Updated Schedule for U.S. Biometric Passports

fp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny

who will get first passport?

Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 18:51 · Score: 0

Shouldn't the first new-style passport be handed to the President, or would such a ceremony be against the egalitarian principles of your government?

won't work by Coneasfast · 2004-05-15 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

from article:
The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.

this is useless, all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter, not that they would be stupid enough to try anyways.

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.

Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter

It doesn't even do that. Plenty of illegals come in without passports.
Re:won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:32 · Score: 0

Yeah, and then they get on airplanes too. As reported on CNN last month, 88 illegal aliens were on a flight from Mexifornia to New Jersey when Customs intercepted them after they landed in New Jersey.

So much for the 'Transportation Security Agency.'
Re:won't work by Donny+Smith · 2004-05-15 08:04 · Score: 1

It's not entirely useless since the use of stolen passports would indeed become virtually impossible, on which you didn't comment, so you shouldn't call the whole thing "useless".

As for "known terrorists" - I'm sure it means known to the government, not to the terrorists themselves, which is a big difference.

A fresh terrorist on his first trip to the US may not consider himself/herself a known terrorist, but the government may have him listed as known terrorist due to the fact that s/he was identified as such by intelligence sources or otherwise.
Re:won't work by seafoodforklift · 2004-05-15 09:03 · Score: 1

There's always a hack out there for the determined. Biometrics is no exception. Think Gattaca.
There is no subsitute for good foreign policy.
Re:won't work by C10H14N2 · 2004-05-15 11:14 · Score: 1

It also prevents someone from passing as the person whose passport they've stolen. As someone who has had a passport stolen, anything that makes it more difficult, hopefully impossible, for someone to use my passport is a welcome advance, not least because it makes it less attractive to steal it in the first place as it would effectively be worthless to anyone that can't match the biometrics. As it stands now, it's basically a crisp $500 bill.

Perfect? No. Better than the current standard? By a long shot.
Re:won't work by Ian+Cackett · 2004-05-16 01:20 · Score: 1

I agree somewhat. The only capability that biometrics provide is the assurance that the person holding the passport is the person who was granted the passport. I have to admit that's a useful measure, and a wise one to put in place (so I support this move), but it tells you nothing about the passport holder's intentions, motives, or even their background. How much can you really tell about someone's background, even with the most thorough search?
So, with biometrics, we can be certain who each passport holder is, but I think we're a long way from being able to tell what they're going to do when they travel to a particular country. That may in-fact be an unachievable goal.
We're better off developing ways to render most known (and potential) modes of terrorism useless... better security on flights, tighter controls on firearms and other 'dangerous' materials, etc. The materials that someone is carrying are a better indication of their intent, rather than who they are? Perhaps better scanning of luggage in airports, and widespread scanning/inspection of shipments and freight movements? Surely those measures will actually yield results? But then again, how do you tell whether anti-terrorism measures were helpful? You can't measure lack of terrorist incidents, only the ones that occur.

Yeah... by the_mad_poster · 2004-05-15 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.

I'm sure that works well when the first-timers are suicide bombers that are traveling one way one time only... after all, the high-ups like bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri fly back and forth out of Laguardia all the time, right?

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

Re:Yeah... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2004-05-15 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.
"In Soviet America, Passport stamps You!"

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Yeah... by Catbeller · 2004-05-15 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Damn straight. Some of the stupider government officials might think that they are tracking "terrorists", but the smart boys know they are building exit detectors at the national gates that will provide seamless information integration about their own citizens. We're being locked in.
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is that a flamebait? The United States are the biggest threat to world's peace since the collapse of the USSR, because they're now the only superpower in the world and don't have any other superpower to act as a counterweight anymore, so they can recklessly do as they think they should with no regard for the consequences world-wide. The French even call them a "hyperpower", for maintaining such a high level of militarization when the rest of the world slowly tries to build their armies down.

MOD PARENT UP!!!
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:00 · Score: 0

"they're now the only superpower in the world and don't have any other superpower to act as a counterweight anymore, so they can recklessly do as they think they should with no regard for the consequences world-wide."

yeah, the US is really bitch-slapping China all over the playground

"The French even call them a "hyperpower", for maintaining such a high level of militarization when the rest of the world slowly tries to build their armies down."

Do you have conclusive evidence that the rest of the world is decreasing their respective militaries? Reduction in troop size isn't a sufficient indicator since new military technologies are enabling the replacement of troops with firepower.

Also, the EU has the potential to become an economic superpower. This may not provide a counterweight to the US military but properly wielded, money is mightier than the sword.
Re:Yeah... by LnxAddct · 2004-05-15 08:14 · Score: 1

You've obviously never worked with intelligence agencies. They've got information on pretty much any one involved in any scheme, including the guys involved with 9/11, they just didn't know when to act and weren't 100% sure where to act. But you imply that we wouldn't know about some one who has never been suspected before and blow himself up, news flash, every major country exchanges information and they all know pretty much everyone who is involved with anything. They can't publicly state this, but they do. I am a US citizen and see no problem with this new biometric system, people need to take off their tinfoil hats and relax a bit.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Yeah... by orthogonal · 2004-05-15 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.... "In Soviet America, Passport stamps You!"

The parent got modded funny for the Soviet Russia joke; but he should be getting modded Insightful for pointing out the real reason from these new passports.

Like me expand a bit on his insight: these biometric passports are the thin edge -- a proof of concept, if you will -- of mandatory National ID cards.

Indeed, Homeland Security will point out stories, like the one posted above about the 88 illegal immigrants taking a domestic flight from California to New Jersey and the general ability if illegals to bypass our borders, as evidence that we will need a "fool-proof" way of ascertaining identity not only at the borders but inside the United States.

And since the biometric passport will by then have been, however reluctantly, accepted, the government will apply the same technology to National ID cards.

Of course, a National ID card is only useful if it's checked, so expect to see uniformed men asking you to present it: "Your papers, Citizen!". This will also have the useful -- for the government -- side effect of getting the citizenry used to seeing and docilely taking orders from uniformed "security" officers; you can already see that happening in airports and government buildings, where we've all learned to shut-up and passively follow orders from any guy with three days of training and a badge, on penalty of delay, harassment or arrest.

(This acclimation to the presence of soldiers as quasi law-enforcement, incidentally, is one of the requirements Army War College grad Charles Dunlap posits for "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012", co-winner in 1992 of the of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92 Strategy Essay Competition -- in other words, it's not a fringe tin-foil hat screed.)

Expect also that the government will quickly thereafter require presentation of the National ID for transactions that "terra'ists use", like banking or buying plane and train tickets, similar to the "Know Your Customer" requirements of the "Patriot" Act. A little way down the road, expect that the government will expanded the "significant economic activity" to encompass all credit card purchases -- and perhaps using the fig leaf of "preventing (economic) identity theft", will require your National ID Card be presented for all credit card purchases.

At that point, you'll either have to present you National ID Card several times a day, or remove yourself from "the grid" entirely. I can think of few ways better to suppress dissent than letting anyone contemplating it know that their movements can be tracked with this sort of granularity: "why did you use the ATM machine a block from the People Against Surveillance meeting, Citizen? are you a member of this anti-Patriotic organization"?

Now, some will accuse me of wearing my tin-foil hat too tight: I'll refer them to the subpoenaing of protest groups' membership records (dropped only after unfavorable publicity), the CAPPS II Airline screening and the subpoenaing of women's medical records of their abortions (this link from BusinessWeek, of all places, the FBI investigation of Freedom of Information act requests, and the Federal prosecution -- even after state charges were thrown out of court -- of peaceful protestors against Bush. And there are, unfortunately, many many more examples of the current administration supressing dissent -- in fact, if you're reading this, please reply with links to more of these cases.

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Yeah... by duffel · 2004-05-15 08:21 · Score: 1

Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.

Damn straight. Some of the stupider government officials might think that they are tracking "terrorists", but the smart boys know they are building exit detectors at the national gates that will provide seamless information integration about their own citizens. We're being locked in.

But ARE you really being locked in? As it is at the moment, you need a passport anyway to move between countries. It seems to me that the only thing that changes with these new passports is that they get harder to fake. Don't forget that your current passport already has biometric data on it... a picture of your face. This is just supplementing the document with more data to identify someone as the rightful owner.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, as far as I'm aware anyway, your data is already being tracked, when you buy tickets and in customs. No one seems to object to customs officials writing down your passport number, but as soon as a certain degree of technology is reached, people get a big-brother-is-watching scare.

I'm not commenting on whether the government should track people or not, all I am saying is that nothing is really changing, except that the life of custums officials probably gets a little easier when they dont have to type data into the computer manually any more, and the life of forgers gets a bit harder.

Whether they can make the chips themselves secure enough to be entrusted with releasing details of a person's identity via radio is another thing.
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 10:32 · Score: 0

Yes. They know exactly what I'm thinking, and exactly what I'll do, in the next 5 minutes, even though it's just some random thing not part of my routine, and I've never mentioned it, written it down, or expresed it to anyone... they really do read my mind, and that's why I need a tinf.. no wait, you're telling me they can read my mind, and that's why I DON'T need the tinfoil? I'm confused now.
Re:Yeah... by the_mad_poster · 2004-05-15 11:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, yes. I should take off my tinfoil hat. Here's a novel idea: maybe you should consider whether I'm the one with the tinfoil hat, or you're the one with blinders?

I will take off my tinfoil hat when I have a president that was clearly voted into office and not one who's appointment via a set of judges is questionable, at best. I will take off my tinfoil hat when I live in a country that doesn't preemptively attack sovereign nations in a sorry display of blatant imperialism. I will take off my tinfoil hat when PATRIOT is rolled back. I will take off my tinfoil hat when my country stops detaining people without lawyers, outside contact, or any hope for a fair trial even if they've not been charged with anything. I will take off my tinfoil hat when the mere act of getting on an airplane doesn't subject me to a terrorism rorschach test. I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that doesn't think the answer to every question is "terrorism". I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that actually tells the people it supposedly serves what it's doing now and then.

Or, to sum it all up: I'll take off my tinfoil hate the second America comes back around to being America and not one goddamn second sooner.

...they just didn't know when to act and weren't 100% sure where to act.

That makes no sense. If they already knew who they were, what good would a biometric system do? Is this new system magically going to tell them why people are here and everything they're going to do? No. That's stupid. Whoop-dee-frickin-doo. We can tell when some big badass comes in, in the unbelievably unlikely event that they do. Of course, if some sucker that just got recruited a few days ago gets sent in, well, we're shit out of luck, now aren't we? Gee. So... WHAT problem does this solve, exactly?

I am a US citizen...

Ah yes, preface all statements with that little tidbit and that's that, right? Well, I'M a U.S. citizen and I do have a problem with it. It's just another bullshit feelgood scheme to make everyone think these dumbasses are doing anything. In the meantime, it costs money, it's going to back things up at the airport when the initial rollout doesn't work right, and it's yet another governmental power that they'll never want to give up once they've got it. It's easily turned against individual citizens and it serves no other purpose.

People always act like the U.S. government is some big huggy teddy bear. Well, it's not. Like any other government, it wants to grow and control. Funny thing about those built-in checks and balances, huh? Except, now, we're letting them kick those checks and balances right out the window. People are going to be awfully surprised when they wake up and realize one day that the U.S. government wasn't anything special, it was just built in a way that made it harder for it to turn on its own people.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Yeah... by mdwh2 · 2004-05-15 12:16 · Score: 1

It seems to me that the only thing that changes with these new passports is that they get harder to fake. Don't forget that your current passport already has biometric data on it... a picture of your face. This is just supplementing the document with more data to identify someone as the rightful owner.

If this was true - that biometrics were used purely for authentication - then that would be fine. But that's not true.

The problem with digital biometrics stored on a card is that not only will they be used to check the card matches you, but any country you passed through will be doing comparisons against their database of "people they don't like", and more significantly, including them in their central databases for future reference.

This isn't tinfoil hat paranoia stuff, since the US government have openly stated that this is what they intend to do (I'll be curious to know what effect this will have on tourism - my own anecdotal evidence is that this is putting people off travelling to the US).

I find it interesting that on the one hand, governments are pushing us towards a globalised economy (because of course, that's good for the big corporations), but on the other other hand want a world where no one can easily travel anywhere else.

They can't have it both ways.
Re:Yeah... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2004-05-15 12:33 · Score: 1

Thanks, Orth'.
I am a bit terse, and hoped that to those paying attention, my two lines would convey what you so clearly and explicitly delineate.
Anyway - you have the debatable distinction of "friend" status.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Yeah... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2004-05-15 12:42 · Score: 1

Re:Yeah... (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 15, @12:23PM (#9162597)
Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.

