Fliegerleutnant ("Flight (second) lieutenant") Guthmann, an observer and gunner on military aeroplanes, earned the Iron Cross, 2nd class (the same as that also awarded to Adolf Hitler), the Tapferkeitsmedaille (Medal for Bravery), and the Verwundetenabzeichen (the wound medal, equivalent to the Purple Heart). His recommendation for the Iron Cross reads, in part, "Lt. Guthmann is brave and a fine officer, although Jewish...." In 1943, Guthmann and his family were arrested for being Jewish; Guthmann was eventually murdered at Auschwitz.

      I'm not saying the current German government will abuse its iris-scanning. It probably will not. But how sure can you be -- especially in the face of German history -- that every future German government will resist the temptation to use these records in abusive ways? That's the lesson Germany needs to have learned from the Nazi era.

      Your comment, well-intentioned as it is, as civilized a picture as it presents of 21st century Germany, is evidence that that lesson has not been learned. (But it's a lesson only incompletely learned in the U.S as well, not that that should be any consolation to anybody.)

    38. Re:Iris changes by Kruid · · Score: 1
      "the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide)..."

      umm, yes. It's hard to exterminate a group of people, twice.

      -k

      --
      Your mind moves quicker than a nun's first curry. - A. Rimmer
    39. Re:Iris changes by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Youth in the US also consider the American genocide of the Native Americans to be "merely" historic. And rightly so --- what their ancestors did is not their fault.

      Now the scary thing is that modern Americans still believe a lot of the "God blessed America" nonesense that allowed them to conceience displacing an entire race of people.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    40. Re:Iris changes by tealover · · Score: 1

      It's hard to exterminate a group of people, twice

      Particularly when you almost got it righ the first time, as Germany can attest.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    41. Re:Iris changes by tealover · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm an Asian living in Germany, and I'd rather be here than in USA.

      We'd rather you be there than in the USA, also.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    42. Re:Iris changes by Aurix · · Score: 1

      Then, all it takes is to forge the passport, and modify it so the impersonator's details are fetched instead.

    43. Re:Iris changes by Aurix · · Score: 1

      The iris may change, but will the scanner notice these differences? Or, is it not something the scanner checks?

    44. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the key distinction. German is both a culture and an ethnicity. America has no such dual role. America is a culture only. That's why we refer to people as African-American, Irish-American, Chinese-American, etc. to capture the ethnic dimension. In Germany an ethnic Turk is not German. He is a Turk. In America he is an American.

    45. Re:Iris changes by andy_shepard · · Score: 1

      I mean, the ostensible principles of univeral IDs aren't all bad...

      Yes they are.

    46. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (As to Germans referring to Turks as "niggers", I gave the reference for that (Kempe's Father/Land) when I originally posted about it.)

      It was written in a book so it must be true? BS.

      Your comment, well-intentioned as it is, as civilized a picture as it presents of 21st century Germany, is evidence that that lesson has not been learned.

      Do you cum when you write things like that? Frankly, i stopped giving a rats ass what Americans/Jews think about Germany quite some time ago. You just *want* to have your prejudice, makes you feel good. Fine with me, byebye.

      Bored in Germany.

    47. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn.. No mod points. Somebody mod the parent up!

    48. Re:Iris changes by kiwaiti · · Score: 1
      Fun thing is, though I don't know anything about him except that he posted on slashdot at least once, I can say we probably also much prefer him to be here rather than in the USA :o)

      Kiwaiti

      --
      Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
    49. Re:Iris changes by jeti · · Score: 1

      Given the general feeling among the younger German generations that Naziism is "merely" historic, and something they have no special responsibility for as a people...

      Most young Germans are just getting tired when Nazism is brought up whenever there's a story about Germany.

      What I am saying is that even self-described "liberal" Germans today feel it's acceptable to refer to Turkish Gastarbeiteren as "Germany's niggers"

      I never heard this term being used. Perhaps he said it to criticize the situation turkish guest workers live in?
      All in all they're certainly not worse off than mexican guest workers in the US.

      while denying Turks born in Germany the franchise and full citizenship
      Sad but true. Immigration laws in Germany are pretty hard, and AFAIK you have to have lived in Germany for ten years before you can apply for immigration. Even if you were born there.

      It appears your iris is not Aryan. We're not sure, these days, if the problem is that your iris is Arab...
      I'm under the impression that there is a growing racism against arabic people in the US. And that they often get harrassed at airports, and that the immigration laws are enforced pretty vigorously on them.
      Am I mistaken?

    50. Re:Iris changes by kiwaiti · · Score: 1
      ...hacking the whole system in the process, to get it to assign the impersonator's data to the other's ID...

      Since there's a central database backend, the passport will (hopefully, never underestimate stupidity ;o) not be in a position to say which identity belongs to a certain iris image, but rather just provide an ID number that is then checked with a simple yes/no query which is much safer in any biometrical ID checking environment.

      Kiwaiti

      --
      Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
    51. Re:Iris changes by jeti · · Score: 1

      The Fraunhofer Institute evaluated different biometry systems three or four years ago. All but one system could be fooled without opening them.

      The results were so devastating that the institute chose to not fully disclose them.

      A photo with a hole for the pupil was one of the techniques used.

    52. Re:Iris changes by filer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sheesh.. whatever happened to Godwins Law? What's with all this NAZI shit? As a previous poster pointed out: is it fair to blame people for the actions of their forefathers? Personally I think it's dangerous to do such a thing - and borders on racist.

      Europe, unlike North America, has more or less open borders. Millions of people cross between European borders every day with more than a cursory check by border control (and sometimes - none). Frankfurt Airport is the second largest airport in Europe (the biggest on The Contintent, the largest rail transit point on The Continent, and a major transit point to points east (Eastern Europe, far east, and middle east). In short, if I was a terrorist, organised crime figure, drug dealer, war criminal or some other kind of international desirable, it would be my chosen point of entry. I do not begrudge the German governments desire to make an effort to secure the area to the best of their ability. Unlike you and the rest of the slashdot pundits, they have a responsibility to their European neighbours and the international community to do so. They are trying to avoid a repeat of the Hamburg Cell.

      I am sure they also wish to keep traffic flowing through this transit area as quickly and as smoothly as possible for economic reasons. Iris scans, while they may or may not be infallible, seem to work well and they are *fast*. Certainly faster then having some US immigration agent question you about every minutae of your life to the point where they ask to see photos of your loved ones (as happpend to me pre-9/11 while I was in-transit through JFK to visit a European girl friend).

      The fact is, I dread passing through the US cuz it's tedious, they ask a lot of questions that are none of their damn business, and (though I don't care about this part) they enter your name into a database anyway. Most people I know who travel internationally don't even fly through the US anymore because they think it's going to be a pain in the butt. Personally, if it gets me through immigration and customs in a timely manner (as has always been the case in Europe - I've gone through CDG without them even openning my passport) I will happily submit to a retinal scan. I've got nothing to hide. I just want to get where I am going.

      While some may claim that this is open to abuse, as it is I suppose, I don't really see a better way to balance the desire to secure that airport (and Europe) with the desire to keep people moving through it as quickly as possible - and last time I was there - it moved.

      Unless one is to claim that identification isn't a necessity at border crossings and international airports. I really don't see what the fuss is about. If you don't want to be identified at the border - stay home. Some countries want to secure their borders and citizens, and as I have mentioned above, European countries have to worry about every other EC countries border being secure as well.

    53. Re:Iris changes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      iris != retina

      --
    54. Re:Iris changes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Look the US Gov is counting on premise that the US people aren't strong on logic. e.g. they're stupid.

      The US Gov just wants an excuse to introduce this ID stuff (and other laws) and if the people think 9-11 is good enough, they'll use that no matter whether it makes sense or not. They've used it before and they'll use it as long as it works- Patriot Act etc.

      I mean so many US people believed that Saddam was behind 9-11, and linked to Osama just coz Bush kept mentioning them in one breath.

      Similarly Bush was trying to convince the US ppl that the Iraq war was all about regime change after all, and not WMD, and now it's about intent to make WMD etc. And actually there are plenty of US suckers who say it doesn't matter since they've got rid of one evil tyrant in some distant country (whilst missing the main point: that the leader of the most powerful nation has deceived them on a very major issue - war).

      There are people who don't even understand that Bush is a greater threat to the world than Saddam even though Saddam may be more evil than Bush. They don't understand that it is because Bush has more influence and power than Saddam. They just keep saying but Saddam's evil, look at the evidence of his evil deeds blahblahblah.

      If Bush gets re-elected, it'll prove that the majority of the US people are stupid.

      --
    55. Re:Iris changes by deadbadger · · Score: 1

      I don't think "all it takes" is the appropriate term, to be honest. What you describe requires the system to read a barcode, and from its database return the name and face of one person but the iris code of another. This cannot be done by modifying the passport, but requires the central database to be fundamentally hacked. While it's best not to assume that the database is entirely impregnable, its a certainty that hacking it will be a far from trivial undertaking.

    56. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea wether this would be technically possible, but I', sure the security guards at the airport won't just tell you to "Have a good flight!" after they see you authenticating with an eyeball on a fork (which is what Snipes used IIRC).

    57. Re:Iris changes by itanium64 · · Score: 1

      orthogonal wrote:
      "...as cited in Father/Land: A Personal Search for the New Germany by Wall Street Journal reporter and German-American author Frederick Kempe (I don't have the book at hand to give the page number, sorry))..."

      It seems to me that your level of knowledge draws out of a certain book you scanned. And to me it is apparent that you have a certain love for WW2 Germany. Reality is far from where you stand. Even mentioning you beloved German "Schlagworter" does us not help at all. As far as I recall the discussion was started about IRIS SCANS and not about history. Maybe you open up an own thread about that topic in a forum about history! There one could (I said could) learn. They know a lot of authors about WW2 with a deep impact...
      Back to FRA Germany....
      Here we see just another installment of fear. As the homeland security of the U.S. demands from other countries in their club the use of biometrics in identification papers, for their citizens to get in the U.S., it is not far from here to use the already installed systems for other purposes. The impact of biometrics will be felt in a high degree in our everyday lives. The governments of the so called first world are trying to protect their economical gains from the third world by sacrificing the liberty of their citizens. Biometrics will bring down the fall of personal freedom, at least for me. I do not feel well, being scanned by finger, iris, speech recognition systems. Every technology that can be used for other purposes will be, that tells us HISTORY friend orthogonal, ask Oppenheimer if you do not believe me.

    58. Re:Iris changes by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      When a Turk comes to America he becomes American?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    59. Re:Iris changes by cmbofh · · Score: 0

      > Unlike you and the rest of the slashdot pundits,
      > they have a responsibility to their European neighbours and the international community to do
      > so. They are trying to avoid a repeat of the Hamburg Cell.

      It's actually pressure *from the US* that is one of the main arguments
      in the current discussion about biometry in future European passports:
      "We should have two biometric features in our
      passports or the US won't let EU citizens in
      without special visa"

      My guess is that Otto Schily (the German Secretary of the Interior)
      would have gone for it anyway but political pressure from the US
      (*and* the fact of 2001-09-11) serves as a welcome backing.

    60. Re:Iris changes by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    61. Re:Iris changes by dddno · · Score: 1

      I feel compelled to make a brief statement that might possibly be received as impolite:

      BS

      The long answer is: being german myself, I can assure you that no german person with a basic level of education and dignity will refer to Turks as "Germany's Niggers". Such a statement would be regarded as highly offensive throughout the society. Depending where and when it was said, it might even provoke some penal action.

      Then, to assign today's germans a certain susceptibility to collective racism and therefore to demand that we be watchful, does not indicate a large degree of insightfullness on your side. We're not any more likely to repeat Nazism than you are likely to repeat slavery.

    62. Re:Iris changes by ManxStef · · Score: 1
      The beauty of identity theft + biometrics is that there's no way to issue another account. :)

      That's also the fundamental flaw though. If someone cracks the system you can't reissue the keys (like you can in PGP/GPG for instance)... unless you can do an iris/fingerprint replacement scheme that is?!

      I can see it now, my passport has just expired so it's off to the DVLA to go and get a new pair of eyes...

    63. Re:Iris changes by kisak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fine. I congratulate the German people on living under a democracy, and I do not seek to minimize the effort that must have taken, emerging from dictatorship, ruin, and division in 1945. (And to some extent I must also claim credit for my country and, specifically, the Marshall Fund and the US policies toward the BRD after the war.)

      This is the efforts of the previous German and USA generation, and is of no credit to our generation. Just as it is unfair to blame the young Germans for what they grandfather did or did not do (many Germans fought Hitler), it is a bit fresh to take credit for the Marshal plan of our grandfather generation. I am proud that my grandfather fought in the war, but that is no proof that I would pass the test if I would end up in the hell war is (it can be an inspiration, but not an excuse for not taking responsibility in my own life). The concept of past greatness as proof of present superiority is what the nazis did to keep control of the German nation if you don't mind me reminding you.

      Each generation have to be vigilant and protect democracy, liberty, and the other things we value for the next generation (our children). The mistake of Germany in the 1930's was to think that a country like theirs, a great and proud nation of Europe would always be at the hart of civilization. The shock for the world and most Germans was to discover after the war that Hitler had turned the cultural nation Germany into a barbaric slaughter house (remember, few in the west knew about the concentration camps in the early years of the war, and the presence of these camps was denied or kept secret until the war was over).

      It is disingenuous to blame the parent post for emphasizing the need to protect democracy first and then to claim that Germans have not learned their lesson. First of all, it is our lesson, the whole God damn western world. It would be pure racism to suggest that the Germans are a murderous "race" (what does this word "race" really mean anyway) while the rest of the west (or at least the holly allies) has democracy in their genes.

      Second, Hitler never won an election (the Nazis got at their peak below 30 % of the votes). Hitler did not believe in democracy, he just manipulated the process (and the voters insecurity) to get a foot hole and then he did a coup d'etat. This is why in Germany they have had difficult debates for the last decades what how to deal with parties that has at their core to get rid of democracy (is it democratic to ban anti-democratic parties?) and balance between free-speech and nazi propaganda (is it hate speech, speech having as a direct consequence violence and death?). It is similar to US discussion about how much protection the president should have compared to the right of protesters to be heard (the so-called free speech areas). Or if it helps the democratic process when democrats and republicans redraw districts to make elections a formality. Democracy is a process which has to constantly change to meet the constantly changing challenges that any nation have to deal with.

      I'm not saying the current German government will abuse its iris-scanning. It probably will not. But how sure can you be -- especially in the face of German history -- that every future German government will resist the temptation to use these records in abusive ways? That's the lesson Germany needs to have learned from the Nazi era.

      No, the lessons is ours to learn. And the current USA generation, since the USA is the leader of the free world with its huge military advantage, probably has the largest responsibility to learn this (responsability is tough, live with it). Remember that the iris scan tests in Germany -- whatever its merits -- follows directly

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    64. Re:Iris changes by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You rest his case.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    65. Re:Iris changes by The+Monster · · Score: 1
      What's with all this NAZI shit?

