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.)"

153 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. In the words of the great optimist.... by spammeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
  2. 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~
    1. Re:dumb sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, there are European Parliament elections this summer! This time make sure you go to vote the MEP that will truly represent you and your views. Democracy just don't happens. Oil just don't come out from the pump. Your e-mail just does not sit in the "cloud". People make things happen. Democracy functions as long as people vote. We've seen democracy failing too many times (e.g. 1933 in Deutschland). So get involved, is so simple!

    2. Re:dumb sheep by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:dumb sheep by Askmum · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You do realise that we have to choose between people that come in to work on Friday morning for 5 minutes to collect their daily allowance and then bugger of home and people who want to prosecute whistleblowers?

      The EU is the largest assembly of corrupt and indadequate politicians you will ever find.
      Nevertheless I will vote. There is some hope in me yet that there will be at least one MP who isn't like that.

      IMHO the EU has to go. Everything that happened after the EEG has turned out for the worst. Sure we have had the joys of having some of our laws relaxed because if the EU, but the constant interference of what basically are foreign powers in our national politics is what pisses me off big time.

    4. Re:dumb sheep by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're so right. The EU has no backbone whatsoever. America is our friend, so we must do everything to please it. Disgusting. Someone said Merkel is bad, well, the NL PM Jan Peter Balkenende is much much worse. He couldn't wait to go to Iraq to please his buddy George. And now that that turned out to be maybe not such a good idea, he doesn't want a public investigation. Coward. We have the worst government we ever had. I wish I lived in Belgium since they don't have a government there.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    5. Re:dumb sheep by irae · · Score: 2, Informative

      Democracy was in Greece millennia ago, not here.

      I'm sure the Greek slaves would agree with you.

    6. Re:dumb sheep by irae · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:dumb sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democracy functions as long as people vote.

      Total Nonsense.

      Democracy is only the illusion of freedom. Given it takes around 30% and never more than 50% to get voted in candidates only need to convince the dumpiest 30% to 50% of voters.

      It's tyranny of those who manipulate the stupid over everyone else.

    8. Re:dumb sheep by thesp · · Score: 1

      Interference in national policy by other countries has been historical reality since time immemorial. It's been called under the name of treaties, representations, concords and, ultimately, declarations of war. EU, for all its faults, is still an excellent method of persuading countries which historically have been over-eager to take up arms against their neighbours to dissipate their tensions in very long, very dull negotiations over the European Standard Paperclip. I'd rather have that than the regular European wars of the preceding centuries. The EU may be expensive and inconvenient to some degree; the alternative is far more so.

    9. Re:dumb sheep by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The EU is the largest assembly of corrupt and indadequate politicians you will ever find."

      I disagree, this past couple of years they've done a better job of protecting civil liberties than British parliament has for it's own citizens, that's not saying much but I'd say from this that they're at least better than Britain's Labour government.

    10. Re:dumb sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Revolutions just bring a fresh group of crooks that also have guns. Voting is not the only way to have your say in democracy's. In fact i would claim its the least important. Many democracy's have all sorts of things you can to stop or change laws at local levels and higher. For example in NZ if you can get a petition with 10% of the registered votes there must be a referendum on the issue. I do know there are many things in place in most EU counties that are similar.

      However if voting is too much effort then anything else is probably asking too much. Otherwise I think Demarchy would be a good choice.

    11. Re:dumb sheep by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Funny

      It just seems that who ever I vote for, some idiot politician gets elected anyway ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    12. Re:dumb sheep by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the only way we'll achieve true international balance and harmony is a movement against large groupings like the EU, NATO, G-8, etc. Everyone's stupidity would then keep everyone else's stupidity in check.

    13. Re:dumb sheep by nomad-9 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Democracy functions as long as people vote. "

      No, it does not. Not when your options are restricted to choosing between people with no *real* differences.

      "Democracy" is an illusion, it has been reduced to choosing from a preset pool of incompetent bureaucrats, who pretend to be different from one another by over-blowing their slight nuances of policy.

    14. Re:dumb sheep by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is some hope in me yet that there will be at least one MP who isn't like that

      Well, for the parliament there are usually many options you can vote for that aren't in among the worst.

      the constant interference of what basically are foreign powers in our national politics

      A lot of the time it's basically our national politicians using a scapegoat. The commission and council are our own/largely loyal to our own politicians, and they love to shove things through in the EU and then say 'it's the EU!', even if they were the ones proposing it in the first place.

      The problem isn't inherent in the involvement of other EU countries and politics, the problem is the lack of accountability and the way it gets used for denial of responsibility.

    15. Re:dumb sheep by VShael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This time make sure you go to vote the MEP that will truly represent you and your views.

      Wow! Is there an Oscar, or a Nobel Prize for naivety? If so, you have my vote.

      The Commission of the EU is unelected. They were all found guilty of corruption a few years ago, and collectively stood down. Only to stand right back up again. Corruption pervades the EU Parliament. It was designed to make sure it could not hold the (even more) corrupt EU Commission to account.

      And good luck finding ANY MEP that represents your view if you're a Euro-sceptic. They don't exist.

      Even in a multi-party system, you will still get situations where every elected official speaks in unison, and the "Opposition" is an opposition in name only. It happens all the time, whether in the run up to the Iraq war in England (when the Conservatives couldn't wait to kiss Tony Blair's arse) or in the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland (where all the parties said to vote Yes, except for sinn fein, the terr^H^H^H^H ex-terrorist party.)

      The only solution is to stand for office yourself, and again, the system is designed in such a way that that can't happen unless you're wealthy. (Not just rich, but wealthy.) And as Declan Ganley of the newly founded Libertas party is finding out, even then, the establishment does it's best to ridicule you, destroy you, and keep you out of their little game.

    16. Re:dumb sheep by VShael · · Score: 1

      As my Belgian friend said, Belgium is the best example that a government isn't necessary.

      But a near 70% income tax rate is still necessary to pay for ... what exactly?

    17. Re:dumb sheep by Askmum · · Score: 1

      IMHO the EU has to go. Everything that happened after the EEG has turned out for the worst. Sure we have had the joys of having some of our laws relaxed because if the EU, but the constant interference of what basically are foreign powers in our national politics is what pisses me off big time

      I would rather say it was a BIG mistake to let the British like you join the EU. Couldn't you just go away ? Hey, you could joint the US as airstrip one. I'm sure Tony is working on this.

      It seems to me that you think I'm British. I'm not.

    18. Re:dumb sheep by mpe · · Score: 1

      Democracy was in Greece millennia ago, not here.

      Actually it was in Athens, what we now call "Greece" being a collection of city states. Also the way things were cond in classical Athens was radically different from anything we now call "democracy".

    19. Re:dumb sheep by brabo_sd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe we pay all those taxes for one of the best social security systems in the world? If you lose your job, the government gives you money.. not altogether that much, but at least just enough to survive. Rather not pay a lot of taxes? Think at the downside of that... no good medical assurances.. no serious unemployment money.. Put like this, I actually prefer to pay taxes, I like to share what I have with those less fortunate.

