Slashdot Mirror
Cry To Beat Iris Scanners
Ant writes "The Register has an article on how crying beats iris scanners. An MP who volunteered to take part in the UK ID card trials says the iris scanner used is uncomfortable and made his eyes water... The water in his eyes actually stopped the scanner from working, and it seems long eyelashes and hard contact lenses could fox it too... So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes?"
Hm, so technology meets the sterotypical cop: bat your eyelashes, cry a little and get out of the ticket.
A little learning never hurt anyone.
You mean they're not infallible? WAAAAAHHHHHH!
Oops...guess that didn't do much to help them, either, did it?
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
should I water on my RFID-ed things too?
Sig. No Sig.
Against people without eyes. But there aren't many people without eyes I guess.
For the 123rd time. *How* does biometric data prevent terrorism or halt illegal immigration or any of the things it's meant to do?|
Terrorists: Is any (known) terrorist worth his/her salt going to fly on their own passport. What's stopping them getting a *real* passport with the correct Biometerics on a different name?
Immigration: Anyone who wants to immigrate enough will get the *real* id in a fake name!
Stopping Criminals: Yes because criminals are moral enough not to have fakes!
The trade off isn't worth it. The only person this effects is you: the law abiding honest citizen. Life is no harder for any of the above groups.
Simon.
There's no crying in iris scanning!
So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes?
We already have a system like that. It's called Windows.
_
Download AWESOME music here (lame encoded).
So the only people that can be succesfully scanned are Vulcans? :)
I've never seen one of those cry
This is the sig that says NI (again)
"So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes?" Yes. They're called women.
..David Blunkett through an iris test, or would his guide dog suffice?
I bet sandpaper works too!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sure, there's a problem with it correctly identifying the real people. But is this really "beating" the scanner?
Just a thought...
It's designed to make contractors money.
This sort of things happen all the time when you're using a new technology. Nothing just works as expected the first time round, and it's precisely because of such issues that people innovate.
And, IIRC, the UK is just doing a trial run of this biometric ID card thingy, and the purpose of such trial runs are to catch "gotchas" like this.
I'm not going to rant on the "privacy issues"... heck, my country uses an ID card system as well, and as far as I'm concerned, it eases a lot of trivial processes (loan applications, etc. etc.) and in case something happens to me, at least people will know who I am.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
I recently had a bad fall and ended up in hospital (no need to mention the shopping trolley and the amount of alcohol that caused this situation)
After some standard tests, the doctor spotted that one of my iris's (sp?) was larger than the other, which had something to do with the head trauma.
Basically that means that if you need to pass an eye scan, just drink lots, grab a trolley, fall on your head, and nothing will be able recognise you by your eyes any longer as the features of them will have changed.
(probably talkin s%$t, but i could be right, right??)
long fluttering eyelashes and watery eyes have always derailed a lot of systems...and men :-)
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Anyway, when I go get my eyes examined, there's this machine taking a picture of my retina and blowing air into it so as to remove water. Oh and they ask me to remove my lens first, imagine!
contact lenses that are designed to beat iris scanners, perhaps by using some kind of process that would allow you to print a hologram onto a soft contact lens. I'd buy some, but then I like fucking with our idiot national security/oppression apparatus whenever I can.
I wouldn't mind if more people with long eyelashes worked at my company.. Oh well, geeks we are..
I have eyelashes long enough that they rub on most sunglasses I wear. They also blur my peripheral vision unless I open my eyes up really wide. How long do they have to be to interfere with such a system?
:)
I've never been game to trim them though
My daughters have inherited the long eyelashes though and they suit them much better.
It's only even effective against peopole who have been smuggled into the country without ID, which already happens, if people are routinely expected to produce ID in their daily lives. Is this the sort of world we want to live in? Blunket neds to be forced to admit exactly what his plan is and how it works. At the moment it's just smoke and mirrors.
They're just using it to push for more control, under the guise of protecting the population from the evil terrorists. Pretty standard issue behavior. Wait for some event (9/11), then use it as a catalyst to make a power play when everyone is distracted. At least this administration is being damn obvious about it.
I may just start selling signs that say "Secure Area: No Chopped Onions Allowed".
What's stopping them getting a *real* passport with the correct Biometerics on a different name?
Well, in the Bush/Ashcroft 1984 utopia, the biometric identifiers are not only stored on your passport, but also in centralized databases. They aren't only used to tie you to your passport, but they are also used to retrieve possibly matching identities from those centralized databases.
Furthermore, the same centralized databases contain assessments of how much of a threat you likely pose, based on detailed information about where you have traveled, what kinds of political views you have stated in public forums (and maybe in private), the results of surveillance, contacts, purchasing history, insurance history, habits, and interests.
Immigration: Anyone who wants to immigrate enough will get the *real* id in a fake name!
That one's even easier. The general idea is that all US citizens would have their biometric identifiers registered in central databases with an indication that they may enter the country. Furthermore, the biometric identifiers of everybody who has ever been denied entry would also be registered. When you appear at the border and your biometric identifiers fall into the first category, you are permitted in. If they fall into the second category, you won't be let in, no matter what your (probably fake) passport says. And if you fall in between--well, prepare for a long wait.
Furthermore, even if the biometric identifiers are not reliable enough to be able to distinguish between hundreds of millions of people in centralized databases, governments are also assuming that they can make id cards that are sufficiently forgery-proof to make "just getting a *real* id in a fake name" rather difficult.
I'm not saying that any of this will work. I'm just saying that, if you assume that biometric identifiers actually work reliably and/or that you can produce ids that are difficult to fake, you can concoct scenarios in which they would be useful for the intended purpose.
I think those are big "ifs", but if you are going to attack these policies, I think you need to dig a little deeper to do so.
from Pondexter (yes the evil big brother guy) where he said "in a lot of ways we have the worst of both worlds: no security and no privacy".
x te r.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/poinde
(It was in this past wired, good article)
Im glad
All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid state IDs. I think about that while I'm showing my ID to the sixth person in the airport. Speaking of those guys, there was big report released last month showing that the federal TSA baggage screeners were just as incompetent as the private employees they replaced. It's all window dressing to make you feel safe enough to go out and spend your money. Meanwhile, our ports are wide open to someone slapping a stamp on a bomb.
-B
There is a common drug, atropine, that is available as eye drops. It is used to dilate pupils so doctors can see the retina. It is easily available.
Two drops, one in each eye, and you don't have a pupil.
Terrorists: Is any (known) terrorist worth his/her salt going to fly on their own passport. What's stopping them getting a *real* passport with the correct Biometerics on a different name?
Once they have a database they can at least make the comparison between citizens and aliens. If taken to the extreme degree needed to defeat terrorists and profile thier movements you would need to have an automated eyescan system like in the movie Minority Report. This method, for example, could be used to profile terrorists doing practice runs on airplanes if automated iris scanners were installed in all airports (where it would be the most useful). If it was taken to a lesser degree, you could at least know how many previously unrecognized iris scans exist (and give them increased scrutiny).
Immigration: Anyone who wants to immigrate enough will get the *real* id in a fake name!
Obviously something like could be complemented with a national id card (with its own secure key). If the key isn't in the database of citizens, then it would be invalid.
Stopping Criminals: Yes because criminals are moral enough not to have fakes!
Generally criminals are caught because they are stupid. This wouldn't catch the smart ones, just the ones who are only moderately stupid.
The title of the post is poorly worded. Crying doesn't BEAT iris scanners -- that seems to imply that by crying, the iris scanner goes "okay, you're good." Instead, the iris scanner FAILS if you cry. That means, if your eyes water, the iris scanner may not recognise you.