Suits me. Anything to force Americans to stay the hell in their own country...
Unfortunately, the ones you want kept out will be free to travel. The ones you might want - certain musicians, authors scholars and poets - will be restricted.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

War Passporting? by slashrogue · 2004-05-15 07:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Questions of privacy also had to be addressed because the chips will use radio frequency identification technology to transmit data. Without protection, the technology theoretically might allow people--identity thieves, for example, or intelligence agents other than immigration officials--to electronically and surreptitiously determine the identity of a passport holder.
I hope that these passports will come with some kind of jacket of material that can stop the radio transmissions or whatever -- sorry, I'm not much of a geek to know the intricate details of that kind of thing. I really don't think that such protection should be limited to those "in the know" about such things -- all American citizens traveling abroad should be given an information packet about the dangers of leaving that sort of data exposed to anyone and everyone in the country you're visiting.

Re:War Passporting? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:35 · Score: 0

"I hope that these passports will come with some kind of jacket of material that can stop the radio transmissions or whatever..."

Easy, just get a tinfoil pocket-protector to go with the tinfoil beanie!
Re:War Passporting? by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 07:48 · Score: 0, Troll

this ROCKS! This is the consolation prize I gladly laugh for since 22 replies followed the posting which I though IIII was first to reply to.. The foil over Bin Laden, the Dog, and the body frontals is cool, especially all the mathematical/electronic formulae/theory... The author of that site should get a huge check for that page of laughter... DS

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

I'm surprised... by Myrmi · 2004-05-15 07:17 · Score: 3, Funny

That americans aren't demanding bioimperial passports...

--
"I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz

Re:I'm surprised... by deutschemonte · 2004-05-15 07:35 · Score: 1

Best..Comment..Ever!

--
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.

Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:17 · Score: 0

Faces change, but a lot of the data we are seeing suggest they change relatively slowly and predictably

I can personally testify that this is just not true at all.

Loves,
-- Nick Berg

Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:19 · Score: 0

Come on now Nick, it is not the time to lose one's head. Your criticisms are not the way to get ahead in life. It's a shame you aren't more headstrong. I guess you'll never be the head of a major corporation.

Terrorists? I don't think so... by beeplet · 2004-05-15 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country."

Do they really think this is going to be effective against terrorists? Or is this just another way of saying to the public, "Look, we're doing something! And it's intrusive to your privacy so it must really work!"

How many "known" terrorists enter the US? How many of those enter on stolen passports? As far as I know, all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas. This kind of program would have had no effect on preventing them from entering.

On the other hand, many people do enter the US on forged documents, particularly people from poorer countries who come here illegally, looking for work. I could see how this kind of biometric ID could help identify such illegal immigrants, if that were the goal. But I just wish people would stop trying to tie everything in to the "war on terrorism" - it distracts from the real problems that this kind of technology might be useful for.

Re:Terrorists? I don't think so... by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-05-15 07:35 · Score: 1

Do they really think this is going to be effective against terrorists? Or is this just another way of saying to the public, "Look, we're doing something! And it's intrusive to your privacy so it must really work!"

I'm afraid it's even worse than you think. I'm afraid it's rather "We always wanted to do something that's intrusive to your privacy, but we were afraid of the public outrage... but now, thank's to 9-11 we can do all we ever wanted plus more if we just label it as a couterterrorist measure". In Soviet Russia the borders were guarded not to let anyone suspicious out, and it's not a joke. But the sad part is that the Bush administration might want to repeat this situation in the land previously known as "of the free".
Re:Terrorists? I don't think so... by BigGerman · 2004-05-15 07:43 · Score: 2, Informative

>>all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas.
that is actually not correct. 3 or 4 of them were known terrorists (to CIA) but there were no shared database (that exists now) to cross-check and identify those individuals at the border.
Another group within 19 were here on expired / invalid visas.
Re:Terrorists? I don't think so... by beeplet · 2004-05-15 07:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing that out. I had only read about those who were here on valid student visas. (Whether or not those visas should have been issued in the first place is another question... apparently some of the applications were rather open to suspicion - with the benefit of hindsight of course.)
Re:Terrorists? I don't think so... by demachina · 2004-05-15 14:40 · Score: 1

"How many "known" terrorists enter the US? How many of those enter on stolen passports? As far as I know, all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas."

At least two of the 9/11 hijackers where known terrorists and known members of Al Quaeda and entered the U.S. semi legally. The CIA knew when they entered the U.S. they just neglected to tell the FBI so they weren't followed and quickly disappeared. If they had been tailed 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. So we are getting a bunch of intrusive big brotherish measures when 9/11 could have been stopped if the CIA and just communicated a simple fact to the FBI. The conservatives try to blame this absence of communication on the chinese wall placed between these two agencies in the 70's but its more likely that they are constantly fighting turf wars, reticent to share information with each other and generally just don't work well with each other.

You would have to figure at this point forward, Al Quaeda will use people who aren't known terrorists which probably slows them down a little and it does add some uncertainty since they don't know with great certainty who has been ID'ed. The U.S. is holding most Al Quaeda terror suspects anonymously and incommunicado precisely so Al Quaeda is in the dark on who in their networks might have been compromised

--
@de_machina

Is this any more secure? by strook · 2004-05-15 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article:
"As the system is envisioned, Americans still will be able to mail their passport photographs to the State Department. The department will encode them into the passport chips and add them to a database."

So, you never even get personally face scanned. They put information into the chip that lets a face scanner automatically check if your face looks like the picture on the passport... which is exactly what the humans sitting at the desk do anyways under the current system. What is this adding to our security?

Besides buzzwords.

--

"TV is great! Every New Year's I make a resolution to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter

Re:Is this any more secure? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-05-15 07:37 · Score: 1

What is this adding to our security?

It's not about security. This biometrics thing achieves 3 goals:

1) A high-profile "look how much we do to ensure your safety" effect

2) Save money by firing flesh-and-blood security guards

3) Make several biometrics hardware maker's execs extremely wealthy

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Is this any more secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

It adds a layer of security in the sense that you can't just remove/alter the picture from an already valid passport, which often is done. Professionals can remove the old picture and put yours in. Why do you think that there is a market for stolen passports? Other people can use them! However, it's harder for them to do this if there is a central database to verify that the picture is the same.
Re:Is this any more secure? by apg · 2004-05-15 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they were just concerned that the picture in the passport was the correct one a simple database of image scans that could be accessed by customs agents would be plenty -- no need to embed anything in the passport.

The only way this system provides anything that's not utterly pointless is if an image of the person presenting the passport is compared to the information embedded in the passport.

But of course even that is of little value unless the customs agent is removed from the picture and the entire process is automated. That is, with an agent receiving your passport, all that's really needed is the ability to verify the integrity of the image (image database mentioned above) and comparing the person standing in front of him or her with the verified image.

So basically, this is just someone in customs thinking that a self-checkout lane would be a good idea. I mean, they work so well in the supermarket.

Please press the button corresponding to the reason for your entry into the United States:

A. I'm taking a vacation.
B. I'm on business.
C. I'm a student
D. I plan to blow stuff up.

Similar to UK ID cards by Myrmi · 2004-05-15 07:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The UK government is trying to introduce ID Cards that sound similar to this. I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on. These included contact lenses, I believe, as well as long fringes disrupting measurements between significant facial features.

--
"I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz

Re:Similar to UK ID cards by TheLibero · 2004-05-15 08:51 · Score: 1

yeah, I mean this issue has been tackled so many times in the information security arena. This technique has more cons than pros, cause it will cause a large number of false alarms not to mention the uncomfortable way it would be performed. Finally, one thing to remember is that the people who planned the 9-11 day weren't identified as terrorists before that date! So what they will be doing is scanning millions of passengers just to catch a small number of guys, may be less than 10!!

--
"Evil thrives when good men do nothing"
Re:Similar to UK ID cards by gnu-generation-one · 2004-05-15 08:57 · Score: 1

"The UK government is trying to introduce ID Cards that sound similar to this."

You mean, David Blunkett wants to introduce ID cards. Nobody else does.

"I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on. These included contact lenses, I believe, as well as long fringes disrupting measurements between significant facial features."

The UK problems are deeper than that, and not merely related to biometric technicalities (you know how many million people have the same fingerprints as you?)

Their ID-card problems are more related to the fact that they're fundamentally guaranteed to reduce security, increase identity theft, enable the cheap, detailed surveillance of individuals, and generally, have no benefits to anyone with more IQ than a racist who thinks that tagging asylum-seekers with barcodes on their forehead will make Britain better and safer.
Re:Similar to UK ID cards by JimBobJoe · 2004-05-15 09:25 · Score: 1

I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on.

On a semi-related note, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which is some quasi-non profit group (email for more on that) for DMV administrators for all of North America, has rejected biometrics for driver's licenses and state ID cards...at least, for now.

Why? They want reliable 1 to 300 million matching. I think they feel that anything below that would be too subject to criticism, and the privacy peeps would jump on that too quickly. Further, what's the point in investing the money into what they claim won't be a national biometric database if it can't actually do a match on every single person in the US?

Right now the matching systems in place in those states that use biometrics top out at 1 to 40,000. The best technology out there is 1 to 10 million. So the good news is, we really won't be seeing any more biometric proposals for state licenses anytime soon, the bad news is, 1 to 300 million may be possible.
Re:Similar to UK ID cards by urbanian · 2004-05-15 12:59 · Score: 1

Here are the application forms as leaked by the UK's Department of Social Scrutiny.

Mexico by tsunamifirestorm · 2004-05-15 07:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will they scan everyone entering the US from Mexico (and Canada)? At some border places it all ready takes an hour to cross...

Re:Mexico by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-05-15 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Will they scan everyone entering the US from Mexico (and Canada)? At some border places it all ready takes an hour to cross...

Do like many Mexicans do: take the short route across the Rio Grande, it only takes 30 minutes and they don't require you to be scanned...

Seriously thought, this police-state "security" with borders as tight as a prostitute's legs amounts to installing a steel door on a camping tent.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Mexico by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:43 · Score: 0

amounts to installing a steel door on a camping tent.

The historically accepted metaphor isn't "steel door", it's "iron curtain".
Re:Mexico by mnewton32 · 2004-05-15 07:58 · Score: 1

Actually, I think Canada is the only country in the world whose citizens don't need a passport or visa to get into the US. A driver's license and birth certificate will do just fine. Of course, it can still take an hour to get in or out...
Re:Mexico by Zeebs · 2004-05-15 08:03 · Score: 1

Actually there is a list that consists of mostly european countries whos citizens don't require a visa for visit, however do require a machine readable passport.
The list at the top of this page

--

Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Re:Mexico by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 10:49 · Score: 0

I have heard that they cross at night thru the mountains.

Chip? With software of course? by PeterPumpkin · 2004-05-15 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't like this idea. Last thing I need when I'm in some third world country is passport showing a blue screen of death. "Welcome to Congo, Mr. Thread Exception!"

Re:Chip? With software of course? by drinkypoo · 2004-05-15 08:02 · Score: 1

Your name is more likely to end up as IRQL_IS_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Chip? With software of course? by nacturation · 2004-05-15 08:24 · Score: 1

"Can I see your passport please?" [scans passport]

"Everything checks out, oh... sir, YES SIR! Welcome SIR! Enjoy your stay, General Protection-Fault, SIR!"

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

Quick, renew your passport! by C3ntaur · 2004-05-15 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been meaning to do this, and this is just the kick in the butt I needed... I'm going to get one of the last chip-free ones issued. I have no doubt that no matter how much reassurance the power-grubbing muckety-mucks give that this will be secure, it won't be. Remember the Diebold electronic voting machines?

Thankfully, passports are good for 10 years from their issuance, and hopefully by then they'll have the most serious bugs worked out.

--
Loading...

Re:Quick, renew your passport! by gravyfaucet · 2004-05-15 07:47 · Score: 1

sounds like a good idea, except I wouldnt be suprised if they institute a mandatory upgrade or some such shite. plus, why would any good, patriotic american want to travel to some inferior foreign country?

--
Yes! Evil rules! Good can suck it! Suck it, good!
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:00 · Score: 1, Funny

why would any good, patriotic american want to travel to some inferior foreign country?

Yes, you patriotic americans stay the hell home for a change. Please...
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:14 · Score: 0

LMAO.
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by NewtonsLaw · 2004-05-15 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thankfully, passports are good for 10 years from their issuance

Boy, are you naive.

Here in New Zealand the government sold us "lifetime" drivers licenses that were good for up to 40 years or so, according to the expiry date clearly printed on them and depending on your age.

This was an iron clad contract between the government and drivers insomuch as:

1. An offer was made (to provide a lifetime drivers license)

2. The offer was accepted (by all those drivers who signed the forms and agreed to drive legally using those licenses)

3. A consideration was paid (it cost about $35 to obtain one of these lifetime licenses).

4. The intention was clear (the expiry date was clearly printed on the license itself).

Then, when they realised that they were missing out on a small fortune in renewal fees and the chance to introduce elements such as digital photos, the government unilaterally broke that contract and declared that all these "lifetime" licenses, that were bought and paid for in good faith, would become invalid within a year.