    20. Re:dumb sheep by blaine+the+monorail · · Score: 1

      As my Belgian friend said, Belgium is the best example that a government isn't necessary.

      But a near 70% income tax rate is still necessary to pay for ... what exactly?

      Where did you get that idea? http://www.belgium.be/nl/belastingen/inkomstenbelastingen/particulieren_en_zelfstandigen/aangifte/vestiging_van_de_aanslag/index.jsp (in dutch, but the table should be clear)

      The total income tax is always lower than 50%, and there are lots of situations where you get tax deductions...

    21. Re:dumb sheep by Chninkel · · Score: 1

      But a near 70% income tax rate is still necessary to pay for ... what exactly?

      I'm Belgian you insensitive clod !

      (and it's less than 50% by the way)

    22. Re:dumb sheep by MindKata · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I propose metagovernment.org [metagovernment.org], for lack of a better form of it"

      metagovernment sounds like a very interesting idea, but I suspect some groups of people will (choose to) interpret it differently, then we will end up with some groups using it (and gaming it) for their own gain.

      A similar concept, (but much harder to game), is something called a "Demarchy". It can be thought of as a stochastically sampled Democracy. (It removes the need for career politicians and so also removes the potential for corrupt career politicians using and gaming the system for their own gain).

      Imagine if you random choose say 1% the population and for one month, they vote on how to run the country. Its effectively like being chosen for jury service, where for one month, your vote (instead of career politicians votes), decides how to run the country. The point is, 1% of the population is a large enough number of people, to prevent corruption becoming a major biasing factor (certainly far less likely than is possible now). Its also not so dissimilar to the concept we have used for centuries in jury trials, but in this case, the jury is vastly larger (so its a much better sampling quantity).

      With a sampling rate of 1% of the population, then statistically once ever 100 selections you have a chance of being randomly chosen to run the country, (so on average once every about 8 years on average). If the country chooses to sample at say 4% of the population, then it means everyone gets randomly chosen on average about every 2 years. So a suitable sampling amount is somewhere between about 1% and 4% of a population. (Plus by randomly sampling the population, no group can be profiled to workout if and how to game that group (by for example, waiting for a group more statistically more favorable to be in power) before they get to vote on something. Also, it wouldn't be a sudden change of everyone once per month. It would be new people being prepared to start each day, while others ending their month long run of government, so everyones starts and ends on different days of the month, and so its smoothly distributed, instead of sudden changes of groups of people).

      The concept of Demarchy is literally a stochastically sampled Democracy, which cuts out the political middle men. People vote not for middle men, they vote as the middle men once did. Centuries ago, such a system wasn't possible, due to the paper work needed for dealing with so many votes, but with modern technology, its entirely possible, plus then we don't need the career politician middle men anymore. Their archaic system of government and arrogant corruption can finally be consigned to the history books.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    23. Re:dumb sheep by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      I doubt the pirate party (which I'm voting for) will vote for this shit...

    24. Re:dumb sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Like how the EU decided to boycott Austria when the "wrong party" (Jurg Haider's) got too many votes for their taste?
      And how Belgium criminalised the Vlaams Blok party?

      You can have liberties in the EU, just don't ask for the wrong liberties.

    25. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What we need is a good old revolution

      That might be tough since none of you are allowed to have guns ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EU may be expensive and inconvenient to some degree; the alternative is far more so.

      What makes you think your only alternative is between another war and a giant stifling bureaucracy that pays lip service to individual freedoms and customs? A Federation is no guarantee of peace and the lack thereof is no guarantee of war. The lack of major wars since WW2 is probably owed more to nuclear weapons anyway -- they've made total war too destructive to contemplate.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Think at the downside of that... no good medical assurances.. no serious unemployment money

      I can think of a downside of what you've got now. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    28. Re:dumb sheep by MoogMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A metagovernment/open source government is majoritarianism. Effectively, this means little or no rights for the minority.

    29. Re:dumb sheep by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      That might be tough since none of you are allowed to have guns ;)

      Why should one need to enforce its voice with a weapon in a democracy?

      So a wellfounded idea, supported by a majority and thus forced into practice should be enforced by voilence in order to be able to call it a revolution?

      When the prior structure tears down and law is not abided with anymore as those in power are taken from it, who will abide to the law at that moment? If you envision a fight between those in power and those trying take it from them, where they should defend themselves, wouldn't the sense of "law" and "democracy" already has been so skewed people would disregard the law in order to protect themselves? Hm isn't that what the law is there for in the first place? :) I don't like the idea of retards walking around with guns feeling "safe and macho" because it's glorified somewhere or somehow.

      Lastly, guns are a weak argument in a discussion or politics.

      May I also make you aware that guns aren't "forbidden" in Europe, you're quite misinformed. This might be an interesting read for you.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    30. Re:dumb sheep by westlake · · Score: 1
      What we need is a good old revolution. And I mean one with a new form of government following it

      The revolution in Europe tends to end in terror and the charismatic despot who promises to restore order.

      The Twentieth Century brought many such men into power -

      and the young technocrats - the primal-geeks of The New Order - into power along with him.

    31. Re:dumb sheep by Starcom8826 · · Score: 1

      I expected that it wouldn't be long before someone blamed the inadequacies of their own government on the US.

    32. Re:dumb sheep by iJusten · · Score: 1

      The Commission of the EU is unelected.

      The President of the Comission and the comissioners are chosen by the Council of Ministers (who are democratically appointed). They are then introduced to the European Parliament (who are democratically appointed). Who then democratically appoint the commission in to power (if not successful, the Council will find new people).

      Just because you didn't personally vote for every single official doesn't make it nondemocratic. This is called a representational democracy. EU has nigh half billion citizens, and Comission has over 25 individuals. Most of the positions aren't exactly glamorous (Transportation or Regional policy, for example). In USA, people don't directly appoint the secretaries (and whatnot) of the president. In most of the member states of EU, you don't get to choose the ministers either; they are chosen by the party in power, and the positions may be given -without election- to anyone. The Finnish foreign minister (Alexander Stubb) serves without seat in the parliament, for examble.

      I'll make a wild leap and assume you're English (not a Britt; English) and get your daily news and political information from Daily Mirror. If you wish to do so, more power to you. But please don't spread your misinformation around like some sort of intellectual (haha) HI-virus. Thank you.

      --
      Chronologically late.
    33. Re:dumb sheep by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. Is more true than just for school.

      The constant warfare of previous centuries was many small stupid people trying to be bigger.

      The solution is a giant bureacray that no wants to be a part of. That way stupidity and masochists will rule.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    34. Re:dumb sheep by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Then give to charity

    35. Re:dumb sheep by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      That must be nice, in the USA there isn't a great need for most politicians but they feel like they need to do something to justify their jobs.

    36. Re:dumb sheep by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean like the right to murder?

      That might as well be what you're suggesting with a complaint the the EU boycots groups who promote racism.

      You see, the problem is, the parties you're suggesting should be treated with freedom and liberty are parties that aim to infringe on other people's freedoms and liberties.

