Biometrics at the Statue of Liberty 452
gurps_npc writes "There is an interesting CNN article about the Statue of Liberty finally opening again (it was closed since 9/11 for security reasons).
They have increased security to 'airport levels', and offer lockers for people to rent, partly to keep those incredibly dangerous objects like swiss army knives away from the fragile Statue of Liberty. But instead of keys, the lockers use fingerprint readers to open and close (approximately one reader for every 50 lockers)." The article notes that the design was dictated by the Transportation Security Administration.
Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...
"Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about
"Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...
"Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...
"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."
Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955)
__________________________________
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001
free as a bird (Score:1, Insightful)
in a cage
This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, this is a pretty nifty use of biometric technology, to key the person's fingerprint to locking & opening a locker. I'd think the implementation of such a system would be more on-topic for Slashdot than trying to turn this into some sorts of online rights issue.
Not difficult to predict what will happen (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words, average Americans will be taken aside and searched from top to bottom while Israeli spies slip in through the backdoor because of ties on the inside.
What's next??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you been awake for the last three years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. Sarcasm is such a clever device for shoehorning an opinion into an otherwise normal statement. Let me try: ... oh wait.
"Yeah, I really bet that someone could fly a couple of planes into some buildings using box cutters as weapons to*"
Lovely this is happening at a symbol of freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that don't get the stupid part of this let me explain. If you were a terrorist casing the statue of liberty for a future attack and noticed the lockers required fingerprint scans would you use one? Even if you didn't know they'd be checking them against the FBI database you'd have to be one seriously stupid terrorist to not realize the possibility exists and it could blow your cover. They'll probably find a random minor criminal or two and arrest them with some trumped up charges to make it sound/look like these are helping fight the war on terror.
Course the reality is they're not helping any, they're just further eroding what little privacy we have left and the terrorists will just avoid them. And yes I realize we're not guaranteed privacy in public places but running fingerprints without notice (on a regular basis, not just when you suspect someone of a crime) is a bit beyond the erosion of privacy we expect. It's just surreal, I don't think even Orwell thought things would get this silly.
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, then it is no better than in the movie "Demolition Man" where the head cop figures they'll catch Wesley Snipes by waiting for him to kill someone so they'll know "where he is."
Re:Oh, the irony... (Score:3, Insightful)
America has always been the land of the free, with some caveats.
Privacy Violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to have a problem with this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now in its early stages, the program, known as US-VISIT, calls for visitors to go through biometric scans to ensure that they are who their visa or passport says they are. Passports issued by the United States and other countries are getting new chips that will have facial-recognition data, and other biometrics might be added.
Read the article: if visitors to the US are being connected to their names in this way, how long do you think it will be before visitors to the statue of liberty are connected to their names? We're dealing with a slippery slope here. There're no security measures to prevent this data from being stored or used in inappropriate ways.
What would I like? A guarentee that these prints are deleted at the end of the day, or after check out, or something like that. I doubt anybody wants or could see a reason for permanent records of this sort. (Unless of course you're 'president' dubya, in which case 1984 is looking like paradise)
and this is an entirely off topic discussion to have, but you said "I'm not a terrorist": what the heck is a terrorist, then? What does the database really have in it? Are these people that have been legally convicted of a terrorist crime (okay), or are these 'suspects'? The US definition of 'suspect' is, err, a little suspect these days
okay, /pun
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess he's showing us, huh?
Re:This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly what the *good* "citizens" of our fine country are supposed to say. "I have nothing to hide please take my finger prints."
I say the hell with that. Just because we have nothing to hide does not mean that we should happily fork over our identities.
As far as it being a useful technology. Yes, it's a fantastic overuse of a technology. I always felt that a key or a temporary code worked better. Perhaps I am just old-fashioned that way probably just paranoid.
The government wants us to be paranoid over terrorists to detract from being paranoid about them. I'm not fooled.
Re:Have you been awake for the last three years? (Score:3, Insightful)
My reaction to all of this is to condemn the bad health and placating attitude of threatened Americans, not to go after their pocket knives, letter openers, and nail clippers.
Re:Lovely this is happening at a symbol of freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
-
Of course the terrorists aren't expected to be stupid enough to use one of these lockers. The purpose is clearly to act as a deterrent. This theoretically will make it harder to plant a bomb at the statue, when before it would have been relatively easy to place one in a locker.