No corporation would be allowed to get away with such a blatant fraud -- but when you're the group that makes the laws you can get away with anything I guess.

There was no compensation paid for the outstanding portion of your "lifetime" license that you'd paid for but weren't going to receive the benefit of and new laws were passed that meant if you didn't pay more money and obtain one of the new renewable licenses then you were suddenly considered to be an unlicensed (and therefore very dangerous) driver who could be fined and/or imprisoned.

So, I would wager good money that the promised 10 year "lifetime" of your US passports could be rendered invalid just as easily -- and you'd have wasted a wad of cash.
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by wes33 · 2004-05-15 09:00 · Score: 1

No doubt the voters will take this into account (along with many other factors) when deciding how to vote in the next election. Do you think this issue is big enough to swing the vote? Why or why not? You do still have elections down there don't you?
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by bgeer · 2004-05-15 09:05 · Score: 1

I disagree. By gaming the system you're only giving yourself the illusion of protection--the power that was able to take your privacy in the first place still defeated you, and gained ground. Instead of expending energy renewing your passport, why not write your congresscritters and donate money to the ACLU and EFF instead?
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by NewtonsLaw · 2004-05-15 09:44 · Score: 1

No doubt the voters will take this into account (along with many other factors) when deciding how to vote in the next election

This happened some time go and the government of the day *was* voted out of power -- but the new incoming government did nothing to remedy the situation -- when it comes to such things they seldom do.

And don't get me started on the intelligence of the average voter.

At the risk of being labeled elitist, I have to say that the average IQ of many western nations appears to be falling at an alarming rate.

While clever, thinking, intelligent people generally tend to have smaller families (being aware of the costs and responsibilities involved in having kids), the thick, idle and indolent seem to be bent on procreating at a far higher rate.

Since children born into an environment lacking in intellectual stimulation and motivation are less likely to get a decent education or be ingendered with a burning desire to better themselves, we're seeing a disproportionate growth in the ranks of the stupid and lazy.

Here in New Zealand, we have a government that recognizes this and is about to spend a huge amount of $ buying votes by way of election-year hand-outs. Yes, the idiots out there tend to look no further than the size of a "free" lunch and for this reason there's a very real risk that we'll end up enduring another term under the current socialist administration.

Sigh!
Re:Quick, renew your passport! by gnunick · 2004-05-15 11:40 · Score: 1

So, I would wager good money that the promised 10 year "lifetime" of your US passports could be rendered invalid just as easily -- and you'd have wasted a wad of cash.
They may end up invalidating all older passports before they were due to expire, but in the USA it only costs $85 to renew a passport. I'd wager that's not a "big wad of cash " to most Yankees who can afford to travel abroad these days, so I say:

If your US passport is going to expire soon anyway, and you care about your privacy, then maybe it's time to lose/sell ;) it (the passport!) and get a new one ASAP. While you're waiting for the new one to arrive, contact your House and Senate representatives and tell them you think your elected government's getting a little too nosy for its own good.

--
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:27 · Score: 0

this is useless, all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter, not that they would be stupid enough to try anyways.

Yeah. And there's no way anybody would hatch a plan to hijack four jets and fly them into buildings either.

Problem is, the US government now has no choice but to act on tiny fragments of information, and twenty million "what if's". I personally don't mind extra scrutiny if it's in the name of keeping me and my family alive.

My passport has a photo of my face on it. by karlandtanya · 2004-05-15 07:31 · Score: 2

Does that count as recorded biometric information?

--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Re:My passport has a photo of my face on it. by NewtonsLaw · 2004-05-15 09:48 · Score: 1

My passport has a photo of my face on it, Does that count as recorded biometric information?

Perhaps in your case, but in mine it could just as easily be considered a weapon of terror :-)

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:32 · Score: 1, Funny

I personally don't mind extra scrutiny if it's in the name of keeping me and my family alive.

Could you post a link to a picture of your wife please? I may need to have a camera placed in your shower to protect her from terrorists but first I need to check out the threat level. TIA.

Re:prove it by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-05-15 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I personally don't mind extra scrutiny if it's in the name of keeping me and my family alive.

People in 1933 Germany were quite happy to put up with Hitler's new policies, and give up "some" of their civil rights, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons too...

Do you realize the government is taking the constitution apart slowly but surely?

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re: this post analyzed. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Do they really think this is going to be effective against terrorists?

Yes, they do. There's no reason to assume it's for any other purpose.

Or is this just another way of saying to the public, "Look, we're doing something! And it's intrusive to your privacy so it must really work!"

Your passport now contains your photo, your date of birth, your citizenship, where you applied for it, and everywhere you've been. There is zero loss of privacy with this new system.

How many "known" terrorists enter the US? How many of those enter on stolen passports?

This program will help answer those questions. Which, evidently, you don't have answers for.

As far as I know, all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas.

False. Several were either on "watch lists" or on expired visas.

This kind of program would have had no effect on preventing them from entering.

That's like saying "firewalls can't prevent all possible intrusions, so they don't work."

On the other hand, many people do enter the US on forged documents, particularly people from poorer countries who come here illegally, looking for work. I could see how this kind of biometric ID could help identify such illegal immigrants, if that were the goal.

Fair.

But I just wish people would stop trying to tie everything in to the "war on terrorism" - it distracts from the real problems that this kind of technology might be useful for.

Perhaps you consider immigration and terrorism to be completely unrelated problems. You are mistaken, as September 11 proved.

Privacy vs freedom. by SharpFang · 2004-05-15 07:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's pity to watch all those protests against violating your privacy. And no, I don't disagree about them, they are perfectly valid and right. It's just sad that they are.

Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people, allows you to do mostly anything that doesn't mean serious harm to others, doesn't steal from you, that respects you and provides you with all basic necessities a good government should.
Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected, then analysed for potential abuses of the system, then discarded when none, or some not important enough are found? While knowing that whoever actually tries to ruin your life will be caught and stopped just the same you would be if you actually meant some serious harm?
Collecting personal data by itself is harmless. It's how it may be abused is bad. And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Zarhan · 2004-05-15 08:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people, allows you to do mostly anything that doesn't mean serious harm to others, doesn't steal from you, that respects you and provides you with all basic necessities a good government should.
Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected, then analysed for potential abuses of the system, then discarded when none, or some not important enough are found? While knowing that whoever actually tries to ruin your life will be caught and stopped just the same you would be if you actually meant some serious harm?

Welcome to Finland. Or any other Nordic country for that matter.

Maybe we're just crazy, put people here generally trust the goverment, and the goverment has pretty much earned that trust. This is why many of us are pretty much taken aback on how people in US (and UK) are reacting to ID cards - what is so bad about them? But then again, maybe over there you do not have an equal degree of trust.

(This is coming from somebody who really would have liked to visit InterOp but the company budget did not allow for it. I really would have liked this one last trip to the US, because I'm not going anywhere near the United States after September 30th - that is when they start taking those mugshots even for the travellers coming in from visa-waiver-countries.)
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:29 · Score: 0

From the link you provided:

"Germany is much more corrupt than previously thought. It's something we should be taking very seriously," TI's Chairman Peter Eigen told a news conference in Berlin."

So countries can be more corrupt than they realized. This article was published in September 2000. If a study indicates a government has a small amount of corruption, at best that applies to that point in time. To hijack the phrase that is popular among investors: "Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results."

I'm not suggesting that everyone start making tin-foil hats but given the historically proven corruptive effects of power, it seems prudent to minimize the ability of a government to detrimentally affect its citizens should the level of corruption increase.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:46 · Score: 0

"provides you with all basic necessities a good government should"

IMHO, this is not a proper role for government. I think this will lead to a cycle of dependency where the citizens eventually are incapable of taking care of themselves and/or become spoiled brats as the definition of "basic necessities" morphs. Something like "give them and inch, they'll want a mile" so to speak. Or "give them 2.54 cm, they'll want 1.609 km" for the metrically inclined. Neither of which is good for the populace. Even if that would not come to pass, I think governments are wholly unsuited to properly adopt a maternal or paternal role. The need to make changes that are good for the country as a whole while possibly having very negative effects on a limited number of citizens are one of the reasons behind my point of view
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by bgeer · 2004-05-15 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)
Yes, actually. The US gov't (and Canada and EU for that matter) have shown a shocking willingness to criminalize reasonable behavior at the behest of campaign-donating big money corporations. Just look at the Skylarov case.
When the bar for criminal behavior can drop from 'robbed a bank' to 'possession of a prohibited organism' to 'wrote prohibited code' we all have to fear for our privacy because it may incriminate us.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by mog007 · 2004-05-15 10:01 · Score: 1

You must not be familiar with the people that are currently running the United States' government. I trust Bush and his cohorts, as well as all of Congress about as far as my wallet could pay them off, and I'm broke right now.

--
Learn something new.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by orthogonal · 2004-05-15 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people,... Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected,... Collecting personal data by itself is harmless.

Ok, I'm thinking of your utopia. I'll even make it a better utopia: I'll posit that no business try to hack into the government databases for personal gain. And I'll go so far as to pretend that no government employee with access ever abuses that access for personal reasons.

Now, imagine that your utopia is The Netherlands. And imagine it's not May 15, 2004, but May 15, 1940 -- one day after The Netherlands surrendered to Nazi Germany. Note that in surrendering, The Netherlands legally turned over government control to the Nazis. Presumably that would included your database -- if the Nazis hadn't simply seized it outright.

Your utopian database contains the details of all residents, anyone who might join the Resistance, and all the Jews -- including Otto and Edith Frank and their daughters Margot and Anne.
The Frank family managed to hide from the Nazis for two years; how long do you think they'd manage in your "utopia".

Now some will say that there's little chance of Nazi invasions these day, so we should feel safe with "utopian" databases. But it doesn't take a foreign invasion to radically change a government: sometimes it just takes an election, of an Anzar or a Berlusconi or a Blair & Blunkett team or a Bush or a Howard -- or a former war criminal like Waldheim.

Remember COINTELPRO?

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Zebidiah · 2004-05-15 11:17 · Score: 0

Typically I've just posted a similar comment to what I've posted here way down this list.
Terrorist are nothing to be scared of when compared to governments. When it comes to terrorising the populace, terrorist are amateurs compared to an elected democratic government or worse like a dictatorship.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Zebidiah · 2004-05-15 11:20 · Score: 0

Concerning you sig, tux is cute, and I use Linux myself but the little FreeBSD devil..I don't know, perhaps I'll get him tatooed to my butt just to be original.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Zebidiah · 2004-05-15 11:27 · Score: 0

Ouch!......very well put.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Zebidiah · 2004-05-15 11:30 · Score: 0

This got me thinking. I wonder what provisions the government has made (if any, I'm from the UK) to destroy personal data should any invasion, however unlikely take place?
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:36 · Score: 0

That's why I said -basic necessities a government should-, not -everything people want the government to give them-. By that I mean assuring your basic human rights - by protecting your safety (police), freedom (army?), your right to live (basic health care) and such. Not WiFi and a pony mare for everyone.
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by demachina · 2004-05-15 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

"And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)"

Many of the people that are afraid of intrusive government are political dissidents who object to the actions of the people currently in power. These "security" measures usually start out aimed at foreign enemies and criminals and nearly inevitably end up being using to punish political dissidents who are vocal opponents of the people in power.

For example, there are strong indications that the Bush administration is already using their no fly list to punish antiwar activists and political dissidents. A bunch of agencies can add your name to this list at their whim. There is no protocol to find out why your name was added to the list, or legal process to get your name taken off it. There are people that are guilty of nothing more than vocal opposition to the current regime that are being turned away at the airport or being subjected to detainment and intrusive searches thanks to this list. It slows down an antiwar activist if they have to drive cross country to a protest to voice their first amendment rights. Taken to the next level, as it is in full blown police states, the same list will be checked at train and bus stations and then at check points on the highway. At that point you stop traveling. At that point its to late to realize where all these intrusive measures you thought were so benign were leading.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08062003.html
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,58386,00.h t ml

You just can't trust a benevolent government because they often turn malevolent and you may not know it until its too late. The U.S. has had its share of malevolent abusers of information in Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover who used their knowledge to attack and destroy political opponents. Hoover in particular went to great lengths to destroy Martin Luther King because he was advocating equal rights for blacks and was opposing the U.S. war in Vietnam. He also apparently neglected to return a call from Hoover and no one was allowed to no answer when Hoover called. King was no criminal but Hoover treated him like one.

You simply can never trust people who have power. As the saying goes it corrupts. The people who get it want to keep it and will often do anything to that end, reference Richard Nixon, 1972. The people that have power also want to inflict pain and discomfort on anyone who opposes how they are using their power.