Needless to say, this makes a lot more sense, and is actually more acceptable. After all, (and here's my layman's view coming in) iris scanners are essentially cameras with some pretty cool-dude computer vision algorithms in the back. If your eyes are teary, the CV algorithms get messed up -- it's kind of like having a distortion lens (like an oddly shaped magnifying lens) on the front of the camera.
References? Or is this more unsubstantiated FUD?
http://www.iris-recognition.org/counterfeit.htm
While people may joke about this technology and the whole id verification process/big brother, the fact is that its here to stay and I'd rather that flaws like this one are discovered in the initial test stages than having to spend hours proving who I am at an airport.
Remember, this is one of the few things ever in the UK where you are expected to co-operate, and in return you gain nothing (taxation and council tax are the others). Even in those, people buy in because they can see the reason.
Most things which you apply for (eg a driving license, passport) entitle the person to something.
If people can work out a way of defeating this, they will. Criminals will want a false/unregistered identify and libertarians will thwart it.
Nationwide Building Society ran a trial of an Iris ATM. Of course, in that case, people want their scans to be accurate.
Furthermore, even if the biometric identifiers are not reliable enough to be able to distinguish between hundreds of millions of people in centralized databases, governments are also assuming that they can make id cards that are sufficiently forgery-proof to make "just getting a *real* id in a fake name" rather difficult.
A UK reporter was able to obtain a *real* fake ID for just over a grand. Through a network of bribes.. It's not as hard as you think..
Ask yourself this: How much do you recon they pay their staff at the passport issuing office? Now ask yourself how much that passport could be worth to someone! The math does itself.
ID cards are flawed because you can't secure a system that large. Criminals have cash to 'invest' in perverting your system.
Simon
haha.. Lesson 2 in security. Authenticating a person doesn't tell you their motive.
Simon.
Where I work we use these iris scanners. I wear glasses for my astigmatism and the system reads just fine through my glasses, unless I turn them perpendicular to my face. Other people who work here have to remove their glasses regardless.
Also, people will rely on the DNA database as evidence, and not do the proper police/intelligence work. Fakers will escape the net. I always remember a maths teacher telling us to apply "sanity tests". Like roughly do the maths in your head and then check against the detailed calculations. The problem with systems over humans is that this is often not done (A bit like "why didn't Saddam fire those WMDs if he had them?")
If you do a test run with 1000 individuals,and find that 4% of the subjects are identified as someone else, then you really have a problem.
If you then scale up to 1 million people, you will find that a MUCH larger percentage of people will be misidentified: There is a much larger database of people who might have an iris that to the computer looks almost the same. That's when the shit hits the fan.
Who knows if it will flop or fly for what you've described it for, but I can think of a lot of good uses for it in the private sector.
Current time clock systems allow for a lot of cheating. "Here's my timecard, I'm going home early. Please clock me out". Timecard fraud becomes much easier to prevent when you can't just give someone your card to clock you out.
Most people HATE remembering passwords. If given the choice, most people would gladly trade in all their pins and passwords for the ability to have an iris scan identify them. Even if told it's not perfect.
What about cars? I'd love to be able to just open my door and while my hand is in contact with the handle scan my fingerprint and remember how I like my seat, mirrors, etc. adjusted.
I remember when Netscape first introduced cookies everyone was up and arms about the privacy issues. People were PISSED. And yes, plenty of people have abused cookies. But the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Almost all current web login systems use cookies. If we didn't have cookies we'd have to use a dirty work around like putting cookie data in the url for GET requests (which is incredibly insecure).
Biometrics are a good thing for day to day life. Very rarely does anything that sets out to change the world actually do; but it can definatly make the world a little easier to live in and help the average person immensely.
No, all it proves is that you are not on the system. You may have not registered, your file may be untracable, the system may have destroyed or corrupted it.
Let's say a policeman stops me and I can't find my ID. I could say that I must have lost it. Then they can't find me on the system - so, they lost it.
What's stopping them getting a *real* passport with the correct Biometerics on a different name?
Nothing. It will only get matchs for people already in the database. Any terrorist worth his salt won't be in the database in the first place.
Yes, it will be inspected on arrival, but will get also the benefit of the doubt, or the US will have to close all the frontiers permanently...
Immigration: Anyone who wants to immigrate enough will get the *real* id in a fake name!
Things aren't white/black in the world... You can get barred from entrering in US because you wanted to work and had only a turist visa... When you get a work visa you will be granted access. Same happens for students all over the world that get sponsorships to study in US.
In the end, biometric will lock people inside/outside, but will leave terrorists walking around freely. You can't change your biometrics once it's taken... a terrorist won't give a damm... as it doesn't expect survival.
In the end, the Joe Does loose the battle...
First they are confiscating fingernail clippers next it'll be eye drops. Will using eye drops in an airport mean an automatic strip search? People with contacts beware.
The pain with biometrics is, that it is so sexy and so hyped up, that people aren't willing to look at the numbers behind it. Contrary with what privacy and security people always shout, the biggest problem isn't that it doesn't stop criminals and terrorists. The single biggest problem of biometrics is its failure rate.
If you want to roll out biometrics on a massive scale, an accuracy of 0.1 percent chance for falsely rejecting a person means that at an average large airport, like JFK, Atlanta, Heathrow means that 1 in a thousand scans fails. Now this might not sound as a big chance, but since you need to go through the biometric scanner twice, when you get on or when you get off. So this reduces the amount of people nescessary for failure to 500. Result is that with the hundreds of millions flying on a yearly basis in Europe and the US over 100.000 people might not get on or off a plane.
You might be one of them!
Use Adsense for Charity
It stopped the scanner from working != gave a false postive on the scanee.
This thing isnt going to let anyone by who has watery eyes, its just going to give an error and ask them to scan again. Just like a bank card with a weak magnetic strip. They dont just automatically aprove your purchase, it gives an error and asks you to swipe again.
Of course, I'm very skeptical on how biometrics helps ANYTHING..but this is outlined well in a +5 post here..read that.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
*Ahem* Uh, yeah, excuse me, but i'm FBI agent and i'm going to be "investigating" your daughters for possible terrorist links. So if you would kindly hand over all known photos of them, allong with their phone numbers so that I may "contact" them if nessecary.
Thank you for your cooperation.
...
*Runs like hell*
Given that the integrity, honesty, competence and trustworthiness of those at the top of the political power-pyramid has been well and truly drawn into question by recent events related to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, am I the only one worried that these centralized databases of personal ID and info represent a *huge* potential for abuse?
:-(
It really scares me that what was frightening science fiction yesterday, looks like becoming reality tomorrow.
Looks as if one of our most important rights (the right to privacy and anonmymity) is about to be exponged forever -- with narry a whimper from the general population.
When *used* only as promised, modern sophisticated ID and tracking systems may pose no threat to the general public -- but what happens when (and that is *when*, not "if") they are abused?
What protection mechanisms are incorporated to stop some bureaucrat or politician (ab)using such a system to track a foe and use that information for their own means?
Isn't about time we told our politicians to back off and mind their own business?
While I'm most certainly not anti-American, I think the simplest and most effective way that the USA could reduce the risk of terrorist attacks is by getting out of Iraq and stop trying to expand its empire and the reach of its military muscle.
I can imagine how much better life would be for US citizens if the US government spent as much on the health, welfare and education of its own people as it has on war in the past 60 years or so -- and ultimately, what have they got to show for their involvement in Vietnam, Granada, Somalia, Iraq, etc?
Yeah, we all know that Saddam was a despot -- but I'd wager that there are just about as many people who regard Bush as a despot. Surely that gives them no more right to attack the USA than the USA had to attack Iraq. All sides in this battle are completely and utterly mad.