      The German government is taking actions that might be considered 'police state' tactics. As much as it pains me to hear (as an American of predominantly German extraction, having been called the 'other N-word' by my share of idiots), it is inevitable that the N*zi comparisons will come out. Personally I find it ironic that there are laws in Germany today that forbid the expression of ideas associated with the N*zis, which is itself the sort of thing the N*zis did.

      Lest we forget what happened, H*tler was elected, but did not immediately go 'round killing Jews and sending his secret police out to terrorize the remainder of the population. Instead, he promoted such 'civilized' measures as gun control

      Oh, even more irony: most American Jews support gun control, even knowing that many of their relatives in Europe were slaughtered, deprived the means to defend themselves against the butchers. I'm pleased to know a few exceptions to this rule, including one who was quite 'liberal' until he spent a year in Israel and found out that H*tler's intellectual offspring are still to be found in abundance.
      Only after he got the preparations in order did his government turn overtly ugly. But by then it was too late. He'd already established the means to neutralize anyone who would oppose him.
      --

      [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
      SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

    66. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am shocked by your image of Germany and have to disagree. I won't even get into the accusations made regarding current and past racism (Nazi movements or whatever you want to call it). I think the lessons have been learned and I think that modern day Germans are in fact very aware that an intrusive government is not a good thing.
      I myself lived in Germany for about the first 20 years of my life and I have to say that the rules and regulations that are in place in order to protect the individual from larger entities such as (the government and companies) are much greater then in the US. Especially when it comes to privacy issues. I was shocked by the fact that I needed to provide my local TV cable supplier, or electrical company with my social security number in order to receive their services. When I brought this to the attention of my friends it was seen as something entirely normal and necessary.
      I could go on with more examples on how privacy and personal information is violated with an acceptance that would cause a public outcry in many European countries including Germany, regardless of what I say I will probably fail to convince you.
      I wanted to point out one more fact that needs to be considered in this discussion, and that is that this move by the German government is due to pressure from the US. If this move wouldn't be taken German citizens would have to give their fingerprints and picture taken every time they enter the US. Something every European government is trying to avoid. Especially considering the recent developments within the US government to collect all data they can get their hands on. Just remember that your civil liberties are have been invaded upon recently and still are more so than during any other time in US history -- all of that in the name of national security.

    67. Re:Iris changes by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      "We'd rather you be there than in the USA, also."

      I'm guessing from your post history that you meant to post this AC, which I actually find even more disturbing. The fact that someone can appear on the surface as "insightful", "informative" and "funny" and yet hold opinions such as this that they wish to make DISGUSTS ME.

      graspee

    68. Re:Iris changes by tealover · · Score: 1

      Uh no, I did not mean to make my post anonymously. For those who make idiotic statements, I return them in kind.

      You obviously disgust easily.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    69. Re:Iris changes by OZGBL · · Score: 1

      Every biometric has an outlier population - those who are unable to use that particular feature to be recognised. In the case of iris recognition that population is extremely small and is primarily restricted to those who have no iris ((anaridia)(US studies have shown anaridia to occur in about 1:90,000 births which means about 3000 US citizens will be without an iris)) or infants under the age of 12 months since the iris is still forming up to that age (ref. Wolffs' Anatomy).

      Actual diseases of the iris are rare. Cataracts, a protein related abnormality, are an affliction of the lens only and are are remedied by removing the cloudy tissue which results from this condition - or by replacing the natural lens with an intraocular lens. Macular degeneration is a disease peculiar to the retina. ICE syndromes, iris cysts, iris atrophy and melanomas are extremely rare. Melanomas for eample are the most common primary neoplasms of the iris with an incidence reported to range between 0.019-0.08/100,000 inhabitants (US data) (Ref http://bjo.bmjjournals). However the point which needs to be understood about these diseases is that, even when they do occur in an iris, they do not prevent the iris from being recognised.

      This is becasue the iris contains a remarkably dense collection of data which can be mapped. Of the 400 or so degrees of freedom which can be mapped in an iris, 240 are recorded. A melanoma, of a size which would be disconcerting to even an external viewer, will obscure about 10 degees of freedom. Daily obscuration by eyelids and eyelashes can remove as many as 200 degrees of freedom from view yet the iris can still be presented and recognised.

      To reduce the likelihood of travel hassle even further you should know that each iris in a person is a different to the other as it is different any other iris in the world. So even if say, a melanoma occured in one eye, the other will still be perfectly able to represent the identity of the person concerned.

      On the matter of colour it is worth noting that the iris recognition technology uses a black and white video technology as found in your camcorder. The technology is colour independent and relies on the iris structure instead. Colour changes, which do occur, have no impact on this technology.

      Finally, though monitored carefully there is no evidence that the iris structure changes at all. Colour yes, structure no. As an internal organ visible from the outside, able to offer better than DNA matching statistical uniqueness, protected from the elements and external wear and tear, able to be measured by a passive and safe technology such as black and white video, and in a non invasive, non contact way, and is stable for life, the iris is not a perfect basis for a biometric technology. But it is a pretty good start!

      So, to answer your question more directly about hassle free travel, those with iris diseases are unlikely to have their travel confounded by this technology.

      (P.S. And no, intake of substances your mother does not want to know about cannot be detected by iris recognition cameras).

    70. Re:Iris changes by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      Damn! i meant to post that AC!

      Joking.

      graspee

    71. Re:Iris changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ironic, with a handle "tea lover"... all the heavy tea drinkers I know here (US) are asian. although i've met some in england as well.

    72. Re:Iris changes by quax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When saying "defending democracy" what is meant is indeed to defend the freedom to vote on a regularly basis, because that is the first freedom that Hitler took away. The ultimate check and balance is to vote a government out of office and our constitutions now mandates to go to whatever means necessary to preserve this fundamental democratic right.

      I understand you concern for not granting a government the power to collect all sorts of information about it citizens. I think the Datenschutz (data-protection) law actually governs that any entity within Germany has to delete all data on you after six month if you have not interacted with this entity within that time-period. Officials of each German state called "Datenschutzbeauftragte" are supposed to ensure this law. Governmental agencies are usually pretty good in following it. On the other hand companies interested in doing database marketing are usually exploiting every loophole or simply ignore it when they are reasonably certain that they can get away with it.

      For the Iris scan this probably means the individuals participating allow that a background check is run on them but at the end all the information that is stored is Iris pattern and name. If they don't fly for more than 6 months they will probably have to reapply.

    73. Re:Iris changes by quax · · Score: 1

      I wished I could moderate you up, but having commented in this thread I can not.

      My American wife was quite shocked to learn that most of our neighbors fear (for) America after 9/11, for exactly the reasons that you outlined.

      Especially the old people like my grand-ma who has witnessed how easily Hitler undermined the 1st German republic, fear that history could repeat itself in the most powerful nation the globe has ever seen.

      BTW my grand-ma learned the lesson history thought her in very cruel terms (she was in Dresden during infamous air-raid). Being apolitical before WWII she now always ushers all her friends to vote in every election. I take quite some pride in her.

  2. Minority Report by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I fear a bleak future run along the lines of Minority Report's eye scanning. Honestly, this technology is scary.

    1. Re:Minority Report by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd start checking ebay for tinfoil lenses then.

    2. Re:Minority Report by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you and "Metallic Matty" (if that's really his/her real name). Next thing you know, the government will employ people who can see the future AND see what crime someone will commit REGARDLESS of whether they're wearing tinfoil "accessories" or not. Oh, the humanity!!!

      --
      Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
    3. Re:Minority Report by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I fear a bleak future run along the lines of Minority Report's eye scanning. Honestly, this technology is scary."

      I don't. Hollywood's been predicting that the world will rot for decades. Instead, it slowly gets better and better.

      Technology can be dangerous if it is absorbed too quickly. There's no time for thought and adjustment. However, we have a very big population, and that means technology is very slow to be adopted, and by then proper precautions are usually taken.

      It's also worth noting that nearly everything people imagine happening that would be real 'bad' has large problems with practicality. The benefit has to outweigh the practicality, and nearly everything that people are afraid of fails that test in one form or another. Somebody told me once that they were afraid that if electronic identification got too out of control, the gov't would watch what everybody's doing. You could get stopped from boarding an airplane because you were at a Muslim church earlier that day. (Note: That's what he told me, that's not my own idea there.) Everybody worries that it'll be the case, but nobody thinks abou twhat it'd take to do that. Besides requiring a massive computer network and central data archive to store all this information, a computer has to go in and do the analysis on it. Hello?! There are 300 million people in this country. We're a long ways away from having that data available. Then there's the whole matter of false positives. Make it too sensitive, and you'll have a lot of people chasing false leads indefinitely. The only way it would practically work is if it looked for VERY strong stuff. Even then, you still have to have a human review it and make a judgement call. The United States Gov't would have to front a LOT of expense and co-ordinate a massive effort to do what people are afraid of, and the benefit is... What? Total control? Our gov't isn't after that. It's too hard to acquire, too hard to maintain. On top of all that, even those in power find themselves in a not so lovely position. I'm sure Mr. Adolf had a terrible time knowing who his friends were.

      It's not that I'm trying to be dismissive here, I'm just not sold on the idea that it's all that scary. I am quite happy to support the right checks and balances, however. If we were talking about electronic law enforcement (as opposed to electronic flagging, which is what this technology is about) you'd be having an entirely different conversation with me.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Minority Report by dzelenka · · Score: 0

      Not tinfoil lenses, but they do make contact lenses that change the color of your eyes. Those will play havoc with this system.

      --
      Bah!
    5. Re:Minority Report by fedork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      seriously though, how do contacts (especially colored) affect this?

      --
      ...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
    6. Re:Minority Report by cindy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Hollywood's been predicting that the world will rot for decades. Instead, it slowly gets better and better."

      Can I come and live in your world? ...please?

    7. Re:Minority Report by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Sorry, we're closed. The moose out front should have told ya.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Minority Report by no+longer+myself · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hello?! There are 300 million people in this country. We're a long ways away from having that data available.

      300 million people isn't a big deal to a computer. Think of it like this: You can hold a lot of details about a person's life within a single megabyte of text. Try printing a whole megabyte of raw text and you'll see that's quite a dosier. (*note, do note use the bloated MS Word format where "hello world" takes up 128K) Using 1MB per person, that comes to a mere 300 gigabytes of data. Hell, Google can sift through that much data in the blink of an eye. The technology is already there, and it's too damned easy to implement.

      I know you're not trying to be dismissive, but just sweeping it under the carpet and remaining complicite simply because you accept the rhetoric that it's good for national security will only feed this beast even more. It will evolve into a massive "jobs program" bogged down by so much red tape and politics that you will have effectively created yet another corporate welfare system to support an industry that common people can no longer afford, corporate pawns will be forced to endure, and the wealthy upper class can't imagine living without.

    9. Re:Minority Report by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "300 million people isn't a big deal to a computer."

      300 gigabytes is nothing to sneeze at. It's also a very big underestimation of the resources that'd be needed. First there's the tracking devices. Then there's getting the data from the tracking devices to the computer. Then there's the computer taking the info from those devices and doing something. You really think they can build a computer that'll handle 300 million real time connections?

      " (*note, do note use the bloated MS Word format where "hello world" takes up 128K)"

      Actually the 'bloat' is the 32k header file that every Word .DOC has. It's not like they're using 12k to describe each character. It may not be the most efficient use of disk space, but then again, that's not the strength it's touting is it?
      "Hell, Google can sift through that much data in the blink of an eye. The technology is already there, and it's too damned easy to implement."

      No, it's not. Google's not keeping an eye on 300 million websites in real time. It's crawling around the web looking for keywords to pick up on. It provides thousands of results per search, which is the opposite of what the gov't would need in order to use this sort of technology to to find would-be terrorists. They don't have thousands of agents to go sending after each hit. They also don't have a way of profiling individuals in a meaningful way. That work still has to be done by humans, and that will be the case for the next few decades.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Minority Report by rat7307 · · Score: 1

      retina!=iris

      Retina scanning usually looks for identifiable landmarks and makes up a metric based on that. Usually image is converted to b/w for reasons of contrast etc.

      Quite similar to fingerprinting (which has its own flaws)

      --
      Burma?
    11. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt you mean 300 terabytes? 300,000 MB is 300 GB. 300,000,000 MB would be 300 TB.

    12. Re:Minority Report by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Coloured lenses won't affect it.

      Patterned ones would would. So crooks will just get hi-res printed contact lenses.

      Your custom contact lenses may not be noticed by a security guard (with biometrics you always need a guard for high security).

      If they start looking for iris patterns that stretch given pupil dilation, that'll make the contact lenses trick extremely hard.

      I'm not aware of any current technology that can make small unobstrusive contact lenses that can stretch automatically given a flashing light source.

      So the only way around that is to disguise a whole trolley of optical equipment and stick the active parts in front of a scanner while pretending to be sticking your eye in front of it. That's possible but will take a lot more guts and effort...

      --
    13. Re:Minority Report by nehril · · Score: 1

      300 gigabytes is nothing to sneeze at.

      OK, we believe you. 300 gigabyte databases are beyond today's technological limits.

      . You really think they can build a computer that'll handle 300 million real time connections?

      OK, we believe you. real-time two way circuit switched audio systems to every household in america (aka "the phone system") is beyond today's technology. And nevermind real-time data connections to 2^32 internationally interconnected computer systems across (aka the Internet). totally impossible.

      Maybe in "the next few decades," you figure?

    14. Re:Minority Report by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "OK, we believe you. 300 gigabyte databases are beyond today's technological limits."

      Din't say that. Nice try, though.

      "OK, we believe you. real-time two way circuit switched audio systems to every household in america (aka "the phone system") is beyond today's technology. "

      Never heard "all circuits are busy"? The phone system can't handle every one used at once. Nice try.

      "And nevermind real-time data connections to 2^32 internationally interconnected computer systems across (aka the Internet). totally impossible."

      Those aren't to a central server. Nice try.

      "Maybe in "the next few decades," you figure?"

      Yep. Nice try.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    15. Re:Minority Report by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      An AC beat me to it, but it appears you've missed it. It's 300 terabytes, not 300 gigabytes.

      You're also conveniently avoiding the whole practicality issues he brought up.

  3. So, tell me........ by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...who is this "Iris?" Was she clothed when she was scanned and, most importantly is she seeing anyone?

    --
    Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
    1. Re:So, tell me........ by supe · · Score: 1

      Mod up parent! I was seeing her 'till I failed her
      scan.

    2. Re:So, tell me........ by senor_burt · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it's a pilot project, why are the passengers checked?

    3. Re:So, tell me........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can find her at tubgirl.com ...

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons

  4. Iris Smith sues Frankfurt airport by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

    after scan images are published in seedy newspaper.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  5. "this technology is scary" by funny-jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, this technology is scary.

    I think that has probably been said by someone about pretty much every technology we use today. It isn't the technology that's scary, it's what people might do with it. Almost every new technology has the potential for good, as well as evil.

    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
    1. Re:"this technology is scary" by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that has probably been said by someone about pretty much every technology we use today. It isn't the technology that's scary, it's what people might do with it. Almost every new technology has the potential for good, as well as evil.

      I completely agree. But with a congress passing legislation like the Patriot Act, I believe the potential for evil is reasonably feared.