If the people in power decide to launch a stupid war, get a lot of people killed, and people start objecting to it, they people in power can abuse all these databases to make life hard for their political opponents and dissidents.

--
@de_machina
Re:Privacy vs freedom. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2004-05-16 01:51 · Score: 1

You guys in Finland are just one disclosure away from losing that trust. You've heard the phrase, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Well, your governments may not have absolute power, but they certainly have a boatload, so be prepared for a boatload of corruption. It *is* human nature, all it takes is the wrong person in the wrong place with the wrong justification.

The problem we in the USA have is the our government is already openly corrupted by corporate lobbying (bribes), and thus many of us are paranoid about it. But, too many people are OK with it since it hasn't bit them in the ass personally, yet.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Nit-picking by Limburgher · 2004-05-15 07:36 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no Chicago Times. There is a Chicago Sun-Times and a Chicago Tribune.

This is from the Chicago Tribune.

But, what do I know. I only live there. :)

--

You are not the customer.

Re:Nit-picking by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:57 · Score: 0

Thank you. Chicago gets no respect.
Re:Nit-picking by Limburgher · 2004-05-15 15:18 · Score: 1

We gots ta represent. . .

--
You are not the customer.
Re:Nit-picking by Trillian_1138 · 2004-05-15 17:45 · Score: 1

Because heaven help us if the Sun-Times is being presented as a good source of information on ANYTHING....

-Trillian

Tin foil hat are now obsolete! by Moocowsia · 2004-05-15 07:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Time to start making tin foil contacts

--
Moo!

Re:Tin foil hat are now obsolete! by Stevyn · 2004-05-15 08:30 · Score: 1

or just cry every time they try to scan your eyes.
Re:Tin foil hat are now obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 10:45 · Score: 0

Wear tin foil contacts and you WILL cry.

Cheap alternative to this system by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:41 · Score: 1, Funny

the article says:

"The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen
passports virtually impossible."

This is only effective if we know who the terrorists are, but its not effect againsts terrorist we don't know.

My research group, Landover Baptist Center For Creation Research, developed a new technology that is able to
detect known and unknown terrorist. the original use of this technolgy was to protect our boys in Afghanistan.
This technolgy that fight terrorism and protect our soldiers is not only effective but it is also very
affordable.

Can you slashdotters guess what this technolgy is? its pork filled bullets. in Afghanistan we found out that our
pork filled bullets not only killed the terrorist but also sends them to hell. Anyways this technolgy can be
adapted to a simple pork pill test. Instead of spending billions of tax payers dollars in these high tech
measures, we can use the miracle of pork to detect terrorist. our theologians tells us that the terrorist will
not eat pork no matter what. This test is so much cheaper than advance passports and its so much more effective.
to upgrade the infrastructure would cost billions of dollars, to ask a person to swallow a pill will cost much less.

Re:Cheap alternative to this system by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:49 · Score: 0

Instead of spending billions of tax payers dollars in these high tech measures, we can use the miracle of pork to detect terrorist.

The "miracle of pork" lol :-)

Anyway, this won't work, you'd kill the jews too, and we all know how much America loves jews don't we?
Re:Cheap alternative to this system by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:40 · Score: 0

we do.... oh you mean congress
Re:Cheap alternative to this system by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:46 · Score: 0

Same research ceneter developed the "Penny Drop" test. this test is 95.6% effective in detecting jewish people. Oh, also we are currently testing our pork test on vegans. According to my research ALF, Animal Liberation Front, PeTA, People for Erotic Treatment of Animals, are made up of mostly vegans and these guys, according to the FBI, are biggest domestic terrorist threat in america. anyways, more information about Ceneter for Creation Research and Landover Baptist visit http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Re:Cheap alternative to this system by ColdWetDog · 2004-05-15 12:01 · Score: 1

Spam! Finally a use for Spam (TM, probably patented)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:prove it by BigGerman · 2004-05-15 07:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

why is this flamebait?
This is a popular opinion expressed in non-offensive and appropriate way.
Dont mod people down just because you do not agree with them.

Re:My solution by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:47 · Score: 0

yeah keep drinking the water and using the subway, who knows what might happen ?

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:47 · Score: 0

People in 1933 Germany were quite happy to put up with Hitler's new policies, and give up "some" of their civil rights, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons too...

You are making a common mistake: equating "extra scrutiny" with "loss of civil rights". They are different. There is extra scrutiny since September 11, but no loss of rights. None.
Godwin. You lose.

Do you realize the government is taking the constitution apart slowly but surely?

I realize that this claim is tossed about quite a bit. I also realize that it is false. Name a single Constitutional right which has been curtailed since September 11. Not "could lead to", not "Ashcroft is going to", not "Bush wants to..." No hyperbole, just a single tangible example with documentation. Just one.

I'm waiting.

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:48 · Score: 0

Dont mod people down just because you do not agree with them.

This is Slashdot, you know?

You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 07:51 · Score: 4, Informative

And neither does 99.9% of /.

There are cryptographic protocols that are well known and widely implemented to make sure that your smart card won't even talk to anything but an authorized system. There is no way that somebody can just go out and buy an ISO 14443 reader and war drive your pocket. They need the proper keys to talk to the card and if they don't have them they are out of luck.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Re:You don't get it. by Ba3r · 2004-05-15 08:09 · Score: 1

you are right, but any security person will tell you that you can implement all the mathematical security you can dream of, but ultimately if (analogy) the password is a on a post-it note next to the monitor, it doesn't matter.

my point being that even though this and that key system is guarding your data, the person controlling the security of the keys is...well, a person. And thats where the attack will occur.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative

No, you don't get it.
If the system is properly implemented then no human eyes will ever see the keys. They are locked in the hardware and can't get out. I am not talking about a pin to unlock the data on your card, though the cards could implement that as well. I am talking about card master keys, encryption keys, MAC keys, and key encryption keys using techniques such as Open Platform secure messaging.
I am talking about using tamper reactive hardware like an IBM 4785 on the back end and putting unique keys on all the cards. This isn't that complicated but nobody on /. understands it and they all bitch about things that understanding it would resolve and I am sick of it.
I'll turn off rant mode now...

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:33 · Score: 0

Yeah, these passports will be IMPOSSIBLE to crack or forge. They will use encryption so they will be 100% SECURE. They will be UNBREAKABLE. It is obvious that they will be so hard to read without an official reader and so hard to forge one that can be read by an official reader that nobody will even try.

Of course if there does happen to be a flaw in either the design or the implementaion and someone discovers it, they're highly unlikely to post what they found on Security Focus or anywhere else regardless of their hat color. Jail time is a possibility for even the most well-meaning of cryptanalysts in this situation.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 08:40 · Score: 1

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that some random person isn't going to be able to walk up to you and read the data off your passport.
How hard the passports will be to tamper with or forge is a different questions. This will depend on the hardware used, and the design and implementation of the security system. A well designed system will have data on it signed by a key that is not present on the card, so even if you hack your own card you won't be able to put valid data on it since you won't have the signing key.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by gnu-generation-one · 2004-05-15 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

"This isn't that complicated but nobody on /. understands it and they all bitch about things that understanding it would resolve and I am sick of it."

Okay, well let's imagine for a moment that we don't think anyone involved in the implementation of smartcards understands these ideas either.

It's not that strange. After all, secure voting protocols exist, but they're completely unknown amongst the people who build voting machines for government use. Why should we imagine that smartcard contractors are any less ignorant of secure protocols?
Re:You don't get it. by karmatic · 2004-05-15 08:50 · Score: 1

...until the reader itself gets stolen.
Re:You don't get it. by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 08:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Point taken. An interesting and scary variation of this could spawn from: http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,954972 3%255E15306,00.html where someone or a cell of people strategically placed can easily or brute-force interfere with Wi-Fi-based controls and directions systems. Maybe they'll never controllably manipulate the systems, but interfering with them, making them repeatedly shut down or restart or have address-assignment contention issues and the like would be a heinous denial of service attack. If such an attack occurred to an immigration facility or an airport, thousands of travellers would suddenly find themselves in "lock-down". Imagine if the airports start getting retrofitted with cell-block doors or drop-gates to keep hoards of wanton or impatient travelers in place until the computers are rebooted (which in the case of windoze, with the issues w2k seems to be having with dual-homed Wi-Fi/traditional nic devices, could be troublesome), inspection agents sign back in, guards wait for the OK to open the gates, and then people tear the place up rushing to their taxis... Maybe the parking system might be wonky, and then nobody gets out without paying the maximum daily rate... Sigh, the opportunities for juvenile to international exploits...

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Re:You don't get it. by JimBobJoe · 2004-05-15 09:15 · Score: 1

There is no way that somebody can just go out and buy an ISO 14443 reader and war drive your pocket. They need the proper keys to talk to the card and if they don't have them they are out of luck.

To which I reply... millions of dollars have been invested in all sorts of great smart card technology, and DirecTV is still facing an uphill battle.

Sure, if you are trying to protect a limited number of expensive smart cards, which are read by a limited number of readers, then perhaps you got something. Even DirecTV can update its smart cards fairly frequently (though it doesn't do it nearly as much as it could, I suspect that's because it figures that it has a semi-losing battle on its hands and it might as well contain profits.)

On the other hand, this passport will be good for 10 years no matter what, and so the RFID scanners will have to be good for that long as well. Which means that, even if it takes five years to crack the RFID encryption, that still leaves five years for a fraudster to use it--at least.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 09:25 · Score: 1

put the keys in an IBM 4758 back in the server room. You can have the 4758 do the crypto.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 09:31 · Score: 1

You are correct that DirecTV has had constant problems. They have a difficult situation in that they are not in constant two-way communication with the cards when in use and each card does not have a unique key.
I don't know what the readers have to do with this. The keys don't have to live in the readers, they can be in a hardware security module in a server in a physically secure facility.
You are correct in that they could be some security breakthrough in before the cards expire, but unless it involves a way to crack 3DES or AES quickly then I see how a large amount of damage could be done.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by Glug · 2004-05-15 09:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Heck, it's just that not everbody thinks thet hardware biometric schemes are as generically secure as you think they are. I dunno if they're all maroons. There might be some people on Slashdot who fritter away their home time coming up with faster ways to determine whether p mod n is primitive for large n and who like to analyze the power consumption of hardware devices to gain information about the bits that comprise the keys stored therein, or mebbe not.

You appear to be a mite irritated by the notion that everyone on Slashdot seems to be pretty ignorant of cryptography stuff. Here's how I'd use that against you:

I would create two files of the same size. The first file would contain stuff that I wanted to hide from you. The second file would contain the stuff that I wanted you to discover. I would use a cryptographically strong psuedorandom number generator seeded with a passphrase to make an XOR pad, and I'd encrypt and overwrite the first file with it. Then I'd use that as a pad and XOR and overwrite the second file. The result would be two files of random-looking gibberish that when XORed together, resulted in the second file. I'd leave the second file ciphertext out somewhere for you to find, and I'd scatter the first file ciphertext around in slack space or wherever to make it hard, but not impossible to find.

I think that your belief that other people are hayseeds would cause you to stop investigating when you found the XOR decryption pad for the second file and successfully decrypted the second file. I do not believe that you would pause to consider that a completely different file was stored within the decryption pad.

Among a larger audience however, like the set of Slashdotters, it would be virtually certain to occur to somebody. No matter how smart you are, there are always people who have different and potentially useful perspectives.

Anyway, it seems like the "if the system is properly implemented" could be a mighty big if. Doesn't it seem probable that there will be an error or two in a complex system's implementation?
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 10:04 · Score: 1

There are certainly some "ifs" involved and a more involved discussion would be needed to examine them. What irks me is that /.ers assume that it someone says, "RFID" or, "smart cards" that anyone and everyone will be able to read the contents off it as you walk by. This is simply not the case.
Also the system really isn't that complex. This sort of thing is standard practice.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 10:08 · Score: 1

I would love to read the article but you will need to post it as a link. What you have posted doesn't work and my attempts to manipulate it to work have failed.
I don't know of any studies on how easy it is to jam an ISO 14443 system. It would be interesting to know. If the cards were dual-interface and had contacts as well then you could simply use the contacts as a backup.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 13:23 · Score: 1

Sorry about that. Here is a shorter URL.

http://securityfocus.com/news/8575

Either I didn't include the other one, or it was line-broken and needs to be reassembled.

However, it's about disrupting Wi-Fi. I am taking a leap in assuming biometric ID cards can be similarly jammed, maybe even disabled if enough energy is directed at them (tho, I don't know that would to do humans having or not having pacemakers...)

DS

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Re:You don't get it. by demachina · 2004-05-15 14:28 · Score: 1

I am less concerned about identity thieves getting the data from the RFID chips than government agents. The article says:

"Questions of privacy also had to be addressed because the chips will use radio frequency identification technology to transmit data. Without protection, the technology theoretically might allow people--identity thieves, for example, or intelligence agents other than immigration officials--to electronically and surreptitiously determine the identity of a passport holder."