The problem with that theory is that Al Queda has proven itself to be rather creative in how it'll attack. I think it's fair to say they aren't considering "normal" expected methods (like bombs in a locker) primarily. They're going to be thinking of new ways we aren't/can't expect. So all this does is give us a false sense of security. Having a false sense of security is worse than realizing we don't have any/much security. At least in the latter case we stay extra vigilant. This just leads people to assume they're safe and they may not notice the signs that could prevent the next attack.And I should note that I was mistaken, the prints aren't run against the database automatically. However I would not be surprised if they start in the future or are really doing it but trying to keep it quiet.
-
Now, if they DID happen to be stupid enough to use one even with the scanners, that's just a bonus!
Just like the FBI being told by some foreign intellligence agency where one of the 9/11 hijackers was prior to 9/11? Just like how the FBI and CIA overlooked many signs of odd behaivor (just why were those guys learning to take off a jet but didn't care about learning to land?) that could have led to arrests and stopping the 9/11 attacks? Sorry it might be a bonus but I remain rather unconvinced that the FBI and/or the CIA would act on it in time to do anything about it.Re:Why would they keep the prints (Score:3, Insightful)
"but I agree, a clear violation of your right to privacy."
This is not meant as a troll or flame, but as an honest question. I am not well versed in constitutional law, so I'm hoping for some meaningful answers (yeah, I know I'm on Slashdot!).
My question is this - do we have an explicit, constitutional guarantee of privacy regardless of where we are? It seems to me I recall guarantees only regarding my private residences or lands, more recently, my private vehicle, and the private residences and lands, etc. of the individuals who are my family, friends and associates.
Are we really, explicitly guaranteed privacy in public buildings, on public roads, public parks, public transit, and public monuments?
It would seem fair, in this day and age, that the identities of persons entering various public facilities should be verified, if needed. After all, you have freedom to choose not to enter the the facility if this bothers you.
I know for a fact that my license plate is photographed whenever I pass thru the various toll bridges in the area. I have to show ID to enter the office building I work in, I undergo significant checks before boarding a plane, etc. Am I alone in not being terribly threatened by these practices, at least as they are implemented today?
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:5, Insightful)
And pray tell, how would you know that?
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I would like to eat now." Osama bin Laden, October 2001
"What's for dinner?" John Kerry, June 2004
See how easy it is to connect random people with out-of-context quotes?
the finger points (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the print is stored, or it wouldn't be compared to the finger opening the locker. If the reporter got that wrong, maybe they're also misinforming us about its transmission. Americans need a court judgement against people who abuse our personal info, and cover it up, that destroys the careers of people up and down the line who participate in these mass privacy invasions. This is the Big Brother we were warned about, without any protective metaphor. We need to secure our rights now, when the precedents appear, before they're lost forever - a few years from now will be far too late.
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Strange quote.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times do people visit the SoL? Once? Twice? Three times a Lady?
How are they going to get used to them? Unless, of course, these lockers will eventually be installed everywhere...(cue theater organ)
I'm still surprised that the morons who changed French Fries to 'Freedom Fries' haven't tried to get the SoL taken down and shipped back to France - after all, 'They are against us'.
Re:I was just there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I live a few blocks away from Canada'sParliament Hill [parl.gc.ca] and walked over at about midnight for a walk last night. I didn't see a single person for the first ten minutes. There was one area that had a few RCMP cars (probably their dispatch), but other than that there was virtually no security. I was literally within 10 feet of Centre Block [parl.gc.ca]'s front door without being bothered in the slightest.
Now certainly Americans have a lot more cause to be cautious, but there's also an attitude here that excessive worry and planning for the worst just give you wrinkles.
Then again, if Canada were attacked we might feel differently.
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not whether you are a terrorist or not, it's whether the system identifies you as a terrorist.
As an example: a case in south africa [guardian.co.uk] not so long ago, a British man was held for 21 days by South African authorities at the request of the FBI, because they mistakenly believed they "had their man". Imagine now that a system as falsely trusted as fingerprint scanning marks you - an innocent man - as a terrorist - the current bogey man. Your stay in a holding cell could well be beyond 21 days!