Uh-oh, off topic
This seems a worrying trend with biometric systems - even innocent fear/nerves cause physiological changes which can cause a scanner to give a 'no match' scenario. If biometric ID were to become compulsory, there is the distinct possibility of this problem becoming a real danger to the population.
For example, if you have some nerves or phobia about the screening process (big men with guns, what-ifs about false positives), your physiology changes, and your biometrics no longer match your card. You are therefore taken in for further questioning.
Even if you are cleared, the next time it happens, you are more nervous, and eventually this becomes a common event for you.
In extreme cases, some people's reinforced phobia would then prevent them claiming benefits, travelling, anything that the ID was required for, sine they fear the accusations and questioning.
This is similar to effects seen on the now-discredited polygraph, still in use by agencies worldwide.
For example, I always get tense going through metal detectors. This is partly due to a childhood visit to Washington from the UK, when by accident I triggered the bomb detectors on a visit to the CIA buildings. (I was about 7, and didn't realise my pocket fan would set off the detectors.) I was taken away from my parents, and searched. This is a big thing when you're seven, and now these sorts of checks make me (irrationally, I know) very twitchy.
If failing these tests due to phobia were to become a pattern with me, even if it meant I was often singled out in any sort of official process, I am sure my phobia's symptoms would increase, just driving up the error rate. Positive feedback, you see.
Now that sweat is suspected of speading SARS, are Iris scanners a new and more deadly health hazard. Same for print readers.
Considering the recent Channel 4 documentary about Royal Mail, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
In fact, I can forsee illegal immigrants coming here to give people fake IDs. Mix up the DNA with the photo, and all of a sudden, some Nigerian/Afghan guy has been committing a load of crimes.
The problem with ID systems is that people assume it's going to be infallible because of the uniqueness of DNA and Iris, whilst ignoring the issues around them like verification.
Secondary tests revealed that he doesn't have glaucoma.
(I hate that damn 100 PSI glaucoma test. You might think your dentist is sadistic. I *know* my opthamologist is a complete psycho.)
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, great theory. I suspect that your trolling, but am replying because there are actually people in the world naiive enough to believe the libertarian tripe.
Questions: Why does the US, with the highest gun ownership have more firearm homicides than the rest of the world combined? You might squeal correlation!=causation, but in this case, explain the relationship.
A far better approach to gun control is simply to declare 30 years non-parole jail for unlicensed posession of a firearm, and make a license hard to get. Criminals who carry unlicensed guns can then be safely removed from the rest of society, even if they've not yet used it for a crime. I doubt there'd be many people left carrying guns then. (if it doesn't work, institute the death penalty for an unlicensed weapon).
The rest of your libertarian nonsense is so laughable that I won't cover it hear. Reply to this if you actually want to take it further.
I was going to write a critical response to your post, but I'm afraid you would track me down and shoot me.
I stole this
...and they thought to beat the system they had to ... ... ...all the time the answer was so easy!
1. hack the software(mmm...los of them)
2. change the iris (minority report)
3. buy costly contact lenses(barb wire)
4. bribe people(should i mention?)
Although, I agree with some of what you say. I'm not anti gun, and feel that a good standing citizen should have the right to own a gun (with the necessary background checks). I'm very nervous with a society where most people have the ability to take someone's life 24/7. There have been times where I see two people get into such an argument that a "good citizen" may turn bad for a second and not realize/care about the consequences and if a gun was present, then someone surely would be dead. Then you can argue that the other, could equally defend themselves, but someone would probably die where as if there were no guns present, no one would.
As for letting those carry guns on a plane, I think that is just plain stupid. As we know that terrorist may only want to take the plane down, and that would be pretty easy with a gun. Shoot a window out and while the plane decompresses, start shooting others. The decompression will keep you busy and not let you defend yourself. With several doing this, that could easily be done. So, no, armed citizens on a plane do not solve that problem.
As, I mentioned, I'm not anti-gun, but you really need to think about all the possibilities to something, than just say this would solve the problem. Because frankly, it wont. You just get other problems that may be just as bad, if not worse. But, you are right, I still believe that a citizen has the right to own a gun for protection. We just need to find the balance where this can help the most.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Welcome to the uk where the police want to ban bb guns, if you carry an air rifle the police can and will shoot you. To coin a frace help help I'm being opressed.
Terrorists: Is any (known) terrorist worth his/her salt going to fly on their own passport. What's stopping them getting a *real* passport with the correct Biometerics on a different name?
Especially if said terrorist has the resources of a nation state behind him or her. In any such ID system there will be mechanisms for issuing bogus identities with valid biometrics. For such things as undercover cops, spies, "witness protection", etc.
Stopping Criminals: Yes because criminals are moral enough not to have fakes!
Assuming also that the real issue is linking said criminal to said crime. As opposed to demonstrating that said suspect actually is who you think they are. If someone is either caught "red handed" or forensic evidence links them to a crime what does it matter if they arn't who they say they are.
There is also the drawback that such a system would provide opportunities to criminals, especially in the field of identity theft.
Also for the 123rd time...
What possible value is there in making me carry a card around with me that matches my eyes/fingerprints? I ALWAYS carry my eyes and fingeprints with me at all times. Does anyone other than me spot the redundancy here?
The standard reasoning is that the card carrys more than just eye/print data.
Well, if you want to store data that relates to terrorists eyes/fingerprints, isn't it obvious that that data should be held somewhere a bit more secure and tamperproof than in the terrorist's pocket?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
...people with security clearance, with one or both their eyes missing. That will mean the iris scanners have been improved!
(and if you see those people without fingers... well, that will mean electronic fingerprint recognition became popular)
Sigged!
Once they have a database they can at least make the comparison between citizens and aliens.
Assuming that the "database" is secure against alterations. Any government using such a system will require that falsified and completely bogus identities can be created and that they be indistinguishable from real identities. It wouldn't do for someone's ID to carry metadata which equates to "undercover law enforcement". It would only require one criminal or blackmailable person with the relevent access for this assumption to be false.
Rather gruesomely, the system checked for a pulse in the iris to ensure that you hadn't got a life-size photograph...or cut off the account owner's head.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
What do you call a deer with no eyes?
No idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?
Still no idea.
Feel free to mod as OT...I'll get my coat
"The only way to effectively protect a free society is to arm the citizens."
Yeah, I can see how good it works.
Someone in a bank swearing at the cashier gets shot because some other guy thinks he robs the bank.
And hijacking a plane is much easier with a gun to your hand, and with enough people and some force you can easily control others. What helps your gun when your dead before you can reach it? Bye the way: shooting in a plane is a bad idea. And how can you distinguish someone going to the toilet with his gun from a highjacker?
Yeah, protect the border with citizens. Pile their fallen boddies 20 foot high all around the US. If citizens have guns, the bad guys get better ones.
"We already know that the majority of citizens in a free society are logical, just, and fair."
Huh, where do you get that from? I have seen just the opposit. Most of the citizens are illogical, preoccupied and egositic. And in masses it gets worse, you only need some leader, the rest follows blindly.
"They don't need police to tell them when it is okay to shoot a rapist, or to tackle a purse snatcher."
Right. And to shoot an nigger, and to kick the small neighbour child, and to burn down abortion clinics.
Weapons dont help, and iris scanners either. A little bit common sense should do the trick.
And whoever finds irony may keep it.
If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear, citizen.
Wow! I almost managed to type that with a straight face.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Iris scanners have a failure rate of around 4% -> 7%. This is a failure to identify a legitimate person against a *previously stored scan*. I.e. the scan stored in your biometric card or the scan stored in the government database.