The biometric data would be hard for an identity thief to fake and its presumably going to be in a central database and checked when customs scan you fingerprints or iris. You would need good fake fingerprints or contacts to beat that. I am hoping the RFID chip isn't going to have address, phone and social security #, but I wager it will, because then identity thieves might crack it for conventional identity theft, as in getting credit cards.

But there is NO solution to protect against CIA, FBI, ATF, homeland security and military intelligence agents getting access to portable readers that have the keys. We just have to trust that custom agents will be the only one with readers and that is a lot to trust. You have to figure that every nation using this system is going to have to interoperate so the keys to this are going to be all over the world.

For example a CIA agent with a portable reader could ID everyone carrying one of these passports in an instant in a bar overseas, clandestinely and without authority. Sure is a lot easier than having to take pictures or try to steal a fingerprint off a glass. So I would agree with the original poster. If you want to protect your privacy you better find a sleeve that blocks the RF. If the government really wanted to protect your privacy they would install a switch so it could only be read when you authorize it. I am pretty sure the governments involved WANT to be able to clandestinely ID everyone who is carrying one of these passports, and most people do carry them when traveling since they are the main form of ID overseas.

--
@de_machina
Re:You don't get it. by swillden · 2004-05-15 14:42 · Score: 1

I am taking a leap in assuming biometric ID cards can be similarly jammed, maybe even disabled if enough energy is directed at them
I doubt it would be difficult at all to conduct this sort of denial-of-service attack. You could burn out the chip (more likely, the antenna couplings or the antenna itself, but, whatever) by beaming enough power at it, though that might require levels near those found inside a microwave oven. It would be interesting to know what the minimum levels are.
OTOH, it would require much power at all to simply jam reception... the reason that cards can't be read at distances of more than a few centimeters is that they just don't put out much power, so it wouldn't take much to overwhelm the card's output. Cards transmit on simple fixed frequencies, no hopping or spread spectrum stuff, so there's none of that to complicate the job.
So, yeah, denial of service would be easy. Jamming would also be obvious and easy to trace (unlike in the WiFi scenario, where "jamming" just requires an occasional packet to interfere with the link contention protocol). Destroying individual chips would be harder to trace, but would just result in the holder of the broken passport being subject to increased scrutiny. Breaking a whole bunch of passports might possibly be effective at derailing the security procedures, but more likely would just inconvenience *lots* of people as the whole immigration area was shut down until the situation was dealt with.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 16:29 · Score: 1

If the portable reader contains keys then this is a problem. If the portable reader has a network connection back to the server that has an HSM that contains the keys then this isn't a problem. Or at least someone extracting the keys from the reader isn't a problem. Abuse by an authorized user would be a problem in any system.
You are also assuming that a pin or some other user authentication wouldn't be needed to gain access to the information.
So you do raise valid concerns but they can be addressed. The concern of identity theft raised by the article seems very avoidable though.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 18:59 · Score: 0

...and continuing the same line of thought, how many times have you seen slashdotters repeat that they never need that fancy-shmancy academic theory in their real-life programming work? It's exactly this mentality that makes people reinvent voting and passport security protocols poorly.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 23:11 · Score: 1

If the antenna goes but not the chip and it has contacts then it will still work in contact mode. I've tested this out. So contacts are your first back up. It might be possible though to power the card through the antenna in such a way as to make the card not function in either mode while it is in range of the signal.
If someone starts jamming airports frequently you could put he reader in a cage and make people throw their cards into the cage.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by swillden · 2004-05-16 01:03 · Score: 1

If the antenna goes but not the chip and it has contacts then it will still work in contact mode.
Yep. Makes sense, actually.
It might be possible though to power the card through the antenna in such a way as to make the card not function in either mode while it is in range of the signal.
That would be interesting to know.
If someone starts jamming airports frequently you could put he reader in a cage and make people throw their cards into the cage.
You could. More likely you'd track down the jammer and shut it down, then figure out who's doing it and throw them in prison. Such a jammer would violate FCC regulations at the least, and if it were clear that the purpose of the jamming were to disrupt the Immigration processes, I'll bet there are lots more charges that would apply.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:You don't get it. by Ba3r · 2004-05-18 03:08 · Score: 1

First off, plz don't patronize me, and i would strongly advise against patronizing the /. crowd. As whimisical, annoying, obtuse, and frustrating as it is, you never know what sort of expertise you will ram heads with deep in a technical thread.

Regarding the question at hand. You make the assumption of If the system is properly implemented , which i do not accept as a valid assumption in the field of security. Even if the method of encoding the keys onto the reactive hardware (i won't ask more about this, because i am skeptical of your stringing these technologies together so easily), was totally open and exposed, there is still no way to constantly monitor every last unit made, and make sure nobody is sneaking into the process, changing the system for a couple VIP passports, then switching back. My point is only that there will always be a security flaw, and that is humanity. And there is NO way to make something absolutely secure.
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-18 03:54 · Score: 1

Oh please! There haven't been deep technical threads on /. for years. :)
I am not suggesting that any system will have perfect security. Also if the people designing the system are malicious then they can pretty much do as they please. What I am saying is that your assumption that the master keys will be on a post-it note somewhere is flawed and that fears of everyone and their dogs being able to war drive your wallet are overblown and not based on an understanding of the technologies involved.
If someone would post a detailed explaination of how they would war drive a wallet (or even read the contents of their own card) and how they would get around the standard security procedures then I would be impressed. Instead we have posts that show no understanding of the technology that leap to unwarranted conclusions. Every smart card story (and blurb) is full of posts like this, which are no more than FUD. I would love to see some expertise here, but I haven't, so maybe I am missing something. Are you an expert?

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You don't get it. by Ba3r · 2004-05-18 04:54 · Score: 1

heh, by 'deep', i mean several levels down, and i have run into some recently that dealt with topics in depth.

no, i am not an expert, i have only a few classes from the latter half of my undergrad on cryptography and security/privacy at R.I.T. I have read a number of books, but by no means claim to have anything more than a fairly good understanding of the basics of the field.

I agree with you that alot of worries voiced on /. are meaningless, but don't overestimate the technologies. There are plenty of examples of consumer level, well distributed 'secure' systems that have been fairly effectively breached (the adobe secure document debacle an comes to mind).

As to the post it thing, note the "(analogy)". What i was intending to say briefly and humorously was that a secure system will at somepoint need a person to use it properly. What if someone lets their kid go get the groceries on their smart card, and the grocer who knows that kid is the child of the parent, ignores the failed biometric, or bypasses it? This is where the problem comes in, not necessarily at the system level, but at the user level. Bruce Schneier does a really good job of explaining this aspect in his book Secrets & Lies
Re:You don't get it. by John+Harrison · 2004-05-18 05:03 · Score: 1

That is acutally an interesting example, though not really applicable to the current discussion.
In any case there are cards out there now that do an on-card match, so if the right fingerprint isn't present the card won't do the transaction. Also the fingerprint reader is built into the card reader and can send the fingerprint directly to the card, so it can't be stored on the computer attached to the reader.
As for high-profile breaks of "secure" consumer systems, many of these systems used weak crypto, applied a protocol incorrectly, or tried to store keys in software. I would expect/hope that if the US government goes with an electronic passport system they would have the NSA spend some quality time with it before it is released to the public. That should make you feel either more or less secure depending on how malicious you feel the NSA is.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Since it works on RFID by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 07:54 · Score: 0

I think it would be more convenient to just implant the chip and have it work from only 1 foot away. So if it's in your hand, it gets scanned when you do the fingerprint.

Sure all the privacy fanatics will say that's crazy, but I think it's a great idea.

A few possible angles to consider... by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 07:55 · Score: 1

A reader already submitted the article I guess hours before I did, but here is the verbatim of my submission: I read with curiosity an article on Yahoo! regarding the US' getting ready to issue ID-chip-based passports, at this URL: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=20 27&ncid=2027&e=6&u=/chitribts/20040515/ts_chicagot rib/uspassportstogetidchips -- Encryption is purportedly going to go into protecting the identity of holders of RFID-based passports. However, I think I might resort to several layers of aluminum foil, or a portable Faraday cage. Maybe it will be possible to ground the cage by walking on a frictive pad inside my shoe, sending the ground-effect current up the wire, around the cage, and neutralizing any signals trying to query my passport. QUICK-- Somebody patent that! And then give me a call! Too late, I deliberately communicated the idea so that it is Open Source, now, under the David Syes Shoe-Powered, Passport Anti-ID-Theft Faraday Cage Technique License, created impromptu for this article discussion. No non-existing (as of this date) registrations in any patent office shall be regarded as valid, since if they don't yet exist, this idea shall preempt them for the good of humanity. I imagine for military personnel of ANY country wireless passports and joint operations ID cards would get priority on the encryption issue, or else such cards would become massive Tempest Hazards. (Not only ID's could be compromised, but massed bodies could enable a savvy saboteur to identify troop strength, and maybe even in real-time harass the loved ones of said troops...) A real risk for undercover operatives, or even the Secret Service would be that they might be identified. I imagine the REAL story for the Sony X-Ray Camcorders' being recalled was not CIVILIAN privacy, but the threat the see-through cameras constituted to officials/dignitaries and maybe the ease of locating them by identifying their armed/gadget-carrying body guards. I thought of this back around Jan/Feb 98 when the issue broke, but maybe only once brought it up in the Internet. Worse, RFID-based attacks could become the wave of the future, whereby attackers could be slaved to a locality-based trigger which only goes off when the carriers are in optimal position. Might make some interesting fiction, but fact and fiction these days seem to be dancing an increasingly intricate tap dance. As a Marine I once reported to said, "Where there's a WAY, there's a WILL!", in stark contrast to the "Where there's a will, there's a way" statement. His variation was intended for positive/persuasive motivation, not just a cliche. But on a lesser, non-lethal mode, permit-holding, ordinance/provisions-abiding activists could monitor each other to make sure they are not being swept up by over zealous police. Also, Shoe-Powered Faraday cage would make sure that all future identity cards, while carried as per most local laws, would (hopefully) effectively neutralize a crotch-scratching surveillance team's ability to area-sweep the ID of participants, press, and curious bystanders. I can see it now... driver's licenses being interrogated and dutifully replying to events monitors, who often are police and agents and watch groups using surreptitiously- and overtly-placed cameras, microphones, and other tracking mechanisms most people completely ignore. Regards, David Syes

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:A few possible angles to consider... by urmensch · 2004-05-15 08:04 · Score: 1

I'm sure there should be a
in there somewhere.
Re:A few possible angles to consider... by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 08:15 · Score: 0

Yep. I hit submit when I meant to hit Preview. I'd forgotten to hit "Plain Old Text", and there is not smart checker to ask, "Do you REALLY want to sent this large/mass blob of text?"

I guess I need to set my prefs to POTS, since I almost never need to use HTML...

Thanks

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:prove it by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-05-15 07:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Name a single Constitutional right which has been curtailed since September 11

The 1st Amendment

The 4th Amendment

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Terrorists would still get in by digid · 2004-05-15 07:57 · Score: 1

There are probably thousands of willing gunho islamic extremists that would sacrifice their life to destroy a domestic american target. These are good people who believe that America is an enemy to God. They have no previous extremist activity linking them to terrorism and thus would not be flagged as they enter the country.

Re:Terrorists would still get in by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 11:05 · Score: 0

True. And since the system didn't flag them they will no longer be seen as potential threats. Some will reason that since they passed the checks they must be okay. The cards can give a dangerous false sense of security.

A few possible angles to consider...(readable ver) by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 08:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sorry, here is the Plain Old Text I intened to submit, not the html... Moderator, PLEASE remove the html (one-long-ole-unreadable-line-mess) version I sent prior to this...Thx

A reader already submitted the article I guess hours before I did, but here is the verbatim of my submission:

I read with curiosity an article on Yahoo! regarding the US' getting ready to issue ID-chip-based passports, at this URL:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid= 20 27&ncid=2027&e=6&u=/chitribts/20040515/ts_chicagot rib/uspassportstogetidchips

--
Encryption is purportedly going to go into protecting the identity of holders of RFID-based passports. However, I think I might resort to several layers of aluminum foil, or a portable Faraday cage. Maybe it will be possible to ground the cage by walking on a frictive pad inside my shoe, sending the ground-effect current up the wire, around the cage, and neutralizing any signals trying to query my passport. QUICK-- Somebody patent that! And then give me a call! Too late, I deliberately communicated the idea so that it is Open Source, now, under the David Syes Shoe-Powered, Passport Anti-ID-Theft Faraday Cage Technique License, created impromptu for this article discussion. No non-existing (as of this date) registrations in any patent office shall be regarded as valid, since if they don't yet exist, this idea shall preempt them for the good of humanity.