    2. Re:"this technology is scary" by funny-jack · · Score: 1

      And whether or not I agree with you, that is a reasonable opinion. But since you stated a concern with the technology, not the people who would use it (or legislate its use), I felt it necessary to point out the general neutrality of most technology.

      Of course, being that this is Slashdot, I can understand making a comment as quickly as possible (and thus not clarifying one's opinion) in order to try and make first post. I'll even admit to having done it before myself. :^|

      --
      You probably shouldn't click this.
    3. Re:"this technology is scary" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what good does the the ability to quickly identify massive ammounts of people at borders produce? The more technology produced for the state's convenience the easier it is for them to control and cage people. I can't even begin to imagine all the social ills that are being created by this urge to indentify everyone.

      Sadly, it becomes more clear to me every day how little liberty means to people anymore.

      hoping for better days
      (A)\(E)

    4. Re:"this technology is scary" by danila · · Score: 1

      For thousands of years it always was more of the same. But in the near future we will have to make a choice, or actually the choice will make itself, based mostly on large scale system changes that we have no direct control over.

      We will have to chose between a tech-based totalitarian police state, immune to all resistance, controlling the population with a wide range of technologies, and a non-society of extremely empowered self-sufficient individuals, answering to noone and being able to use the same advanced technologies for self-realisation and self-improvement.

      This technology is scary, because it is so powerful (potentially, not in this particular implementation). Paper passport is not scary, but an implanted biometric RFID passport connected 24h to a global network and millions of cameras and other tracking devices is.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  6. I sense an opportunity for profit by qewl · · Score: 2, Funny

    *Gets to work on iris creation and replacement machine* *Puts away fake (novel) ID machine*

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
    1. Re:I sense an opportunity for profit by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      *Gets to work on iris creation and replacement machine* *Puts away fake (novel) ID machine*

      Profit? You can imagine how well the first person to sell the machine to organized crime will profit. Build a better mouse trap and the rats will simply bribe someone for the plans.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I sense an opportunity for profit by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I want to get an Iris-RW device.... change my iris as needed, make for creepy half/half solid as well as six even portions alternating colors

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:I sense an opportunity for profit by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I guess the one good thing about the approach of Big Brother is that the prices for forged/hacked cards skyrocket.

  7. Aye, Aye, Cap'n by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    I predict a rise in the number of passengers who claim to be blind.

    Jan 1, 2006: "The Berlin Who's Who lists a lot of people nicknamed Cyclops"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Aye, Aye, Cap'n by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I predict a rise in the number of passengers who claim to be blind.

      I predict me not going back to Germany until they realise this is stupid if the rest of the EU doesn't do it too.

      Shortly after that, I predict either going to Germany, or more likely, not going back to the EU.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  8. At least they aren't... by pzycho · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least they aren't Frankfurt scanning.

    1. Re:At least they aren't... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      At least they aren't Frankfurt scanning.

      Hey! I haven't done anything wrong! Let me go! Damn, at least let me call my embassy! You've got the wrong guy! No, I won't cooperate, I'm about to miss my flight to Las Vegas, lemme go! I tell you, I got these purple pills on the internet, that's all, I'm not trying to pull a fast one!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. ACCESS DENIED! by plams · · Score: 5, Funny

    My dad always thought that the best security meassure for these iris scans would be some sort of icepick-like tip that pokes you hard in the eye if the scan fails.

    1. Re:ACCESS DENIED! by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "My dad always thought that the best security meassure for these iris scans would be some sort of icepick-like tip that pokes you hard in the eye if the scan fails."

      Boy you really gotta laugh at the guy that fails the test twice.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:ACCESS DENIED! by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      "My dad always thought that the best security meassure for these iris scans would be some sort of icepick-like tip that pokes you hard in the eye if the scan fails." Boy you really gotta laugh at the guy that fails the test twice.

      He just didn't see it coming. You can't blame him.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  10. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, it's all for the security of the United States. there is the pressure from. The next time a terrorist group attacks Manhattan, we will know a little bit more about these guys, their biometrical data. To look someone in the eyes is very important for psychologial reasons. Eyes don't lie :-)

  11. They won't get me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    My tin foil contact lenses will put a stop to that nonsense.

  12. Well personally... by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I blame Ashcroft.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    1. Re:Well personally... by jonesbarrym · · Score: 1

      (Germany)

      --
      42
  13. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by LordKazan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Excuse me, just because something the german's do is something you don't agree with you call them Nazi's? EXCUSE ME?

    Right now our own [US] government is a lot more like the Dritten Reich than the current german government.

    As far as many europeans I know this doesn't bother them, because it's not more invasive than many other things that happen over there.


    Be careful about throwing around the "Nazi" term - it may offend some of us around for many reasons, especially when it's inappropraitely and racistly used like you just did.

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  14. Hm. by MrEd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The system uses an iris scan embedded in a passenger's machine-readable passport, which is compared to the passenger's iris with an onsite scan.


    So you get a passport made with a fake iris scan, just like you would get one with a fake photo.


    Or would it cryptographically check with a central office to make sure the passport iris scan is the same one you got when you applied for the passport? Whole other can of worms...

    --

    Wah!

    1. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually the iris scan is not embedded in the machine readable passport. (such passports do not exist in the EU (yet)..). instead the iris scan is stored in a database linked to a machine readable passport.
      passport number and iris scan don't match --> access denied

    2. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surre Larry Ellison will design the cards so they can't be made by anyone else.

    3. Re:Hm. by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1
      cryptographically check with a central office
      • Across the internet
      • To/From MS Windows OS driven machines
      I feel like I'm quoting from Cluedo.
      • Colonel Mustard
      • In the library
      • With a Candlestick
      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  15. We've all seen the movie .... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    passanger get's mugged by terrorist who steals his ticket ..... and now his eyes to present to the machine ....

    1. Re:We've all seen the movie .... by bobbis.u · · Score: 1

      I believe it is possible for the scanners to tell whether the eye is dead (by looking for movement).

  16. What Privacy? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    I know people are going to trash this idea as a Privacy Issue, but keep in mind, there *are* a lot of bad people out there. But also, at this point in the evolution of technology, talking about "privacy" is almost silly, TRW and Nexus/Lexus already know more about you than you do.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:What Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a hell of a lot more good people in the world than bad. So, we get to jump thru hoops and have our eyes scanned so the Fatherland can say we're the good guys?

      Remember, when eyes are outlawed, only outlaws will have eyes!

    2. Re:What Privacy? by cicho · · Score: 1

      " there *are* a lot of bad people out there"

      So? There are more thieves than terrorists, and even more shoplifters. That doesn't mean the police have (or should have) the right to inspect everybody's bag as they walk home from the store.

      Arguments like yours are exactly the kind that worry me most, because take it a little further and you *will* be arguing for a 1984-style cctv camera in everybody's bedroom. Because there ARE bad people out there and how else is the government going to know who they are?

      The point is that while technology now has potential to make the law enforcement's job much easier than it used to be, there are good reasons their job should not be too easy. If a cop could arrest you just on his say-so, there would certainly be less crime on the streets, and you'd have a totalitarian police state. We are not there yet of course, but every time we make it easier for the law enforcement to control *masses* of people, we get a little closer.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
  17. Colored contact lenses by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What about using colored contact lenses to change identities. The only way to make brown eyes look blue is with a fake iris. A less suspicious person gets a passport wearing a pair of these and then gives that pair of contacts to another less-reputable person. I wonder if German authorities would even look twice at a nice artificially blond, artificially blue-eyed disguised terrorist.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Colored contact lenses by selphish189 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahhh... as with most iris scanning I would assume that one of two things would happen (or both). 1) Whenever you got your passport, and everytime you got scanned at the airport, you would be required to remove your contacts. 2) The iris scanning will probaly be able to read through contacts or at least dectect that they are contacts. You cannot fake a the depth of an iris with a contact, so i am sure that could be dected. Also, you get different contacts regualry, so since no two contacts can be the same, just as no two irises can be the same, your passport would only be good for a few months at a max. of course this is assuming 1 and 2 are not correct.

    2. Re:Colored contact lenses by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are two types of colored contact lenses - opaque and non-opaque.

      I've got the non-opaque ones, which is basically a colored transparent circle in the middle of the lens. It does tint my vision a little, but the brain gets used to it. I don't use them for photography. This type does not lighten dark eyes. I'm pretty sure you could easily get an iris print through these.

      The opaque kind has a printed fake iris-like pattern on them, and are clear in the middle (and they don't tint your vision) I didn't like this kind because they use a half-tone dot pattern that I noticed very easily and looked especially fake. I doubt you could get an actual iris print with these. These are newer and are being pushed harder (example: the non-opaque kind are not available for astigmatic lenses). Manufacturers claim they look better, but for light-colored eyes, I disagree. For dark colored eyes, they are the only solution.

    3. Re:Colored contact lenses by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      I think it is inevitable that the technology will be circumvented. Think about it, with every new technology that is brought to the public, there is a another technology released to break it. . . I worry that we will become too dependant on this technology and not bother looking at someone and observing their behavior. If someone passed through this "fool-proof" technology, the concequences could be disasterous, the Titanic comes to mind.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  18. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol introduced this in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Amsterdam Airport Schiphol introduced iris scanning in 2002

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/27/schipho l.security/

  19. What me, worried? by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Germans collecting bilogical data about everyone who comes through their borders...what could go wrong?

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    1. Re:What me, worried? by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

      I just spit up my drink. The worst part is I'm applying to get a German passport. My father passed away recently, and considering the data that was in his birth certificate (family history for 300 years). I would say that things have been known to go wrong with collecting this much information. Especially considering what my birth certificates from that era were used for.

      But I'd have to say that Germans would probably be the last people to abuse that data considering that a vast number of them know the consequences. I'd be far more worried about Ashcroft with that data than Schroder.

      Anyways, this iris scanner thing is only good for as long as iris scanners are rare. Just like you can fake a photo on a passport so could you fake an iris scan.

    2. Re:What me, worried? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (family history for 300 years).

      I'd be far more worried about Ashcroft with that data than Schroder.

      The problem is not always who gets the data now, but who gets it next.

      There is also a flip side to this data that most people don't think about. If one's identity is one's data, one can be officially eliminated by erasing the data.

      First they round you up using the data, then they erase the data, then they can do anything they want. You don't exist.

      KFG

    3. Re:What me, worried? by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get used to it matey.. the americans want my fingerprints and biometric data to enter your country!

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    4. Re:What me, worried? by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

      Seem the best place to start, hide it right you plain sight. The last place you'd look.

      --

      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    5. Re:What me, worried? by uradu · · Score: 1

      > The worst part is I'm applying to get a German passport.

      Unless you're Jewish you better not plan on keeper your other one. Germany doesn't allow dual citizenship, with this sole exception (I believe).

    6. Re:What me, worried? by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      and again... what could go wrong?

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    7. Re:What me, worried? by kellman · · Score: 1

      To me, this only seems like a necesary measure considering the current geo-political climate.

      The Brazilians were so pissed off about their passengers being fingerprinted that they started finger printing only American passengers. (Then, somebody flipped them off in their id photo and they fined him over $12,000 US, LOL. A bit harsh me thinks.) Problem is, how can you trust that a passport from Brazil is truly official given the state of affairs in Brazil? Or any country for that matter?

      It's a bit like racial profiling. While you may agree or disagree with it socially, it's statistically an effective method for flagging criminals in certain instances. Here's an example which is probably different than what you usually consider racial profiling: a couple of fresh-faced white kids cruising around a low-income black or hispanic part of town. Any ideas why they're there? It would only be too sad to ignore those kids when you know exactly why they're there, but you can't even question them because you 'racially profiled' them.

      Know what I mean?

      --
      I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
    8. Re:What me, worried? by cicho · · Score: 1
      "The problem is not always who gets the data now, but who gets it next."

      Bingo. And of course European airlines have already agreed to share passenger profiles with the US. (Google cache, original URL no longer works)

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    9. Re:What me, worried? by cicho · · Score: 1
      "somebody flipped them off in their id photo and they fined him over $12,000 US, LOL. A bit harsh me thinks"

      Not so harsh at all. Not harsher than this:

      While walking through the airport in Dayton, Ohio recently, going through the standard, ineffective TSA drill, I heard a security announcement over the PA that was new to me. It said something to the effect of: "Inappropriate or humorous comments concerning explosives or airport security are prohibited and are punishable by..."

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    10. Re:What me, worried? by kcelery · · Score: 1
      "There is a bomb in the plane. blah blah blah..."

      "Are you kidding, you will get yourself a heavy fine for such a joke."

      "No, I am not joking, I am fortune telling."

      "Ok, fortune telling is forbidden too".

    11. Re:What me, worried? by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      Nope. For example, there's a dual-citizenship contract with turkey, and IIRC, it's possible with all EU countries.

  20. Iris changes by FlyingOrca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would think the scan will have to be renewed on a fairly regular basis.

    Still, this leaves me wondering. We hear a lot of negative stuff about universal ID cards of one stripe or another (I won't go so far as to call it FUD, it may be quite reasonable). Most of the cautions expressed seem to revolve around duplication / forgery by criminals etc.

    Anyone have any info on how hard it would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner? Might be a good substitute for universal IDs. I mean, the ostensible principles of univeral IDs aren't all bad...

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  21. WTF? Future use in DEA witchhunting campaigns? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Furthermore, the iris doesn't just betray the identity of the passenger, but can also tell much about his or her possible drug and alcohol consumption.

    Cuff him, the computer says he might be high!

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  22. On the one hand... by nacturation · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is rather invasive and doesn't bode well for privacy. Not to mention the issues of being able to get the same scan every time (eye damage, anyone?). On the other hand, it does make an attempt to solve the authentication problem -- how do you know that the person holding the passport is the person the password was issued to? Take a sample of data points from the scan at the time of application which are guaranteed to be reproducible (the signature) and sign it against a government-held private key. Barring changes in the eye structure, this should be easily reproducible.

    Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:On the one hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      freudian slip... s/password/passport/

    2. Re:On the one hand... by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is these IDs are based on a non-biometric data source. (ie. birth certificate). As long as the root of the document chain is comprimisable the whole system is. If I am the same age and gender as another person they can become me if I can get their birth certificate.

    3. Re:On the one hand... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      The problem is these IDs are based on a non-biometric data source. (ie. birth certificate).

      And here's where things get interesting.

      You could possibly extract DNA from the baby at birth, sequence it, and print that sequence onto the birth certificate itself. With a quick hair sample or a pink prick, the document is associated with the correct person.

      Hypothetically. The main issue is, you would need such a large number of people to run such a setup that you would inevitably be bringing in new opportunities for fraud.

    4. Re:On the one hand... by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      This is rather invasive and doesn't bode well for privacy.

      Why is an iris scan any more invasive than a picture ? Or a signature ?

    5. Re:On the one hand... by filer · · Score: 1
      Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.

      It would sure slow them down once identified and on the run that's for sure. It would also allow spooks to track them around the world. For example... let's say a suspected terrorist is identified meeting with a known terrorist. The guy meeting with the known terrorist is followed to the airport where his retina is scanned and passport checked. The spooks make inquiries to find out who this guy is and where he is going and pass that on to the security services in the next country. In the next country the suspect is scanned and tailed to a meeting with more terrorists. The more the guy moves around the easier he becomes to trace and the more acquaintances of his wind up on the watch list. Sounds like a good way to catch terrorists to me.