      Really, my heart bleeds that you're upset that the EU has done a lot of work to prevent another rise of Nazi sympathyisers, after all, we all know how well that went last time in Europe. In working against these groups they're still defending the rights and liberties of the majority even if it is at the expense of rather vile, racist, xenophobic minority- sure they have rights too, just not at the expense of everyone else I'm afraid. Quite how you and they can complain about a loss of liberties when their whole aim and goal is to deprive everyone else of their liberties I really don't know.

    37. Re:dumb sheep by TehZorroness · · Score: 1

      Who's quote is that? ... or is it your own?

    38. Re:dumb sheep by N1AK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because that will really scare the tank, aircraft, warship, satellite and reaper drone operating military of your goverment. I have no issue with Americans being allowed to own guns, but are many of you really niave enough as to think gun ownership has any effect on goverment behaviour?

    39. Re:dumb sheep by PinkyDead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like how the EU decided to boycott Austria when the "wrong party" (Jurg Haider's) got too many votes for their taste?

      The EU did not boycott Austria, the member states of the EU agreed not to have bi-lateral engagements with Austria. Each member state, as a sovereign nation, is perfectly within its right to object to the choices of another.

      The only role that the EU could play was to act as a mediator to ensure that the situation got resolved. And guess what? That's exactly what they did.

      And how Belgium criminalised the Vlaams Blok party?

      Belgium did not criminalize Vlaams Blok, they broke the law. The same law that everyone else had to adhere to.

      But more importantly, what has that go to do with the EU? Next you'll start blaming the EU for Zimbabwe or Iraq.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    40. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    41. Re:dumb sheep by N1AK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I fail to see how this is a remotely better solution. Sometimes the fact representatives choose to do something that is not popular with the majority is a good thing. Going by even unbiased opinion polls the UK would have Biometric ID if we were a pure democracy so I fail to see how privacy is improved by this change.

      Now if you could come up with a secure and open form of meritocracy you might be onto something.

    42. Re:dumb sheep by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      That might be tough since none of you are allowed to have guns ;)

      Where do you get that strange idea?

      Hint - the UK is not the only country in the EU.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    43. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Because that will really scare the tank, aircraft, warship, satellite and reaper drone operating military of your goverment.

      Yeah, when has a ragtag force armed mostly with rifles ever been able to cause grief for a modern military force......

      but are many of you really niave enough as to think gun ownership has any effect on goverment behaviour?

      *shrug*, I was mainly making a bad joke. I would posit a question though: Do you think that genocides/ethic cleansing campaigns like we've seen carried out in the Balkens or in Africa by ragtag militias really could have been carried out as easily if the oppressed population had been armed?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    44. Re:dumb sheep by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Ehmm.. Not only are there EU-skeptic and even EU-hostile parties in the EU parliament, they even have their own group. If you don't like the EU there are parties to vote for, and they are large enough to stall and generally make things worse.

    45. Re:dumb sheep by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that strange idea?

      Apparently the wink at the end of my remark wasn't sufficient indication that I was being a wiseass. Next time I'll use the <sarcasm> tags......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    46. Re:dumb sheep by Xest · · Score: 1

      lol, so you think they're sacrificing themselves to make other people more powerful?

      That's certainly one of the most impressive conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

      The biggest flaw with your argument is that whilst they could do the good stuff without needing the EU as you mention, they could also go for a power grab without the EU, therefore, your theory makes no sense unless it is the case that you truly believe the 3 main British political parties have a tendancy for sacrificing themselves for the benefit of foreign powers.

      In fact I'll help you with your next theory, maybe that's it, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and all their followers are in fact French and it's their plan to take over Europe.

    47. Re:dumb sheep by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cops mostly don't carry them there either; just walk en masse into every police station at the same time, requires some organization, but just stuff it with people and the police are paralyzed (can't get to the weapons.) You will need to paralyze HQs at the same time. All you need is a mass of bodies to avoid BECOMING nothing more than a mass of dead bodies. But the people have to get onto the same page at the same time, and convincing them that it's all gone to hell probably won't happen until they start dying in large numbers...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    48. Re:dumb sheep by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also the way things were cond in classical Athens was radically different from anything we now call "democracy".

      Yes, you had to be a white male landowner to have a vote, just like in the earlier days of this nation.

      Of course, we actually live in a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is stated to be a kind of "representative" democracy, but with the electoral college not being really under the control of the people, you might as well just call it an Oligarchy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:dumb sheep by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And good luck finding ANY MEP that represents your view if you're a Euro-sceptic. They don't exist.

      MEPs are voted by the general public. If the general public wanted a Euro-sceptic MP they would vote one in. As it happens, UKIP gained 12 seats in the European parliament and the Mouvement pour la France has seats too. I'm quite sure there are Euro-sceptic MEPs representing other countries too. In other words there is a significant representation of Euro sceptics and your statement is complete bollocks.

      And since you mention Libertas... for the benefit of bystanders, Libertas is a private group pushing a No vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treay. To that end they stuck up thousands of posters with scary (and often absurd) reasons that people should vote No. What is not known about Libertas is how they got their funding, but there are strong suspicions that it was from US defence contractors and other interests. The group's founder Declan Ganley also just happens to be CEO of a US defence contract firm. So here we have an individual with strong US military & financial links interfering with a national referendum and an EU treaty. If you think MEPs are corrupt and that Libertas is the shining light of purity you really have no clue at all.

      You have to laugh in hindsight that the No vote was primarily driven by this organisation and the Socialist Workers Party. That's some unholy alliance. Somebody even (possibly another rabid No fringe group) stuck stickers all over Dublin saying to vote No because babies would be microchipped otherwise. What isn't so funny is that such tactics actually worked.

    50. Re:dumb sheep by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      The EU turned me into a newt!

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    51. Re:dumb sheep by Zerth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its effectively like being chosen for jury service, where for one month, your vote (instead of career politicians votes), decides how to run the country.

      .

      Except instead of deciding what happens to someone else, you are deciding what happens to yourself. Most people would vote for their self interest and would have neither weight of public opinion nor the desire to be re-elected to counterbalance their extremes. That might end up worse than politicians, which is pretty hard to do.

      None of us is as dumb as all of us.

    52. Re:dumb sheep by bconway · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: The US doesn't have them. Nor do all passports have RFID (the new one I received last week doesn't). Don't believe all the media hype, it exists to scare you and get page clicks.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    53. Re:dumb sheep by Inda · · Score: 1

      I like this idea. It could all be done online too. Maybe using type of message board or forum where everyone posts but only a select number get to vote. Maybe the voting options could be Normal, Offtopic, Flaimbait, Troll, Redun...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    54. Re:dumb sheep by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Of course, we actually live in a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is stated to be a kind of "representative" democracy...

      A republic is not necessarily a representative democracy, but is any government which is not a monarchy. Representative democracy is often the form a republican government takes, but is far from required. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia were all republics.

      ...but with the electoral college not being really under the control of the people, you might as well just call it an Oligarchy.