I imagine for military personnel of ANY country wireless passports and joint operations ID cards would get priority on the encryption issue, or else such cards would become massive Tempest Hazards. (Not only ID's could be compromised, but massed bodies could enable a savvy saboteur to identify troop strength, and maybe even in real-time harass the loved ones of said troops...) A real risk for undercover operatives, or even the Secret Service would be that they might be identified. I imagine the REAL story for the Sony X-Ray Camcorders' being recalled was not CIVILIAN privacy, but the threat the see-through cameras constituted to officials/dignitaries and maybe the ease of locating them by identifying their armed/gadget-carrying body guards. I thought of this back around Jan/Feb 98 when the issue broke, but maybe only once brought it up in the Internet.

Worse, RFID-based attacks could become the wave of the future, whereby attackers could be slaved to a locality-based trigger which only goes off when the carriers are in optimal position. Might make some interesting fiction, but fact and fiction these days seem to be dancing an increasingly intricate tap dance. As a Marine I once reported to said, "Where there's a WAY, there's a WILL!", in stark contrast to the "Where there's a will, there's a way" statement. His variation was intended for positive/persuasive motivation, not just a cliche.

But on a lesser, non-lethal mode, permit-holding, ordinance/provisions-abiding activists could monitor each other to make sure they are not being swept up by over zealous police. Also, Shoe-Powered Faraday cage would make sure that all future identity cards, while carried as per most local laws, would (hopefully) effectively neutralize a crotch-scratching surveillance team's ability to area-sweep the ID of participants, press, and curious bystanders.

I can see it now... driver's licenses being interrogated and dutifully replying to events monitors, who often are police and agents and watch groups using surreptitiously- and overtly-placed cameras, microphones, and other tracking mechanisms most people completely ignore.

Regards,

David Syes

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

site has been SLASHDOTTED by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:04 · Score: 0, Troll

Luckily googles cache is still up and running

EU Database by Beautyon · 2004-05-15 08:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Your name, age, address, and photograph is going to be stored in the EU passport database the instant you cross an EU border if the US Biometric passport is issued.

Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.

Eventually, everyone everywhere that has a passport will be stored in every country's passport database, as the billions of international travellers criss cross the globe.

This will not happen if the Biometric passport effort fails. In the article, the spokesperson from one of the companies set to make billions out of shearing the western population talks about there not being "showstoppers". There are showstoppers. Ask any Australian about their sucessful fight against ID cards.

We can have a more secure passport without a centralized database. The problem is that the governments WANT centralized passport databases for the purposes of control. This biometric push has nothing to do with making passports that cannot be forged.

But you know this!

--
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi

Re:EU Database by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:15 · Score: 0

WRONG, u dont NEED ur passport within the EU zone. DUH. Thats the entire point.
Re:EU Database by Beautyon · 2004-05-15 08:24 · Score: 1

I feed the troll.

AMERICANS entering the EU will have their passport scanned ONCE. Then, that record of entry will be stored on the EU passport control system.

Of course, inter governmental data sharing agreements will ensure that every government on earth will have not only the personal details that I mention above, but a complete record of every time you have crossed a national border, anywhere on earth.

The EU and the USA have already agreed this week to share passenger data between themselvs, passport data must logically follow; the only thing missing from passenger data is your photograph, so its not a great leap.

--
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Re:EU Database by Tadu · 2004-05-15 08:30 · Score: 1

The EU and the USA have already agreed this week to share passenger data between themselvs
As in: the USA strangleholded the EU to send passenger data to the US against constitutional rights, while no data is sent to the EU from the USA.
Re:EU Database by Tadu · 2004-05-15 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.
Huh? In opposite to the USA, the EU does have laws to govern the use of data. And it was the US who forced the airlines to submit the data against constitutional rights, or they wouldn't be allowed to fly to the USA anymore. Somehow you've got your facts wrong here.
Re:EU Database by Beautyon · 2004-05-15 08:44 · Score: 1

Im afraid you are wrong about the bi-directionality:

EU Agrees to Give U.S. Airline Passenger Data

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 15, 2004; Page A02

European airlines will soon share information about their passengers with
U.S. officials so they can be screened for security reasons, under an
agreement approved yesterday by the European Commission.

The agreement also would allow U.S. carriers to share information about
their passengers with European Union countries. The data swapping would
likely begin in the next several weeks, officials familiar with the talks
said yesterday...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A281 49-2004May14.html

Its going to be two way, for sure.

--
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Re:EU Database by MKalus · 2004-05-15 08:48 · Score: 1

Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.

I think you crossed EU and US.

It is mainly what happens to EU citizens when entering the US.

And unlike the EU the US is very silent about what happens to the data and how long it is going to be retained.

The EU takes privacy (still) a lot more serioius than the US does.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:EU Database by Beautyon · 2004-05-15 09:04 · Score: 1

I think you crossed EU and US.

Wow. Ok lets do it step by step:

American goes to Germany.
Presents her passport.
Passport is scanned
Data checked against EU shit-list
Record of crosing created in EU Database.
If record already exists, add crossing details to record.
If record does not exist, create new record.

This is what will happen if biometric passports are unleashed. The EU is already well advanced in its plans to build its centralized database of all biometric identifiers; do you really believe that they wont keep a detailed record of who crosses into and out of the EU, and how many times and where they have done it? And do you really believe that they will not share this data? Like I say elsewhere in this thread, the EU has already agreed to share passenger data with the USA; this will be no different.

--
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Re:EU Database by Tadu · 2004-05-15 10:11 · Score: 1

Im afraid you are wrong about the bi-directionality:
European airlines will soon share information about their passengers with U.S. officials... The agreement also would allow U.S. carriers to share information...
In fact, European airline have been forced since months to share information; nothing new here. The article only says the agreement would allow sharing in the other direction; not a word about whether it actually happens (it doesn't, and if it would, it wouldn't be so intrusive).
Fact remains the USA doesn't have sufficient law for data protection (= protecting you from your data), while the EU has.
Re:EU Database by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:10 · Score: 0

Your name, age, address, and photograph is going to be stored in the EU passport database

Cool! So for my birthday, can I expect to get 50% off coupons to EuroDisney in the mail?
Re:EU Database by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 15:52 · Score: 0

Umm, I just returned from Peru and they definately scanned my (US) passport on entry and exit. When I left, my name and all that other good stuff I had to fill out on the declarations form was already in the computer database.
Being in Peruvian territory, I recognize that they can whatever they want with my info and I have absolutely no say in the matter. When you go to foreign lands, you have to play by their rules.
Re:EU Database by MKalus · 2004-05-16 01:55 · Score: 1

This is what will happen if biometric passports are unleashed. The EU is already well advanced in its plans to build its centralized database of all biometric identifiers; do you really believe that they wont keep a detailed record of who crosses into and out of the EU, and how many times and where they have done it? And do you really believe that they will not share this data? Like I say elsewhere in this thread, the EU has already agreed to share passenger data with the USA; this will be no different.

There is going to be one slight difference: The privacy "czars" in Europe have a bit more bite than the one in the US.

Or differently: Yes, the data will be collected, but it will be watched over what happens to the data. The US has not even yet announced what they are planning on doing with all the data they are going to get from the EU, the guess is: They keep it 'til the end of time.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Time to feed the trolls by Safety+Cap · 2004-05-15 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Name a single Constitutional right which has been curtailed since September 11.

I'll give you a twofer: fifth ("due process") and sixth admendments (confronting accusers) -> Jose Padilla

I rest my case.

--
Yeah, right.

Re:Time to feed the trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:07 · Score: 0

I rest my case.
You lose. The Padilla case is an example of the government fucking up, not an example of The Disappearing Constitutional Rights. If it were a trend, there would be more examples to talk about besides Jose Padilla.
Re:Time to feed the trolls by daniil · 2004-05-15 09:31 · Score: 1

If it were a trend, there would be more examples to talk about besides Jose Padilla.
careful! if it comes to things like this, the absence of proof is also a proof. it must be a trend, otherwise they wouldn't be so awfully quiet about it :7

--
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Re:Time to feed the trolls by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-05-15 14:29 · Score: 1

It's funny, because whenever I hear someone mention Jose Padilla, my mind obviously assumes its the Jose Padilla who produced the wonderful chillout Ibiza song called Adios Ayer, among others.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Kerry and McCain 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:17 · Score: 0

Could it happen?

An alliance of a center liberal and an old school conservative against the new right who brought us the clusterfuck in the Middle East and fucked up economy at home.

Yes it could! Liberals and true conservatives! Now is the time to counter the neocon threat!

Re:Kerry and McCain 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 10:00 · Score: 0

what in the hell is a center liberal? It seems to imply the possibility of a right-winged liberal which I can only guess would be a singularity. hmm...on second thought, given how politicians warp space and time this actually makes sense.

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:19 · Score: 0

Now name one that wasn't also violated *before* september 11.

We're all 'smart' people here by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-05-15 08:30 · Score: 1

And there are a lot of comments about:
destruction of civil liberties
won't work
swiss cheese borders
invasion of privacy
blahblahblah

Ok...maybe all those are valid comments.
But what will work, short term (20 years or so)?
The obvious long term solution is to elevate the human condition so that these guys won't want to blow things up. But that will take decades/centuries, if ever.

Face it...there are large groups around the world that wish to blow things and civilians up for various political, religious, and just plain power reasons. Do you want to be one of those targets? I don't.

This is an intelligent group. Can the negativity and come up with something!

(Oh, and stamping your feet and yelling "Get rid of Bush!" isn't the answer.This has been going on far, far longer than Bush has been president, and will continue long after he's gone.)

Re:We're all 'smart' people here by MKalus · 2004-05-15 08:51 · Score: 1

This is an intelligent group. Can the negativity and come up with something!

(Oh, and stamping your feet and yelling "Get rid of Bush!" isn't the answer.This has been going on far, far longer than Bush has been president, and will continue long after he's gone.)

You said it yourself --> Better living conditions for everybody.

And yes, that won't happen, and no removing Bush won't make that happen. Live with it. The US has one big ugly bulls eye on on her ass and if the US doesn't change the tone in their foreign policy someone might want to kick again.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:We're all 'smart' people here by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-05-15 09:30 · Score: 2, Informative

No. It's not jut the US, and it's not just 'foreign policy'.

Bombs found on a railroad track in France. US foreign policy? No
Explosion near a police station in Athens. US foreign policy? No.
OBL stated he wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. We were there at the behest of the Saudi govt.
They want to reverse 500-800 years of history, and restore Moslem rule in Spain. If not, hey...let's blow something up.
Blow up a hotel in Bali.
Gas a train in Japan.
Fertilizer bombs in London.

It's far more than the current US foreign policy.

We can't do nothing, because these fools will continue.

So...what should be done?
Re:We're all 'smart' people here by edmundv · 2004-05-15 20:34 · Score: 1

Making more friends, and less enemies. That will work.
Re:We're all 'smart' people here by MKalus · 2004-05-16 03:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

OBL stated he wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. We were there at the behest of the Saudi govt.

Actually the Saudi Government wanted the US troops out as well. For quite some time.

They want to reverse 500-800 years of history, and restore Moslem rule in Spain. If not, hey...let's blow something up.

Because of the bombs in Madrid? As far as I remember there was never anybody really claimning responsiblity, it all seems to be speculation and even that claimed it was because of Spains involvement in Iraq.

Blow up a hotel in Bali.

Who claimed responsibility for that?

Gas a train in Japan.

Homegrown Terrorists.

Fertilizer bombs in London.

Also homegrown terrorism.

It's far more than the current US foreign policy.

Dude, I got some news for you: The rest of the world has lived with terrorism (state and "personal") for most of history, it hasn't brought civilization to an end and bombs going up in the US won't do that either.

"Fighting" Terrorism (preventing it would be a better word) is a generational effort and not something you can solve by shoving some people some rockets up their asses. And it will never EVER go away completly.

The sooner you and the rest of the world who thinks "war on terror" is the best thing since sliced bread understand and accept this the sooner we can maybe start on the slow treck to prevent a lot of those.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:We're all 'smart' people here by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 12:59 · Score: 0

Bombs found on a railroad track in France.
Extortionists.

Explosion near a police station in Athens.
Local terrorists.

OBL stated he wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. We were there at the behest of the Saudi govt.
Not the Saudi people though. The government is not democratic. Like, um, the former and present Iraqi ones.

They want to reverse 500-800 years of history, and restore Moslem rule in Spain.
Thats a new one.

Blow up a hotel in Bali.
OK. You got me. Nice one.

Gas a train in Japan.
Shin Ri-Kyo. Some nutty religious sect.

Fertilizer bombs in London.
Unproven.

Here's some for you to try.

