Slashdot Mirror
Privacy vs. Security: Biometric E-Passports
ftblguy writes "Countries such as the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand are currently looking into adding RFID chips to citizens' passports. The chips would contain data such as a digital image of the person's face. A real-time facial scan of the carrier of the passport would then be matched to the data encoded in the chip. But privacy advocates such as CASPIAN are concerned that this data could get into the hands of the wrong people or that governments could use the data to track their citizens as they go about their personal business. But, with all of the terrorist threats lately, bringing passport documents into the digital world is sure to increase security."
bringing passport documents into the digital world is sure to increase security."
Surely noone believes that do they? Why?
Digital is inherently easier to copy then analogue - I think this would decrease security.
My pics.
Seriously im all for storing a picture of the person on their card if it makes general facial recognition easier but why the fuck does it need to be RFID someone please explain why a normal chip on the card would not do?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The post implies that with all "the recent terrorist threats" this is in some way a good thing.
There hasn't been a terrorist attack in any of those countries for some time now - certainly not an attack of any form. Can somebody please tell me what evidence of threats we have despite that which is given to us by the same people who lied about WMD in Iraq?
The terrorism is happening in countries that will not be aided by the countries listed in the article putting RFID tags into passports. It's just another excuse to have another civil liberty stripped from you. Don't accept it.
Ok ive RTFA and it doesn't explain anywhere why these things need RFID. There's absolutely no reason for it! Sticking all this information on standard 'smart-cards' would be just as effective (well i don't know how effective or what its really supposed to do anyway but it would produce the same effect). In the article it just says these are designed to only operate up to 10cm (we all know what that means) but 10cm is still enough for someone to scan your back pocket! The only possible argument is that the contacts on chips wear out and people are too lazy to stick their cards in a reader! That's not an argument. So the only thing we can conclude is:
the people in charge of this are:
a) totally stupid
b) totally ignorant
c) getting a buy 1bn get 1bn free deal on RFID
d) designing this so they can scan people without their knowledge
take your pick.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Before we think that this is a panacea for our security worriess we should be aware that facial recognition technology isn't all that good. In ideal conditions, with a relatively small database of images, it works reasonably well. But as soon as you put it in a real world environment (an airport for example) the reliability goes way down.
Once this is rolled out on passports, how many false negatives are they going to be getting? To my eyes, my own passport photograph doesn't look all that much like me. God knows what a computer would make of it.
Essentially this is a way for Gov't to waste lots and lots of money without adding to security. If that's all they want to do, they should give the money to me - I'll waste it for them, no problem.
- - That being said, the issue is cut-and-dry. These passports won't stop terrorism. The only thing RFID passport will do is make it easier for people with good forgeries to get on planes. As people become more dependent on high technology, the number of people who can abuse the system becomes smaller but the level of abuse they can perform grows. This does not make anyone safer, it makes the elite criminals who can crack the system richer. You don't have to be an expert hacker to give someone a fake criminal record, you just have to have the money and resources to hire one.
- - You work in an airport. You're told the new security system is much better than the old one. It certainly seems more complicated to fake the system out. Therefore you are naturally less suspicious of anyone the machine approves. There only has to be one criminal out there who can make forgeries to fool your system. As soon as someone out there figures it out, this system is obsolete. Terrorists have money to burn, between selling opium and (the even more lucritive and addictive) crude oil.
- - Undetected forgeries are the first failure of all security; human beings are the second. Has everyone forgotten how it was the terrorists got into the cockpits of those planes? They took hostages, and the pilots broke procedure by opening the door. Since in politics you can't effectively shoot down an idea without suggesting an alternative, I have a solution that takes into account forging documents and faulty PeopleSoft.
Problems with the current solution:
Solution: Make stronger doors that can't open while the plane is in flight, and require all planes use them.
- - It's cheaper than adding all of this RFID crap, less offensive than racial profiling, and less intrusive than a body cavity search. Terrorists trying to force the door open would be stopped by Air Marshalls. When it comes down to it, stopping crimes before they happen is incredibly difficult, expensive, and ultimately impossible. Preventing crimes from completing successfully is far easier and less expensive.
But, with all of the terrorist threats lately, bringing passport documents into the digital world is sure to increase security.
... will it catch enough terrorists to matter? Will it catch any?
And will our society still be recognizably "free" at that point?
Surely this is a troll. Surely.
The question is not whether this will increase security. It won't, of course, since America is a goldfish bowl with too many ways in and no way to control them all. Terrorists are perfectly willing to spend years and millions of dollars (pounds, rubles, whatever) planning each operation and they will find a way in. And I wouldn't be surprised to find this kind of embedded RFID system get hacked and be readily available on the underground market. At some point the things will need to be programmed, and if nothing else a supply of blank cards and a programmer will be obtained from whoever makes them. I mean, come on, black-market Social Security cards can be found and some of them are apparently indistinguishable from the real thing because they are the real thing. It's called an "inside job."
The real question is: from whom must we be secured? And why? I've yet to see any rational discourse on the subject from the OHS or any of the other government organs involved that really makes the case that these devices (or any other form of technologically advanced tracking of the citizenry) will help in the (ahem) "War on Terrorism." The net effect will be to inconvenience and incarcerate some number of ordinary citizens who haven't a terrorist bone in their bodies while the real nut jobs use their hacked RFID's to walk right through airport security.
England has spent an incredible amount of money in wiring their country with video cameras. The justification for this "investment" (and I use the term loosely) was to catch terrorists. Well, the camera network has certainly helped in apprehending purse snatchers and other petty thieves but things are still getting blown up over there, so one wonders just how effective it really is. Were heading down the same road, and when all is said and done
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.