  23. Abnormalities? by MysteriousMystery · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about the blind? People who use colored or distorted contacts (IE shaded contacts, contacts with designs on them), or other abnormalities of the eye. There might be a lot of ways people could potentially bypass a system like that.

    1. Re:Abnormalities? by Reivec · · Score: 1

      Blind people still have an Iris. I haven't seen too many with completely white eyes. Glass eyes maybe though.

  24. Why RMS objects to fingerprint scans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    greasy, dirty or peeling skin on the finger can easily distort fingerprint-recognition, a factor that plays no role in the case of iris-recognition.

    This, of course, is why RMS does not believe in fingerprint scans...

  25. The beginning of the end by NeoTheOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its only a matter of time before walking out your door requires a biometric scan. It is preposterous that we as free people of the world allow ourselves to be subjected to this for the sake of "security". This is like any other "protective" measure. It screws over the decent people of the earth and does nothing to the criminals. GUN LAWS DONT KEEP GUNS OUT OF CRIMINAL HANDS! All the terrorists and bad guys are gonna do now is sneak into countries without flying to them directly. Or the terrorists will recruit people inside of countries they dont like. You dont stop bad guys by telling them to stop. You MAKE the BAD GUYS stop. Leave joe-shmoe's rights alone.

    1. Re:The beginning of the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but criminals will simply come in with their original and valid passports. Some may be caught by this system but once it catches on criminals will simply recruit people with clean records.

  26. Now that I think about it... by HenryFjord · · Score: 0

    This is just yet another indication of the dwindling nature of our personal liberties and privacy. I think I am going to craft some tinfoil glasses to go along with my hat. *twiddles thumbs*

  27. Just wait until this stuff gets cheap. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When all this "We Will Keep the Terrorists Away(TM)" technology becomes really cheap, we will enjoy a future where:

    All transactions are electronic. Think "Credits" in "Total Recall".

    All movement is scanned. Think eye scanning in "Minority Report".

    All new information is copyrighted, and DRM free info is exchanged amongs the population like drugs are today. Think "Matrix" where Neo gets his little disks for cash, before he goes and follows the White Rabbit.

    All information is put together in a database, where the Government can search it at will, without a warrent. Think "198..." scratch that. Think "2004", TIA project, Echelon, Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, Patriot Act III (comming soon to a Democracy near you) et. al.

    FUN!

  28. This will just make terrorist groups... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...start using operatives who have no eyes. And then what will we do?

    1. Re:This will just make terrorist groups... by ice+cream+koan · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's easy, we'll keep moving all the big skyscrapers around so the blind terrorists can't find them anymore...

      --


      "When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me"
    2. Re:This will just make terrorist groups... by ajna · · Score: 1

      Such a bizarre scenario has actually been envisioned by David Foster Wallace in his "Infinite Jest". (For those tracking my other comments, yes, I read a lot.) In the novel there exist a group of Wheelchair Assassins, Les Assassins des Fauteuils Roulants, who all lack legs as a common characteristic. Of course, they lack it because of playing chicken with trains as a test of bravery, not to foil an anti-terrorist leg-measuring machine, but the similarity is there nonetheless.

  29. Christ, you mean somebody actually watched that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wasn't "The Matrix: Reloaded" warning enough for ya?!!!

    Crap, you probably bought "Gigli" on DVD.

  30. Unbalanced security by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With each new device or method used in airports to catch or filter out terrorists, the barrier to commit terrorist acts is raised higher. What do you think will happen when it becomes virtually impossible to do anything even remotely odd near or inside airports and airplanes? well I'll tell you : terrorists will fall back on easier targets, chiefly trains. And then, once a train has been derailled, every government will start applying airport police-state methods to railway stations and trains, and so on ...

    It's an endless battle. If countries carries on trying to defend themselves like they do now (mostly in the US, but also in other countries), they'll all turn into huge menacing police states. and terrorists will have won. If those countries don't defend themselves, terrorists will blow things up forever and will have won again.

    What the world really needs is a true force of education in dangerous countries, a project that spans over 2 or 3 generations. The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad? They're not doing jack squat, and neither are any other countries concerned by terrorist threats. Instead of starting to implement that long-term, but only real solution to the terrorist problem, they barricade themselves and make life miserable for their own populations.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Unbalanced security by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's an endless battle. If countries carries on trying to defend themselves like they do now (mostly in the US, but also in other countries), they'll all turn into huge menacing police states.

      But dude, we have to do it to protect our freedom and our way of life.

      You're not against freedom and our way of life. . . are you?

      KFG

    2. Re:Unbalanced security by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      You're right about the trains. My colleague keeps bragging about how the TGV (the French High Speed Train) is more practical than the airplane as there are no security controls.

      He's right. For now.

      Just wait until somebody puts two 3 meter long pieces of derailing hardware on the tracks near a bridge. Off goes the TGV at 350km/hour.

      Just wait until somebody positions two suitcases filled with explosives near a bogey using a GPS to accurately detonate them near a point of interest.

      Just wait until somebody makes the TGV enter the Gare Du Nord at 150km/hour around 09:00 or 17:00.

      We're all at mercy of the 'tewwowists'. And I'm not so sure it will be possible to create such an ideal society that there won't be any. Maybe it's natures way to deal with overpopulation; you don't see too many terrorist acts where there are few people together.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    3. Re:Unbalanced security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To be honest, even in terrorist acts, i've not seen any threat to "freedom and way of life". I just hear rhetoric.

      What is threatened by terrorism? Life, directly and the ability to be unafraid of being blown up. Maybe that is an effect on our way of life. However, it already is. No amount of air strikes nor surveillance will ever end the possibility of terrorism. In fact, strikes against other countries, seems only to create martyrs and increase the sense of injustice, even in some neutral countries. Also a lot of us seem less able to criticise ourselves. Surely if that happens, we're only creating new terrorists. Terrorists aren't just jealous of our country, they have causes, reasons to make them believe they're right no matter what they do.

      It surprises me to find someone questioning someone else about being "against freedom and our way of life". Maybe its extreme irony on your part, but the Rosco *is* describing is an escalation of curbing civil liberties until they are menacing police states. That is threatening freedom and our way of life. Maybe, in a way that is exactly what the terrorists aim for. Many of them are educated and are probably aware that many of the worlds greatest civilisations weren't destroyed by outside threats, but from within.

    4. Re:Unbalanced security by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad?

      Those schools would be called "non-interference in foreign domestic affairs," "removal of military presence in foreign nations" and "non-endorsement of repressive monarchies."
      Unfortunately such an education tends to raise oil prices.

      Anyway, those measures wouldn't stop fanatics like Osama -- just the common and middle-class people who wind up supporting him, since he's the only one doing anything (however reprehensible) about what they view as a major problem with national sovereignty and domestic freedoms. But, if Osama had to carry out suicide attacks himself, we wouldn't have too much longer to worry about.
      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    5. Re:Unbalanced security by deadline · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What the world really needs is a true force of education in dangerous countries, a project that spans over 2 or 3 generations. The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad?

      And, maybe a few schools in the US should teach those that will be determining US foreign policy in the future, how not to take the side of murderous thugs and supply them with money and weapons to help further our economic interests. You know guys like, The Shaw of Iran, Noriega, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and some others have all been on the payroll or in-bed with our Government. Funny, how in the US this seems to be a big secret. In many foreign countries everyone knows where the guns and money come from.

      --
      HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
    6. Re:Unbalanced security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The security itself is not unbalanced - it's a logical extension of identification from using passports & photos. It raises the barrier more for people to slip through security controls by better idenntification rather than preventing acts of terrorism. Acts of terrorism is a separate issue although obviously related by the ability to identify potential terrorists, etc. Faced with these people do move on to softer targets - e.g. car bombs being a lot easier than bombs on aeroplanes.

      Your argument that better security will not stop this also is very reasonable. However pinpointing education I think misses the underlying problems. People turn to terrorism for a number of reasons and not just because they hate or they believe in extreme ideologies. Some of the suicide bombers who have struck before e.g. in Israel/Palestine have degrees and no background in fanaticism. Why do they do this?

      In countries where mortaliity is far higher and people have far less to lose in many ways (have you every visited a refugee camp?), people's values are very different. People see vast differences in living standards and no reasonable future for themselves or the next generation. Terrorism (esp suicide bombing) is one of the most powerful ways of expressing one's anger at the state of things.

      Greater attempts at equality and rapprochement will lessen the motivation behind terrorism and this is what needs to be driven towards. Spending money on border controls like iris scans tightens your borders but it goes nowhere with regard to reducing the tension and unfairness felt by people in many parts of the world. Though of course this line of thought really delves into a compromise between tactical and strategic solutions.

    7. Re:Unbalanced security by kfg · · Score: 1

      Maybe its extreme irony on your part. . .

      Maybe. Please be so kind as to go back and read my post again.

      Slowly.

      You may find that the first sentence is merely extreme irony, and the second descends to meta-irony.

      The last two words are actually a punchline.

      There is also a level of meta-meta-irony, since my very words are actually used to justify the measures being taken, without any indication that the people speaking them in earnest have any clue as to the irony.

      I hate explaining jokes, but feel your post warrants a bit of it in this case.

      KFG

    8. Re:Unbalanced security by m1kesm1th · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure its possible to instill into a young mind that terrorism is bad. Sure, you can show that bombing civilians is bad, but how can you can you explain to a kid whose brother and sister were killed at a checkpoint that that was just a mistake, or that his brother was a justified civilian casualty, but saving the country was better?

      Basically we have justifications for what we do. Though it always helps to try and look at it from the other persons perspective. Forget trying to teach terrorism is bad. Another person who sees the violence as an act of war, will be able to justify it. So long as civilian casualties are acceptable. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan, was that good or bad? Look at the good side, bye bye dictator. The bad side, real civilian deaths. A lot. Now if we find this justifiable. Terrorists feel their war is just as justifiable. I believe their mindset is exactly the same as you might find in revolutionaries. They feel they're in a civil war, outnumbered outgunned and plotting insurrection.

      I don't think you can really fight this type of warfare with guns or policing. Nor can you just say, thats wrong kid (i'm purposefully mangling what you said, forgive me). However I totally agree with you on one thing, education.

      I think theres one thing really wrong in the world and it probably expands to everywhere. We think we're better. Not just us, everyone. We think we're better because of where we come from, what we do, anything. We're so patriotic, but I think sometimes that becomes a form of racism, like my country is so much better than yours. If conditions are better, great, but it doesn't mean that my country is any more civilized than Tibet. If people truly didn't believe they were better than anyone else, we probably wouldn't fight.

      However, its a pipedream. Its inherent in everyone, we all think we're special to a certain extent because we're individuals. However wars are never normally fought between two people who truly relate to one another. Maybe if we understood that we're all pretty much as insignificant as each other, then things would be better. Maybe children can be educated so they embrace differences and understand they are no better anyone else, no matter the country/religion/colour.

    9. Re:Unbalanced security by torpor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The proper response to terrorism is to do nothing in response.

      Those who are waving the terrorism banner right now are using it to distract us all from the other, real, serious problems.

      Such as the U.S. National Debt, &etc. That is not Freedom.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    10. Re:Unbalanced security by kfg · · Score: 1

      I can't say I agree. I think those waving the terrorism banner right now are your average, run of the mill, nationalistic,self important, jack booted thugs with which mankind has been infested since that damned big black thingy showed up.

      But that's just me.

      KFG

    11. Re:Unbalanced security by dschl · · Score: 0
      why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad?
      Yeah, that is a wonderful idea. I'm certain it will work just fine telling a bunch of kids that American is great, that the American people really really care deeply about them, and that Uncle Sam had only their best interests at heart when he dropped a few tonnes of explosives onto their grandparents village. In fact, I'm confident that it will work just as well as the anti-drug campaigns worked in US schools.

      [looks at drug use stats] Nah, wrong comparison. Hmm, maybe some other state indoctrination example will work better. Hey, maybe it will work as well as the safe sex classes in schools.

      [looks at teenage pregnancy and gonorrhea rates] Still the wrong comparison. Better rethink that premise. Perhaps less despair, squalor, and hopelessness would help a bit. Along with getting the whackos out of the education system in those countries.

      --
      Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
    12. Re:Unbalanced security by ratamacue · · Score: 0
      The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad?

      I'm sure you have good intentions, but the problem (hatred, resent, terrorism) cannot be solved by rewarding the US government with more power, more revenue, more "responsibilities", and more incentive to continue their misguided policies of aggressive foreign intervention (Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg).

      In order to solve the problem, the US government must stop waging perpetual wars around the world, killing innocent civilians and repeatedly, endlessly claiming "collateral damage" for something that can never be replaced (human lives). There is no alternative solution.

    13. Re:Unbalanced security by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      You can indoctrinate anybody to anything if you give it long enough and are good at it. Why do people believe in religion, how did Nazi Germany happen, why do people always vote republican or always vote democrat? The vast vast majority of them do or did it because they were brought up being told this was right and they believe it.

    14. Re:Unbalanced security by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

      They are teaching kids and building schools. That is what the soldiers there would rather be doing. You are only getting the same 5% of the news on every channel you see or newspaper you read. If look now, most the killings are Iraqi's and Afghan's, killed by their own. Why because they want to rebuild and get us out of their countries faster. Funny that is the same goal as everyone(including the US) I meet in the world. They only problem is they see America as wrong for one reason. The word "America", If the US behind the scenes, then it would be seen as great and progress. But the minute you hear US it us taking over. I don't think we have taken any countries over.

      A little story. I was in St. Lucia for a vacation and next to my resort where small group of soldiers from the US. I asked them why they were here. They told me they were sent done to help build roads and schools. I asked them if the missed being home. They said a little, but helping out really makes it worth them being here. I thanked them.

      I do understand why 60% of the people in the world want America to fail at everything they do. Because history has been rewritten. We are the ones trying to invade and capture every country in the world. It is funny how the US has really lost every war we have been in. Even the ones that prevented Europe from being over run, twice. Two wars we didn't want to get involved in. We were forced into it.

      Also the Marshall plan was designed to rebuild Eastern europe into democratic countries. Most are very socialist, but Democratic. If America was so hell bent on making every country just like us, we could have started there. We didn't, Countries were rebuilt. And look how they hate us, for caring so much to spend billions of our own money to help rebuild. I don't think there is one country like use in the world. Looks like we were the real evil in the last 60 years, look at all the countries we invaded to expand our lands.

      Also on your point about teaching kids not hate. We don't force people to think like us completely, we try to teach them to think for themselves. Another group is teaching them to hate. Why because we learned from our own past and what we did to our own people, black, asian, women. Everyone has a right to an education. It the countries we are in now, girls and wemon could help to make their own country a better place. Can you image the talent pool they were holding back. Because of religion or sex.

      As for it being an endless battle. It is and if you stand still and let it happen, or take it head on, it will continue. By standing still they see it as victory against cowards. It reinforces them that they are winning, so they continue. It is like people think the terrorist will get bored and stop. They won't because power is a drug. If you take them head on. They see it as proof they must fight, because we are fighting back. They must have been right our else we wouldn't have attacked back. It is not an easy solution.

