Slashdot Mirror
Biometric Passports Agreed To In EU
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.)"
Yeah, as if choosing one of a set of crooks would actually solve anything...
What we need is a good old revolution. And I mean one with a new form of government following it.
I propose metagovernment.org, for lack of a better form of it (for lack of having time to create one myself. :( ).
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
as the parlament changed the law to introduce biometric passports, a group of citizens sucessfully launched a referendum.
As a result, they're going to vote on this in May, so this will be a good indicator as the people will directy decided.
And before other people jump on the democracy aspect and representation in the EU, don't forget that many EU government/parlament (including mine) already introducted biometric passports and are directly elected.
It will be also difficult to guess what the swiss result will be as they already 'confirmed' different EU decision in such referendums.
#include "coucou.h"
I wish I lived in Belgium since they don't have a government there.
As my Belgian friend said, Belgium is the best example that a government isn't necessary.
``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.''
Now this is how we should look at it. In most discussions, all I ever hear is "X is bad, because of Y" or "X is good, because of Z". Usually, both sides are right. But that's not what we want to know. We want to know, considering all the benefits and all the drawbacks, if we'd be better of with or without X.
With the current generation of passports issued in the Netherlands, I am down on the "X is bad" side. This is because the government haven't done their homework (or they have and are trying to mislead us all). The chip that's on them allows anybody who wants to to read the information on it, and this can be done from a few meters away without us knowing about it, let alone consenting to it. Government publications say this is not the case, which I take to mean "that's not how we intended it". That's why I say, even if you are in favor of the government collecting the data that is on those chips, you should still be against the current generation of chips.
Given that the government is lying about these chips, I think much closer scrutiny is warranted. What do they _really_ want to achieve, and what is _really_ being achieved? Also, I want my money back, because all of my money that has gone into implementing the current system has gone into a system that is, at best, dangerously flawed, and at worst intentionally dangerous. Both of which aren't something I want to pay for, nor even get for free.
Underneath all this, however, is the important question of "suppose the system were implemented the government would have you believe it is, would it then be a Good Thing?" It will never be perfectly secure, but it can be a lot better than it is now. And I am convinced we can do better checking of people against passports with additional data stored on the passport than without it. My question is: how cost effective is it all? How much would it cost to implement a decent biometric identification system, and how much would that save us?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.