U.S. Biometric Passports By Late 2004 421
truthsearch writes "The Register is reporting 'Current plans call for the new passport books to include a contactless smart chip based on the 14443 standard, with a minimum of 32 Kbytes of EEPROM storage. The chip will contain a compressed full-face image for use as a biometric. European biometric passports, by contrast, are planned to feature both retinal and fingerprint recognition biometrics on their smart cards.' How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork."
False Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Analog photos in our passports, I bet that at least half
The Slashdot readership's back hair is standing on end.
Maybe this is a privacy concern. Maybe. Especially if
You're concerned about automatic face recognition and such.
Anyone could create a device which could match your face from a
Scan of your passport photo. And your retinas can even be
Scanned while you're in line. What's the big deal here?
Re:False Privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Iris scanning is possible from a bit farther away click here for info [aimglobal.org] and facial scanning from even further away.
False Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Shit. We'd be more secure if we had a policy of only allowing women on planes, because there's actual statistical evidence to show they're less likely to cause problems. Sure it'd upset some people, but is it really better to implement a policy that doesn't even fix anything?
Re:False Security (Score:5, Insightful)
When your in customs, and you have thousands and thousands of people coming into the country.. the margin for error just goes up and up. Screw 9/11, this is just a good idea. It's nothing that we don't have already.. it's just a more efficient and more accurate system that better ensures the person who has the passport matches up with the person that passport was assigned to.
Plausable denyability (Score:4, Interesting)
Officer: You just sold alcohol to a 16-year old. Did you card him?
You: No
Officer: You're in trouble, then.
vs.
Officer: You just sold alcohol to a 16-year old. Did you card him?
You: Yes, and the picture looked like him.
Officer: Well, it turns out it was his older brother. Try to be more careful next time.
At that point, it's the 16-year-old's fault for posessing a fake id and using it to misrepresent himself. Both are crimes in the US.
Also, it's in the store's best interest to sell to as many people as they can. After all, they're in the biz to make money. Not to enforce our puritanical drinking laws.
Re:False Security (Score:4, Interesting)
"Mr. Psycho Bomber"
Or in the context of 9/11 (which is obviously the impetus for this change), "guy who can fell tall building with a single boxcutter". What high tech measures could have been used to prevent those attacks? Oh, I dunno...maybe CLOSING THE COCKPIT DOOR!
I think the security experts need to learn the 80/20 rule.
Re:False Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
The European scheme, with fingerprints and retinal scans, would disturb me a bit more if I were subject to it.
Re:False Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
We can use technology to protect our privacy, and we can use technology to eliminate it, so we'll have to keep ourselves safe and free with legislation instead. We outlaw murder, not knives...
Right to anonymous demonstration?! No such thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me where does it say that you have the right (not just privilege) to demonstrate anonymously?
This question has stumped several activists already.
Re:Right to anonymous demonstration?! No such thin (Score:4, Informative)
The very concept of free speech revolves around anonymity. Pamphleting was upheld by the Supreme court to be a necessarily anonymous activity, for the pamphleteer could be subject to persecution (think Tom Paine).
There won't be any protests if the protesters know that a mad administration is cataloging their names. And that's the whole idea of cataloging the protestors... isn't it? To get them off the streets, and shut them up.
This administration already has come up with the idea of a "first amendment zone". You see, if the Appointed President is scheduled to show up in public, the Secret Service calls the local law. The local law will set up a pen, usuallly a mile or more away from the AP's speech location, in which all protestors are required to stay.
Needless to say, Republicans are bussed in from the burbs if necessary to swell the AP's crowd numbers. And no protestors are in evidence.
Back in the Pen, or First Amendment Zone, the cops and the Secret Service set up cameras on tripods and recording equipment galore, all pointedly pointing at the traitorous ones.
Imagine if Clinton had penned up and cataloged the Monicaites. I can't imagine it, 'cause the local law and the SS would never have done it. But for a 'publican? No problemo!
In such a situation, privacy is obviously being removed in order to intimidate any future protestors from ever trying to protest Bush ever again.
After all, imagine what could be done with that info the SS are gathering. Employers could be called, a goodly majority of which are hard-right 'publicans. A large number of people in the U.S. have been fired already because they disagreed with Bush in public. That info is obviously going into an "enemies of conservatives" file somewhere, as well. Who has this info? WHY do they have it, and who the hell told them they could pen up people and catalog their identities?
Where the hell are the reporters? No one seems to care.
This is why the Ninth Amendment regarding unlisted rights not specifically enumerated exists: the right to privacy does indeed exist, altho not listed specifically. The government is not only bound by rights enumerated, but implied.
If this does not seem to go over well with the radical right, then we do need to enumerate our rights with new laws. The pity is, those laws can be rescinded, whereas the Constitution cannot be, easily anyway.
Re:Right to anonymous demonstration?! No such thin (Score:5, Insightful)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Annotations
Rights Retained by the People
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
----
In other words, in order to protect the First Amendment rights of an individual, a right to privacy must be construed, else, as my "First Amendment Zone" abuse citation illustrates, there is no First Amendment right to free speech, if the speaker knows that his identity is being serriptitiously deduced and cataloged by opponents in the government, presumably to harrass or destroy the speaker.
The Ninth implies rights necessary to enable the enumerated rights. It denies the goverment the ability to increase its powers in the areas not enumerated, if those new powers exist soley to disable enumerated rights.
Re:Right to anonymous demonstration?! No such thin (Score:5, Informative)
The United States Supreme Court said it in:
FOUNDATION, INC., et al. No. 97-930
DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION No. 93-986
Re:False Privacy (Score:2)
for a true retinal scan you need to get up close and personal with a machine.