A-bombing japanese civilians. Women and children. Twice.
Machine gunning and shelling Korean civilians.
Napalming Vietnamese civlians.
Part in overthrow of democratic governments in Chile, pre-shah Iran and others.
Grenada, Bay of pigs.
Kyoto refusal.
World court refusal.
Abu Ghraib.

Let's not forget the American DOMESTIC scene.
The Kent State Shootings.
Oklahoma City.
Waco.
Guantanomo.
Rodney King.
Slavery.
Racial segregation.
KennedyJ, Evers, KennedyR, King, MalcolmX,

And the sad fact is that 29,000 Americans die each year from "Incidents Involving Firearms". Al Qaeda can only dream of such results.

And finally, 8 MILLION children die each year for want of some basic sanitation and a decent meal. I concede the last point is unrelated, but it does serve to illustrate the scale of terrorism in the bigger picture.

Yes, something needs to be done. But please try to open your heart instead of hardening it. Americans are capable of such great things. Don't let it be thrown away in your name by those who wield the finest power that money can buy. Don't fall for the easy solutions.

I remind you of America's own history. Was it not Patrick Henry who said "Give us Liberty or give us Death". This could easily be the rallying cry of a modern Palestinian suicide bomber. Study the birth of your nation and see the parallels - civil disobedience of laws that meant nothing to you. Active resistance to an occupying force. Now ask what do the Iraqi "insurgents" do that is so different?

In closing, it amuses me that the American defeat of the English was overseen by an English ruler called "George" who was "very slow to learn to read as a youth" and who, "As king, laboriously read every word of every document brought to him, often to the consternation of his ministers.

Re:prove it by Valar · 2004-05-15 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, constitutional rights were violated before 9/11. However, now everytime someone wants to pass a law curtailing the public's rights, they proclaim that it is a "security measure" designed to "fight terror." It isn't like it was impossible to get obviously unconstitutional laws into place before 9/11, but now it is easy. Before, patriots said "Give me liberty, or give me death!", but now our government (I wouldn't call these people, as a group, patriots) says "Give up liberty for fear of death!"

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

Can make things worse by Stevyn · 2004-05-15 08:34 · Score: 4, Informative

So once these are issued, a little while later they're cracked and people make fakes relying on the notion that the passport will be checked with less scrutiny because it checks out on the computer. This is like how digital licenses are swiped to validate age when buying alcohol, but they look less at the photo. Technology like this can have the effect of making people less careful when checking someone's identity.

Re:Can make things worse by demachina · 2004-05-16 01:15 · Score: 1

You wont be able to fake these ID's with customs agents, or anyone else with the biometric scanners, because they will mostly likely be checking the biometric information against a central database. If you stole the passport information your biometric info won't match it unless you have the sophistication to produce contact lenses that fool the eye scans or synthetic finger prints to fool the finger print scan.

These ID's really are hard to forge though the use of the RFID chip is particularly scary since they may allow any government agent with a reader to ID you at any time without your knowledge or consent. These RFID chips need either a switch to allow you to enable them for scanning or a PIN you have to enter in the reader. Even then you couldn't count on there not be a back door so a RF proof shield would be the only reliable way to insure you aren't being ID'ed without your consent.

--
@de_machina

Re:You don't get it. No, I do, but I don't care... by davidsyes · 2004-05-15 08:37 · Score: 1

... that any government wants to assuage the fears by claiming "it's so locked up we can't get in either... all we can do is interrogate it at official interrogation facilities, that if you don't enter, you won't be known..." Yeh, right...I say.

And, sir, is there any guarantee (rhetorical initial question?) that there is not going to be any surreptitious/clandestine alternate wave emanating from such cards.

Of course, anyone savvy enough could try to tempt the card to give a chirp, even if only once, but what if each card is programmed to randomly "chirp" to a cell site?

What if the randomness is controlled by building-mounted interrogators, such as IFF/Identification Friend or Foe? If the chirp is government-initiated, it is of no comfort to hear that the chip will refuse to reply to from some standard hardare attacks.

I still say the card should be shielded "just in case", don't you agree?

I guess, however, a severe government punishment could be this: "All persons must carry their official ID. All persons carrying their approved ID may never bend, tear, fold, spindle or otherwise mutilate the official property of the State, nor may the encase, obfuscate, wave-block, interrogate-block, or otherwise interfere with the two-way communications signals. Carriers entering a Federal or State building with an immediately-non-interrogable ID card will be dealt with severely..."

I guess this reduces to "don't ask, don't tell", resulting in lots of inexplicable (public secret) carrying of foil in pockets..

I'll ALWAYS remember (1984/NTC/SSC/Boost Instructor) Marine SSgt Rodriguez's words: "Where there's a WAY, there's a WILL!", as should anyone reading his line.

David Syes

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

WARNING: LINK GOES TO GAY PORN - DO NOT CLICK by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:42 · Score: 0

Nice try bub. Of course, if I had a second-rate browser like IE, I might've actually fallen victim to that stupid site.

Re:prove it by CaptainFrito · 2004-05-15 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the things often missed in these discussions is that the US Constitution is a charter for the government to exist, not a charter for the people to exist. All these 'rules' and 'scrutiny' add the presumption of guilt.

All these draconian 'security' measures are not needed because barbarians are at America's gates, but that American policies around the world are creating tensions that are easist to address via terrorism.

"Extra scrutiny" has never been shown to add true security. And the US government has been taking apart the US Constitution since the US Civil War. Consider the War Powers Act for one. The printing of a fiat currency for another. Censorship. Affirmative Action (aka 'reverse discrimination') which is strictly against the principles of the Constitution -- social engineering is ineffective and people, especially when considering generations: time and societies are not algebraic equations; you can't take away from Jim in 1850 and give Joe a handout in 2004 and make up for it. All it does is create a class of people who feel as though society owes them something, which it most surely does not. Clearly the Constitution never allowed for this; if it did, it would have included "inequalty" as its key premise. This does exist because the US government does indeed pervert the US Constituion.

Bastiat wrote of 'legal plunder' which is how the State works. In fact he wrote that the State was 'that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.' Whenever the State gives itself authority that the indiviuals making up that State do not have, it begins to live above the power that created it and by definition must oppress the creating power. That is the mechanism through which principles of civil rights are lost, which is quite different than judging such by contravening current laws. Laws flow from principles, not the other way.

Leeloo Dallas...Multipass by Pythagorus · 2004-05-15 08:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

How better to desensitize herds into accepting it... Think of the stormtroopers in 5th Element...ubiquitous A/V mapping in Demolition Man(not to mention Arnie as pres.)...eyescanners in Minority Report...going back a ways, total identity check in Gattaca... The question isn't what affect this has on the now...What's the long term goal here? I can't fathom... Imagine Columbus, Magellan, Polo, any of them being asked for biometric ID! It's as ridiculous as the concept that any of us really own anything!

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 08:51 · Score: 0

The First Amendment? Nope. The ACLU voluntarily amended their press release, after having pointed out to them that they had previously agreed not to include the specific information. There is no issue of censorship here, especially considering that the paragraph in question is freely available.

The Fourth Amendment? Nope. Barr is referring to a proposal, not a law.

You have failed the assignment, but you can try again if you like.

Re:prove it by blincoln · 2004-05-15 09:03 · Score: 1

People in 1933 Germany were quite happy to put up with Hitler's new policies, and give up "some" of their civil rights, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons too...

I recently picked up Triumph of the Will on DVD. I would recommend it for viewing by any citizen of the modern world. There are many parts that gave me an ominous feeling of deja vu. It was also the source of the quote in my sig.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman

Re:You don't get it. No, I do, but I don't care... by John+Harrison · 2004-05-15 09:04 · Score: 1

You are confusing two different issues. I was stating that if you don't have the right keys you can't talk to the card. I haven't said anything about whether you can trust the government. I also haven't said anything about whether a program like this is even needed or effective. All I have said is that an unauthorized person isn't going to be able to get next to you and read your card.

Your issue is a different one. You are saying that someone who does have the keys is going to try to talk to the card in inappropriate places.

The first line of defense is that the technology is only good for distances of 10 cm (and then in ideal conditions) so I am not too worried about that. If there is tech to used smart cards at distances beyond 1 meter please tell me, I would like to know about it.

Also note that this assumes a contactless smart card. A traditional contact smart card needs to be inserted into a reader to be read.

I don't carry my passport with me unless I am traveling internationally, so this isn't too much of a concern. If you are still worried you should buy a little cage for your card.

The only way that I can think of to guarantee that the card doesn't have any secret features is to do a full audit of the hardware, software, and tools used to create the hardware and software.

Of course if the government is tracking you everywhere you should also wear gloves to prevent leaving fingerprints, wear a mask to prevent facial recognition, close your eyes to prevent retina and iris scanning, wear earmuffs to prevent ear geometry scanning, and walk funny to prevent gait recognition. I am probably leaving something out. Let's see, don't grab anything so they can't use hand geometry on you, and don't sign anything so they can't use signature recognition, and don't say anything so they can't use voice recognition. Especially don't use a cell phone, those can be tracked. Take the plates off your car. Don't leave any bodily fluids around so they can't use DNA to track you. Only pee in a secure toilet. Be careful with the dandruff. Don't spend any money other than coins because the transaction will either be electronic or involve serial numbers on bills.

I am exagerrating here, but if they are going to invade your privacy there are plenty of ways to do it. I am sure there will be a market for privacy wallets.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Getting into the U.S. by mikeboone · 2004-05-15 09:21 · Score: 1

What's to stop a bad guy from getting on a small boat in Canada/Mexico and motoring/sailing/etc. 100 miles down the coast or across a great lake and just getting off the boat in the U.S.? Why would they even need a passport? Seems to me if they really wanted in, they'd get in.

Re:My solution by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:22 · Score: 1, Informative

"Instead of wasting my taxpayer money on unless garbage"

unless garbage? sheesh, I think might head might explode...

"Johnny Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decide whether or not to reverse the decision for my client, Chef. I know he seeems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen, this? is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute: that does NOT MAKE SENSE! Why am I talkin' about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit! Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey."

Re:prove it by aardvarkjoe · 2004-05-15 09:26 · Score: 1

Do you realize the government is taking the constitution apart slowly but surely?

I don't suppose you'd care to enlighten us on which of your rights is infringed by this?

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?

Re:site has been SLASHDOTTED == real mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:30 · Score: 0

Parent is an obvious troll. However, the site is actually slashdotted, so a mirror would definately be useful. Fortunately, Athenee's automatic Slashdot mirroring script kicked in in time, and you can browse the site here

And countries that cannot afford these systems? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:32 · Score: 0

No doubt these scanners and methods are patented by U.S. corporations and researchers.

And the scanning process and generated "fingerprint" must be identical. So of course these countries can not simply create their own scanners.

And so we have the following situation for countries which cannot afford the new U.S. fee of entry - the scanners:

Either they can not generate the biometric fingerprint and their citizens will be denied entry, or they must create their own in violation of the patents of U.S. corporations and researchers and are declared "rogue nations" or "pirate nations" and denied entry.

And guess what? It just so happens that most of these rogue nations will be non-white.

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:33 · Score: 0

That may be the worst, most flawed analogy I've ever heard.

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:45 · Score: 0

"And the US government has been taking apart the US Constitution since the US Civil War. Consider the War Powers Act for one."

Strickly speaking, you are wrong :) The War Powers Act builds upon the "elastic clause" of the first Article of the Constitution, allowing Congress to pass laws which are "necessary and proper" for the fulfillment of its enumerated powers. The power to "declare war" implies that Congress has a say in how and where our troops are represented.

Furthermore, since the Civil War, and especially the early through middle 20th century, your "Constitutional rights" have INCREASED because of the 14th Amendment. The Gitlow case in 1925 (or so?) determined that the freedom of speech was one of the "essential liberties" that the 14th Amendment sought to protect from infringement by the states, and such cases as Brown vs. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Gideon vs. Wainwright and Griswald vs. Connecticut have further protected your rights of due process, counsel in criminal proceedings, and privacy, respectively. In addition, the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act of 1964/65 were passed on an expanded definition of "interstate commerce" which heavily favored personal rights.

Basically, it is only in the last couple of decades that some "judicial restraint" has been practiced, and I would hardly call the Supreme Court conservative. The current administration may be attempting to "pervert" the Constitution to a degree, but it is nothing compared to Roosevelt's policies back in the day.

Re:prove it by mog007 · 2004-05-15 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't forget the 6th Admendment, both the right to a speedy trial and the right to council, are null and void if you're a suspected terrorist.

--
Learn something new.

This is offtopic regarding the article by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 09:56 · Score: 0

but instead refers to previous posts.

To all the Bush haters: Just be thankful that the number of presidential terms allowed an individual wasn't increased as was suggested by some during Clinton's reign.

To all the Bush lovers: If you think about increasing the number of presidential terms allowed so that Bush can stay in office, you should keep in mind that another Clinton could get elected.