Of course, this is overlooking the fact that it would appear that these scanners are not likely to be linked to any central database!
Re:Freedom? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just my opinion of course.
Fine, but acknowledge Clinton sucked ass, too (Score:1, Insightful)
"We can't be too concerned with protecting the rights of ordinary Americans." - Bill Clinton.
Or how about:
"We're going to take some things away from you, for the common good." - Hillary Clinton, very recently.
The next time a 3rd party candidate says there is hadrly any difference between the Republicrats and the Democans, pay more attention.
-paul
Re:Freedom? (Score:1, Insightful)
People like you, who follow rules like sheep are a large part of the problem. You will sit down following unwritten rules and etiquitte guidelines while people are being executed. You will beleive any guarantee that is given to you. You are the first to put your fingerprint on the scanner because it is convenient, or because you need some document, license, certificaion or access.
Wake up. Smell the burning gasoline and buy a clue, before its too late.
Re:Freedom? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:WHAT A DISASTER (Score:1, Insightful)
I distinctly remember the brits removing lockers, trashcans and such from the London subway during times of IRA aggression.
Re:Privacy Violation? (Score:2, Insightful)
What if you have to provide your fingerprint to mail a letter via USPS? That's not a privacy violation, right, as you could always use FEDEX or UPS, or send an e-mail.
What if you have to provide your fingerprint to walk down a sidewalk? That's not a privacy violation, right, as you could always drive. Or stay at home.
If you didn't know about this system, show up with a backpack and your kids, and you suddenly have to provide a fingerprint to get in to the statue with armed cops all around saying "What's the problem, buddy?", what do you do? Refuse to check the bag and walk out? (And hope the cops don't decide that's suspicious and go for the cavity cream) Or provide your fingerprint under duress?
It *is* an intrusion. The bag's already been X-rayed and sniffed - it's clean (supposedly) - so why not use a cheaper, more effective baggage storage system : the key locker. The only reason they went with the fingerprint system is to capture fingerprints. It's not cheaper, it's harder to maintain than a traditional locker system and takes longer to use!
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the kind of connection through political opinion and rhetoric displayed in the parent post, but you can keep banging on that "all evil people eat food" thepry if you like.
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Statue eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
If terrorists puncture or deflate it, we just grab another
one out of the basement and plug in the compressor.
No, not
Like the things they have on the roof of car dealerships;
so the fans inside would make her dance back and forth
and wave her arms in the air.
Oh, and the crown part should be one of those castle things
for kids to jump around in (so visitors would need to remove
their shoes and put them in the lockers).
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
They carry most of their context with them. The only thing different are the specific enemies they were facing. For Hitler it was communism, Jews and the powers that humiliated Germany at Versailles. For George W. its pretty much anybody who isn't in the "with us" column in "you are either with us or against" though in particular its Islamic extremists.
They are both saying they have enemies and they will use preemptive, aggressive warfare to eliminate them before they can strike. Not sure what context you could put around these two statements that would make them not mean the same thing.
Enemies from without or within, whether they be real, imagined or manufactured are probably the oldest tool for expanding the power of a government over its people. If people feel threatened or endangered they will usually sacrifice just about anything to be safe. The people in Germany did sacrifice everything but in the end it didn't lead to safety.
The key questions American's need to ask themselves today and aren't:
- how much are you willing to sacrifice to be "safe".
- are the sacrifices you're making actually resulting in improved safety.
Unfortunately many of the insane measurements being taken by an out of control government in Washington are, at the end of the day, more smoke and mirrors than real improvements.
If the sacrifices you are making are making you "safe" then you just need to ask yourself is it worth it.
If the sacrifices you are making aren't really make you much safer then why should you be making them.
A simple example, the way to prevent another 9/11 was extraordinarily simple. You put armored cockpit doors in all airliners. It cost a few million dollars and it didn't trample any civil liberties. Sure highjackers might still be able to take over the passanger compartment or blow up the plane but if you want to live in a free society you need to accept there are some risks. You make modest improvements in screening passengers and baggage if you want to minimize them. But instead your government responded to 9/11 with measures that were extraordinarily disruptive, expensive and trampled civil liberties in a major way. They border on making flying so unappealing people start to avoid it, especially if you fly to the U.S. from another country. At that point the measures to improve safety have surpassed the break even point, you would prefer being a little less safe so flying wont be so onerous that you stop doing it.