      The Electoral College is under control of the states, which, in turn, are under control of the people. Its far from a true Oligarchy, as the electors have little power or independence. If there is ever a rash of faithless electors, you can bet that we'll be changing our constitution pretty quickly to take discretion away from the electors, or removing the institution entirely.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    55. Re:dumb sheep by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Dumpiest is a word. He probably meant that fashion victims are the most easily swayed by playing on their appearance-related insecurity.

    56. Re:dumb sheep by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Okay. Sounds good, but considering how many people get out of jury duty where I live, I figure you'll have to do one of two things.

      1) Mandatory Service. Won't go over so well, but it would probably work. You'll still probably have to make some exceptions (health related most likely).

      or

      2) You may send a representative of your to fulfill your service if you are called, so instead of you putting your life on hold for a month every X time, you could just select this person to represent your views. These people can serve in place of blocks of the population whom they will tentatively represent. Perhaps since they are representing people in a geographic region we could name them after the Greek word for city, Polis, and call them Politicians.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    57. Re:dumb sheep by tsa · · Score: 1

      Read my post again then. I blame the inadequacies of my government on my government.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    58. Re:dumb sheep by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      And good luck finding ANY MEP that represents your view if you're a Euro-sceptic. They don't exist.

      They pervade every corner of the building. Everywhere you look you've got braindead "sceptics" with no agenda and who doesn't even understand the system they've been elected to. It makes it difficult to get to work when a large proportion of the Members like to barge in drunken and make a lot of noise. Oh, and because the media only seems to be interested in the Union whenever there's a referendum on a treaty, they can be sure that this type of public humiliation will totally evade the spotlight.

      If you oppose EU-membership, then the place for your voice to be heard is the national parliament. Only they can decide on membership. Also, you should be in favor of the Lisbon treaty, because it formalizes withdrawal from the union.

    59. Re:dumb sheep by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Not a lot of people give to charity, so when you're the only one paying you get screwed twice.

    60. Re:dumb sheep by master_p · · Score: 1

      Which minority?

    61. Re:dumb sheep by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      yep; all men were created equal. I thought this was self-evident? It's egalitarianism.

    62. Re:dumb sheep by digitalarena · · Score: 1

      I believe Abraham Lincoln once said: "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

      I think that ordinary people are capable of considering the rights of minorities, just as our current MPs are. Unless you are suggesting that a career polititian (perhaps corrupt and gaming the system) somehow is more qualified to understand minority issues - somehow I doubt it. I suspect that without the attendant risk of corruption we might see better decisions being made.

    63. Re:dumb sheep by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      This is true, but how many countries are really concerned about getting more land? It's not as necessary as it was a thousand years ago.

  3. Betting Pool. How long before it's a torrent by upuv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually two betting Pools.

    How Long before all the data is on torrent?

    Which country will have the offending sloppy official?

  4. What gives you the right by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To put up a fence to keep me out? Or to keep mother nature in?

    1. Re:What gives you the right by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      If God was here he'd tell ya to yer face, "Man, your some kinda sinner!" Woo!

      Ha! I knew God couldn't be one of those grammar nazis!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:What gives you the right by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Yes. That you have a split personality.

      Watch for him trying to strangle you while you're sleeping! ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  5. All your fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    are belong to US, I mean EU.

    1. Re:All your fingerprints by biocute · · Score: 1

      It's okay if your fingerprints are belong to you, but not when it's belong to us.

    2. Re:All your fingerprints by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No no... you're right. They belong to the USA. Because that's who owns most of the European leaders.

      Merkel at least. Despite not being the backrub kind, she very much likes to go deep and hard up the ass of Bush. ;)
      She even imitates his views and behavior.

      Our Cheney is Schäuble, by the way. Mix Cheney's mind with that of some Gestapo-leader with an obsession for control, add a wheelchair, some hair and an evil look, remove some fat, and you got him. All he needs is a fluffy cat and an iron glove (or better a SS-Totenkopfstaffel glove).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:All your fingerprints by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      Our Cheney is Schäuble, by the way. Mix Cheney's mind with that of some Gestapo-leader with an obsession for control, add a wheelchair, some hair and an evil look, remove some fat, and you got him. All he needs is a fluffy cat and an iron glove (or better a SS-Totenkopfstaffel glove).

      Well, a least SSchäuble made his finger print available to the public, so you and I can use it in our biometric passport. Just follow these simple steps to personalize your biometric passport with the finger prints of your political hero.

  6. 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.

    1. Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Or better yet, face prints, also known by insiders as "photographs". Presents the advantage of being easily identifiable by anyone.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      except the blind!

    3. Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Or better yet, face prints, also known by insiders as "photographs". Presents the advantage of being easily identifiable by anyone.''

      We (Netherlands, an EU country) have those, too. And we're not allowed to smile on them anymore. The reason? The photographs are analyzed by computers, and the result of this analysis is stored on a chip on the passport. Then, when they want to identify you, they can do another face print, and match the result with what's on the chip. I'm told the process has a 5 to 10 percent error rate. I leave it up to you to calculate how many false positives and false negatives that yields.

      The chip also stores a bunch of other information, of course. And it's readable from a distance. The government would have you believe that the distance is very short (a few cm) and that the information is encrypted securely and cannot be used by malicious third parties, nor can it be used by the government to track your every move (you are required to carry id everywhere you go). None of these claims hold up to scrutiny; the chips are readable from at least a few meters away and, though there is encryption, it is weak and has been defeated.

      I believe all the above is due to incompetence and not malice, but that doesn't leave me a lot less concerned.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens by milage · · Score: 1

      Yes I was going to say something similar. My passport is already biometric, it has my photograph on it!

  7. As our American friends say, "good luck with that" by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't see this one going very far. Several of the most influential EU nations have general elections coming up within a year or two, centralised European power is already under the spotlight because of the way the Constitution^WReform Treaty was handled by diktat, and governments already lost at sea over the economic mess won't want to rock the boat any further.

    In the UK, in particular, I suspect the NO2ID anti-ID card campaign will pick this up in about ten seconds. At that point, it will become associated with the National Identity Register and National ID Card biometrics programmes, and become a political suicide pill.

    With a bit of luck, it'll finally bring down the catastrophe that is centrally dictated European policy, make us aware that we don't have to jump just because some guy at 1600 said so, and restore a little of the democracy we've had stolen from us in recent years along the way.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  8. Are we all criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought fingerprinting was reserved for people in jail?

    1. Re:Are we all criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes....haven't you figured it out? We're all guilty until they fail to find something to charge you with....

    2. Re:Are we all criminals? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I thought fingerprinting was reserved for people in jail?''

      The question is not if it is, but if it should be. Should fingerprinting be done for everyone, for noone, or for certain groups of people?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Are we all criminals? by welshie · · Score: 1

      In the UK, anyone arrested for any alleged offence is fingerprinted (and palmprinted), photographed and DNA samples taken. If they aren't then charged with the crime, or it goes to court and they are released as not guilty, the police still get to hold onto all the biometrics. This process has gone to the European Court of Human Rights, and found to be wrong, but the UK Government haven't worked out what to do about that ruling.