Fingerprint scanners have a failure rate of around 2%.
Facial scanners have a failure rate of 10+%.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
My mum died last night, I'm goin to a rob a bank. Now all i need is my trusty tricorder from my 1/3 replica of an enterprise refresher station. Live long and prosper!
I shall be running a medical practice just outside Manaus, Brazil. Rather than in Dorset. Nerds welcome. No ID necessary.
On the principle of perfect biometric tests, there aren't any.
Orwellian dystopic visions seem to me to be symptomatic of a power structure which is entering a terminal phase.
"it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism" - David Blunkett 3 July 2002
(entitlement card was the proposed name for ID card back then)
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes?"
:-]
Yeap its called my love life
Jaj
Both Labour and the Conservatives support the introduction of biometric ID cards. Labour because they believe it will give them control and the Conservatives because of the amount of money their contributors are going to make while rolling the system out.
We're lucky in that there is one party who are definitely against ID cards, the Liberal Democrats, but realistically, they don't matter. The UK has an election system which favours the largest minority (35%-40% is enough), handing them a disproportionate majority in parliament (around 60%).
P.S. For UK residents, the BBC has a campaign page for those who are against ID cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/G114
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
He ain't no libertarian. He's Religious Right. Read his journal. Utterly bonkers.
Ask yourself this: How much do you recon they pay their staff at the passport issuing office? Now ask yourself how much that passport could be worth to someone! The math does itself.
In Bush's mindset, any staff person that would do such a thing should probably be considered a terrorist and can just be shipped off to Guantanamo without a trial, where they can be raped and tortured courtesy of the US government. Given that downside, faking ids for a few bucks probably seems a lot less appealing to the staff.
ID cards are flawed because you can't secure a system that large.
You can't in a freewheeling democracy with normal legal protections. But if you make the state sufficiently totalitarian and the punishments sufficiently severe, as history has shown, that sort of thing does actually work, at least for a while. And that's where Bush and Ashcroft are heading; they just aren't aware of the historical precedents they are following.
Please, if you start giving your citizens the right to kill anybody they think looks suspicious, you have nothing more than vigilante justice on your hands. Society would break down, there would be no law, any attempts to prosecute anybody would just end in more deaths.
It would just be anarchy. we wouldn't govern oursleves. The people with the biggest guns would govern us.
I had ops for cataracts when I was a child. As a result my pupils aren't the nice round sort the rest of you have but are sort of ragged. I wonder how Mr Blunkett's rinky-dinky little fascist scanner equipment will cope with my eyes?
Well no matter, hopefully me and the soon-to-be-missus will have emigrated to somewhere saner by the time the "voluntary" ID cards will have stopped being voluntary.
I have - it's one of the things I've noted in the margins of my printout of the consultation document (120 pages of PDF). Comments are invited, closing date is the 20th of July. I suspect the government's answer will be that it allows banks and other non-government parties to check your biometrics without having access to the National Identity Register.
Rather than giving someone your timecard, you just make a mould of your finger and they press that against the fingerprint reader.
u ri ty/164704.html
Not only can you make a mould of a finger from a willing participant (and why not if you want to commit fraud against an employer). You can create fake fingerprints from residual prints that someone has left behind.
http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/locks_and_sec
So, how easy do you want it to be for someone to steal your luxury car?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
What I find somewhat amusing is that any iris-scanner type system would fail completely on the main proponent of these biometric systems in the UK - David Blunkett.
He's blind, and has two glass eyes. Oops! Time for the full cavity search, Mr Potential Terrorist!
Except (s)he was talking about the UK and not the US approach. If not for getting the country wrong, you'd be correct :-)
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
If you want to temp fate with a large territorial bird with a razor sharp beak, make sure you've got a buddy with a handycam. That shit cracks me up.
While Bipolar bears are currently undergoing rehabilitation from severe mood swings.
In practice, this is a nonsense argument. For example, most people here know that WinXP copy protection can be broken with the help of a few google searches that lead to a few russian websites. there are trivial ways to defeat masterlocks and the ordinary sort of locks that 'secure' house doors. modern money *can*, with enough patience and technical skill, be counterfeited.
And yet microsoft continues to have a keycode unlock to winxp, houses continue to have locks, and treasury departments still spend quite a bit per bill to give them 'security features.' why?
Because as anybody who would rather think about this for two seconds (rather than just whoring up for +5 insightful, as you have) could see, protection in a real and complex world is not about *absolute* protection, it's about decreasing the *rate* of violation/infringement.
I know several people who have bought XP where they pirated 95/98/whatever because of their fear of the online activation system. People continue to have locks on their houses because it will make their house less likely to be burgled, and the counterfeit protection on money stops all but the most determined counterfeiters.
Likewise, biometric data will NOT "prevent" or "halt" illegal immgrigration in an absolute sesns and it is unreasonable to claim that's what it's "meant to do." Rather, it will SLOW THE RATE of illegal immigration (if not terrorism--that is obviously less of a statistical process because of the smaller data set). What is stopping them from getting a *real* passport with teh correct biometrics in a different name? have you ever tried getting an illegal passport of the regular kind? it's not easy! now, try finding somebody who provides an illegal passport with an embedded chip in it! not easy at ALL, especially given that for example, you know, when a UK passport is scanned at a US border, the US queries (or can query) the UK systems to vouch for the authenticity of the passport.
To claim that anybody who wants to "immigrate enough" is bullshit. Sure, there will always be the top n% who are determined, clever, and connected enough to beat any system. But with inceased smart security such as biometrics in concert with other ideas, this n% becomes smaller and smaller.
MOD PARENT DOWN as he has provided NO INSIGHT
On the other hand I like the feeling that people are unlikely to be carrying guns around me. If I lived in the US I'd have a gun, as I live in the UK I can't. Which state would I prefer? Somewhere where I need to carry a gun to feel slightly safer, or somewhere where I don't feel that need?
is iris scanning a "good idea"?
Or does halley-burton own some iris-scanning patents?
In that case, I, for one, welcome our new techno info patent overlords.
"Dread"
it's for the most part understood.
I take it you've never been out drinking in Middlesbrough then ?
No. Try Google with this query:
..."US ports currently receive no federal funding for security infrastructure"...
unguarded us ports
First hit is schumer.senate.gov
- Everyone will travel under their real identity.
- There will exist no fake-but-valid-looking biometric identity-cards.
- Noone will be able to obtain real cards under an assumed name.
- The BigBrother database manages, by collecting various info on people will be able to group people in three classes: terrorist, suspect and innocent.
- "terrorists" are denied air-travel, "suspects" are subjected to a more thorough search.
- False negatives for "terrorist" will be only 25%, only 1% of all "innocents" will falsely be labeled suspect or terrorist.
Now, every single one of those assumptions are very optimistic, I have no faith at all that a system could possibly work this well. Still, even with a system like the above, gaming the system to virtually guarantee success is trivial:- The staff manning checkpoints has a finite capacity to check/search people.
- So, if one group of people ("suspects" are checked more, this *must* mean that others ("innocents") are checked less than today.
So here's what you do:- Send the vrious members of your terror-cell on a fligth-trip involving 4-5 fligths. Have a real and good explanation for the trip, carry nothing illegal whatsoever, and behave exemplary.
- 75% of the terrorists will be on the "terrorist" or "suspect" list. They'll notice this, because though you can't demand to know if you're listed or not, it's not hard to notice if you get denied boarding or not, nor if you get searched on every boarding or not.
- For the real attack, a month later, you use people from the 25% who you now know to be on the "innocent" list.