They are doing the same thing in their response to years old video footage found on suspected Al Qaeda. Rather than quietly tightening security on the targets and seek to foil any plots, instead they used them as a mechanism for pumping fear in the American people. In the process they tipped off Al Qaeda in a major way to the fact one of their networks was compromised which is just really bad intelligence work no matter how you look at it. They key benefit they got out of it though is they were able to use it as an excuse to further expand their self granted authority to randomly stop people both on the street and on the highways to engage in what would otherwise be illegal searches. You know you are in a police state when you can't drive down the highway without the risk of hitting a checkpoint where you are going to be ID'ed, searched and potentially detained for thouroughly vague reasons.
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:3, Insightful)
I submit to you that those are wildly different and incomparable situations. Do I know that my fingerprints aren't lifted from [insert random place] and my actions tracked? Of course, I don't, but I worry about the things that I KNOW are happening. I KNOW that folks coming into the country are being printed. I KNOW that people going to the Statue are being printed. I KNOW that that federal government wants to step up information gathering and tracking.
I see no reason to assume that what would be seen as "valuable law enforcement data" such as fingerprint scans at a major landmark would be thrown away. What's more, I don't see any way to prevent a future change in policy on how old information is used (don't even try to tell me that there are no logs generated by these machines).
Freedom is dangerous. Freedom makes it hard to enforce laws. Freedom makes it hard to "protect our children". Freedom makes government clumsy.
These are all true, and exactly none of them is a good reason to curtail such freedom. We must be ever vigilant for efforts to make the job of government and law enforcement easier at the expense of our liberty.
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the default settings for a government should make it as hard as possible for them to spy on people, and to only allow it in exceptional circumstances and in a clearly limited fashion. This, I think, is the spirit behind the 4th Amendment.
Re:I was just there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying the seat of government of a widely respected nation won't have nearly the same impact that destroying the Statue of Liberty would?
The seat of government of one of the most widely respected nations in the world, a member of the G7 and NATO (I believe). The place where the prime minister, house of commons, and senate work?
Compared to a 200 year old statue symbolic? Amusingly enough a statue symbolic of the freedoms slipping away in the US. I'll bet the French will get a real kick out of that.
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt this DOEN'T happen.
In fact, I'm pretty sure they keep that fingerprint stored with a few choice pictures from the security cameras, while they're at it. What? You think there's no cameras?
Wait for it, in a few years, this fingerprint "news" will come out, and you'll be surprised.
I don't mind being checked against a terrorist database. I'm not a terrorist.
Are you sure?
You're probably safe, no one was ever unjustly arrested or anything... they're not detaining people for years without trials in secret locations, nobody's been deported to Syria to be tortured a little...
Re:Fine, but acknowledge Clinton sucked ass, too (Score:2, Insightful)
1) "First money" - yes, we'll take everyone's money to cover the enormous deficit. We MUST get it under control. That will involve repealing some of the tax cuts, maybe even new taxes, who knows. As Bill Maher said: "Isn't tax and spend better than don't tax and spend?" We have this bogus war to pay for, among other things.
2) "Then, private healthcare." No, no, no. All the dems are saying: for those who can't afford it, have a national health care plan. If you have the extra money, you can get your penile implant any place, with any doctor you want. But we cannot watch others die from easily curable diseases just because they're poor.
3) Then "right of self-defense" You talking about guns? Yes, I hope to god we limit those. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt.
And then funny how you jump to the mid-20th century Russia from there.
Surely if you have to pay another dollar to the federal government, and have to help others not die, and you're not allowed your assault rifle with you at all times, then surely you'll end up working in a state-owned factory.
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:2, Insightful)
Because a computer right next to the location of an explosion will store its data reliably?
Because el-cheapo scanners have enough resolution to uniquely identify somone in a crowd of more than 50 people? (say, to a resolution of one person in 60 million?)
Because you can accurately identify people by their fingerprints?
Because the address on file for a person newly revealed as a terrorist, is likely to still be correct on the day after an attack?
Re:Freedom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:2, Insightful)
So, given your point, perhaps you should ask yourself why put such a complicated/error-prone system in place JUST to replace a key/lock system?