Slashdot Mirror


Biometrics at the Statue of Liberty

gurps_npc writes "There is an interesting CNN article about the Statue of Liberty finally opening again (it was closed since 9/11 for security reasons). They have increased security to 'airport levels', and offer lockers for people to rent, partly to keep those incredibly dangerous objects like swiss army knives away from the fragile Statue of Liberty. But instead of keys, the lockers use fingerprint readers to open and close (approximately one reader for every 50 lockers)." The article notes that the design was dictated by the Transportation Security Administration.

15 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people...And it became always wider...

    "The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...

    "Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about ...or, rather, provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway...

    "Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated ... by the machinations of the 'national enemies' without and within) and the government's 'responses' to them, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us...

    "Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...

    "Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...

    "You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
    occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...

    "That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. ...

    "You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."

    Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
    of Chicago Press, 1955)
    __________________________________

    "We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002

    "In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940

    "Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights

    "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
    Osama bin Laden, October, 2001

    1. Re:Freedom? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- George W. Bush

      Guess he's showing us, huh?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Freedom? by christopherfinke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Is it time for supper?" Adolf Hitler, June 1940

      "I would like to eat now." Osama bin Laden, October 2001

      "What's for dinner?" John Kerry, June 2004

      See how easy it is to connect random people with out-of-context quotes?

    3. Re:Freedom? by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That quote sounds bad in that context, but freedom must have limits or else it impedes on other people's freedoms. You shouldn't be free to fly planes in buildings. You shouldn't be free to oppress millions of people. That quote in it's proper context is the foundation of America. Freedom to do as you wish but not hurting others in the process to a point they lose their freedoms.

    4. Re:Freedom? by Amtiskaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. In this case you've showed an accurate connection, that all three individuals are connected through their consumation of foodstuffs, with no requirement for contextual information. I'm not exactly sure why anyone would care about this particular demonstrated connection though?

      Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the kind of connection through political opinion and rhetoric displayed in the parent post, but you can keep banging on that "all evil people eat food" thepry if you like.

    5. Re:Freedom? by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your assertion is usually true but in this case these two quotes aren't really being taken out of context:

      "We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002

      "In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940

      They carry most of their context with them. The only thing different are the specific enemies they were facing. For Hitler it was communism, Jews and the powers that humiliated Germany at Versailles. For George W. its pretty much anybody who isn't in the "with us" column in "you are either with us or against" though in particular its Islamic extremists.

      They are both saying they have enemies and they will use preemptive, aggressive warfare to eliminate them before they can strike. Not sure what context you could put around these two statements that would make them not mean the same thing.

      Enemies from without or within, whether they be real, imagined or manufactured are probably the oldest tool for expanding the power of a government over its people. If people feel threatened or endangered they will usually sacrifice just about anything to be safe. The people in Germany did sacrifice everything but in the end it didn't lead to safety.

      The key questions American's need to ask themselves today and aren't:

      - how much are you willing to sacrifice to be "safe".
      - are the sacrifices you're making actually resulting in improved safety.

      Unfortunately many of the insane measurements being taken by an out of control government in Washington are, at the end of the day, more smoke and mirrors than real improvements.

      If the sacrifices you are making are making you "safe" then you just need to ask yourself is it worth it.

      If the sacrifices you are making aren't really make you much safer then why should you be making them.

      A simple example, the way to prevent another 9/11 was extraordinarily simple. You put armored cockpit doors in all airliners. It cost a few million dollars and it didn't trample any civil liberties. Sure highjackers might still be able to take over the passanger compartment or blow up the plane but if you want to live in a free society you need to accept there are some risks. You make modest improvements in screening passengers and baggage if you want to minimize them. But instead your government responded to 9/11 with measures that were extraordinarily disruptive, expensive and trampled civil liberties in a major way. They border on making flying so unappealing people start to avoid it, especially if you fly to the U.S. from another country. At that point the measures to improve safety have surpassed the break even point, you would prefer being a little less safe so flying wont be so onerous that you stop doing it.

      They are doing the same thing in their response to years old video footage found on suspected Al Qaeda. Rather than quietly tightening security on the targets and seek to foil any plots, instead they used them as a mechanism for pumping fear in the American people. In the process they tipped off Al Qaeda in a major way to the fact one of their networks was compromised which is just really bad intelligence work no matter how you look at it. They key benefit they got out of it though is they were able to use it as an excuse to further expand their self granted authority to randomly stop people both on the street and on the highways to engage in what would otherwise be illegal searches. You know you are in a police state when you can't drive down the highway without the risk of hitting a checkpoint where you are going to be ID'ed, searched and potentially detained for thouroughly vague reasons.

      --
      @de_machina
  2. Lovely this is happening at a symbol of freedom. by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Most of the /. crowd will likely understand why this is bad and stupid to boot. You just have to love the irony though, orwellian tactics installed on lockers at one of the most enduring and prominent symbols of freedom in the world. What's next, required DNA samples if you want to buy a souvenier? (Wouldn't want those terrorists buying souveniers now would we?)

