NIST Standards for New Biometric ID Card Published

rts008 writes "eWEEK is reporting that NIST has published the biometric data specs on the new Federal ID cards for employees and contractors that will be issued in October. From the article: 'Specifically, the guidelines state that two fingerprints must be stored on the card as "minutia templates," mathematical representations of fingerprint images. [...] Guidelines require that all biometric data to be embedded in the CBEFF (Common Biometric Exchange Formats Framework) structure. This ensures that all biometric data will be digitally signed and uniformly encapsulated. This format will apply not only to PIV cards, but also to any other biometric records kept by federal government agencies.'" The published standards [PDF] are also available from the NIST web site.

Comments

Implications for British ID cards?

[pjt33]

Maybe this will kill Tony Blair's "We have to have biometric ID cards first so that we can create the de facto standards" argument. Or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

Re:Implications for British ID cards?

[mu-sly]

"I still think that they are useful for stopping low level crime if they are linked to a national register of fingerprints and DNA"

Well, you might as well have said "I believe turning the UK into a police state would be useful for stopping low level crime" - because that's what this amounts to.

So what if ID cards can stop low level crime? Why should it be at the expense of the liberty of the rest of the millions of completely innocent, law abiding people living here?

We wouldn't accept CCTV in every room of our homes - even though it would help catch all kinds of domestic violence, child abuse, drug dealers, bomb preparation and so on. We wouldn't accept the government locking us in our homes and selling us a key, every time we wanted to go out - even though that would undoubtedly help cut crime, since people would think twice before leaving the house, so less people out (and the government keeping track) = less crime. We wouldn't accept tracking devices under our skin, even though it would help the police work out who was in a specific area at a certain time and identify potential suspects.

The fact is: being good at stopping crime is nowhere near a good enough reason for having ID cards, especially when they come at the expense of our fundamental liberties.

So they would be good at stopping low level crime... so was Saddam Hussein's regieme!!

If we give up our freedom so easily, remind me what exactly it is that we're trying to preserve here? Because the way I see it, ID cards just cut off our nose to spite our face.

I think the government are going to find out one way or another that the British people (at least, enough of them to completely thwart this system) will not give up their liberties on the back of such a flimsy argument. I for one will take bankruptcy and jail over ID, any day of the week.

I'd rather live with the possibility of encountering crime in a free country, than be locked in a completely safe government-enforced cotton wool wrap in a police state.

You can put a gun against my head, and the answer is still "no fucking way, not now, not ever"... Defy ID!

Why store them on the card?

[EnsilZah]

If i wanted to verify someone's information, i'd rather do so from a secure database rather than a card he gave me.
Or am i missing something?

Re:Why store them on the card?

[joe 155]

well you seem to be putting a lot of faith in the "security" of the database, I'm reminded of those 35,000 or so patient records which were stolen from an employees car which were supposed to be being held "securely"... at least if someone robs your card they only get one person's data... alhtough it'll probably have a coresponding database anyway, in which case they are just creating more potential problems

Re:Why store them on the card?

[Agelmar]

You're missing the fact that the biometric data (actually, likely all data on the card) is signed. Think of it this way:

The issuer of the card has a certificate issued for that purpose. When the card issuer creates your card, they store your biometric information and a signature of that information on the card. If anyone tries to change the biometric information, the signature is no longer valid. Assuming that the certificate uses strong encryption and that the private part of the certificate's signing key is protected (which are both reasonable assumptions), then the data integrity is ensured.

This makes a lot of practical sense. If you want to pull everything from a centralized database, then your readers all have to be networked. This means that each reader next to every door in the building must be networked, and while that's fine for many situations, in some areas it's not practical. With the signed data on the card, the user can present their card which contains their biometrics and access credentials, the reader can verify this locally, and then act accordingly. Of course you still need to have a way to publish the root certificate and CRLs from time to time, but it does give you more flexibility.

Re:No thank you

[mcheu]

According to the description, this card is for a new government employee ID. I'm Canadian, so I don't know for sure how this is for the US, but up here, if you work for the government, your government department is already going to have a lot of your personal information. While it's not required for all public service jobs, some positions require to get at least a minimal security clearance, and depending on how high a clearance you need to get, you might get fingerprinted. The only thing new here is that they're encoding all that digitally onto your staff ID card.

It should be rediculously easy to avoid getting one of these cards: Just don't apply for a government job.

4th Amendment violation?

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm not so sure if it's legal to mandate that the employees give up their fingerprints like that.

