Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biometric Passports Agreed To In EU

Posted by samzenpus on from the look-into-the-scanner dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The European Parliament has signed up to a plan to introduce computerized biometric passports including people's fingerprints as well as their photographs, despite criticism from civil liberties groups and security experts who argue that the move is flawed on technical grounds. (Back in 2005 Sweden and Norway began deploying biometric passports.)"

3 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. dumb sheep by Swiper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh great, Just because the US has them, we have to get them as well, despite the very vocal criticism there has been....what a bunch of blind and deaf sheep we have as eurocrats!

    --
    ~We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty~
  2. Disabled people = 2nd class citizens by gavanm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People with no hands would obviously be exempt from the new fingerprint-based biometric passport system. Instead, they would have to apply for temporary, 12- month passports in order to travel, the MEPs agreed.

    I can see this being popular with advocacy groups....

    Especially when many non-EU countries are reluctant to welcome people with less than 6 months left on their passports. In effect many will have to apply for a temporary passport every 6 months.

    Stupidity at its best. If the passport biometrics indicate they have no hands, the it should be very easy to verify this.

    Either that or ask people for toe prints, or nose prints or stump prints.

  3. Political? by youknowjack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is almost certainly a political move; with terrorism being a scarier topic than privacy

    Nevertheless, the summary doesn't do justice to the article. The article suggests that experts agree the passports will be much harder to forge (impossible with current methods) - which is a big strength.

    In fact, the main argument against using biotech passports (in the article) is that authorities will begin to rely on them 'too much', which doesn't ring true to me, since biotech is inherently MORE reliable than, say, an official trying to identify someone by a small passport photo.

    I think the risk of misappropriation of bio-information is worth it, weighed up against the risk of terrorist or criminal activities which it seeks to mitigate.