Since the system can only work by checking "suspects" more and "innocents" less, you have now improved your chasnes of success in comparison with a system without classification of passengers into groups.You could argue that this still cuts the number of available terrorrists usable for a plane-terror-mission by a factor of 4, but that's not very impressive. Especially not since most organisations capable of planning and carrying out a large attack have enough people available that being forced to choose between 1/4 of them is no large issue.
Furthermore, even this is optmitistic, because even with "secret" algorithms and "secret" data-collection for the "BigBrother" database, it'd still be more than possible to reverse-engineer atleast some of the criteria from the database simply from the publicly available information about what happens when various people try to fly.
Oh, and the 1% false positives will still cause a few million people to be hassled or denied air-travel alltogether, for no open reason. With no mechanism of appeal available, indeed even without the rigth to demand a answer to simple questions like "why can I not travel?" or "who decided that I can not travel?" or "what can I do to again be allowed travel?"
Just ask our new recruit Johnny here: "I used to just sit at the bus stop, picking my nose and annoying people, but this is much better!"
"Just pass our rigorous qualification test -" *yup, this one's breathing* "-and you're on your way to an exciting career!"
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Well, that will mean, people with a sens for anonymity should always have a pack of tiger balm in their pocket: Just rub it under your eyes and you'll start crying as hell! (Btw that is how they get actors in films to cry)
U.S : evil people with guns, check. Good guys with guns, check. U.K : evil people with guns, check. Good guys with guns, nope. Conclusion: You are much safer in the U.K. And therefore : Profit!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Authentication: "Yes, the password, ID check, and biometric scans all prove beyond a doubt you ARE Jeffrey Dahmer."
Permission: "No, Mr. Dahmer, you may not have a knife."
I work at a high security department of a large company. I have to pass the iris scan on a daily basis and have never had any trouble with the machine not accepting my eye. And you don't want to know how my eyes look after a weekend of drinking and barely no sleep. You don't have to open your eyes very wide or anything that would make your eyes water. You just look into the machine the same way as you normaly look at something.... Vere rarely the systems doesn't accept you the first time but when you try for a second time the system gets it. We are talking about a 10-15 second procedure so You can't copmplain about that. I don't see the problem.
Ports are still naked before the world. The upgrades (in theory) went into the airports.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
James Bond faked fingerprints in this movie by attaching thin fake prints to his fingers. Maybe not quite possible back in the 70's but not so far-fetched today.
This would give A) Fake fingerprints belonging to somebody else B) Body heat and pulse from real live fingers.
If you treat your employees like criminals, they'll live up to that reputation. If you treat them like adults, they'll live up to that too.
Though you clearly can't operate with a "trust environment" for some businesses, many would be wise to do so. The checks and balances that supposedly keep me from ripping off my employer would do little to keep me from doing so if I were determined.
Instead, they make me jump through all sorts of hoops, including having my team fill out PO's for me to sign instead of writing them myself. (I can sign their PO's for up to $12K, but if I request something myself, my signature authority is only $500. Go figure.)
This is just like your kids. Trust, but verify.
Tim
So, Bosnia and other hot-spots where they kill thousands of people don't count? Your question is predicated on a lie.
"...okay to shoot a rapist, or to tackle a purse snatcher..."
"...shoot an nigger, and to kick the small neighbour child, and to burn down abortion clinics..."
Uh, you *equate* the first two with the second three? You have a serious cause and effect discernation problem.
So my choice is either a 'fascist' society (its a constitutional monarchy with democratic, but authoritarian leanings) where we have to be ever vigilant about creeping controls, and a police force that knows who I am, and if I come to their attention by breaking their laws, they can track me or a 'free' society, where we have to be ever vigilant about everybody we see and talk to, as they can all deal instant death close up and at a distance. Where every asshole, thug, bully and person just generally having a bad day can kill anyone for anything as long as they can convince their neighbours that it was reasonable (or they still have their gun out!). Where those with biggest guns and best organization control everything they want, and can take anything they want. Right. That was a hard choice. Meanwhile, you've talked me into it. They are issuing the test IDs on the ground floor of this building. I'll go and join the queue. Trying not to step on anyone's toes in the process, of course.
He's blind you insensitive clod.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
1) Persuade existing UK citizens to carry out terrorist acts (they will have ligit IDs - in fact I would arrest the first 1000 people to register for an ID as these are probably terrorists keen to get an ID before they do something nasty)
2) Follow the existing illegal immigrant routes into the UK and commit the terrorist act within a few weeks of arriving.
Or some combination of the above - i.e. use UK citizens to acquire materials etc. using their IDs (don't tell me every mobile phone shop and garden centre is going to validate your ID before selling you some goods) and use the illegal immigrant route to bring in the bomber and the difficult to obtain stuff.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
There are new advances in iris scanners where the scanners can operate even if the individual being scanned is wearing colored contact lenses or even nonreflective sunglasses. Personally I don't understand how anyone could be uncomfortable getting their iris scanned. Retinal scanning requires close contact with the scanning machine, whereas for an iris scanner, you can be a distance away, because your iris is visible from a distance. Minority Report ring a bell?
Ironically, the creators of these systems are probably crying over this.
I've seen a green card for Janet Reno. Funniest @#%!@ thing.
(It was at a facility where green cards are produced as a demo. No, I'm not saying where. No, I can't make one for your dog.)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
it's a n^2ish problem, not a linear one,
each person on the list can be incorrectly identified as another person on the list.
So the more people you have the greater the percentage of people you can be missidentified as.
on 1000 people there's a 4% chance of being missidentified, assuming n^2 and scalling upto 1 million people you on adverage will match with 400 other people. (a 40000% fuckup)
(srq(4%) * 1million/1000) ^ 2.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"Please, if you start giving your citizens the right to kill anybody they think looks suspicious..."
Nobody said that, don't exaggerate for effect, it makes you look shrill. The right to defend one's self or others does not include the right to "kill anybody...". One still has to answer the consequences of one's actions. It's not black/white, there's lots of gray.
You're also ignoring the fact that systems such as we enjoy now were developed by exactly those people defending themselves and others.
"Society would break down, there would be no law, any attempts to prosecute anybody would just end in more deaths."
Presumption, and a false one.
That's right apparently different organisations will be able to use different levels of authentication dependant on there need, i.e. some people can just look at the photo on the card, others can look at the signature etc etc.
Personally I don't think any non government parties are going to use the card for anything, those which need authentication schemes, e.g. banks already have their own well established ones and aren't likely to change all that to rely on some government scheme outside of their control. Plus the fact that since it's not compulsory initially they can't rely on all their customers having a card and so if they were to embrace the ID cards they'd need to run two separate systems to cater for those on there normal authentication and those using ID cards.
Every traffic cop i've ever known. But, at least this thing itsn't fooled by big tits
So please go learn a littl bit about Monty Python, or stop smoking pot before moderating.
Well, the moderation amused me, but I think it makes sense - the point being that the "logic" displayed by Blunkett et al (eg, claiming that the public are in favour of ID cards by ignoring the responses of those not in favour, or the fact that ID cards have been pushed forward as a result of the Madrid bombings, even though the Spanish have ID cards - compulsory, IIRC - and worse that they use the fact that Spain has an ID card as an argument in favour of us having one, when the logic suggests that there is no such argument) is about as logical as that displayed by idiotic medieval witch hunters as portrayed in that scene.
That can be changed.
Nah, this is just what happens when starry-eyed techies meet the real world. The gadget works under perfect conditions, and now the field trials will shake out all of the practical problems that were not thought of in the lab.
