Biometric Passports Agreed To In EU 217
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.)"
In the words of the great optimist.... (Score:2, Insightful)
dumb sheep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dumb sheep (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!
Re:dumb sheep (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 [metagovernment.org], for lack of a better form of it (for lack of having time to create one myself. :( ).
Re: (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 the
Re:dumb sheep (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
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 al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is a good old revolution
That might be tough since none of you are allowed to have guns ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get that strange idea?
Hint - the UK is not the only country in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
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......
Re: (Score:2)
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 sta
Re:dumb sheep (Score:4, Insightful)
A metagovernment/open source government is majoritarianism. Effectively, this means little or no rights for the minority.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if you could come up with a secure and open form of meritocracy you might be onto something.
Tools to make a wise voter choice (Score:4, 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 [laquadrature.net]
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Campaign-Save_amendment_138_and_Internet_Freedom_from_Council_of_EU#General_Advice [laquadrature.net]
For example can sort by amendment 138, see who was against:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_package_directives_1st_reading_details_by_score [laquadrature.net]
Re: (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.
Re:dumb sheep (Score:4, Funny)
It just seems that who ever I vote for, some idiot politician gets elected anyway ...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:dumb sheep (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:dumb sheep (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
South Park (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Democracy was in Greece millennia ago, not here.
I'm sure the Greek slaves would agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:dumb sheep (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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 a
Re: (Score:3, 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, wh
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The EU turned me into a newt!
Re: (Score:2)
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 benefi
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:dumb sheep (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:dumb sheep (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just so that you know ... (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Betting Pool. How long before it's a torrent (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
To put up a fence to keep me out? Or to keep mother nature in?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That you have a split personality.
Watch for him trying to strangle you while you're sleeping! ;)
All your fingerprints (Score:5, Funny)
are belong to US, I mean EU.
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay if your fingerprints are belong to you, but not when it's belong to us.
Re: (Score:2)
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 be
Disabled people = 2nd class citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re:Disabled people = 2nd class citizens (Score:4, Funny)
except the blind!
Re: (Score:2)
``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 perce
As our American friends say, "good luck with that" (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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??
Re: (Score:3, 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 [conservatives.com] is pretty clearly against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they get into power, and then that promise will be forgotten along with all the others.
Re:As our American friends say, "good luck with th (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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..)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Are we all criminals? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought fingerprinting was reserved for people in jail?
Re: (Score:2)
``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?
Political? (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.
Re:Political? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say "thieving bastards?" I thought you could!
Re:Political? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
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 any
Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is true, then wont this just hurt the honest people and do nothing to stop "criminals"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much crime does a better passport stop, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
A necessity (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
That's what a terrorists would say to deflect suspicion. Or a pedophile.
pedophilia != child molestation (Score:4, 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.
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.]
And the Swiss will vote in May (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.
Re:And the Swiss will vote in May (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not such a bad idea... (Score:2)
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 th
Wait, is this actually news? (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 w
They are already here (Score:2, Informative)
Dutch citizens have no voice (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.
We have them for a long time! (Score:4, Informative)
27 countries... 270+ passport offices... (Score:2)
Fingerprint removal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)