    4. Re:Are we all criminals? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I agree - although sadly, the UK already collects and keeps fingerprints (and DNA) from anyone arrested, even if not charged, or found not guilty.

      Incidentally, for those people in this thread laying all the blame on the EU, it was the European Court of Human Rights that recently found this to be unlawful.

      Having said that, I've yet to hear any plans from the Government to change the system, or destroying the samples that are being unlawfully kept, rather they're just making some vague claims about looking into changing the system. Evidently it's okay for Governments to break the law - imagine the same system for individuals? "What's that officer, I'm breaking the law? Well don't mind me, I'll just carry on breaking the law, and maybe look into seeing how I can change my behaviour at some point in the future. That's okay, isn't it?"

    5. Re:Are we all criminals? by El+Yanqui · · Score: 1

      I thought fingerprinting was reserved for people in jail?

      In the UK not only are fingerprints taken, but DNA samples as well. It's all kept on one ginormous database.

      Mind you, this isn't just for people in jail. It's for people that have been suspected of a crime or investigated whether they have been convicted, charged or even arrested for the crime. It isn't just serious crimes either; While I don't think they'll get your DNA for jaywalking, I read about a 10-year-old boy caught throwing eggs who is now in that database.

      All I'm saying is having this info on your passport is pretty far down the list of what people, in the UK at least, should be up in arms about.

      --
      Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
  9. 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.

    1. Re:Political? by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      The point is that by removing the element of judgment in favour of something objective but possibly flawed you get a situation where people don't exercise judgment when the machine gets it wrong.

    2. Re:Political? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Harder to Forge.. The people who did that recent 'Job' in India did not have passports..

      In Africa and other places, passports can be bought, if you have the money.

      Many people come in .. without passports

      Many people BORN - do not have passports

      So there is zero advantage, unless the naz err police tap you on the shoulder and say passport or id card for work or whatever.

      The risk of being biometrically identified after one blows him/herself up is also pretty useless, as the baddies know this already.

      That rules out forgery as a need, and screams police state.

    3. Re:Political? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Political? Its aboutbback-handers and pocket lining. A Costco card is free with "biometric" picture on, but a govt card costs £70 so that the private contractors can be paid.

      Can you say "thieving bastards?" I thought you could!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Political? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ``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.
    5. Re:Political? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      This begs the question (really does) of whether the biometrics on the passport increase passport security.

      It's true that making the passport more expensive to fake does raise the bar. But all that means is that you filter out some petty criminals but do nothing to stop the high-end criminals who can afford that more important passport. So what this accomplishes is that it stops people from escaping the country for petty crimes, allowing you to incarcerate them (which in the USA produces money for private corporations) while the people with all the money can still pay someone on the inside to produce them a genuine passport.

      This will do nothing to curb terrorism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Political? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Forget arguments against for now. It's something we don't have and will cost a lot of money, so what are the arguments for? What advantage does it offer the general population over the status quo?

      Reduce the risk of terrorist attacks? What, like the 9/11 hijackers who all had valid, legitimately issued passports?

      Reduce the risk of forgery? Maybe at borders where it's practical to fit sophisticated equipment to check, but what idiot carries around an obviously forged legal document on a regular basis anyway?

      Reduce criminal activities? Well, petty criminals who mug little old ladies for their pension money (which, let us be honest, probably represents about 80% of crime in many countries) aren't bothering with sophisticated fake IDs anyway, and major organised criminal gangs aren't going to collectively say "Darn! Have to go back to an honest job!" just because it became a bit harder to get a fake EU passport.

      So, what's the benefit? Bear in mind that similar questions regarding ID cards have been asked many times in the UK already. Every time the politicians come up with an answer it gets discredited and they come up with another. I've yet to see them actually nail a real, tangible benefit.

    7. Re:Political? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >The article suggests that experts agree the passports will be much harder to forge (impossible with current methods) - which is a big strength.

      This is the problem with slashdot and the culture of whiners. When discussing the American passport people said it was too easy to forge. Then the RFID is badly implemented and that you need some other form of authentication like biometrics to really be sure that the passport belongs to the person. Now we are seeing a biometric implementation and the whiners have just moved to "OMG NO PAPERS!!!"

      Either you want good passports on your dont. No privacy group is getting rid of the passport anytime soon. You can have half-assed ones or secure ones.

    8. Re:Political? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I don't see how the government is lying about these passports by the way.''

      They've said the security of the chips is good, they cannot be read from a distance, and the encryption has not been cracked. None of these are true:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dutch_biometric_passport_crack/

      That's from 2005. Here's a more recent report, in Dutch: http://www.elsevier.nl/web/nederland/beveiligingschipvanpaspoortengekraakt.htm.

      And here is what the government has to say about it, also in Dutch: http://www.minbzk.nl/onderwerpen/persoonsgegevens-en/114876/chip-in-paspoort.

      I've read other pages that provide information on reading the distance the chip can be read from; official government publications claiming it's a few cm, and researchers reading the chips from a few meters. I have to go now; if you want, I can look these up later.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  10. Now all we need is... by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

    ...the abusive immigrations officer.

    *badum ching*

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  11. Problems by tdwMighty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._passport#Biometric_passport

    According to privacy advocates, the BAC and the shielded cover are ineffective when a passport is open, and that a passport may have to be opened for inspection in a public place such as a hotel, a bank, or an Internet cafe. An open passport is subject to illicit reading of chip data, such as by a government agent who is tracking a passport holder's movements or by a criminal who is intending identity theft.

    If this is true, then wont this just hurt the honest people and do nothing to stop "criminals"?

    --
    read some interesting stuff at mightyinteresting.com
    1. Re:Problems by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      A passport open for inspection in a hotel?

      In some places you're lucky if they stick to inspecting it. There are hotels where they try to hang onto your passport until you leave, presumably to ensure you pay.

    2. Re:Problems by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much crime does a better passport stop, anyway?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Problems by ista · · Score: 1

      How much crime does a better passport stop, anyway?

      It doesn't prevent any crimes and was never made to do so. A passport is just a commonly accepted item for identification.

      In fact, many countries don't issue a passport unless you're applying for one, and the main reason for having a passport is the point that some country other than your own would like to verify wether the one who wants to pass their borders is the one claiming to do so while making sure that a blacklist of "known bad people" won't enter their country.

      If you're reading the technical specs on the passport documents, you'll note that the biometric information (JPEG of photo, hashes of fingerprint marks) is stored into an RFID chip on the actual passport, and not somewhere else.

      Even just the thought of inter-connecting the millions of passport-checking locations and granting those passport-checking devices (who are under control of hundreds of different countries with tens of thousands of IT operation teams) international access to distributed giant databases is ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who ever tried to set up a mashed VPN network.

      In clear: there is no online comparison or verification of those biometric data against the data provided by the passport-issueing country.
      What actually may be verified is that a scanned image of the real photo matches the JPEG stored on the RFID chip and that the JPEG is cryptographically signed with a known-good signature.

      And that's the point: the biometric data in an RFID chip are being used to aid against illegal passport duplication.

