Greece, UK Go Different Directions On Biometric ID 43
An anonymous reader submits "David Blunkett, the UK's labour Home Secretary, today announced plans to fingerprint and iris scan all British citizens by 2013 for a new compulsory ID card. The majority of negative feedback to government consultation on the scheme was discounted because it was sent via an online service."
On the other hand, securitas writes "Greece's Data Protection Authority - the national privacy watchdog - 'banned Athens International Airport from checking and recording passengers' fingerprints and irises as part of a pilot security program saying it was in breach of local privacy laws.' (That's 'pilot' as in 'trial,' not the people who fly the planes). The scheme, funded by the European Union and the Swiss government, involved embedding the biometric data on smart cards issued to travelers on a voluntary basis."
popularity. (Score:2)
Re:popularity. (Score:2)
Noteably, this was roughly the result of the consultation period (presumably the people that bothered to reply to it had thought about the issues to some extent, and so were mostly ag
Re:popularity. (Score:1)
Sad, isn't it? And if you object "you must have something to hide."
Re:popularity. (Score:2)
The gits are very probably already recording who and when I call, recording my internet usage, shopping items, email headers and so on. And they probably scan all transoceanic phone calls for keywords, and may well be recording them now the cost of storage is so low.
And I say this without any trace of paranoia- they record these things for the whole country pretty much anyway.
Re:popularity. (Score:2)
It's very easy indeed to skew a poll to give the desired outcome, just by carefully wording the questions and choosing the people you ask.
That said though, I'd well believe that a majority of people here are at least not against them - they'll have been told that it'll help tackle illegal immigrants, benefit fraud and other crimes and terrorism, without a mention of anything to be con
Re:popularity. (Score:2)
So in fact the results were, of 7,000 votes: 23% in favour, 77% not.
The reason given for disregarding most votes made is that they came from an anti-ID card website, so they were biased.
I swear I couldn't make it up.
semantics (Score:1)
a small, but possibly signifigant point. british people are subjects, rather than citizens.
so... from merriam-webster
citizen [m-w.com] - 1 : one that is placed under authority or control: as a : VASSAL b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
subject [m-w.com] - 1 : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman 2 a : a member
Re:semantics (Score:2)
Re:semantics (Score:1)
Well would you need one if your face was on every stamp and note?
Re:semantics (Score:2)
Re:semantics (Score:1)
(I assume you deliberately got the definitions the wrong way around, BTW...)
In any case, it's perhaps worth pointing out that I (along with most of the rest of the British population) am both a British Subject and a British Citizen. So, not only am I a Subject of HM Queen Elizabeth the mis-numbered (sorry, I'm a Scot), but I also have the right of abode in the UK.
A point sometimes missed is that being a British Subject does not, in and of itself, grant you this right...
Re:semantics (Score:1)
of course i purposefully put them the wrong way round, otherwise i would look like a total fool...
Re:semantics (Score:2)
Funny.. it says "British Citizen" in this passport that I'm looking at.
Re:semantics (Score:2)
the French far more controlling than the British? (Score:1)
Are the French more controlling than the British?
I thought it was the other way around. In the nanny state in Britain a person's not able to defend themselves. Why, I read an article recently about how a woman was going home from her knitting circle when she was attacked and to defend herself she used her knitting needle. Because she used a "dangerous weapon" she was charged. I haven't as yet heard that a person isn't able to defend themselves in France.
Ho Hum (Score:2)
Currently you need several forms of identification to get anything important. When there is a one-size-fits-al
Re:Ho Hum (Score:1)
Why would it collapse under its own beurocracy? Yes, ID's _are_ meant to keep tabs on people. They proved their usefulness well and beyond in allowing governments to control the populace (for the populace's own good). How would you like to drive around a place where anyone can print out a phony driver's license, kids with no driver training just go sit behind wheels, and people get killed daily by the doesen?
What is being said here about bio ID's invading
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
You see, many people think that biometric identification is fool-proof and that the ID cards will be perfect and unforgeable.