Below is the part of the 4th Amendment in which I am referring. Aren't our fingerprints considered to be part of our property? Isn't mandating that they collect our fingerprints without being suspected of a crime an unreasonable search? (It's one thing to do a background check and ask for fingerprints. It's another thing to require your fingerprints be on a card you have to carry around.)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Re:4th Amendment violation?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

I'm sure there's a good chance that the 4th amendment can be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court to find that the federal government is empowered to require almost anything of federal employees. And an even higher chance that a team of federal lawyers can write reams and reams on how there's nothing to worry about unless you're a terrorist.

<dons flame-retardant suit>

Of course, even if it doesn't officially get interpreted that way, US Presidents seem to be able to get away with doing things that they aren't empowered to do (except receive blowjobs in the Oval Office and tell G. Gordon to break into Democrat headquarters). After all, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!

Static bad; biodata static :. biodata bad.

[Errandboy of Doom]

Aren't static keys always inferior to dynamic keys?* (Isn't that why we're supposed to regularly change our passwords?)

Isn't biometric data static?

So why is anyone interested in biometric security?

Isn't it (perhaps counterintuitively) an inherently insecure means of indentification, by its very nature?

I must be missing something.

*(Maybe this is because anything can be duplicated and forged, given enough time. Changing your key a lot makes forging impractical?)

Are you a "federal employees and contractors"?

[Browzer]

If you are, how is this any different than for example the generic attire/monkey-suit your employer expects you to wear?

If you are not a federal employee and/or contractor, please have a sit and keep your mouth shut.

Thank you.

P.S. Why does everything on slashdot has to be blown out of proportions?

Social Engineering

[Doomedsnowball]

Shoot... people are still the weakest link in any security system involving semi-intelligent primates. Even if TFA is talking about merely ID'ing someone accurately, there will always be a system to circumvent "the system."

Re:Fingerprints?

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Unfortunately, as soon as fingerprints are on cards, along with other biometrics, the cards themselves become much more trusted. One of the dangers of security is the appearance of things being more secure than the actual method. Ergo, much more trusted despite only marginally more effective security. This means that when you get the key to the castle, you have one to all the doors. Not good. This is a case of the added value of having such identification on a card being trumped by the reality that if someone gets their hands on it and the ability to use it your financial life is not going to go well for a seriously long time.

Making a security system more complex does not disallow it from being broken, it simply puts more complex holes in it. The reason anyone wants biometrics on a card is to take advantage of the gathered information, and has nothing to do with wanting more effective fraud reduction.

Re:Are you a "federal employees and contractors"?

[Reaperducer]

P.S. Why does everything on slashdot has to be blown out of proportions?

Because whether the information is right or wrong, Slashdot makes money on the page views. They're not the drug dealer. They're not the cop. They're the informant that makes money from both sides.

Cart before the horse

[schwit1]

This card is supposed to contain fingerprints as an important part of ensuring a person's ID, but as far as I know there is NO federal standard for matching/comparing fingerprints. The boondoggled Mayfield case should be proof enough that as fingerprint IDs are not ready for prime time.

Lessons From The Brandon Mayfield Case

Re:No thank you MOD UP

[drDugan]

The world needs more people with your understanding and convicition. I too will not be getting another passport (when my current one runs out) or any biometrically - linked ID card if the current trends continue. I will chose not to drive to avoid this.

This is yet another example of where technology advances will support inflexibilty in rule enforcement. (other examples include red-light camera, DRM, etc.) In each example, human judgement is being taken out of the loop in the enforcement of a particular rule. Next it will be a machine that decides if you are who you say you are, not a person looking at you, knowing you, or judging the picture on a badge. This is yet another hook in someone that brings us a step closer to the possibility of tyranny.

As long as all the rules are fair, equally enforced, and democratically supported -- then there is no problem with machines enforcing the rules. The problem is that more often than not, none of these factors apply and rarely do any of them apply. Rules are often created arbitrarily by property owners / corporations (like EULAs), supported by small fractions of the people they affect (speeding laws), or simply conflict with other accepted rules (copyright/DRM and fair use).

Re:No thank you

[drDugan]

Just don't apply for a government job

Sorry, it's not that easy. Two problems with this. First, the class of workers that work for/in the gov.t is a huge group, and we have every reason to believe that this class will grow in size.

Second, you run a slippery slope accepting things you disagree with, even if they don't affect you personally. If it's OK for gov't workers, next it will be OK for everyone. Next everyone will need a biometric ID to use a bank, or travel. Next if you have an outstanding issue with the government, -- oops, no money, can't travel, you're outta-luck buddy. Next Canada will say -- it's OK in the US, we should do that here. etc etc etc...