      So in essence, the guys make copying a passport much harder.
      It does no longer only take some better colour printer, sealing those printouts in plastic and wrapping it between cardboard sheets, now it also needs someone who can break public key cryptography. That's all.

  12. A necessity by Lavene · · Score: 5, Funny
    I think this is good since it helps stopping terrorists and pedophiles. Terrorists and pedophiles are constantly crossing the borders to terrorize us and molest our children. Terrorists and pedophiles. Terrorists and pedophiles.

    By giving up my privacy I help catch the terrorists and pedophiles. By registering my fingerprints and DNA I help catch the terrorists and pedophiles.

    The terrorists and pedophiles are everywhere. They must be stopped and in order to do so I must let the government read my e-mail, follow my web browsing, track my phone calls. It's the only way to stop the terrorists and pedophiles.

    By protesting you support the terrorists and pedophiles you damn pedophile terrorist. If you're not with your government you're with the terrorists and pedophiles.

    Terrorists! Pedophiles! Everywhere!!

    Must... give... fingerprint... to... stop... terrorists and pedophiles.

    1. Re:A necessity by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's what a terrorists would say to deflect suspicion. Or a pedophile.

    2. Re:A necessity by GAB_cyclist · · Score: 1

      this would be funny if not for the more than 50% who actually think this way. The minister of defence in Belgium gave us the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" speech as a reply on a valid question asked by a senator 2 months ago and there was no outrage what so ever over this... this is when it hit me that the world is changing rapidly and not for the better.

    3. Re:A necessity by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply post. It would appear that our Robotic overlords lack the programming to understand sarcasm, or for the matter irony given my certain sexual orientation :)

  13. Interesting by Renegade+Iconoclast · · Score: 1

    I've always (naturally) assumed that Osama has an army of zero-handed clones, who look so similar, it's literally impossible to tell them apart from photos, and that they all have valid passports. Finally, proof! This law will definitely hit Al-Qaeda where it hurts!

  14. Dear EU government officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Dear EU government officials,

    As a loyal EU citizen, in his mid 30's, who remembers a time when fingerprinting was only associated with criminals (you know, watching German detectives on TV... Derrick, Der Alte), I am again surprised by utter waste of EU tax money by a group of people who need to get out of in the real world.
    I am just curious to know if this is a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, simply blindly following USA regulations, or yet another "Please think of the children" action.
    However, this is yet another costly measure for EU citizens: New passports for all children.
    Furthermore:
    1) Fingerprinting does not stop terrorism, since they can be easily faked (according to Japanese research, please Google for it)
    2) Yet another way for identity theft will be created, resulting in more innocent people being falsely accused of crimes committed in their name
    3) Does not stop the source and cause of child trafficking, just puts another avoidable barrier in place for the criminals and yet another expensive airport/land border check to be implemented

    Be a responsible EU official and stop wasting our tax money.

    With best regards,
    A concerned, honest and loyal EU citizen

    1. Re:Dear EU government officials by RotHorseKid · · Score: 1

      New passports for all children.

      Ah well, as an EU govmt official, you have to think hard about how to secure a job in the spying industry after your term of service is over...

      --
      Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
    2. Re:Dear EU government officials by master_p · · Score: 1

      It's business, man.

      Biometrics passports is a big huge fat contract which will offer huge profits to the company that gets that contract.

      The company owner will then pay back the politicians by sponsoring in them in the next elections, or pushing their agendas through the mass-media he owns.

      As a side benefit, more jobs will be created.

  15. And the Swiss will vote in May by dago · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"
    1. Re:And the Swiss will vote in May by VShael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I'm sure you know, Switzerland is not part of the EU.

      They are also a fantastic country to live in, because everyone is armed, and has done military service.

      It's the perfect example of "Government being scared of its people, not people being scared of their government"

      If the Swiss government ever tried to do the sort of crap you regularly see in the UK, Ireland or America, they'd be quickly taken out and shot.

    2. Re:And the Swiss will vote in May by var-tec · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you know, Switzerland is not part of the EU.

      Irrelevant. They are part of Schengen Agreement.

    3. Re:And the Swiss will vote in May by VShael · · Score: 1

      They are part of Schengen Agreement.

      Just to clarify, not quite. And not yet. But will be by May.

      Norway and Iceland are the only two states that have fully implemented the Schengen agreements but are not members of the EU. Switzerland will be the third such state in March 2009 when it is expected to implement air travel changes; surface travel changes were implemented on 12 December 2008.

    4. Re:And the Swiss will vote in May by mspohr · · Score: 1

      News in the local Swiss paper today had a picture of the new Swiss passport with (you guessed it) biometric RFID tag.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:And the Swiss will vote in May by var-tec · · Score: 1

      They are part of Schengen Agreement.

      Just to clarify, not quite. And not yet. But will be by May.

      Actually, they've been a part of the system since 2004. And now they are fully implementing free travel.

  16. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by nicklott · · Score: 1

    The UK already has biometric passports, though the fingerprint and iris scan info is voluntary (currently).

    http://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/about-biometric-why.asp

    I wish ID cards were a political suicide pill. I really don't understand why both main parties are pushing ahead with them come what may. It's ridiculously expensive, impossible to enforce and hugely unpopular, so whats in it for them??

  17. Not agreed to, forced upon us! by scsirob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people in Europe are horrified by yet another intrusion into their privacy. This agreement is made by a group of people who do NOT speak for the majority of the population.

    And all this for the sake of the untangeable "war on terrorism". What a sick display of arrogance.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  18. Classified as disabled by RotHorseKid · · Score: 1

    The new law makes no specific reference to bricklayers, who frequently erase their fingerprints in the course of their working lives. "I suppose they'll get classified as disabled and will have to travel on temporary passports," Clayton said. (Emphasis mine)
    Oh, the irony...

    --
    Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
  19. Tools to make a wise voter choice by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Informative

    If voting,be sure to check out these impressive tools to help make an informed choice in the European Parliament elections.
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_Memory

    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Campaign-Save_amendment_138_and_Internet_Freedom_from_Council_of_EU#General_Advice

    For example can sort by amendment 138, see who was against:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_package_directives_1st_reading_details_by_score

  20. Maybe not such a bad idea... by erroneus · · Score: 1

    My mother had five sons. I was one of them. There were moments when she had the damndest time keeping our names straight. I once called my wife by an ex-girlfriend's name... well, that was in my head, but I refuse to call her anything but "honey" for fear that I might slip one day.

    Look people, these "government" people are just like our parents. They know what is best for us and want to take very good care of us. So what if they have a little trouble keeping up with our names and addresses and think they need biometric tracking systems just to remember our birthdays? Really? Is it so bad?

    ----
    Leonard: You convinced me. Maybe tonight we should sneak in and shampoo her carpet.
    Sheldon: You don't think that crosses the line?
    Leonard: Yes... For God's sake, Sheldon, do I have to... hold up a sarcasm sign every time I open my mouth?
    Sheldon: You have a sarcasm sign?

  21. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wish ID cards were a political suicide pill. I really don't understand why both main parties are pushing ahead with them come what may.