To all those who share my view that the democrat/liberal/left versus republican/conservative/right struggle is a scam perpetuated by the political class to maintain the classes power: Vote for independent or 3rd party candidates in any election available to you. Vote for Nader in the upcoming presidential election. By the way, I'm not a big fan of Nader, but my primary voting agenda is to put an end to the 2-party monopoly on government influence.

Chicago Times? by BubbaMike · 2004-05-15 10:31 · Score: 1

There is no Chicago Times, there is a Sun-Times but this story didn't come for it, it came from the Chicago Tribune. If you can't even cite your sources correctly how can anything you say be taken seriously?

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 10:33 · Score: 0

That may be the worst, most flawed analogy I've ever heard.

Yeah, it's like an oak tree.

Tin Foil Hat by Zebidiah · 2004-05-15 11:11 · Score: 0

I'm more scared of the governent than I am from terrorists.

Unless someone can say diffently, governments have killed an awful lot more law abiding people than terrorists.

Ah, but the EU has Data Protection laws by zoney_ie · 2004-05-15 11:14 · Score: 1

The EU CAN'T use passport data as it sees fit - only insofar as allowed by the rather stringent data protection laws here - e.g. no indefinite retention. You can be CERTAIN that this info will not be sold to corporations. You also have the right to query what info is held, and update it if incorrect.

Unfortunately, EU citizens will have no right as data collected by the US when they visit. It is a point of considerable consternation that the data sharing deal is going ahead when the data protection situation in the US is much looser than in the EU (i.e. there is NONE - they CAN do whatever they like with the details!!!).

I quite hope I don't have to ever go to the US again. Things here aren't going entirely in the right direction civil-liberty-wise - but at least our politicians in Ireland are mostly only interested in taking money from property developers and making money for themselves (and sometimes as a result - the country).

The European Commission meanwhile, at least have the benefits of not being directly elected (just appointed by elected govt.s) - so often they act "in Europe's best interests" rather than watching their backs. It has its advantages. All in all, the psuedo-democratic nature, the European policy-makers answering to govts and the directly elected European Parliament, seems to work much better than a directly elected executive body.

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Re:prove it by Trailwalker · 2004-05-15 11:46 · Score: 1

The emergency decrees passed by the Reichtag after the "Burning" of the Reichtag building are not much different from those of Bush and Ashcroft.

The rest of us? by nurb432 · 2004-05-15 11:48 · Score: 1

I dont care about people coming in the US personally. ( we have enough now thank you very much ).

When are they going to extend ( force upon ) this to actual citizens?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

The 2nd Too by nurb432 · 2004-05-15 11:51 · Score: 1

Dont forget the 2nd. As if you disarm your citizens, it gives you more power to remove the rest of their rights and freedoms..

If the people cant rise up and take control back, the goverment has a free ride.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Minor correction by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:03 · Score: 0

all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter

What you really mean is:

all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter through a patroled point of entry.

Personally, the way Americans are behaving, I think all other countries should just stop all travellers from going into US. That'll shut the bastards up once and for all.

Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:09 · Score: 0

And why the hell is this post modded down as offtopic? Slashdot...

True Dat ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:23 · Score: 0

Stealing Biometrics will become easier and easier,
fake fingerprints, fake eye contacts etc...

Any Measure taken is always matched by an equal or greater countermeasure...

Tobacco Executives roam free, yet hundreds of thousands of people are killed by smoking!

Weeds out undesirable misfits... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 12:28 · Score: 0

Such as Democrats ;-P

Re: this post analyzed. by mdwh2 · 2004-05-15 12:31 · Score: 1

Your passport now contains your photo, your date of birth, your citizenship, where you applied for it, and everywhere you've been. There is zero loss of privacy with this new system.

Currently, one guy takes a look at your photo and forgets about it afterwards. Now that photo, along with fingerprints and any other biometric information, can get copied and stored in a central database of every country you visit. That's no loss of privacy?

That's like saying "firewalls can't prevent all possible intrusions, so they don't work."

Well when the government passes a law saying that their firewalls (along with monitoring software and DRM controls) must be stalled on all computers, I'll be arguing against that too.

Perhaps you consider immigration and terrorism to be completely unrelated problems. You are mistaken, as September 11 proved.

Yeah, cos immigrants are terrorists, and citizens never do terrorism.

Re:prove it by Jodka · 2004-05-15 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

personally don't mind extra scrutiny if it's in the name of keeping me and my family alive.

People in 1933 Germany were quite happy to put up with Hitler's new policies, and give up "some" of their civil rights, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons too...

With a single sentence you have exemplified both Godwin's law and Arthur Schopenhauer's thirty-second strategem. Readers can draw their own conlcusions about this conjunction of well-documented forms of noxious and invalid rhetoric with "+5 insighful" moderation.

Government survilenace can be used either to protect the safety of law abiding citizens or to deprive those citizens of their privacy and freedom. The former is a shield from violent attack on the innocent, the latter a gurantee of opression. There is hard question: How does a democratic society permit benificial surveilance and disallow oppressive surveilance. Those who condem all government monitoring out of hand (see parent post) are a threat to democracy just as are those who support government monitoring without question; both groups advocate policies which place citizens at risk.

We should have government controls in place to catch terrorists and we should insure that those controls do not become a tool for oppresion by our own government. Those serious about the defense of life and liberty will consider the complicated issue of how to achieve that. We would do well to ignore the extremeists: the tinfoil hat brigade on the left and the "my government can do no wrong" CIA fanboys on the right.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Re: this post analyzed. by demachina · 2004-05-15 14:51 · Score: 1

"There is zero loss of privacy with this new system."

Except that thanks to the RFID chip any government agent with a portable reader can instantly ID you any time you carry one of these passports unless you take measures to block the RF signal which most people wont.

Its probably a CIA agents wet dream to walk in to a bar or airport in a hot spot in the world and in the space of about a minute ID everyone in the place with one of these passports. Using a wireless link to the central database they will instantly know who in the room are terrorism suspects, who are political dissidents and who are esteemed citizens of the police state and to be shown deference at all times. As with most invasions of privacy the people with something to hide will know how to beat them and most ordinary people won't.

--
@de_machina

Re:prove it by CaptainFrito · 2004-05-15 14:58 · Score: 1

The US Constitution does not allow for the govewrnment to bypass congress (read it). The War Powers Act created the authority for Executive Orders which indeed does that very thing. The President has the authority to create laws at the stroke of a pen.

In fact, three times that I know of has Executive order authority been used to redefine liberty (see EO 13083, et al). Yes, you read it right. Americans now enjoy liberties at the behest of the US Government. I'm pretty sure that the US Constitutional framers never thought that would be possible given the principles they established.

As for the cases you cited, I do believe that they succeeded based on the most fundamental Constitutional principles. Laws, which you cite, flow from principles, not vice versa. Nothing new or expanded was introduced. All that happened was that Government imposed limitations that never should have been there in the first place got removed and the orginal principles got more room. But that doesn't mean things haven't been given up in the process. In fact things are generally worse, in my book anyway. The fact that entire nations and peoples are being repressed is expressed in their acts of terrorism, which is simply the most economical way of expressing their frustration. Davidson and Rees-Mogg did a good job explaining this in "The Great Reckoning".

Nice tries though. And by the way, I don't support any administration; history has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is totally and profoundly unfit to rule men. (Jer 10:23; 2 Tim 3:1-5, 15-16).

what's this? by golgafrincham · 2004-05-15 15:58 · Score: 1

everyone with a mind of it's own knows that all this "technology" has nothing to do with preventing terrorist attacks. all the things that were done in the name of the "war against terrorism" wouldn't have stopped atta nor any other recent attack. atta had a valid passport and no record. but all these things are justified with that accursed date. man, this is doublespeak at it's best. remember, the main point in 1984 is not big brother but the constant war.

--
beer as in "free beer"

Hacker/Cracker Challenge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-15 17:41 · Score: 1, Funny

Somebody need to create a device that can:

Read these chips
Crack and encryption used
Process the results, and
Display something like this:
- Your Name is: John Doe
- Your Passport number is: 1234567
- Your Passport will expire on: 01/01/2007
- Your Passport was issued in: Los Angeles, CA
- Who is watching you: Big Brother
on a sign.

This person could then stand in an airport lobby and display this sign to passengers walking by.

These are set to expire after 5 years... by Yahnz · 2004-05-16 00:14 · Score: 1

The technology behind the machine-readable insert isn't that great, plus there is a recognition that the technology will mature quickly.
For those reasons, the US government (and other governments that are being forced to do this) are most likely going to expire these after 5 years, rather than the customary 10...

Actually, contactless capabilities are in... by Yahnz · 2004-05-16 00:21 · Score: 1

the standards these are based on call for very short range contact-less readers (on the order of 10cm, or 3 inches).

So one could, *theoretically*, "war-drive" for passports at a busy airport. You'd need the right equipment (i.e. a sizeable suitcase!), but as the recent example of Israeli Mossad stealing NZ passports demonstrates, there will always be parties willing to do so...

From the NTWG BIOMETRICS DEPLOYMENT (page 20):
.Contactless ICs are to conform to ISO 14443 Type A or Type B
.The LDS is to be encoded according to the Random Access method
.read range should be up to 10cm

Re:Actually, contactless capabilities are in... by John+Harrison · 2004-05-16 04:50 · Score: 1

A contactless reader can be the size of a pack of cards and could be attached to a PDA, so you wouldn't need a suitcase, it could be in your pocket. However if the application uses encryption appropriately then this isn't a concern, which was my point above.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

This is looked at outside of the US, too, you know by Yahnz · 2004-05-16 00:25 · Score: 1

These standards are world-wide - or at least the US is making sure they are (i.e. to get easy processing at US ports of entry you must have a machine-readable passport, etc.)

So, to make it short, there are a lot of people outside of the US looking at these requirements, and deciding whether their citizens should be subject to these same conditions.

Welcome to big brother on the global scale. On the other hand it ain't that bad...

US is forcing passport changes on other countries! by Yahnz · 2004-05-16 00:32 · Score: 1

The passport changes talked about here do not affect just Americans. Look up ICAO, and Deployment of Machine Readable Travel Documents. There is a good chance that your country will change its passports in the next 18 months, since this is the timeline the US government laid out.

Without a new passport, you will not be eligible for streamlined entry into the US - in fact, you might not be allowed to travel to the US in the first place.

Again, this is not only about US passports - these are being forced on 28+ countries...

Re:prove it by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2004-05-16 01:19 · Score: 1

Forget the amendments, how about something in the actual constitution itself? Something so important that the Found Fathers put it in Article I - the first Article of the US Constitution. The right of Habeas Corpus.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:This is looked at outside of the US, too, you k by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-16 01:32 · Score: 0

I can't figure out if your post is on the apologist side or the tin-foil side. It appears to be a very weak apologist argument - "governments outside of the USA care about their citizen's rights" but then you go an mention big brother like you realize it is all fucked up. So, my question to you, is why did you even bother posting if you couldn't make a clear point?

Good news on this! by tcreek · 2004-05-16 04:49 · Score: 1

he good news is that a passport is required by OTHER countries to entry. The government cannot require a citizen to enter the country with a passport. You only have to proove citizenship. This can be done easily with a state issued ID/drivers liscense and birth certificate. Nothing there to scan into their computer.

Won't all the Bush voters see this as the "mark?" by MMHere · 2004-05-17 09:05 · Score: 1

Won't all the Loonies of the Right [www.capsteps.com] who vote for Bush The 2nd again this fall see this as the mark of the beast and go ape over it?

Or will it just silently be slid into place with little reporting, and then be too late?

Re: by Ba3r · 2004-05-18 06:47 · Score: 1

you are relying on proper implementation again.

Not to extend this engaging (albeit mildly redundant) thread, but i would argue my example is quite applicable, not in a direct sense to what you may be proposing, but once again as an analogy to the fallacy in thinking there can be a direct solution to this problem. I think these grey areas will surely come out, but not until such a system is actually in widespread use.

Although i must stress that i personally am all for such biometric/smart card type systems as I think they can be done right. However I still resist anyone putting 'faith' into them rather than rationally seeing their limits. This is a prerequisite i feel must exist if these cards are to succeed.

rationally seeing their limits by John+Harrison · 2004-05-18 07:06 · Score: 1

I agree that the limits and weaknesses of any such system should be discussed, probed, evaluated, and so forth, and that the process should be public and done prior to roll-out. I just don't think that many on /. are qualified to do so. The weaknesses that people on /. dream up are silly and do not advance the understanding of the subject. Mostly they serve to cause the /. community to think that the things are worse than they really are. This is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" played out again and again everyday. The editors and moderators just feed the fire given that they don't understand the technology.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Slashdot Mirror

Updated Schedule for U.S. Biometric Passports

224 comments