Slashdot Mirror


Afghanistan Biometric Data Given To US

wisebabo writes "I just noticed that not only are all Afghans going to have their biometric data (fingerprints and iris scans) recorded but the government plans to share it with the U.S. From the article: 'Gathering the data does not stop at Afghanistan's borders, however, since the military shares all of the biometrics it collects with the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security through interconnected databases.' Talk about 'know thine enemy' (or I guess, for now, friend). Does this foretell the near future when the U.S. govt. (and by extension, Chinese hackers) have the biometrics of almost everyone alive?"

18 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Wot? They don't already? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    There should be an investigation. With the DHS budget they should have this already.

    1. Re:Wot? They don't already? by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Funny

      With the huge shitload of money you guys have buried there, every Afghan should be living in a two-story family house with cable TV, barbecue, walled garden and a Hummer in the driveway.

      But hey, you're paying. You tell where it's spent.

  2. Missed the juicy part of the article by upside · · Score: 4, Informative

    A reporter from The New York Times, an American of Norwegian rather than Afghan extraction, voluntarily submitted to a test screening with the B.A.T. system. After his fingerprints and iris scans were entered into the B.A.T.’s armored laptop, an unexpected “hit” popped up on the screen, along with the photograph of a heavily bearded Afghan.

    The “hit” identified the reporter as “Haji Daro Shar Mohammed,” who is on terrorist Watch List 4, with this note: “Deny Access, Do Not Hire, Subject Poses a Threat.”

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    1. Re:Missed the juicy part of the article by AlexKilpatrick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Biometric are about probabilities, and a poor fingerprint has a higher chance of a false match. Many Afghans have poor fingerprints because of manual labor (masonry work, etc.). Also, a miss is harder than a match, because you have to search every single record. They may have the thresholds set so low that the "best" match pops up, even if it is not a great match. That would explain this kind of false positive for the reporter. It sounds to me like the system worked - there was a secondary verification of using a photograph, which would have cleared the person who got the false positive.

    2. Re:Missed the juicy part of the article by durrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Working as inteded.
      This way any agent of the US wanting to get rid of someone unwanted will just use his terrorist-check-rights and force you at gunpoint to have your fingers scanned. It then uses an "what's your arab-terrorist-alias generator" and generates a false positive, allowing said officer to shoot you directly as you pose a threat to the Free World(tm), said officer then goes through the standardized "blame a technical glitch" whitewash procedure.

      It's a brilliant fascist system. Of course we need to take it a step further and remove the do not fly list and whatever lists that numbers those to look out for, because hey, there's so many terrorists that it's hard to keep track. We should instead create a not-a-terrorist-list for the rich and their friends and implement prison wages for the rest of the population, not that there would be any particularly noticable difference

    3. Re:Missed the juicy part of the article by kanto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It sounds to me like the system worked - there was a secondary verification of using a photograph, which would have cleared the person who got the false positive.

      The problem is that I don't think this reporter of "American Norwegian" descent looked anything even remotely like the match suggested. The real deal is when using it to pick out natives and then having a system which does low odds "best guesses" sounds retarded; especially if it gives you helpful hints to treat people with extreme prejudice.

    4. Re:Missed the juicy part of the article by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The face is just there for secondary verification. In a false fingerprint match, you would expect the fingerprints to be similar, but not the faces.

      His point is that a face match is great for secondary verification if the people are of obviously different races or genders, but if an American soldier is comparing a heavily bearded Afghani man to to the picture of a different heavily bearded Afghani man it may not work so well.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  3. Best friends forever! by md65536 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Friends? Does that mean that the US shares biometric data on all US citizens with Afghanistan? Aw how adorable!

    The US doesn't have friends. It has friendos.

  4. I hope so... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this foretell the near future when the U.S. govt. (and by extension, Chinese hackers) have the biometrics of almost everyone alive?"

    I hope so, this would be doubleplusgood. Otherwise, how else can be catch and punish Goldstein?