    One of us has got completely the wrong idea here: I thought the Tory lot had given a pretty much black-and-white statement that they would repeal the Identity Card legislation, and had consistently opposed the introduction of all the biometric nonsense from the start.

    Yep, here we go: ID cards on the Conservatives' web site is pretty clearly against them.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  22. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Whatever the official route my be, EU directives have repeatedly been used as an excuse to push through unpopular legislation that would never fly domestically. That really has to stop.

    I meant the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, by the way.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  23. In Poland they already issue these passports... by hubert.lepicki · · Score: 1

    They have started issuing biometrical passports already - quietly, so that no one had chance to say no... However, I don't see this as threat to my privacy / human rights. The only thing that concerns me are technical issues - and it seems to be quite poorly protected.

    1. Re:In Poland they already issue these passports... by var-tec · · Score: 1

      You don't see a threat in the fact, that anyone within few feet of you can access your private data?

    2. Re:In Poland they already issue these passports... by hubert.lepicki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is technical issue - I won't complain about my data present there but I care about security of it.

    3. Re:In Poland they already issue these passports... by var-tec · · Score: 1

      It's not just a technical issue. It's the design issue. There's absolutely no reason to store actual information in the passport. Information digest would serve as well for verification purposes, but cannot be used in identity theft. And yes, there are well known digest algorithms for biometric data (eg. storing only information about minutia points, instead of actual fingerprints).
      Furthermore, whats the point of actually having data in the passport if the Police can access the SIS database?

  24. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's ridiculously expensive, impossible to enforce and hugely unpopular, so whats in it for them??

    Hugely unpopular ? ID cards only seem to be 'hugely unpopular' amongst a vocal minority, everyone else tends to fall into either the 'they will help us catch bad people' or, at most, the 'I've done nothing wrong, so I've got nothing to hide' camps.

  25. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by VShael · · Score: 1

    Maybe it won't get far in the UK, but I'm afraid the rest of Europe (sadly Ireland included) will hop right aboard this.

    For example, in Belgium (where love of red-tape is a universal fetish) it is required by law for everyone to carry their ID papers at all times. You can be stopped and asked for your papers by the police at any time, without cause. And this is considered perfectly normal. As if Germany had actually won the war. (Vos papieren! Schnell!)

    The Germans will love something like this. The Belgians will love it even more. The French will complain, but no one cares what they think. The Italians will create a market in fake ID. And the Irish will hop on board because they're terrified of annoying Europe after their public said No to Lisbon.

  26. Wait, is this actually news? by slart42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    AFAIK most european countries have had biometric passports for years. Certainly my (german) passport has an RFID tag with my photo's biometric information on it. More recent passports also include fingerprints.

    AFAIK, this is also mandated by the US, for any foreigners wishing to enter the country visa free (visa waiver program countries). A friend from switzerland told me (in 2007), that he was actually allowed to choose whether he wanted a normal passport or a biometric one (enabling travel to the US).

    So what is actually new here? It hasn't been EU-wide before? Not that I approve of this or anything, but most EU countries have this implemented already, anyways.

    1. Re:Wait, is this actually news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is not new. It is an eveil thing done years before in some countries. Starting with Jan 2009 it is implemented also in Romania.
      Only IMBECILS would belive governments are after terorists or improved security by using these electronic passports.
      Governments don't give a shit on your security, they care about power and control and this is exactly what they are after.

  27. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you overestimate the value E.U. citizens put on their privacy, and their resistance to governments collecting data about everyone. There is virtually none.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  28. They are already here by var-tec · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most European countries already issue biometric passports. US and UK has been pushing really hard on this issue (US requirement for visa waiver programme). The problem is that they didn't care much about privacy. As an effect the data is poorly protected and what's even worse, accessible by RF. So now, to steal someone's identity, you don't even have to have physical access to his passport. Just get within 20-30cm.

  29. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by VShael · · Score: 1

    so whats in it for them??

    Their bosses gratitude.

    (The identity of their masters is a matter of some debate. Insert favourite conspiracy meme. The Rothschilds, the Bankers, the illuminati, the Americans, big business, the Jews, the 4th Reich, Lizard people from beyond the 4th dimension, etc..)

  30. South Park by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1
    When it's time to vote, the choice is always between a douche and a turd. (I forget which South Park episode this was in).

    This time make sure you go to vote the MEP that will truly represent you and your views.

    I don't recall seeing a box labelled "None of the above" on any ballot.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:South Park by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The state of Nevada in the US has an option for none of the above on every ballot. (sometimes 'none' wins).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:South Park by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      The state of Nevada in the US has an option for none of the above on every ballot. (sometimes 'none' wins).

      I'm impressed. That's how it should be, everywhere. Somehow I just can't imagine it being introduced here in Europe (the list system undermines it, anyway). There would be quite a few empty seats if the option were available.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  31. Dutch citizens have no voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's just a shame that even when there would be a referendum in Holland, government simply nullifies it because 'the people are not well-informed' or say it's only meant as a guideline.
    We only had one referendum and there we voted against a European Constitution. After that they never gave us the chance to vote for the new one and simply adopted it.
    Anyway, Whatever Dutch Parliament says, it's almost never representative of what the Dutch people think or want.

  32. We have them for a long time! by carvalhao · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interesting news, considering that Portugal, an EU member since 1986, has been issuing these EU biometric passports for some years now. Actually, nowadays you may even enter Portugal through a completely automated passport control.

  33. 27 countries... 270+ passport offices... by Fjan11 · · Score: 1

    ...27000+ officials that can issue a passport. It should be trivial to find a corrupt official in, say, Italy who will create a passport for you with the right biometrics. How is this going to make anyone safer?

    --
    This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
  34. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by daveime · · Score: 1

    Until they get into power, and then that promise will be forgotten along with all the others.

  35. Fingerprint removal by trewornan · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if there's a way to get your fingerprints permanently removed without causing too much other serious damage. If you've got no fingerprints what are they going to do? If they refuse you a passport on those grounds then you'd likely have a good case in law.

    1. Re:Fingerprint removal by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      Your fingers would be even more distinctive for not having normal fingerprints. It could help you in a crime scene situation because investigators would probably assume that it was only a smudge, but for the sake of biometric identification it would likely do more harm than good. In a sense, the absence of normal prints would become your fingerprint.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
  36. Just so that you know ... by golodh · · Score: 2, Informative
    Perhaps some of the more uninformed posters would do well to realise that the EU *only* went for biometric passports to comply with the demands of the US Visa Waiver Programme.

    The EU was given a choice between biometric passports and having all of their citizens apply for visa when traveling to the US. For some reason they thought it that staying within the Visa waiver programme was more important than putting their citizen's fingerprints on rfid chips in their passports.

    Given the importance of the US in international commerce, science, technology etc. this doesn't seem such a stupid decision.

  37. Europeans living outside will have problems by Carlosos · · Score: 1

    I'm a German living in the USA and I had to renew my passport just a few months ago. The last time I could just do the passport renewing by mail but now with the biometric fingerprints you have to drive to one of 5 locations in the USA of which most are in the southern parts. Luckily I was only 5 hours away from the place but there is a high chance that people will have to travel through a few states to get their passport renewed now. At least I only have to do that again in 7 years.