Both of these premises are false. Try finding out what the reliability of DNA fingerprinting is. The probability of a flase match with someone else's is not infinitessimal. Fingerprint readers have already been fooled, people have made copies of fingerprints left on surfaces and used them to fool machines, and iris scans have been duplicated as wel
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
My point is that the politicians and beurocrats want us to put all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak. Currently I must provide several forms of identification. In the future, this shambles will be all that is required to get access to all services. That's a single point of failure. Anyone with any sense knows that this is dangerous. No engineer would build such a system. So why should the politicians
Re:Ho Hum (Score:1)
There's no way I'm letting anybody fool around with my eyesight, thank you very much. And I, for one, won't be pr
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
My take is that the victimization of innocent people will be so rampant that the government won't be able to cover things up fast enough.
If you didn't do something bad, keeping bio tabs on you makes framing someone innocent or wrongful accusation harder.
Actually, it will be harder for juries to see the logical holes in the database schemas. It makes it easier for lawyers to sway juries into believing what the police say, because it takes much much more i
Bio ID makes framing easier... (Score:2)
So persons with access to the evidence trail/databases can more easily prove someone guiltly (who isn't) because the forgery is percieved to be difficult.
When the storage methods for evidence etc are themselves subject toi screcy, proving tampering will be very difficult for the defendent.
There is a solution: prosecution must prove that the evidence was not tampered with.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
>around a place where anyone can print out a phony
>driver's license, kids with no driver training just
>go sit behind wheels, and people get killed daily by
>the doesen?
I don't know about Britain, but here in Canada all those things happen every day despite our mandatory drivers' licenses.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
There was a BBC news item on a couple of months ago that stated that the 'several' forms of identification required to obtain a passport are unfortunately simple for criminals to obtain and have been for years due to a flaw in the system. In the report even the passport office acknowledged this, although they dismissed it since they reckon that only a small number of them are obt
Re:Ho Hum (Score:1)
Me thinks there are _many_ better things on which to spend the money than setting up the infrastructure of a police state.
Re:Ho Hum (Score:2)
No Contest (Score:3, Interesting)
The card holds your biometric data (say finger-print and iris scan). If card production is cracked, the cards can then be forged -- making the biometric data useless. This is comparable to pasting in another picture on a drivers license.
To prevent this, the biometric data can be stored elsewhere. One copy (the one that can't be repudiated) is on the person. One copy may be on the card (if the card is secure). Typically, one *more* copy is on a computer.
The "client" is scanned, and biometric data is compared against the stored copy. Hack attempts portrayed on movies have the "bad guys" using cut off fingers, etc. to beat the system. But this isn't the attack point of choice.
If the biometric data is modified in the stored computer file, we have a problem. Someone makes a change saying "this person is a terrorist". Or another identity change. You CAN'T change your biometric data, and governments aren't likely to reveal what is in the "secret" files.
So, a hacker seeds data in a computer somewhere, and the next time you travel, BAM, you are arrested with no way of proving that it ISN'T you. Of course its you, the biometric data matches.
Any compromise in the system is very bad. This is a very bad thing. The privacy thing is a canard -- not being able to repudiate the biometric data makes it almost impossible to correct records, and reclaim identity through government layers.
Ratboy
Re:No Contest (Score:1)
Is Britain a testbed for the US and EU? (Score:2)
How convenient.
Biometric data & surveillance society (Score:2)
The main problem is that people's opinions are being shaped by the false distorted view, that ID cards would solve our ills of illegal immigration, crime and terrorism.
The carrying of these biometric ID cards is a red herring - there is no need to carry a card - you carry your data on you at all times.
Your eye scan and/or fingerprint da
Re:Biometric data & surveillance society (Score:1)
*ALL* British citizens? (Score:2)
And of course all the tourists plus citizens of other European countries working in Britain (as allowed by EC rules) won't have them either.
So if someone is supposed to check your biometric id and you say you don't have on