      And the US doesn't have the answer and I don't think anyone really does.

      I for one would rather die helping a child learn to read, or rebuilding a building/street. Instead of walking on the sidewalk going to work, maybe going to see my nephew. And be killed by a car bomb being drove into a building and killing me with the blast.

      One thing I don't understand is why you(much of the world). Think we only care about killing children, women. How many Americans have you ever met that think that way?

      --

      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    15. Re:Unbalanced security by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Pol Pot, Hitler, etc... the list is extremly long.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    16. Re:Unbalanced security by cicho · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, except at this date it may already be too late for the US government to simply start doing nothing for a while and wait til it passes. Of course every day of pursuing the current policies causes even more aggravation, so yeah, a Halt instruction would make a good start. But you'll still have to deal with two or three generations of people who bear a heavy grudge.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    17. Re:Unbalanced security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's even more unbelievable? The fact that someone with such a low UID makes such pointless /. posts.

      By the way, congrats on that -1 Troll fuckhead.

    18. Re:Unbalanced security by torpor · · Score: 1

      This is just a justification for not doing anything about it.

      Typical weak reasoning... "this is how its always been, so just live with it".

      Life is yours to do what you want with it. These people are creating a future society that will be based on fear and reaction, prone to control ... and people like you are letting them.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    19. Re:Unbalanced security by torpor · · Score: 1

      I know you're a troll, so I will say this: there is no such thing as a pointless /. post.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    20. Re:Unbalanced security by danila · · Score: 1

      It's not like anyone should care about terrorists. Whether they win or lose, that doesn't matter. What matters is that normal people are losing. Terrorists kill tens of thousands of times less people than die from other causes. In the grand scheme of things terrorist acts are totally irrelevant.

      But the government wants to use terrorism as a reason to get greater powers for itself. Actually, it doesn't want anything, but simple evolutionary pressures cause government entities and politicians to grab more power (to simplify, those who manage to get more power, get more and more of it, until they control everything).

      People will not benefit from national IDs or biometric controls. Terrorists will not suffer from that. The paradox is that government will not benefit from it either, other than acquiring yet more power. Sadly, evolution selects for power-grabbing behaviour. :(

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    21. Re:Unbalanced security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot they are also marking and clearing decades worth of minefields left over from all the wars Afghanastan has been involved in pretty much nonstop. People are still getting blown up and losing limbs on a daily basis. As for teaching them to not hate, I imagine that's going to be a bit rougher when due to culture half the population is forced to wear restrictive clothing that prevents you from being able to identify or even guess weight within 4 stone, simply because of their sex.

  31. Oh fer crying out loud. by OECD · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's all for the security of the United States.

    Ah! I was wondering why those Germans in Germany were scanning passengers in a German airport as part of a European initiative. Turns out it's to secure the United States!

    Tell me, are European tinfoil hats more stylish than the American variety?

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:Oh fer crying out loud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in case you didn't know, the whole project has been fast-tracked because the US administration has insisted that they will stop visa-free travel from friendly countries that won't implement biometric identification data in their passports. It's been all over the newspapers over here... American pressure makes good jingoistic copy. Not that we don't have our own law enforcement happy to oblige in Europe, but the US ultimatum has been effective in making political opponents of the plan appear "irrational" and "non-practical". After all, it's all being done for our own good and for the good of our good friends in the US...

    2. Re:Oh fer crying out loud. by ahillen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah! I was wondering why those Germans in Germany were scanning passengers in a German airport as part of a European initiative. Turns out it's to secure the United States!

      No, but the whole rush towards biometric data in passports was triggered not least by the US, as pointed out in the USAtoday article linked in the story:

      "Germany passed laws after Sept. 11 attacks that provide for biometric features to be added to passports and personal identity papers. Post-Sept. 11 U.S. legislation also requires 27 countries, mostly in Europe, to add biometrics to passports they issue after Oct. 26, 2004, or else have their citizens apply for visas. "

    3. Re:Oh fer crying out loud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some countries suck up to the USA regardless of whether it's right or wrong. For example, USA handed over a list to Sweden, with some suspected terrorists or people suspected having ties to terrorists. Our government did what the US wanted, which apparently was to freeze their assets and remove their rights as swedish citizens (which they were). Now this kind of behaviour is extremely illegal. Our own government violated parts of our constitution, for example the one part that guarantee every citizen a fair trial before being punished in any way. It later turned out they were innocent. This is just one of many reasons why I despise our government and the party that's currently in charge.

  32. As one who's actually worked with iris scanners... by jskiff · · Score: 5, Informative

    I actually worked with Iridian back when they were called "Iriscan" a few years ago. The technology was pretty cool; unlike fingerprint or voiceprints, which can only verify someone's identity after they tell you (via a username, prox card, etc) who they are, an iris scan can actually identify a user based off of their iris pattern.

    A typical fingerprint has about 10 points that can be uniquely identified, and on a thumbprint scanner you're lucky to get 5 or 6 of them reliably. The iris has roughly 26 unique points that can be picked up every time. Back when I was working with Iridian's stuff they used a low light video camera to basically take a picture of your eye...no funky lasers or anything like that. Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye (a la Demolition Man, I believe) and hold it up to the scanner.

    Additionally, the iris pattern (and thumbprint or voiceprint in other applications) is never held as an actual pattern; it's just a hash based off of what comes off the scanner, so privacy was not much of a concern.

    --
    It's "no one," not "noone." Who the hell is noone anyway?
  33. Thank goodness by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    this poor kid wasn't born in Germany.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Thank goodness by despik · · Score: 1

      Funny? You fucking bastards.

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
  34. Me as a German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who never flew anywhere gets angry when he hears about that at /. I did not here a beep about this here in Germany, I guess the plan is to introuce the system through the backdoor.
    Sometimes you get the impression that politicians are all paranoid. And our home secretary, Otto Schily, who was a former defender (lawyer) of terrorists (German RAF) seems to have the greatest paranoia of them all. Otherwise I think that it would be equal by whom germany is led, they all would run behind the great and allmighty USA and try to stick their heads into its butt.

    1. Re:Me as a German by ahillen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I did not here a beep about this here in Germany, I guess the plan is to introuce the system through the backdoor.

      Well, maybe, but than they wouldn't make a press release, right?

    2. Re:Me as a German by Wastl · · Score: 1
      Actually it was on the radio (at least here in Bavaria). Sometimes it is better to hear radio than just watch dumb TV.:-)

      And to all those Germany-bashing guys here: the law that made this possible was actually brought to us because the US administration wanted tighter controls and criticised European passports; so please, for once, get informed before reverting to boring prejudices.

      Sebastian

    3. Re:Me as a German by Trelane · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I don't see the German-bashing here. Metric arseloads of USA-bashing, but not German-bashing.

      Vielleicht wissen die ja alle, dass Deutschland ein Wundertolles Land is', net? ;)

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    4. Re:Me as a German by Wastl · · Score: 1
      Probably all those posts got already modded down, but when I read the comments, there were at least 3 stating such things. Fortunately, the moderation system appears to work.:-)

      Sebastian

  35. well... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

    Or would it cryptographically check with a central office

    you just have to do two things:

    #1 you check the digital signature of the actual data payload on the passport (which probably contains other things besides the iris scan, things like your name, address, blah blah blah)

    #2 you do status checking on the certificate that was used to sign said data (just in case it was compromised, hey, it could happen).

    #1 will already give you a pretty high level of confidence that things haven't been mucked around with (no way you'd be able to forge a digital signature, and one assumes that the certs used for this signing will be well guarded), #2 can be done in a variety of different ways (retrieving CRLs from the CA at specified time intervals all the way to realtime status checking via OCSP) depending on your level of paranoia.

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
  36. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now our own [US] government is a lot more like the Dritten Reich than the current german government.

    Except they're not German...

    It's a joke. Meant as such. I'm not going to be PC when I'm making a joke. Sorry if it offends you.

  37. What if.. by LazyBoy · · Score: 3, Informative
    What if I come from a country that doesn't have an iris scan embedded in a passenger's machine-readable passport?

    Also, Keratoconus is a disease that causes the cornea to deform. This would cause scans of your iris to change. Also, people with this often have cornea transplants. The stitches (which are sometimes left in "forever") are right over the iris.

    --

    If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.

    1. Re:What if.. by cicho · · Score: 1

      They take your fingerprint and make you take off your shoes and your pants. (Salon's premium article, but the choice bit is in the segment they allow you to read. I recommend the whole piece though.)

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
  38. Re:As one who's actually worked with iris scanners by kfg · · Score: 1

    . . .an iris scan can actually identify a user based off of their iris pattern.

    . . . privacy was not much of a concern.

    You are using a different definition of privacy than one many people are concerned about.

    KFG

  39. Never trust the client by Malc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What good is comparing an iris scan to information on the passport? It should be compared against a central database. At some point the system used to place the information on the passport will be cracked - either by hacking or theft. Criminals or terrorists with the most money (Al Qaeda have had access to millions of $$ in the past) will be able to effectively bypass the system whilst the honest individual citizens are kept under the thumb by big brother.

    1. Re:Never trust the client by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      What good is comparing an iris scan to information on the passport? It should be compared against a central database. At some point the system used to place the information on the passport will be cracked - either by hacking or theft.

      What makes you think the database will not be cracked?

      What scares me is the idea of having a big central database of biometric data - *that* is a big intrusion of privacy, IMHO.

      I've got no problem with biometric identification, if it's done right. A good solution (IMHO) to using biometric ID without privacy intrusion is to store all the data on the ID card (passport or whatever), cryptographically signed. The scanning device now just has obtain the public key from a central database - you could even put the database into the scanning device and update it periodically! Basically, every authority that can issue ID cards needs its private key(s), which must be signed by some central authority. Just your normal Public Key Infrastructure. That way, you could build a infrastructure that really is only good for automatically comparing people to their ID cards.

      What else are customs officers doing right now? Compare people and check if they are allowed to enter - using a computer. You could speed that up quite a bit using this technique...

      Regards, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    2. Re:Never trust the client by Malc · · Score: 1

      Like I said, you can't trust the client. That cryptography will be cracked at some point. My passport is valid for ten years... that's a lot of time in computer circles. The cryptography on DVD's was cracked very quickly. MSFT, a company with billions of dollars cash in the back, couldn't even protect their current OS, which is critical to their income - cracks for Windows XP were circulating before it even hit the street. Whether by brute force or some other mechanism, this will be cracked.

      A central DB has more chance of being secured than putting the cryptography out in the field. It can also be rolled back to known backups. That being said, I'm not a proponent of the idea. Like many people, I find the idea of a central database distasteful.

      Thus I conclude that biometric information won't work. A central DB isn't going to be popular enough, and putting the information on the passport isn't going to work.

      A possible alternative is to store a checksum in a central DB. That way the data on the passport can be verified unchanged. I would guess that the weakest link then becomes the passport issuing office: if it's cracked or people are influenced by social engineering or bribery then all bets are off again.

    3. Re:Never trust the client by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      If you use really strong cryptography, you stand a pretty good chance that it will not be cracked. One criterion of strong cryptography is that the algorithm has been published for some time and no weakness was found, like with the IDEA algorithm. The CSS algorithm of DVDs was not cracked, a valid decryption key was leaked. (AFAIK)

      The advantage of having a PKI and a somewhat networked system is that you can replace keys. One of these new passports should only be valid for 2 years, like a credit card, but easily renewable, for example using a stored checksum at the issuing authority. The keys itself should expire within one year, which results in a maximum exposure of three years to forgery (1 year key validity, 2 years passport validity).

      That way, even if a key gets leaked, the hole gets plugged after a maximum of three years - assuming the key gets leaked the day it is created and the leak is not discovered.

      I don't think you can get much more secure...

      Regards, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    4. Re:Never trust the client by Malc · · Score: 1

      2 years? You're kidding me right? I live overseas. It takes at least 5 weeks to get my passport renewed (I'm doing it right now in fact). I can't afford to be without my passport for 5 of every 104 weeks (almost 5% of the time). Let's not talk about what a pain in the arse constantly renewing it is (in fact, just doing it once every 10 years is a hassle), nor the out-of-pocket cost. This includes the time to get the application, filling it out, getting passport photos ($20 + going out and doing it), the time to get it all co-signed (and expense if you have to pay a notary public), going to the post office, couriering or registered delivery to the the High Commission/passport office ($5-25), and paying for the application ($148). I can guarantee prices will go up under the proposed scheme. Your suggestion is inpractical and will be rejected by voters.

      You're right, CSS wasn't cracked by brute force. It was found unencrypted in memory of the Xing Player. However, at 40 bits, cracking it by brute force wasn't unreasonable and just a matter of time. Given time, the security on a passport might be cracked by brute force too... but like I said in my original post, there is plenty of incentive to use theft or bribery of some combination of social engineering and cracking to get the key by other means, just as CSS wasn't cracked directly.

  40. We tested them at work by crimestopper · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for a private security company (can't give you the name) and we are looking into biometrics too.

    They seem to work quite well. There is one "drawback" though: you can only use them to identify people who are already in your database. So it can only be used to authorize personel and not to identify visitors for example. This will remain like this until governements start keeping databases of biometric records.

    Ofcourse this isn't very evident because the TTEI-resolution of 2001 specifically forbids practices like this on grounds of techfear I suppose.

    --

  41. Potential Abuse by d_force · · Score: 1

    Thought process:

    - Many official documents require you to provide your fingerprint information. In fact, some gov't agencies even collect this information.

    - Assume you would like to use your fingerprints for personal authentication for your own use (accessing computer system, data, etc... yes, I know it's a crappy tech for various reasons, but humor me)

    - If someone can access your collected fingerprint data from the agency, he/she could (potentially) use this data to bypass your personal authentication.

    Now, in that line of thought, replace "fingerprint" with "iris" and "personal authentication" with "commercial authentication".

    I think you see where I'm going with this...

    - dforce

    --
    SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE A_WINNER = "YUO";
  42. uh oh by bmajik · · Score: 1

    sounds like a good reason to not fly.

    I just saw minority report a few weeks ago. I very quickly thought to myself "when some government tries this mandatory retina scanning shit, humanity is done"

    thanks EU.

    I'm wondering when some government is going to require every citizen to wear a mark. maybe the same government will link the mark to being able to participate in monetary transactions.

    I'll be moving to a desert, thanks.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:uh oh by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Er, given that every foreign national must now have their fingerprints and photograph taken when entering the USA, I don't think you have much of a vantage point for your pulpit...

      Personally I object to both. I've never been a criminal, and don't see why I should be treated like one. The sad thing is that the UK are heading towards ID cards (completely useless) as well. Oh but you won't have to show them on demand, just present them at a police station within 7 days... As if there's a difference...

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    2. Re:uh oh by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      Did you mean the mark of the beast? It's Armageddon!!!

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    3. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks EU.

      Don't blame us - the requirement to contain biometric data is coming from the US, which plans to close its borders to EU citizens unless they a)apply for a Visa each time they want to visit or b)carry a passport with embedded biometric information.

      It's easy to convince your own public to accept it when everyone visiting your country is forced to do it anyway, and it's easy to force everyone visiting your country to do it if they want to avoid the hassle of applying for Visas.