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  5. Dont worry. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    I can bet my sweet ass that chinese and russian hackers will screw this kind of thing so hard that it will be pointless.

  6. Re:The new US motto by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Funny

    " All your basepair are belong to us " !

    FTFY

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  7. Use of biometrics by AlexKilpatrick · · Score: 2

    I'm curious - people are worried about the government having their biometrics. What specifically are you concerned about? What is the nightmare scenario that bothers you if the USG has your fingerprints? In case you haven't noticed, you leave your fingerprints everywhere; if someone wanted your fingerprints, it would be pretty easy to obtain them without your consent. Similarly, someone can collect your face biometric by taking a picture of you at the mall, or from your driver's license. I don't think there is any way to stop the spread of biometric databases, the same way it is impossible to stop the spread of stolen credit card numbers. We have to look at legislation centered around what people are doing with that information.

  8. Re:TSA's PLDB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...or sympathy

  9. Intelligence just can't win by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really pity the American intelligence community. They're expected to catch every single credible threat, not just to America but to any nation or political figure on the planet, without going so much as a micron past the ever-shifting 'too far' and 'possibly not far enough' marks at risk of being flat-out pilloried in venues far more hysterical and influential than this.

    Between the conservatives who claim we've still not gone far enough in fighting terror and the liberals who scream at any infinitesimal possibility of privacy violations but still want a potent intelligence apparatus - and the general public's simultaneous sympathy for both sides - it's impossible to win. The safe operating widths of the intelligence community (on some hypothetical number line ranging from "knows everything about everybody in real time" to "won't so much as question a guy carrying dynamite up the Capitol steps without first consulting the Human Rights Commission and the ACLU") are almost always measured in negative numbers, and large ones at that.

    I mean seriously. Many liberals and libertarians are demanding surveillance policies so dense and cautious that no intelligence organization could reasonably decide on manpower and human judgment alone whether to stop a possibly dangerous person from entering the country until well after he's either blown up a building or completed his perfectly innocuous two-week business trip, whichever comes later. And, as in the reaction to this story, God help them if they use computers, networking, and/or any persistent databases to speed up that decision!

    And if it's not the liberals and libertarians bitching about even the slightest possibility of privacy violations, it's the conservatives who say we might as well erect a thirty foot electrified fence around the entire nation and fire mortars at everyone who approaches wearing more than a see-through jockstrap and an implanted, US-made chip containing their passport, complete encrypted biometric profile, and HD-video of their entire life up to the moment they walked into view of the mortar teams.

  10. Re:Both ways? by AlexKilpatrick · · Score: 3, Funny

    The US will share whatever is negotiated with the Afghans. Countries share varying amounts of data all the time, depending upon what they negotiate. The Afghans are not sharing *all* of the data they have, and the system is in place because the Afghans want it. If they didn't want it, they could force the US to remove it.

  11. Re:Both ways? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Afghans are not sharing *all* of the data they have, and the system is in place because the Afghans want it. If they didn't want it, they could force the US to remove it.

    That's the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot this month.

  12. Re:Wrong Relationship by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US doesn't have "friends", it has "client states" and "potential enemies". When a state switches from one to the other depends on the current economic state in the US. Look at Iraq, at one point Saddam Hussein was a great friend of the US, then he threatened the US oil supply and all that was out the window :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  13. Ignorance by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...Does this foretell the near future when the U.S. govt. (and by extension, Chinese hackers) have the biometrics of almost everyone alive?"

    Well, for starters, I find it hilarious that you think this doesn't go on already, sanctioned or not.

    And the "by extension" comment regarding hackers? C'mon now, you're talking to Slashdot, not CNN here. Hacking (or cracking) has been and always will be the fallacy of ANY online or offline electronic resource, no matter who owns it or what it contains. That's not exactly "by extension" but more like by inherent design, and it's certainly not limited to "Chinese hackers".