I think the real impediment is going to be the natural trepidation of one who finds himself expected to submit his *eyes* to a machine which will decide whether he's good or evil.
Arrange for access to databases to be disrupted during planned time of entry.
Yes but they don't just say to themselves
"Hey, there goes a guy with an airgun"
"Yeah, let's shoot him"
They will most probably ask you what you are doing with the air gun and make sure you aren't planning on trying to convince anyone it's a real one in an attempt to rob them or you're not on the way to the zoo to shoot at the animals.
People committing crimes with replica guns or airguns and trying to pass them off as real ones should expect to get shot.
I have it on the best of authority that the ID systems have the biometrics of all known successful suicide bombers.
Thanks a bunch, guys.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I was taken away from my parents, and searched.
How was that even legal? Surely, as you were a minor at the time, your parents could legally demand to be present during the search?
I mean no disrespect to your parents, but in a similar situation, you'd separate me from my daughter over my dead body (well, all-but, but you get the idea).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Beating the device would imply somehow fooling it to granting you access. The crying effect makes it so the device will not work. So it might be a useless technology if some people can't use it.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
Math doesn't apply to everything.
"crying beats iris scanners"
This report is patently false. Why? This news comes from a politician. We all know that they void of human emotion therefore they cannot cry.
No you moron he's not 'equating' anything. His point is that if you let people decide for themselves what the law is then you will get a lot of different laws, e.g. some people will go an kill everyone in abortion clinics because it is against there own personal 'law', others will decide to kill sections of society they don't especially like. Certainly some people may decide to shoot rapists or murderers but the resulting slaughter does not in any way justify such a stupid idea.
The problem is that all of the biometric scanners will be expensive, the database subject to errors, ID cards subject to forgery, and anyone with allergies might be detained for unreasonable lengths of time whenever they travel.
There is a much better solution that would be very nearly as accurate, many times cheaper, and would allow for much faster processing.
When processing anyone at the border, simply have the guard wrap a gold colored rope around the person's waist and ask them 'are you a terrorist?'
|| going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes? ||
:)
Good to know that the greatest dangers to security systems since the dawn of time will continue to endure in the hi-tech 21st century.
Let's get those state secrets, girls!
Indeed. As has often been stated before (and I guess is therefore -1 Redundant!), the 9/11 hijackers all purchased tickets under their own names, and as is often the case with suicide missions, it was their first offence!
The UK ID Card scam is going to cost us millions of pounds and benefit only the government in it's mission to control us. Look at how the Labour Gov. tried to dig up dirt on the Ladbrook Grove train crash victims (including sexual orientation, political leanings, etc) to try and discredit them when they were saying some very damaging things about the government.
Trust this Government? Not bloody likely! ... and how can we possibly know what the next governments are going to be like!
Just Say NO!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
I'm probably not the first to think this but isn't this similar to swiping a scratched up credit card? The swiper doesn't shut off but it can't get your card info either. It doesn't just let you walk out without paying for your groceries...
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
ID checkpoints will only catch the stupid criminals based on the ID itself. But even a well-trained terrorist will have trouble not showing some nerves while being ID-checked by a uniformed officer. With proper training and experience, security officers could identify a pool of people with anamolous behavior that require further watching/screening.
Of course, the TSA probably doesn't train people in behavior observation, and the employees are low-paid and not well motivated. As Bruce Schneier said on the same subject: "We're taking smart people and replacing them with dumb technology, to the detriment of security."
To coin a "frace" (sic), you need to learn how to spell.
Here in the US, my brother tried to replace his driver's license (the de facto US identity card) because his old one was damaged. He tried to use cash to pay the fee for this (probably something like $20), but then he discovered the driver's license center would only accept a money order because the employees of the center weren't trusted to handle cash. Seriously! Our government over here doesn't even trust the people who hand out ID cards with twenty dollars of cash!
It would also fail on the UK's number one suspected Al Quada proponent, Abu Hansa, who has one eye and one arm, with a hook for a hand
Wait, I can hear it now. Someone's going to say, well then a potential terrorist can start crying, then you'll have to use conventional methods for some, which can be beat. No, how about develop a correct process around security. For example: if you're crying, then you don't get through, PERIOD. The next comment will be "but what if I perpetually cry"? As in a birth defect/mental illness that causes someone to constently cry. Oh well. 600 lb people don't whitewater kayak either. There are some disabilities that for this moment in technology remain disabilities.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Sorry.. I have to say that this article is BS (or they are using some pretty old technology)
Modern Iris recognition systems are completely unobtrusive. They use two video cameras, one for detecting the person, and another for zooming in on the eye. No lasers or infrared are needed, just video cameras without a flash.
The documentary I saw managed to get themselves the birth certificate for Frederick Forsyth, the author, to make a point. They were then able to get a driving license. A real one. With his name and details and the presenter's photo. Nothing Fake about it. From there who knows where you could go?
So before you spout off about it being difficult, look into it. There are weakpoints in every system, and exploiting them allows you to get real documentation at relatively little expense or trouble.
stupidity too.
Deported criminals will often come back under fake names and claim refugee status. There's definitley a use for this information, and it has a huge advantage over finger prints and dna because you can't secretly iris scan someone.
We were tourists in a strange land (America), it was all rather sudden - and my memory of it is rather hazy, to tell you the truth.
...not "it falsely validated him."
Both the register and this slashdot article act as if crying or eyelashes will 'authorize you' when in fact, it just ensures that you fail.
Nice reporting.
Loading...
I suppose this could be helped by creating airlock type situations that only one person at a time could go through, but the people don't want the hassle. To paraphrase Leia "The more secure you try to make a building, the more people will slip through your system."
The only way you can secure something is if it doesn't present too much of a hassle to people using it. Passwords are hard to remember, especially if they change often, so people write them down and use the same ones over and over again. ID tags make going into and out of a building less efficient, so people hold doors open out of courtesy, and don't wait to scan their tags if someone stops to hold the door open.
In addition to these problems, biometrics make the mistake of having non-revocable codes, so that when one is compromised, the only way to limit access is to revoke from the authorized user who was too unlucky/stupid to let it fall into the wrong hands. What happens when this person is a high ranking executive? Will they be fired just because someone lifted their fingerprints off of an envelope or hacked an iris scanner?
The only real solution would be RFID that is attached to the person, possibly by an implant but more probably by a card, linked to some sort of biometric recognition system. The RFID can be reprogrammed, or even used with multiple systems without interference. Coupling it with a biometric system would provide a backup in the event the card was forgotten or lost, simply to verify identity.
However, nothing could possibly stop ID theft. Systems should be designed to be secure, of course, but they should also be designed to be unobtrusive when they need to be used on large scales. If I could come into work every day and not have to touch a door, but also know that every entry is being guarded by an RFID system that knows who I am, coupled with, say, a facial recognition system that would trigger an alarm if the card carried did not match the picture on file, that would be an ideal system. Having to step up to a scanner every day would be difficult, and knowing that that is the only way people know me is scary.
You see, with biometrics, a compromise is FOREVER.
You are issued a card, with your biometrics encoded on it. Assume it is not tied to a central authority. The card can be "forged", and the biometrics add nothing to the security. We are talking about "illegal immigration" here, which a person will pay many thousands of dollars for. If it costs in excess of $1000 to forge the local biometric card, and the card can be issued for sufficiently low funds (say, under $20), then I would contemplate the measure.
Assume that the biometrics are tied to a central authority (and this is what is being proposed). If the data held by the central authority can be altered, people can be screwed. For life. Your identity could be co-opted by someone inserting other biometric data, or your biometric data could be associated with someone else.