  43. Using a victim's eyeball by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    I'd think you could easily program around that, ditto for contact lenses. Temperature, presence of pulse, etc. - would be hard to fake, I think. Especially with retinal scans.

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  44. Open Biometrics for the home? by bluethundr · · Score: 3, Interesting



    I've always had a geeky dreamproject of supplementing my traditional lock and key entry to my house with biometric security devices. The idea being that in the event of a systems failure, instead of being locked out of the house I could fall back to the old lock-n-key method.

    My idea would be to use either iris-scanning, breath analyzation or some combination of the two (ideally a choice so that if one were to fail, say the iris, the breath analyzer would let you in). Much more efficient than fumbling around for keys in the dark! And a blessing to the drunken Irishman I can sometimes be (not all, but SOME stereotypes certainly hold more than a little water...and occasionally some whiskey too!) I digress.

    But the last time I checked, (this was a few years ago) such devices were not so readily available. And when you could find them they were exorbitantly expensive. Insult to injury drivers were only available for NT. Not that it would be that terrible to set up an NT box for this purpose, but Linux of course would be much preferable.

    So my question is, has this situation changed? Has the price of this technology become more available and affordable? Still prohibitively expensive? Any sourceforgian opensource driver alternative for the devices that are?

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
    1. Re:Open Biometrics for the home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Much more efficient than fumbling around for keys in the dark!"

      I can see how installing an iris scanner is much more efficient than a porch light.

    2. Re:Open Biometrics for the home? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I've always had a geeky dreamproject of supplementing my traditional lock and key entry to my house with biometric security devices. The idea being that in the event of a systems failure, instead of being locked out of the house I could fall back to the old lock-n-key method."

      (a) Nevermind the authentication -- unless you're still using cylinder locks, the weakest link will be the physical bolt itself. Get something which can withstand a battering ram before you worry too much about lockpicks.

      (b) Get one of those coded safes that they use in hotel rooms -- cement it into your garage floor, set a long code on it, and put a spare set of house keys inside.

      (c) If you have cylinder locks, then anyone with a pick set already has a universal key to your house.

  45. Forge the source by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmm... sounds like a job for strong encryption. I was thinking more of a database, though... and the security issues there are frightening. Hell, just the *stupidity* issues there are frightening!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  46. Das Biggen Brotheren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, take Europe off my travel list. I thought the EU had stronger privacy restrictions. Guess I was wrong. Or does that only apply to the dissemination of the data, not the collection of it? This whole f'n planet sucks!

  47. Obtention of "lost" passport? by SysKoll · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did the EU countries tighten their passport renewal procedures? Because right now, anyone can obtain a renewal for a lost passport by providing extremely low-tech documents that are a breeze to forge.

    In France and Belgium, for example, you can walk into a police station and declare you have lost your passports (the prevalence of muggers and pickpockets makes it an easily believable story). You have to provide a birth certificate. What is it? An ordinary piece of paper, incredibly easy to counterfeit. Once your ID has been "established" by this "proof", the authorities will issue a new set of ID documents: forgery-proof ID and biometric passport. With your supplied name and photo on it.

    If at least, they keep a database of iris scans, forgers would be able to do it only once. The article doesn't say anything about such a database.

    So this is a nice strong link in the othewise very weak security chain in Europe.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:Obtention of "lost" passport? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, don't know about France and Belgium, but in Denmark it's the same.

      Of course, they don't hand you the passport when you leave. They don't send it to the address you specified. They send it to the address that is stored in the central registry of people.

      Sure, you could probably change that address for a random person, but I'm fairly certain he'd notice in the two to four weeks it takes to get a passport.

      Of course, the next step is then to fake a person who is out of the country for a month or so vacationing ...

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:Obtention of "lost" passport? by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Informative
      Good example, Hektor.

      Looking up "security" and "stolen passport" in Google leads to interesting stories. Looks like some EU countries have "misplaced" tens of thousands of blank passports, which got stolen right from the storage rooms of passport offices. What good is it to have holographic imprints in the paper if you put the blanks it in a badly protected drawer? And remember, boys and girls, such a passport gives you access to all the EU, 'cuz Europeans don't need no big bad borders no more. You cannot more clearly proclaim "Scum of all Earth, come deal and traffic in our countries!"

      In this story, British journalists demonstrated how easy it is to claim your passport has been stolen and to get a new one issued to a fake identity. And still in sunny UK, another story shows that about 3000 passports a year, sent through 1st class mail, get lost or stolen in the mail. And there are tons more.

      So before they start retina-scanning people in public places, maybe the EU gummints could tighten their abysmally unsecure procedures just a tad?

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  48. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

    Not to turn this into a Europe Vs. United States thread but...

    How many times in the last year have I heard European leaders referring to our current President and his government as "Nazi's"?

    As far as the United States government turning into a Nazi regime I think you are eating a diet containing too much Liberal and European sentiment.

    I suggest you cut your intake back to two anti-us rants a day and get out in the sun more. Oh, and avoid political debates at all costs.

  49. Big Brother State by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 3, Informative
    Personally, I think that one of the most chilling police states in movies is in the movie "The 5th Element." For those of you who haven't seen it, there is actually a station in our hero's own apartment where he is required by law to go to and bend over, placing his hands on the wall while the police enter his place and arrest him.

    Does having an "arresting station" in one's own dwelling-place not sound a bit more chilling that eye-scanning?

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  50. Re:Surprise Surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the fascists are at it again.

    And that from a racist...

  51. Re: ring, RiiIiiiinGGG, rrRRRRiiinNg!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MyD00M.S calls to airport again AgAiN aRgHHH!!! < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <
    > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MyD00M.S calls to airport again AgAiN aRgHHH!!! < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

  52. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by LordKazan · · Score: 1

    Besides the fact you show you're a flaming conversative you also show you are unable to draw parallels between laws and events. I suggesting you read up on the history of the Nazi Regime in the prewar years in germany and then compare and contrast many of the laws and some of the events against the occurances in the US in the last three years. BTW: A liberal must be someone who A) supports the constitution and the rights of all people B) disagrees with bush

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  53. Re:Surprise Surprise... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Its a joke moron. And it has nothing to do with race, either.

  54. that's Iris' problem by pyrrho · · Score: 2, Funny

    wake me when they come for me.

    --

    -pyrrho

  55. Avoiding the real problem by MoP030 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The whole biometrics discussion only became more
    than a stupid idea after the 9th September. I
    guess everyone knows by now that the
    terrorists lived and studied in Germany before
    thay attacked the world trade center (or some
    of them, i forgot). But the point is, that
    they haven't shown any suspicious behaviour
    before their attack.

    So most sane people have argued that the
    problem wasn't identifying the terrorists, for
    which this would be a possible solution. The
    problem is to know who is a terrorist,
    criminal etc while their actions still lie in
    the future. Obviuosly this problem is not
    solved at all.
    The government is simply using this as a placebo
    to soothe the fear of terrorism in the
    gullible general public and as a neat side
    effect they increase their control over people. imho of course

    --
    the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
    1. Re:Avoiding the real problem by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      " The whole biometrics discussion only became more than a stupid idea after the 9th September." I believe you mean 11 september, thanks, no run along to play

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:Avoiding the real problem by MoP030 · · Score: 1

      what's a day or two in cosmic scales anyway

      --
      the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
    3. Re:Avoiding the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genocidal disposal of Muslims would solve the problem.

    4. Re:Avoiding the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      genocidal disposal of jews already failed and there's a lot more muslims than jews. america would have to work together with europe on this one.

  56. JFK terminal 4 by shojo · · Score: 1

    JFK, terminal 4 ( site of Singapore, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel national airlines, among others ) had been displaying an iris scanning machine for the past year or so. It is about 12 feet high and looks sexy.

    Gut reaction:
    1) Oh, my god, this is awful!

    2) Probably won't work

    Of course, there might be a not so subtle message being sent here. Why terminal 4?

    1. Re:JFK terminal 4 by lavaface · · Score: 1

      I suppose if you're a terrorist you should fly Delta!

    2. Re:JFK terminal 4 by Animats · · Score: 1
      It is about 12 feet high

      That sounds like the AS&E backscatter X-ray machine. That's the one that produces a nude image through clothing. Organic objects like drugs or explosives show up very nicely. So do metal objects like guns and knives. There have been complaints that the thing shows too much detail.

      AS&E is working on a new model, one that's not so tall and costs less. (The height problem comes from the need for the detector to be at right angles to the scanning beam.) I'm waiting for this to show up at nightclubs.

  57. It's optional! by kju · · Score: 4, Informative

    As it seems, most of you might have missed the fact, that the system is optional. You don't have to use it, you don't have to own a special passport if you don't want to use it.

    It's setup as a convenience for frequent travellers. Its opt-in, if you would like to call it that way.

    1. Re:It's optional! by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's optional.... for now.

      Give it a couple of years when a reasonable proportion of the population is using it. Suddenly the holdouts have become the minority, and are then pressured into complying with the usual taunts: "You must be a terrorist if you don't want your iris on file!"

      Then the 5% who STILL hold out will find they can't travel anywhere anymore.

      It's what they refer to as the slippery slope....

    2. Re:It's optional! by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      I've got one question:

      It is voluntary, you have to wave your right by signing some paper. But didn't anyone wonder, what's gonna happen, when you won't sing it? Does it mean automatic strip-tease in front of some guard? Will they let you onboard?

      I mean, for me it looks just as a trick: they can't force you to undergo the iris scan under current EU privacy laws, so they force you to sign some paper to wave those rights, and deny you the service if you won't.

      In my vocabulary this if fscking blackmail.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  58. Re:Surprise Surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a joke moron.

    Probably, I considered the possibility. But the joke was not funny enough to be obvious. Or do you really believe, when rereading your post, that there wouldn't be enough people out there who would mean that seriously?

    And it has nothing to do with race, either.
    Well, I consider negative sentiments towards people based on their ethnic background to be racistic. So if you would have meant your post seriously, the connection German->fascist would be racistic.

  59. loaded question by funny-jack · · Score: 1

    The question "And what good does the the ability to quickly identify massive ammounts of people at borders produce?" is loaded. "The ability to quickly identify massive amounts of people at the borders" is itself a description of one use of the technology, not of the technology itself.

    The basic technology is simply a means of scanning an iris to uniquely identify an iris. This could be used to identify animals in wildlife observations, it could be used by a private company as an additional security device ("My eye is my passport"--wait...), it could be used at ATMs to verify the identity of the person using the card...

    So yes, there are potential uses for this technology that are arguably good.

    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
  60. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by shojo · · Score: 1

    here, here!

    You won't find a more vibrant, active, and a fair democracy any where else. America should start getting used to the fact that democracy has evolved a bit in two hundred years.

  61. I thought it was 2004 now ... by b10m · · Score: 1

    I really thought we were living in the year 2004 now, but apparently, it's 1984 ...

  62. Re:Surprise Surprise... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Too bad I didn't say German. And too bad that German is a race and a nationality. Its not my problem if u assumed I was referring to the German race when i said neither.

  63. i did by bmajik · · Score: 1

    the EU already has the one-currency thing going. :)

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  64. WTF does it matter? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay... so they begin doing iris scans. That's great.

    Now Mr. John Q. Terrorist gets on the plane and hijacks it, sending 150 people crashing to their death in the sea. HE'S FRIGGIN' DEAD. Who cares what his biometrics are?

    Two months later, another terrorist boards a plane and hijacks it. Oh, GOOD. They got his iris scan! The world will be safe!!!

    I'm sorry, but I don't know of many suicide terrorists that strike twice.

    Oh, and if you want to comment on how this isn't about terrorism and is more about catching known criminals, etc.... again... what does it matter? Their iris scans aren't on file anywhere else... and if they're really a criminal considering travelling overseas or even internationally, I *think* they would have the sense enough to utilize false documents.

    There are other ways of travelling.

    I fail to see what this will solve or even help.

    1. Re:WTF does it matter? by moltar77 · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree with you.

      It all reminds me of after the Columbine shootings when all of the schools were implementing new securities. I don't know if they thought it would really help or just to make themselves less liable in the event someone was killed. Suddenly at my high school we could no longer carry backpacks, and anyone who wasn't a student had to sign in at the door, not to mention hall passes. The absurdity of it all was that it would not deter anyone in the least bit to bring a gun to school. I don't think anyone believes they'd get away with it free and alive, anyway.

      All the same, if you plan on hijacking a plane, I don't think this would help much. The only chance of any improvement is if the government has "tagged" a person, preventing them from boarding. I, for one, do not welcome our preemptive governmental blacklisting overlords. It's all a matter of not being liable and making people think they are safe, just as my school did.

    2. Re:WTF does it matter? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Instead of taking steps to eliminate the motivations for such attacks (listening to students when they say they're being unfairly persecuted, not invading countries for political or monetary gain, etc) the government and private institutions have chosen the route of "do what we want when we want and ignore all consequences, then make it illegal or difficult for those who suffer to retaliate, and/or make them look like the 'bad guys' when they do."

      Really, it's all about who wrongs whom first. This is universal. If you're the first one to wrong someone else, you can make their reaction look unreasonable and sometimes criminal. If you're the one wronged, it's made impossible in this society to right that wrong without going through the proper channels (the proper channels being THROUGH those who decide what is right and wrong [motivated by money and power/greed]; they're never apt to admit they engaged in any wrongdoing). It's impossible to simply state that you did nothing wrong if you're the accused because you weren't the first one to come up with the accusation. If you say you are wrong, you're labelled capitally negligent or hostile. If you state you did nothing wrong, you're labelled "crazy" or untruthful because you're "unwilling to accept the consequences of your actions."

      In the case of foreign policy or global issues, no wrongdoing has to occur. All a government must do is insinuate that someone else is doing wrong and everyone (read: those incapable of critical thought) accepts what's said at face-value. Any action or no action at all is viewed as admission of guilt. Attempts by the accused to prevent the inevitable strikes against them are viewed as hostile actions and anyone who questions the motives of the aggressor is immediately labelled an enemy combatant.

      Essentially, until we as Humans wise up and realize that we're repeating the same cycles over and over, nothing will change (and things only get progressively worse as the population of the world increases and people become more difficult to classify and organize).

      Since it's easier and less work for people to sit back and state that the government is doing its job and taking care of them (or school, etc), nothing will change unless for the worse.

  65. Breaking news by Rasputin · · Score: 1
    A Pink-eye epidemic sweeps through Europe. Details at 11.

    For the humor impaired: http://www.stlukeseye.com/Conditions/Conjunctiviti s.asp

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
  66. Here is comes by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

    Here comes Pink Eye, can't wait.

    --

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  67. Great! by bamberg29 · · Score: 1

    I'm at the Frankfurt (FRA) airport at least four times a year. This will make the long lines even more fun.

    David

  68. Re:Surprise Surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not my problem if u assumed I was referring to the German race when i said neither.