  38. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    In the UK, in particular,

    ...there is an automated surveillance camera on every corner, some of which can automatically respond to sights and sounds and alert the police that you MIGHT be doing something wrong.

    Big Brother is already watching you. You already lost. Of course, the only reason that's not true in the USA is that it's bigger (same reason for our poor broadband penetration. Net neutrality is the new way they try to ghettoize, rather than just not being able to get high speed.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    They become a lot more unpopular when people realise how much they have to pay for them - though sadly by that time, it's already implemented and they've got no choice but to go along with it.

    Unfortunately until that point, most people are fooled into equating the UK's ID card scheme with "card with your name and photo on it that they'll give you for free or at a minimal cost".

  40. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    I wish I could share your optimisim. Whatever current polls are on the UK's ID card scheme may or may not say, the Government is still moving full steam ahead with ID cards, the national database, and biometric passports.

    Even though the Conservatives say they will scrap the scheme, I still fear that we'll be too far down the road, or they'll still want biometric passports.

    With a bit of luck, it'll finally bring down the catastrophe that is centrally dictated European policy

    It's not a European issue - the UK Government are just as keen for these policies, as you should know from their ID card scheme. More generally, the Government have removed many civil liberties over the years, and continue to do so - the European Convention on Human Rights is the only hope of challenging some of these changes.

  41. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For example, in Belgium (where love of red-tape is a universal fetish) it is required by law for everyone to carry their ID papers at all times. You can be stopped and asked for your papers by the police at any time, without cause. And this is considered perfectly normal. As if Germany had actually won the war. (Vos papieren! Schnell!) The Germans will love something like this.

    We already have this in Germany, for as long as I live (40 years now).I wrote the same in a similar thread here on /. a couple of weeks ago, but I'll repeat it here for your convenience: I was on vacation in the USA last October. The number of times I had to show my ID card to private people in those 10 days far exceeded the number of times I was asked to show my ID card to a German police officer ever.

    Although any police officer may ask you for your ID card whenever he likes, without any reason whatsorever, in my whole life this has never happened. Whereas each time I was paying a silly $10 T-shirt with my credit card on the aforementioned trip to the USA, I was asked to show my ID card. And not by some authority, but by a little clerk!

  42. pedophilia != child molestation by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [...]pedophiles are constantly crossing the borders to [...] molest our children

    There's a distinction I think it's worthy to know, so I'm going to spell it out. Hopefully someone will benefit from this.

    • Pedophile: someone sexually attracted to or aroused by kids
    • Child Pornographer: someone producing porn that includes kids
    • Child Molestation: sexual activity with kids. Maybe one should throw "non-consenting" in there, maybe not. That's a finer point than what I'll argue.

    They're not the same. If you're a /Child [PM].*/, then typically you're also a pedophile, but not the other way around.

    I'm not here to defend any group in particular. Just to make the distinction clear.

    [I think children deserve to be protected by the legal system, but I also think that 17-year-olds should be allowed to film themselves having sex and show their pr0n to their friends. I'm for the rule of law, and against the rule of puritans. Ask me if you want to know all the nuances of my opinions.]

    1. Re:pedophilia != child molestation by Lavene · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah? And next you'll claim that Muslims != Terrorists? Where have you been the last few years? Don't you watch the approved news? ;)

      (For the record: I know not all pedophiles are molesters and not all Muslims are terrorists. That was actually my point in a sarcastic kinda way. I was sort of playing on what the fear mongering media tells us)

    2. Re:pedophilia != child molestation by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Not all Muslims are Terrorists??? :O

      [j/k ;)]

      Yeah, I figure _you_ weren't the one who would benefit from having it spelled out. But I got moderated up, so I guess someone else thinks that someone might benefit from it.

  43. Douglas Adams: Ident-i-Eeze by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    There were so many different ways in which you were required to provide absolute proof of your identity these days that life could easily become extremely tiresome just from that factor alone, never mind the deeper existential problems of trying to function as a coherent consciousness in an epistemologically ambiguous physical universe. Just look at cash point machines, for instance. Queues of people standing around waiting to have their fingerprints read, their retinas scanned, bits of skin scraped from the nape of the neck and undergoing instant (or nearly instant -- a good six or seven seconds in tedious reality) genetic analysis, then having to answer trick questions about members of their family they didn't even remember they had, and about their recorded preferences for tablecloth colours. And that was just to get a bit of spare cash for the weekend. If you were trying to raise a loan for a jetcar, sign a missile treaty or pay an entire restaurant bill things could get really trying.

    Hence the Ident-i-Eeze. This encoded every single piece of information about you, your body and your life into one all-purpose machine-readable card that you could then carry around in your wallet, and therefore represented technology's greatest triumph to date over both itself and plain common sense.

    * * *

    Swooping through virtual space towards him came a small flock of mean and steely-eyed creatures with pointy little heads, pencil moustaches and querulous demands as to who he was, what he was doing there, what his authorisation was, what the authorisation of his authorising agent was, what his inside leg measurement was and so on. Laser light flickered all over him as if he was a packet of biscuits at a supermarket check-out. The heavier duty laser guns were held, for the moment, in reserve. The fact that all of this was happening in virtual space made no difference. Being virtually killed by a virtual laser in virtual space is just as effective as the real thing, because you are as dead as you think you are.

    The laser readers were becoming very agitated as they flickered over his fingerprints, his retina and the follicle pattern where his hair line was receding. They didn't like what they were finding at all. The chattering and screeching of highly personal and insolent questions was rising in pitch. A little surgical steel scraper was reaching out towards the skin at the nape of his neck when Ford, holding his breath and praying very slightly, pulled Vann Harl's Ident-i-Eeze out of his pocket and waved it in front of them.

    Instantly every laser was diverted to the little card and Swept backwards and forwards over it and in it, examining and reading every molecule.

    Then, just as suddenly, they stopped.

    The entire flock of little virtual inspectors snapped to attention.

    "Nice to see you, Mr Harl," they said in smarmy unison. "Is there anything we can do for you?"

    Ford smiled a slow and vicious smile.

    "Do you know," he said, "I rather think there is?'

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  44. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    Because you have a totally retarded identification system? Birth certificates? Gas bills? Come on.

    The British passport is the de-facto standard method of identification. If you haven't got one, you'll have a hard time doing business in the UK, and if you have, well the you've already got an ID card, but with a bulk of paper attached.

  45. Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th by owlstead · · Score: 1

    As usual, UK is not bound by the European Union on this one, so stop your non-sense about European policy stuff already. You may scream and shout when the UK finally joins Europe, not before. Informative, my ass! I would consider this uninformed flame bait mixed with a lot of wishful thinking.

  46. Burn Baby Burn by Swiper · · Score: 1

    I'd say it's time to use a little bit of acid.....but not on your real fingerprints, rather on the virtual ones: i.e.: Burn baby burn, bye bye RFID chip!

    --
    ~We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty~