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.)"

Comments

dumb sheep

[Swiper]

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!

Re:dumb sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:dumb sheep

[Hurricane78]

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. :( ).

Re:dumb sheep

[irae]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[Xest]

"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.

Re:dumb sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[JasterBobaMereel]

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

Re:dumb sheep

[Znork]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[VShael]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[brabo_sd]

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.

Re:dumb sheep

[MindKata]

"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.

Re:dumb sheep

[MoogMan]

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

Re:dumb sheep

[DrXym]

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.

Betting Pool. How long before it's a torrent

[upuv]

Actually two betting Pools.

How Long before all the data is on torrent?

Which country will have the offending sloppy official?

What gives you the right

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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

All your fingerprints

[Anonymous Coward]

are belong to US, I mean EU.

Disabled people = 2nd class citizens

[gavanm]

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.

Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens

[4D6963]

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.

Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

except the blind!

As our American friends say, "good luck with that"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Are we all criminals?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought fingerprinting was reserved for people in jail?

Political?

[youknowjack]

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.

Re:Political?

[pjt33]

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.

Re:Political?

[RAMMS EIN]

``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?

Problems

[tdwMighty]

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"?

A necessity

[Lavene]

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.

Re:A necessity

[Thanshin]

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

And the Swiss will vote in May

[dago]

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.

Re:And the Swiss will vote in May

[VShael]

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.

Tools to make a wise voter choice

[FriendlyLurker]

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

Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th

[drsmithy]

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.

We have them for a long time!

[carvalhao]

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.

Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th

[V for Vendetta]

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!

pedophilia != child molestation

[jonaskoelker]

[...]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.]