Now, you are another person, with no real way of repudiating. This is not a password that can be changed, or a PIN number. It is *your* biometric data. If, suddenly, you (your biometrics) are on the FBI most-wanted... well... I'll leave it to you.
The question is then: do you trust the security of the central authority(ies)? The "UK" database, the "US" database, and "CDN" database? Do you believe that social engineering attacks won't be mounted or will fail? Because once the alteration is done, it will be almost impossible to undo.
Especially if the biometric id is taken to be good enough to be universal. The more it is relied on, the more at risk the central authority is.
And as your "n% becomes smaller and smaller" the risk approaches 100% (from my perspective -- you may be a genius security professional who can sucessfully 'vette such a system -- I am just a code monkey who has dealt with security).
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I read this seveal years ago, so the exact details may be fuzzy.
I remember reading that two crimals (19th century England?) had the same biomeric measurments. I couldn't find the exact case but I found something close.
related link
The purpose of this is not to solve the problem of terrorism, it is to solve the problem of unemployment ...
Most of the unemployed in East London are going to have highly paid jobs in the ID card forging business for the forseable future.
And it gives the police a cool excuse to harass people they are p*ssed off with "Yeah, sure your ID is in your other jacket/dog/why". Its really cool ...
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
That's why you need a good firewall.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
IT'd be more about security. Havinf one extra check means 1 extra step to fail and one extra thing for them to make. Make's it more difficult to commit identity fraud because they now have to be able to code biometric data. This will cut out a large portion of forgers.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> Actually, there are no polar bears in the Antarctica. Penguins yes, bears no.
....
Polar bears live in the Arctic,...
That's why there are no more penguins there.;-)
Still, it's about reducing the likly hood of making a *real* fake. Sorta of liek this, right now 60% of criminals can egt a *real* fake but only 30% will be able to do so with the biometric and if theres a central DB then it's on 10% that can afford to bribe everybody involved and it leaves a lot mroe paper trail if someone had to tamper with the DB.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes
I see we're leading the way in technology that's defective due to pathetic reasons. Just like the trains which suffer from the wrong type of rain, wrong type of snow, too low air-pressue and the classic, "leaves on the line".
Actually, if you're refering to the Great Auk, they're all gone because WE ate them all!
Now this might not sound as a big chance, but since you need to go through the biometric scanner twice, when you get on or when you get off. So this reduces the amount of people nescessary for failure to 500.
:)
You are assuming that the two are independent. Maybe the faiure is not random, but a consequence of the characteristic of your iris. In that case the same people who failed the first one will fail the second.
That said, while that might work out for the remaining 999 people, it would be an incredible inconvenience for people who are going to fail it every time! Maybe those people could get RFID implants
That's a good point. Your bouncer friend learned to spot nervous 19 year olds because he sees dozens of them every night. How many terrorists have been caught in US airports? Not many. Also, nobody over 21 is nervous about going into a bar. Millions of people get nervous about boarding a plane.
-B
God that would be cool though. I know first hand from hacking into the teacher's database that changing data is more effective at screwing up a system than deleting it.
So, after hacking the security, write a script to change "undercover law enforcement" to "known criminal". Then tell it to change a random 60% of the population into "undercover law enforcement".
A year or so down the line the country would be so hopelessly f****** no other country would engage in this kind of Orwellian nightmare.
You know what? fuck it, biometrics is stupid. I dont want to live in a world where people go around chopping off fingers and taking out eyes to steal identity and where i have to rely on some badly coded recognition algorithm (probably written by the sort of people who work for Diebold) to keep my data, identity and bank account safe. Why do we need this sort of thing? to stop illigal immigrants getting jobs? bullshit mister blunkett. To stop suicide bombers (who only strike once)? sure! A photo and a competent security guard have worked for years and given that you just dont know who is trying to get a bomb on a plane your just going to have to resort to good old searching. Oh and if you cant remember a pin number so you think biometrics will be easier then your an idiot. The current system works and we all know the saying about trying to fix it.
Given the other stupid ideas the british government has come up with recently *cough* pay-before-you-board busses *cough* i really think they should just stop.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The current UK proposal is to store all the details in a big central database. This would result in a single point of failure and infiltration in an authentication system that is supposed to be used ubiquitously. The sensible way to implement biometric ID cards (for what they're worth, which for general public use is not a lot in my opinion) is to put the biometric details for its authorised user on the card plus a signature on those details made by the issuing authority. Of course the CA for such signatures would also be a juicy target, but by using several levels of CAs it is possible to reduce the need for access to the master signing key and to mitigate the damage resulting from disclosure of a normal signing key. PKI enables offline checking for a while using cached public keys.
Well, technically yes, but since only evildoers will cry, wear hard contact lenses and have long eyelashes..
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
Well, in the Bush/Ashcroft 1984 utopia, the biometric identifiers are not only stored on your passport, but also in centralized databases. They aren't only used to tie you to your passport, but they are also used to retrieve possibly matching identities from those centralized databases.
Before launching into your knee jerk anti-Bush tirade did you happen to notice that the story is about the UK? Socialists need to be able to ID the subjects just like all statist governments.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The problem isn't that iris scans are necessarily intrusive. The problem is that iris scans are _irrevocable_.
Imagine, for a moment, that some Bad Guys obtained your iris scan data somehow and used that to make a device to break into your company's secure area.
#1: How would you prove your innocence? "Because of the biometrics, we know nobody else could have done it."
#2: Even if you did prove your innocence, you would be _permanently barred from the system_. Your iris data is known to be in the hands of Bad Guys, and hence can never be used to gain access to secure areas again.
And, since you can't change your iris data, YOU can never gain access to secure areas again, at least not without a specialized security procedure put in place just for you. And how many companies/agencies are going to create a special security procedure for one employee, rather than just fire/not hire him?
If a password is stolen, you're inconvenienced.
If biometric data is stolen, you're fucked.
I always wondered if I would come across this. In the winter my hands dry out pretty bad. I do everything to keep them moist but that just keeps them living. So the cracks and peeling skin I think would give a problem to finger print scanners.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Researchers in Arizona found after years of research an easy way to defeat iris scans. Simply instructing the test subject to close their eye-lids rendered the scan useless!
Who cares if it prevents crime. The purpose of these kind of laws is to incovienience people.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Illegal immigration is not simply about people who have already been denied. It's also about people who entered on temporary visas and never left, people who found a way in without any visas, for example, citizens of countries that don't need a visa to visit, and people who are applying for visas for the first time, and therefore are not already in the central database, but lie on their applications.
The proposed system also fails to identify terrorists and criminals who are not already known to be terrorists or criminals, like the first time suicide bomber. Yes, every successful suicide bomber is a first time suicide bomber.
Not middlesborough, but in Kingston certainly I wouldn't say it feels safe at night. On the other hand knowing that people effectively have to get close to do any damage, a gun isn't necessary.
That's only true at face value. Let's look at it differently.
US: all evil people with guns, check. Good guys who might use their guns too easily, check.
UK: Some, still very limited numbers of criminals with guns, almost entirely hardened criminals (by that I mean that in a standard mugging you won't get them threatening you with a gun, it's not worth the risk to possess one). Good guys without guns, great! Who needs them. Not like they're self defence weapons anyway.
Except (s)he was talking about the UK and not the US approach. If not for getting the country wrong, you'd be correct :-)
I actually didn't get the country wrong. The EU is deploying biometric identifiers because the US ordered them to; if the EU didn't do it, the US would refuse visa-free travel to EU citizens.
While certain totalitarian-leaning elements of the British and other European governments may have welcomed this push from the US, most rational politicians in Europe would have preferred to study the matter for a few more years and wait with rolling things out.