    For those that don't get the stupid part of this let me explain. If you were a terrorist casing the statue of liberty for a future attack and noticed the lockers required fingerprint scans would you use one? Even if you didn't know they'd be checking them against the FBI database you'd have to be one seriously stupid terrorist to not realize the possibility exists and it could blow your cover. They'll probably find a random minor criminal or two and arrest them with some trumped up charges to make it sound/look like these are helping fight the war on terror.

    Course the reality is they're not helping any, they're just further eroding what little privacy we have left and the terrorists will just avoid them. And yes I realize we're not guaranteed privacy in public places but running fingerprints without notice (on a regular basis, not just when you suspect someone of a crime) is a bit beyond the erosion of privacy we expect. It's just surreal, I don't think even Orwell thought things would get this silly.

  3. Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps the FBI is hoping that WHEN someone places a bomb in a locker, they'll be more easily able to identify the perp because their finger print will still be stored in the system...?

    If that's the case, then it is no better than in the movie "Demolition Man" where the head cop figures they'll catch Wesley Snipes by waiting for him to kill someone so they'll know "where he is."

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
  4. Privacy Violation? by djrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Excuse me? How is this a privacy *violation*? You'd have to choose to voluntarily provide a fingerprint in a public place, and that's a violation? If I were standing on a street corner asking people to volunteer to have their fingerprints matched to the FBI database, would that be a privacy violation as well?

    --
    Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
  5. You might want to have a problem with this.... by seestuffgo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    However, prints are being run through terrorist watch lists in the biggest deployment of biometrics yet -- the federal government's new system for tracking foreign travelers.

    Now in its early stages, the program, known as US-VISIT, calls for visitors to go through biometric scans to ensure that they are who their visa or passport says they are. Passports issued by the United States and other countries are getting new chips that will have facial-recognition data, and other biometrics might be added.

    Read the article: if visitors to the US are being connected to their names in this way, how long do you think it will be before visitors to the statue of liberty are connected to their names? We're dealing with a slippery slope here. There're no security measures to prevent this data from being stored or used in inappropriate ways.

    What would I like? A guarentee that these prints are deleted at the end of the day, or after check out, or something like that. I doubt anybody wants or could see a reason for permanent records of this sort. (Unless of course you're 'president' dubya, in which case 1984 is looking like paradise)

    and this is an entirely off topic discussion to have, but you said "I'm not a terrorist": what the heck is a terrorist, then? What does the database really have in it? Are these people that have been legally convicted of a terrorist crime (okay), or are these 'suspects'? The US definition of 'suspect' is, err, a little suspect these days

    okay, /pun

  6. Re:This is neither "rights" nor "online". by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see a problem with using this as a way to deter that.

    And this is exactly what the *good* "citizens" of our fine country are supposed to say. "I have nothing to hide please take my finger prints."

    I say the hell with that. Just because we have nothing to hide does not mean that we should happily fork over our identities.

    As far as it being a useful technology. Yes, it's a fantastic overuse of a technology. I always felt that a key or a temporary code worked better. Perhaps I am just old-fashioned that way probably just paranoid.

    The government wants us to be paranoid over terrorists to detract from being paranoid about them. I'm not fooled.

  7. Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database by Kaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fingerprints taken to access lockers at the Statue of Liberty are NOT run against the FBI database.

    And pray tell, how would you know that?

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  8. Strange quote.. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hill expects visitors will find the lockers easier once they get used to them. Representatives from the locker maker, Smarte Carte Inc., say the biometric aspect often requires a fair amount of coaching, especially for people who aren't very familiar with computers.

    How many times do people visit the SoL? Once? Twice? Three times a Lady?

    How are they going to get used to them? Unless, of course, these lockers will eventually be installed everywhere...(cue theater organ)

    I'm still surprised that the morons who changed French Fries to 'Freedom Fries' haven't tried to get the SoL taken down and shipped back to France - after all, 'They are against us'.

  9. Re:I was just there... by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All and all it felt a bit like overkill, but considering that the statue is probably one of the most important symbols of America, it makes sense to so heavily gaurd it.

    I live a few blocks away from Canada'sParliament Hill and walked over at about midnight for a walk last night. I didn't see a single person for the first ten minutes. There was one area that had a few RCMP cars (probably their dispatch), but other than that there was virtually no security. I was literally within 10 feet of Centre Block's front door without being bothered in the slightest.

    Now certainly Americans have a lot more cause to be cautious, but there's also an attitude here that excessive worry and planning for the worst just give you wrinkles.

    Then again, if Canada were attacked we might feel differently.

  10. Re:I don't have a problem with this by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with that particular line of reasoning is that if you're not a terrorist there's no guarantee that you won't be fingered if the system thinks you're a terrorist. Fingerprint scanning - like all forms of identification - is imperfect, and like all imperfect systems its prone to false positives as well as false negatives.

    It's not whether you are a terrorist or not, it's whether the system identifies you as a terrorist.

    As an example: a case in south africa not so long ago, a British man was held for 21 days by South African authorities at the request of the FBI, because they mistakenly believed they "had their man". Imagine now that a system as falsely trusted as fingerprint scanning marks you - an innocent man - as a terrorist - the current bogey man. Your stay in a holding cell could well be beyond 21 days!

    Of course, this is overlooking the fact that it would appear that these scanners are not likely to be linked to any central database!

    --

    The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.