    I would not primarily see 'German' as a race, rather a nationality, maybe an ethnic group. But that doesn't matter. I don't see a big difference between offending people because of their 'nationality' or their 'racial' or 'ethnic' background, whatever that should mean. Yes, I know, you didn't mean it either way. But it was easy to interpret it that way, and then it just happens that people complain. And that is not my problem... ;)

  69. "Der Grosse Bruder" by Wastl · · Score: 3, Informative
    At the moment, the system is completely voluntarily. If I read the press release correctly, it should ease identity control for travelers. You no longer have to go through manual control but can instead simply look into a camera. Of course, you'll need to be registered first.

    The German authorities will not be able to enforce this system for a long time, as it is impossible to force all other countries to provide such data.

    Besides, did you ever notice that Europeans have to provide biometric information when applying for a US visa?

    Sebastian

    1. Re:"Der Grosse Bruder" by winne+too · · Score: 1
      At the moment, the system is completely voluntarily. If I read the press release correctly, it should ease identity control for travelers.
      finally, a post at the very bottom to point this out. yes, this seems to be correct, at least "der spiegel" also presented it as a convenience feature for frequent flyers in one of last week's online news items. this trial period is intended to last half a year.
  70. Re:As one who's actually worked with iris scanners by photonrider · · Score: 1

    So we get a template of those twenty-some points of your iris and now have to store that somewhere. If that template is compromised you're screwed for the rest of your life. You can't change them like you can a password. How can we ensure that the template, whether iris or fingerprint or whatever, can't be compromised? Until that gets answered it seems there is a fatal flaw in any bio-x id technology.

  71. its called the base rate fallacy: by phloydphreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This technology will never be applicable for identification from a database because of the base rate fallacy: i.e.

    assuming that if a person is corretly identified 99.999% of the time. if there are 500M (roughly all of europe) people in the database, then the mistake rate would be approximately 500 ppl. So for every individual going through, there are 500 possible individuals which he could be. This is not even the full application of the base rate fallacy, there is not enough research published on iris recognition for it to be fully analized (this is a *very* rough estimate).

    *this does make alot of sense for a passport comparator, b/c no one could then steal a passport and use it, unless they want to take the risk of prison on a single hand of poker: with only a royal flush being the way to win (roughly equivalent odds as getting through with some else's passport).

    Which means that you can only be tracked IF:
    The passport has a chip in it with your personal information upon it, and that information (after a verification of your iris) is sent to a data mining facility. No other means of tracking is possible.

    -big brother is not watching you, he keeping your attention every moment of every day; making sure that you never think about anything except what he tells you to think. Making sure that you never feel anything that he doesnt tell you to feel.

    --
    "this is the gloaming"
    radiohead
  72. But whom can you trust? by yanestra · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If Germany starts scanning iris', that's mainly because the U.S. wanted so for the sake of their security.

    IMHO it's doubtful if this will change anything in the effective security level. - A number of convicted terrorists were native citizens of non-listed non-suspicious countries or naturalized there, with legal passports.
    An even bigger number were from a suspicious country with legal papers, which were certified by U.S. officials, including visa and so on.

    To me it seems that the main problem of people with invalid or forged papers is that they are just economic refugees, having not even enough money for proper papers.

    Too few money does not seem to be the primary problem of today's terrorists. At least not of those who I heard of.

  73. Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) by MKalus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How many times in the last year have I heard European leaders referring to our current President and his government as "Nazi's"?


    Never, the thing you seem to remember is a statement to the effect that the tactics Bush is using are eerie similar to the tactics Hitler was using.

    And if you think that statement is not true you might want to get a good history book some time.
    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  74. This one time, in Frankfurt... by roderick · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is tangential at best. 9 years ago, I was on a college trip to Moscow that included a several-hour layover in Frankfurt. To get to the food areas, we had to go through customs. Absolutely starved and desperate to try a McDonald's that sold beer, several of us went through Customs together.

    As the agent patted me down, which he did to everyone, he actually grabbed my crotch. Apparently this was a standard part of the pat-down, but it was news to me. Shocked, I blurted out the first word of German which came to mind: "Danke!" I turned eight shades of purple and we all laughed, then they let me through.

  75. Different from a photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like the idea of iris scans, but then frankly, how it is different from a photograph?

    Your photo is in the passport, photos can be stored in a database, faces can be matched against photos in a database.
    It seems we accepted photos in our passports, this isn't so much different. An iris print is just a better, more reliable photograph.

    Now, if we would be required to provide a fingerprint in our passports, that would be a different quality, as fingerprints are left around whereever on whatever you touch, whereas your photograph or iris print does not.

  76. Go Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think, eventually all this privacy invading
    technology will be enabled through a Linux based
    infrastructure. Whoopee!

  77. So what good does it do? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Black Hat gets on plane with faked ID and iris scan; knows the airport screener in Frankfurt is better then the one he left behind in Cyprus. Quick trip to the WC past the harried and underpaid seward, a quickly passed 500 Euro and.... Graft corruption, bribery greed these are the same as they always have been. All these security checks do is placate the cattle. The wolves still feast on the fringes of the herd and occasionally attack the middle. Menwhile, the sheepherd gently leads the rest of us towards the slaughterhouse...

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  78. we're losing our rights everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of ground is being lost these days. This is a shame for Europe. This is just as bad, if not more so, than what's going on right here in the US of A. More and more people are brainwashed into believing in this communist/fascist crap "being good for them." If something isn't done (and I seriously doubt this is reversible - people are too comfortable in their happy little robot lives), future generations won't even know there's something rotten in Denmark.

    A good random sample will be how this is modded.


    P.S. To the guy who "hates anonymous cowards" - stop hating man; why should others live their lives according to your likes or dislikes?

  79. and the Brazilian retaliation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, following the tradition of inmediate retaliatory measures, a judge in Sao Paulo dictated that iris profiling in german borders is discriminatory aganist brazilian citizens.

    So, as iris scanning equipment isn't available yet, brazilian inmigration officials are instructed to remove 1 (one) eyeball of every german citizen entering via Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro as long as the invasive measure is applied in Germany.

    (Disclamer: yes, I know this doens't apply to brazilians (or is it?), I just wanted to make fun of my country's government).

  80. Another Country Not to Visit by tbond_trader · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want to treat me like a criminal then why should I spend my money in your country?

    1. Re:Another Country Not to Visit by filer · · Score: 1
      You want to treat me like a criminal then why should I spend my money in your country?

      How is being identified at a border being treated like a criminal? Have you ever even left your country anyway? Have you ever even been on an airplane? When the airline asks to see your passport while bording is that treating you like a criminal?

    2. Re:Another Country Not to Visit by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, be glad that you don't visit the US then.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  81. Re:As one who's actually worked with iris scanners by Threni · · Score: 1

    > You are using a different definition of privacy than one many people are
    > concerned about.

    No, most sane, non tin-foil-hat-wearing peoples main fear of this sort of technology, if they give a shit at all, is that someone else will pretend to be them. And there's more chance of this if the Bad Guys have access to the underlying iris information, rather than just a hash.

  82. whaaaa? by fxer · · Score: 1

    Germany has an airport made out of hotdogs?

  83. This is a security issue, not privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the front page, this article is catagorized as a privacy issue. Where in the world can you get on a plane anonymously? This is a security article that provides technology to hopefully improve security at airports. I've never seen such a bunch of zealots so paranoid about being identified for any reason, no matter how valid.

  84. Hello McModerators ? Parent "2 Informative" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Hello McModerators ?!

    The parent post tells you that this story is totally out of date - if it was worth discussing, it was worth discussing literally YEARS ago.

    But slashdot moderators, in their wisdom, have only rated this information "+2 Informative".

    This is a sad indictment of "many eyes".

    I.M.H.O.

  85. The main gate is clanging shut now by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have this thing, more than a thing, really; more of a screaming, frothing refusal to submit to fingerprinting, retinal scanning, DNA sampling, gait analysis, random drug testing, ID picture taking... I don't think I should have to unless I am arrested and accused of a crime (and I better see a judge and a lawyer, too -- no torture pit in Syria, please).

    I understand that pasports are necessary, and I would submit to good old picture ID, of course. Seems to have worked for a very long time. I do detest having to state various things about my private life (are you married? divorced? where's your wife? A: why the hell is that your business?).

    The 40 or so hijackers that crashed the jets were here on perfectly valid ID's. No biometric scanning would have made a difference.

    So, why are we submitting to this crap? And do you think that the powerful in the U.S. will be ducking their heads into retinal readers when they travel? Do you think the Saudi royals will?

    Do you think they will stop at retinas? DNA will follow. Then RFID tags to track us. All in the name of Safety. Although none of these things will stop criminals from blowing something up. They merely have to keep their noses clean until they attack.

    Now, I know that I am unemployable in corporate America now and forever, for they operate in some realm other than constitutional democracy. I don't grant them the right to make me pee on command, or track my private life (they can fire you for going to a union organizing meeting on your own time -- ruling was upheld).

    But this -- I'm not going to guess, I am going to state that very soon I am locked out of Europe. And if the U.S. follows the EU's lead, I won't be able to leave the United States because I would refuse to have my biometric data taken for a passport?

    I'm never able to travel out of the U.S. unless I submit. They won't let me leave.

    I'm in prison. We all are.

    1. Re:The main gate is clanging shut now by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      and I would submit to good old picture ID, of course. Seems to have worked for a very long time.

      Err...I'll respectfully disagree. Photo ID cards are amazing social engeineering tools. You can leverage a photo ID card for all sorts of cool crimes that you wouldn't be able to otherwise.

      I also point out that the US experience has been gradually increasing driver's licensing fraud after each state added the photo to the license. Prior to that, non-photo license fraud was largely non-existant.

      (More info at ths site in my sig.)

    2. Re:The main gate is clanging shut now by filer · · Score: 1
      I'm never able to travel out of the U.S. unless I submit.

      And you most certainly would not be permitted to travel to the U.S.

    3. Re:The main gate is clanging shut now by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      The U.S. doesn't require biometric passports. Yet. Yes, you can visit the U.S. without one.

      Statement stands. We are now all in a U.S. prison unless we submit out most private information to global databases. And then we'll still be in prison. Just a bigger one.

      We're all being locked up. And the ones building our prison are not themselves submitting to lockdown. There will be two classes of people in the world: the prisoners and the guards.

  86. The truth spoken... by Archfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    especially considering the treatment the Roma's regularly receive in Europe, not just Germany either, denied citizenship anywhere, their childeren deneied schooling and the same treatment any other kids born in the country to non-citizens. As for the US we are currently so close to treating those of Arab descent as criminals just as we did such a DIS-SERVICE to the Japanease in WW2....We are not in any position to start throwing many stones, with non-citizens sitting in internment camps in Guantanamo Bay, never charged, denied any of the BASIC human rights we so LOUDLY TOUT...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:The truth spoken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, infact if anything the USA is closer to a Nazi Germany-esque state than Germany, or infact any other state.

      The comparisons with recent events are really quite scary.

    2. Re:The truth spoken... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      not sure I'd agree with that but the continued erosion of personal freedom, the unchecked corporate greed and political malfeseance(SP?) is reaching a point of prevalence that demands direct action... Somewhere along the way the part about all freedoms NOT EXCLUSIVELY DOCUMENTED and GRANTED to the government WERE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE, got lost, and a new part about the CORPORATE RIGHT TO PROFIT seems to have been GRAFTED (pun INTENDED) in its place. Our founding forefather's, WISER, BRAVER, and with infinitely more personal integrity saw fit to revoke the so-called rights of chartered companies(corporations)tea anyone ? Forcing them to rely on the individuals of which they were comprised.
      We all have a BOSS TWEED-like JUDGE from NY state to thank for the fact that corporations have once again assumed an equal legal standing as a person, while retaining the protections and lack of accountabilty given an institution.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  87. Or longer by bluGill · · Score: 1

    If you read closely, 12 months is typical, but research suggests it takes much longer.

    I had blue eyes up until my late teens, when the sent first grey, and eventally settled into green. This appears to be genetic, other family members have had similar changes, though most didn't wait quite as long.

    1. Re:Or longer by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The iridian/iriscan stuff I looked at aren't colour sensitive - monochrome.

      They check the pattern of the iris not the colour.

      --
  88. fooling the scanner by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Instead of trying to fool the scanner, fool the database. Doesn't matter how good their scanner is, if they match my iris to John Doe of Iowa, and my id matches. The people you get a fake id from can do this. (that is those that get you a fake id where data is entered into the system, a fake id that isn't in the system won't have this)

  89. Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I know what you mean. You mean that if you look suspicious then you should be grilled by a policeman. And being the the wrong race for the designated racial area automatically makes you suspicious.

    The fact that race is even mentioned is a problem in itself. When I see Americans on TV, they are, to me, just Americans. When Americans see Americans on TV, they are black or white or hispanic. News readers go to lengths to point out if a candidate for mayor is hispanic or not. WTF?

    You guys really seem to care about this deep down in a way I don't understand. Fix this and your society will stop being so sick.

  90. offending our German friends by Sapphon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide), than Germany is to oppress its Turkish or other minorities

    I think entirely the opposite is true - due precisely to their country's history, the German people are far less likely to oppress or otherwhise mistreat ethnic minorities than other countries (i.e. the US).

    Germans suffer greatly under an (often subconscious) apprehension over how they appear to be treating other cultures. Germany is much more likely than most countries to be scrutinised for it's actions concerning minorities, for as soon it makes a controvesial move there will instantly be cries about how it is reverting to form. Austria elects a right-wing government and no-one blinks an eye, Germany has the world's eye upon them and thus adopts a far less forceful approach in it's international relations.

    To be frank, Germans have a much more tolerant and open-minded view towards foreigners than most Americans - and I've never heard anyone refer to the Gastarbeiter as "Germany's Niggers". The comparison is apt only in the sense that both groups are one of largest minorities in their respective countries - at least virtually all african-americans speak English. This is getting off topic, but the problem with the Turkish peoples in Germany lies in equal parts with them and us. Some have a tendency to form enclaves and refuse to assimilate or even learn German. When you walk down streets where every shop sign is both in German and Turkish (except for the pub/social club, which is just in Turkish), all the kids on the street are Turks, and nary a word of German is spoken between the teenagers on street corners, you wonder whether the Regierung (Government) might not have a case for denying citizenships to those who aren't making an effort to become part of the German community.

    Unlike in 1935, the German government of today (for all their flaws) makes plenty of effort to try and integrate the immigrants currently living here into mainstream society. Stronger border controls just mean they can focus on the problem at hand, rather than having a growing pool of people who have to be adressed.

    --
    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
  91. Woohoo! Gattaca! Europa! Europa! by Slur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before I go into my shtick, a couple of puns and punlike semantic constructions. My apologies, some of them are horrible.

    - Won't this be a problem for eyedentical twins?

    - Your passport Mister Willard. "Eye don't think so!"

    - Rods? Cones? Where the hell is my luggage?

    - Sir, can you remove any loose change from your eyelids...

    - Sorry maam, your scan keeps coming up "Grape Juice $2.95."

    And an airline joke or two off the cuff...

    1. Thank you for flying Air Lingus. Oh no, THANK YOU!
    2. Will you be smoking or non-smoking Herr Schrodinger?
    3.

    Okay, now to the schtick.

    Yes, isn't it wonderful. At last something macabre and frighteningly science-fictioney is crossing over into our lives, citizens. At last we can unite in glory, as one. Travel is a very cautious affair, citizens. I ask you, should we not take every possible precaution?