In fact, the US itself is planning on implementing biometric passports for US citizens, but since the US sets its own schedule and this sort of thing costs a lot of money, its implementation in the US just gets pushed out further and further.
Before launching into your knee jerk anti-Bush tirade did you happen to notice that the story is about the UK?
Dig a little deeper: the UK is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires Europe to do this. Otherwise, Europeans wouldn't be doing this, at least not yet.
Socialists need to be able to ID the subjects just like all statist governments.
As do totalitarian leaders, which is why Bush/Ashcroft plan on implementing biometric passports in the US as well. However, given the $400 billion budget deficit they have created, unlike the Europeans, the US can't pay for it.
Look, I have no opinion on whether biometrics would actually work. I'm just saying that the arguments people have presented here for why they wouldn't are simplistic. As is yours.
Illegal immigration is not simply about people who have already been denied. It's also about people who entered on temporary visas and never left,
Well, when you apply for a job, you need to document that you are permitted to work in the US. You can do that by demonstrating that you are a US citizen, a green card holder, or hold a work visa. If those documents are made more secure, more easily verifiable, and tied irrevocably to an individual, then it will be harder for illegal aliens to get jobs.
people who found a way in without any visas, for example, citizens of countries that don't need a visa to visit,
That's why the UK is implementing biometric identifiers in the first place: the US will only permit visa-free travel from nations who have biometric identifiers for their passports.
and people who are applying for visas for the first time, and therefore are not already in the central database, but lie on their applications.
See above. The biometric identifiers (and other document security features) just improves the chances that the visa and passport the person presents when applying for a job actually belongs to them. If the visa has expired or doesn't permit work, they don't get a job.
"Those people will probbably just routinely be let in." Is a huge assumption. If that were true, then everyone could just close their eyes when being scanned or sniff an onion. I think that it would be more likely, to put the 7% through a more thorough process, or just say, "You don't get a pass."
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Dig a little deeper: the UK is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires Europe to do this. Otherwise, Europeans wouldn't be doing this, at least not yet.
Damn. I keep forgetting that we conquered Europe a little while ago. Perhaps you are confusing the US with the EU?
And yes, a totalitarian government is an example of statism. Of course our Constitution prevents that happening in the US. Too bad you whiny neo-coms don't believe in the 2nd Amendment!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Damn. I keep forgetting that we conquered Europe a little while ago.
Yes, try not to forget that next time.
Perhaps you are confusing the US with the EU?
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this: the EU is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires it in order to permit visa-free travel to the US. Furthermore, the US is going to implement biometric passports domestically as well, the US government just hasn't been able to find the money for it yet.
And yes, a totalitarian government is an example of statism. Of course our Constitution prevents that happening in the US.
It's a fatal mistake to think that any law will prevent a totalitarian government from emerging. From the Romans to Nazi Germany, examples of republics and democracies being replaced by totalitarian rule abound.
Too bad you whiny neo-coms don't believe in the 2nd Amendment!
Too bad ignorant fools like you don't believe in democracy and instead cling to idiotic notions that waving a bunch of shotguns around is going to stop a totalitarian government. Afghans and Iraqis had plenty of guns and it didn't help them against government oppression.
The only way to keep the US democratic is through the political process. And a good place to start is by getting people like Bush out of office. I don't care whether he is replaced with a conservative or liberal, but he should be replaced by someone whose cabinet actually respects the Constitution and the democratic process, who is less corrupt, and who respects international law and international treaties.
Makes you wonder what security you're gaining in exchange for standing in line an extra hour.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Future /. stories:
Inhale to beat breathalizers.
Loose license to beat speeding tickets.
Wear halloween mask in bank to avoid being recognized as a criminal.
So? The headline suggests false-positive errors by using the word "beat". Come on! Just as the above list wouldn't get you past a guard/cop neither would tearing up, or growing your eyelashes long. You would just cause an error.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this: the EU is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires it in order to permit visa-free travel to the US.
The EU implementing biometrics because they want visa free travel is very different than doing it because the US is forcing them.
Too bad ignorant fools like you don't believe in democracy and instead cling to idiotic notions that waving a bunch of shotguns around is going to stop a totalitarian government. Afghans and Iraqis had plenty of guns and it didn't help them against government oppression.
I wonder what it was that freed those poor Iraqis and Afghans from those regimes.... Oh yeah, lots of guns.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Knowing who somebody is doesn't always indicate their intentions, unless the individual is on a list of known suspects.
More often, the data may help you find out who committed a crime, but that's after the crime has occured.
The EU implementing biometrics because they want visa free travel is very different than doing it because the US is forcing them.
No, it's not. Visa-free travel between the US and Europe isn't some gimmick, it is essential for both economies. Removing visa-free travel is a serious threat by the US, a threat that pretty much forces Europe to comply. It's a stupid threat, too, because the US stands to lose much more than Europe from it, even if the current US administration is too stupid to realize it.
I think Europe should have played hardball with this one and just said "suit yourself and let's talk again when you have implemented biometric identifiers domestically". After a year or two, the US travel and tourism industry would have forced Bush to reverse himself.
I wonder what it was that freed those poor Iraqis and Afghans from those regimes.... Oh yeah, lots of guns.
How is that an argument for the second amendment? The regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan changed because of foreign guns; their domestic militias and gun ownership are interfering with the process of democratizing those nations. That's why Americans keep getting killed there, you know. If anything, both nations are a good example why private gun ownership is undesirable because it's usually the wrong people who have them.
I don't even have a strong opinion on whether you should or shouldn't be able to own guns--I generally just think they are dangerous and stupid, but so are a lot of other things people own and do. But it is clear that as a means of protecting people from totalitarian regimes or maintaining a nation as a democracy, private gun ownership is a complete failure.
Furthermore, you assume that this was a trade the Iraqis and Afghans were willing to make: a war, devastation, and large numbers of civilian deaths in return for regime change (and change to what anyway? US occupation and roaming armed hoodlums?). But it wasn't--this was something the US imposed on them whether they wanted it or not.
ID cards are flawed because you can't secure a system that large.
I have a solution! You just need a monitoring system. Security people will monitor the passport issuing personnel, recording and checking everything they do. This will surely prevent any frauds!!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
In America, the cops fear the citizenry. They are very careful when making an arrest, and if they can avoid it, they won't. Have you heard of the SWAT team that got the wrong address? They lost several of their men to an innocent civilian armed with a shotgun. I think they'll check their addresses and warrants more carefully next time.
That's called freedom from oppression. That's a check and balance against the government.
In the UK, cops believe they are higher or more powerful than the people. In the US, the cops understand their role as a servant.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I don't believe the cops in the UK do consider themselves to be higher or more powerful than the general population, they are in the main reasonable people doing their job which is to uphold the laws the land.
I'm afraid I can't see any benefit at all in having your police force work under the constant threat of being of being shot at by members of the public. So far as I can see this would lead the police to isolate themselves from the communities which they are serving and foster an attitude of suspicion and parnoia which does not seem likely to help them perfom there jobs effectively.
I disagree with the Parent poster when he claims that anyone carrying a BB gun would be shot out of hand in the UK but what from what you are suggesting if the police did shoot and kill someone for this ( through feelings of paranoia and suspicion ) other concerned citizens or friends of the murdered person would then join in by shooting at the cops with there reals weapons thus causing a lethal bloodbath.
The bottom line is that most people in the UK do trust the cops, they aren't seen as an oppresive arm of the government and they are not treated with suspicion and fear all of which I think is something I am proud of.
Wow, you must really live in East Jesus that your licensure center only gets one person per day.