    So you see.

    There is no deriding this measure, my fellows.

    It follows then, that we should adopt a similar solidarity in our daily lives. We are one body. We are one, whole, together.

    The 21st century is here! Let's do the 21st Century Cheer!

    DNA!
    DNA!
    Nanobots! Nanobots!
    DNA!

    Siss Boom Bah!
    Gat Ta Ca!
    Iris scans! Cyberspace!
    Siss Boom Bah!

    Human clones!
    Reality shows!
    Dick Clarke's corpse is still alive!
    Human clones!

    Martian brine!
    GMO wine!
    The spice must flow! We rule the soul!
    We're free, cool, and fine!

    Terror War!
    What's it for?
    Raining death from outer space!
    Terror War!

    Woohoo! We love you Twenty First Century!! Big kiss! Mmmwwwahh!

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  92. Re:As one who's actually worked with iris scanners by ajna · · Score: 1
    Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye (a la Demolition Man, I believe) and hold it up to the scanner.
    Perhaps there was a dead eye reference in Demolition Man as well, but the one I remember is from Minority Report.
  93. Re:As one who's actually worked with iris scanners by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye

    Which I guess is as good of a thought as any, but it seems to me that there will still be people who will try this once or twice.

    Regrettably, in order to prevent eye theft, this requires the rather absurd notice at any iris scanning station saying:

    "Original, attached eyes only."
    or
    "This scanner detects stolen eyes."
    or
    "Carcass eyes automatically rejected."

    et cetera.

  94. The US is pushing for this by ajagci · · Score: 1

    I hope you do understand that it is the US that is pushing for this. Basically, the US is saying that the Europeans need to create biometric passports if they want to be able to continue to travel to the US under the visa waiver program.

    What is particularly bad about this is that US citizens will apparently not be subjected to biometric identification, at least not yet. It actually seems rather doubtful that something like that is palatable domestically, although in the hysteria after 9/11, I suppose you never know.

    What is also bad about it is that biometrics give people a false sense of security: they don't actually increase security very much (since they can be forged), but they tend to decrease human security checks--immigration officials trying to judge whether someone is behaving in odd ways, etc.

    I hope that the Europeans are going to refuse and say "OK, kill your tourism market if you like"--the US has much more to lose from making it harder for Europeans to travel to the US than the other way around. But, politically, that doesn't look likely.

    1. Re:The US is pushing for this by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know it's the US administration who's been pushing for this. In Canada we keep hearing about there constant whining concerning this issue. The Germans should've stood up for themselves and said no. But then again, what government will refuse to have more control over it's population? It's up to the citizens themselves to say no.

      I've been warning about this whole biometrics thing for a few years now and nobody believed me.

  95. Is that really necessary? by cpghost · · Score: 1

    The 9/11 terrorists used their own IDs and their own passports. An eye-scan would've been utterly useless here.

    Biometric scans may have some value in proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the association pair (physical person, ID papers) is legitimate, but they can't (yet?) read minds of first-time would-be terrorists, which do not yet have any criminal records.

    And this is precisely the problem here. Most terrorist attacks are not performed by professionals, but by people who didn't appear on the radar before. Professionals may be planning the attacks, but they will still hide beyond our reach. They are unlikely to cross a heavily guarded border when they can send a lot of legitimate people to do the dirty work for them.

    And now, to ask again: is this really necessary? If we persist on this path, newly born babies will soon get a bluetooth chip implant, just like cows in a herd. Wouldn't that be great? The complete human population earmarked and always trackable on a global scale. Ready for... what? Slaughtering?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  96. And yet the trains have NO security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The majority of railway stations have no overt security presence whatever, and those that do are mainly guarding the *station* from crime and/or terrorism. On most lines, an unattended package might not be noticed for some time (the London Underground is perhaps an exception). Little attention is paid to ensuring that the route is secure, perhaps because there haven't been many such attacks on the infrastructure.

    However, there is nothing (except my conscience, my not having a suitable bomb, the time to get to Edinburgh and possibly the Train Manager or whatever the guard is called these days) to prevent me from, say, taking a bomb on a train out of Edinburgh (say), alighting at South Queensferry and setting the bomb to detonate a minute or so later (with obvious effects on the Forth Bridge). Similar attacks can be made on any other bridge on the network, such as the Mersey bridges in Runcorn or Warrington or one of the Thames crossings in the London/Westminster area. The latter is especially likely to lead to grief since many trains in the South East have only one member of staff on board - the driver - who will be far too busy driving the train!

    You don't need to present any identification to travel by rail. (You do need basic ID to travel at staff, retired or student rate, but not at full fare.)

  97. didn't it happen a few years ago (mildly) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A few years ago germany sent a whole
    slew of refugees from Bosnia and other countries packing


    It's not exactly slavery (and far from genocide),
    but those refugees
    had invested years of their lives
    hoping to become german citizens one day
    and germany just kicked them out
    (got a few years of cheap labor out of them and out the door they went)

    1. Re:didn't it happen a few years ago (mildly) by cmbofh · · Score: 0

      > It's not exactly slavery (and far from genocide),
      > but those refugees
      > had invested years of their lives
      > hoping to become german citizens one day
      > and germany just kicked them out
      > (got a few years of cheap labor out of them
      > and out the door they went)

      Can you back that up with any proof?

      - AFAIK it's been clear from the start that they'd
      get a permission to stay during the war
      and were to return after the war.

      - AFAIK they (always read: most of them) did not want
      to become german citizens in the first place.
      They were -- as you said -- refugees, not immigrants.

      - AFAIK they were not "cheap labor" but were supported
      by the german social security, i.e. german taxpayers' taxes.
      Ever heard of the unemployment rate in Germany?
      And whenever there is a citizen from the EU who is able to
      fill a position then the refugee won't be allowed to work (But social security will pay.).
      Don't tell me the US don't have different types of visas,
      some of them without work permit.

      - AFAIK quite a few of them actually wanted to return to their homes
      (or what was left of them) to rebuild their home country.

    2. Re:didn't it happen a few years ago (mildly) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should have gone to the US. Where they wouldn't even have been allowed to enter.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  98. Schiphol by Ruliz+Galaxor · · Score: 1

    This type of voluntary system was already implemented at Schiphol (The Netherlands) in 2001.

    sig(h)

  99. Did he mention slavery? by Savage650 · · Score: 1
    To be frank -- if not politically correct -- and with the risk of offending our German friends, the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide), than Germany is to oppress its Turkish or other minorities.

    LOL. If any nation holds a patent on "ignore history, repeat its errors" that would be the U.S. .. But -- as you were speaking of slavery --

    There has obviously been progess from the classical way of slave-holding (imagine the outrageous cost of importing, keeping and feeding them). Nowadays, there is no need to spend any money on would-be slaves. Just have their local chieftains pass laws "harmonizing the market", then send your lawyers to claim the rewards of their labor for your coffers.

    Todays system is called "Intellectual Property" and we are called "consumers". But in the end it still means "we own you".

  100. vision scientist??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF!! is a "vision scientist"? this is a troll

  101. This was also implemented in Halifax Airport by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    back in December of 2003.

    Of course, it was being sold a voluntary method of fast-tracking through the regular security check process. But it's only a matter of time. . .

    The insanity isn't coming. It's here. It's just getting worse, is all.


    -FL

  102. Scope Creep by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This is "for your identification, and your security" then after the people approve it for 'their safety' " oh by the way, it can also determine drug usage.."

    Orwell had no clue how bad its gonna get... he only scratched the surface.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  103. So that must be why by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    When I tried the iris recognition system at the millenium dome (i.e. in 2000) and got scanned in, when I went to the other machine a couple of metres away it didn't recognise me?

  104. Two year old news by kop · · Score: 1

    March 27, 2002
    AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Amsterdam's Schiphol airport is claiming success in a biometric security system that scans eyes and allows passengers to bypass traditional passport control.

    Schiphol is one of several major European airports embracing new technology to win back passenger confidence amid security fears following September 11.

    London's Heathrow is holding similar trials while some U.S. airports, including New York's JFK and Washington's Dulles, are also considering the scheme.

    Read the whole article
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/2 7/schipho l.security/

    I must say that it makes me feel like a second class citizen to stand in line waiting to have my passport checked at schiphol and seeing people in expensive suits zooming trough the biometric check

  105. Re:Iris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... I find this interesting.

    Background; I am English. Something over a year ago, I found a job in Germany. Before, I'd lived in France, and found it was great fun - lots of new experiences, learning about a culture, one usually finds that previously held stereotypes are both explained and excused when one really gets to understand a place. So I was expecting to get to know and like the place.

    Foreigners of course tend to get to know each other at Deutsch als Fremdsprache courses and so on. And I've heard some real horror stories from others, like a Russian friend who got a night of prison for 'failing to produce proper ID in a timely manner' and any number of people who suffered from harassment (verbal and physical) at work or even on the streets.

    You're right; Turkish people aren't particularly in danger of discrimination and there's a widespread acceptance of them, though I've heard some pretty nasty comments here and there - for example, I mention to my fortunately ex-boss that there's a couple of Turkish ladies at the German course, who says "The only thing you're likely to learn from them is kebab recipies".

    Southern German society is actually rather closed; attitudes persist that you wouldn't believe (and will never meet unless you go there as a badly-accented foreigner). The same, by the way, is true of pretty much every society. But one has to realise it.

    And I applaud your reaction to the citizenship laws. I cannot imagine how they stood so long. If I spent a few years in France and put through the right papers, I would become French. A French friend of mine just put through the papers for English citizenship with no problems. But thirty years in Germany would not suffice, because outsider blood is not hereditarily German... that, in a nutshell, is elitism. Seriously worrying from a philosophical perspective.

    One of my theories is that Germans, having learnt English rather effortlessly during childhood, simply find it difficult to believe that foreigners can find German difficult, and therefore consider poor German to be a sign of laziness and stupidity...

  106. Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in case any of you have passed through Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, iris scanning has been used there voluntarily for almost 2 years now. The system is called privium and is used by frequent travellers. Instead of waiting in long passport lines, you get to shoot through quickly.

    http://www.privium.nl (there is an english button on the page if your dutch is a bit rusty)

  107. iris is the pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dummy..

  108. Re:Iris by cmbofh · · Score: 0

    > But thirty years in Germany would not suffice,
    > because outsider blood is not hereditarily
    > German... that, in a nutshell, is elitism.

    That, in a nutshell, is just not true.
    Where did you get that from?

    Normally, after eight years of (legal) residence in Germany one has the *right*
    to get the full German citizenship. Besides there are other circumstances where
    the authorities *may* grant it earlier.

    One thing that may prevent it even after eight years is if you have committed any serious
    crimes but I think that's not surprising, and isn't the case for the majority of people.

    Source:
    http://www.einbuergerung.de/47_44.htm (Site in German)

    > One of my theories is that Germans, having
    > learnt English rather effortlessly during
    > childhood, simply find it difficult to believe
    > that foreigners can find German difficult, and
    > therefore consider poor German to be a sign of > laziness and stupidity...

    I can only speak for myself, but let me assure
    you that I don't think that way. I realise that
    the German grammar is not easy compared to the English one.
    And that makes me appreciate the
    effort of trying it anyway even more.

    (BTW: I'm from Southern Germany myself)

  109. Adaptive Biometrics by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
    If you use a medium that can be updated (such as a smart card) as your biometric template ocntainer, then implementing adaptive biometrics is quite simple.

    There are a variety of techniques. One is to "merge" the last successful match with the template, creating a new template that is an average of the two. Over time the eye can change and the template will track those changes.

    Another is to simply generate a new template from each successful match. Store the most recent n templates. When matching consider a match to be successful if it matches m out of n templates where m is some number less than n.

    Of course if the iris were to change rapidly or even if it changed slowly and you didn't travel for an extended period then these techniques wouldn't be helpful. But they would work well for those who travel occasionally (or more frequently) even with moderate changes in the biometric over time.

  110. no, they should've gone to egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Egypt is closer than US,
    still not 1-2days away like Germany,
    but so what

  111. Frankfurt Airport using Irisrecognition by irisman · · Score: 1

    I went throgh most of the articles reffering to the Frankfurt Airport installation of Irisrecognition. Some of the comments are not even worth a response(especially the Nazi- ones !) but some show a lack of knowledge and quite some disturbance. As we provided the Iris-Part to the Frankfurt installation, I would like to get back to facts. 1) Does the Iris change ? Yes, the pigmentation of the Iris changes. Other than the pigmentation, the Iris is not changing naturally. Of course we know about several deseases, which might affect the Iris. Changes of the Iris color (pigmentation) does not have an impact on Irisercognition, as the Iriscameras take a black/ white picture of the eye ! We do NOT take a coloured photograph, NOR do we use bright light or laser beams ! The photograph is taken from a distance of 7 to 60 cm. 2) The Frankfurt Installation: The use of the automated border crossing system happens voluntarily. It is actually a Fast Track system for simplified passenger travel. The IrisCode is generated at an enrollment center, wherepassengers are enrolled on the basis of their passport. The users have to agree to their participation. If they whant to be deleted from the database they just have to tell it to the authorities. No code is stored on a card (like in Shipol) or in the passport. It is a 1:1 verification system, using a biometric. Thats it. 3) 99,99% accuracy: Irisrecognition offers an statistical accuracy of 1:1E78. In all pilots and installations, there have been no false accepts reported so far. 4) Use of contact lenses or other fakes: Irisrecognition does not simply use a picture but uses a hash of the human iris. Fakes like pictures and lenses will be recognized by so called countermeasures implemented in the software. After extensive research of private and governmental institutions, these CMs where tested and proven so far. This is the reason, why Iridians software received the Common Criteria certification by the end of 2003. For more detailed information on Irisrecognition, please have alook at the following websites: - Prof. John Daughman, Inventor of Irisrecognition http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/ - Iridian Technologies http://www.iridiantech.com/basics.php?page=1 or feel free to contact me. Best regards A.Lau byometric systems GmbH

  112. Re:Iris by quax · · Score: 1

    I am very sorry for the bad experiences that your friends made. I won't deny that discrimination of foreigners is persistent and it will differ for foreigners depending on the national background.

    Russians are probably especially vulnerable to the kind of police harassment that you described because your average cop will immediate equate Russian with Russian mafia until proven innocent. Not a pretty picture. They would almost certainly not enforce the ID law if you'd be fluent in German or English and can explain to them how you are and what you're about.

    Since my American wife was an accented foreigner I believed I was getting some insight on how your average German approaches an English speaker. Either they would immediately try to speak English with her or later when her accent was too good to recognize that she was a foreigner they mistook her for slow of mind. The latter always drove her furious.

    BTW Germany shares these stupid citizenship laws with Switzerland. In fact there they are even stricter that in Germany even if married to a Swiss person they will make it very hard for you to become Swiss.

    I simply do not understand these laws. To me there is no point in defining a nation on an ethnic basis. Germany has a vibrant culture that can stand on its own. We should dispose of this historic baggage in a hurry and follow the French lead again.

    Almost all modern days laws in Germany go back to Napoleon. It's about time we finish the job and model citizenship and separation of church and state after the French example as well.