Re:False Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: False sense of security (Score:3, Insightful)
So these lovely smartcard based passports will only provide better tracking of lawful citizens, while criminals and terrorists are still free to walk amongst us.
Valid paperwork is irrelevant. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ergo, let's go burn billions on this new technology that wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference anyway. Cuz, like, it's cool.
Re:Valid paperwork is irrelevant. (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it's been said that one should never attribute to malice what stupidity can explain, but I really don't think stupidity explains the goings on in the USA during the last ~2 years.
Re:Valid paperwork is irrelevant. (Score:2, Funny)
Privacy... (Score:5, Funny)
"The privacy implications here are worrying, and this sets a bad precedent, IMO."
Slashdot editors, please make this correction immediatly.
Re:Privacy... (Score:3, Funny)
*phew* (Score:5, Funny)
Now our fears of terrorism are answered, I can now sleep well at night again.
God bless America!
Worth? (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't effect privacy either; it's just kinda worthless, since "Adbar" could be a terrorist, but hey, we don't know that; we just know he's Adbar! 100%!
Re:Worth? (Score:2)
I just tried this with Photoshop; you can do a 120 DPI colour JPEG in less than 32kB without major loss of quality (that's 35mm x 45mm, roughly the same as the existing photo size). Better compression algorithms can no doubt improve on this. Yes, you'll never get film resolution but past 200 DPI, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
I have already used good quality inkjet prints of such an image (
Re:Worth? (Score:4, Insightful)
This digital copy, OTOH, will have no such protection. Oh sure, it will be encrypted and scrambled and blah blah blah, but anyone with half a brain and a propensity to scan the tech headlines of the past decade can tell you it's a matter of when, not if, it is defeated (e.g. CSS, Windows Media, "Enhanced CD" copy protection, half a dozen others).
So, to sum up: the photo on your passport now: not hackable. The photo stored in your passport 5 years from now: hackable. You can see why some claim this will degrade our privacy.
Re:Worth? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between being able to hack something with access to the hardware and software needed to make it work (DeCSS,Copyprotected CDs) and those tha
Re:Worth? (Score:3, Informative)
The images on a smart-chip are going to be lower resolution tham your passport image
Not so you'd notice. I work on a smart card-based secure ID system that uses JPEG2000 to compress photos to less than 2KB. With either a nice, plain background or using region-of-interest coding you can get a surprisingly good quality image in well under 2KB. 1KB is harder, and introduces more artifacts, but you can get images that are usable for authentication even in that tiny space.
With 30KB or so, JPEG2000 and RO
They did same sort of thing after TWA 800 (Score:3, Insightful)
Not on your life.
Face it lads, we're property. Nothing more.
Re:They did same sort of thing after TWA 800 (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you go that far, you could use the same argument to justify intrusive security anywhere.
"Hey, it's not like people are pushing you out on the sidewalks which are continually video monitored."
"You don't have to drive a car on highways where all vehicles are scanned at regular intervals."
"Nobody's forcing you to live in a city that requires surveillance cameras in every bedroom and bathroom."
"You aren't required to get that IRS identification implant unless you are an employee, business owner, or shareholder, and participation in those activities is 100% voluntary under the law."
Re:They did same sort of thing after TWA 800 (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that why DirectTV is suing everyone on the planet for owning one of those programming devices ? (read it here in an earlier article). Doesn't matter if you are ligit or not. Even if we can get to 80% secure would be a major improvement
Personally I'm not for something like this. America didn't become great because the Government interfered like this. It became great because the Government took a back se
Calm Down Ladies (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the 9-11 throwback, this technology wouldn't help so much, but it does have some excellent usages for preventing fake id's, as well as locating kidnapped or missing children.
Re:Calm Down Ladies (Score:2)
If it can be made, it can be faked.
However, prople may be more willing to believe an electronic fake than an analogue one - so watch out for the new generation of mega-scams(TM)
"Supposed to"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Calm Down Ladies (Score:2, Interesting)
as well as locating kidnapped or missing children.
Emphasis added.
Now how is your first statement not a negation of the other one?
You can have either or but not both. (Unless you consider the possiblity that all minors will be tracked whereas adults are not.)
Either way, I can't see a good thing comming of this in terms of anonymity.
Re:Calm Down Ladies (Score:2)
Re:Calm Down Ladies (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats usually the governments game. Why else would they take your fingernail clippers?
Better than DNA Matching (Score:5, Funny)
Better to match on appearance than somethning more insidious and Ashcroftian (look mom, I made a new word!)...
Please bleed in the cup, Mr. Anderson. We need to match your DNA to this passport.
Follow Suit (Score:3, Funny)
challenge? (Score:5, Funny)
What is that? A challenge?
Re:challenge? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell a geek he or she can't do something, and that something will get done.
Re:challenge? (Score:3, Informative)
What is that? A challenge?
Sure. Let's call it the "RSA-2048" challenge.
There's every reason to expect that these passports will be essentially unforgeable. Why? Unlike all of the other cases of broken security technology slashdotters like to point at, this is a case where the keys and devices that implement the security are not placed in the hands of the public. The signing keys will only need to exist at the passport issuance centers, and the devices that verify the keys will be under the control o
Bio "Metrics" (Score:5, Funny)
what all the scriptkiddies are waiting for.. (Score:2, Informative)
EPROMs with biometrics that you wear in a necklace and access through your GBA
Re:what all the scriptkiddies are waiting for.. (Score:3, Funny)
based on the 14443 standard
and read this:
based on the 31337 standard
Big deal? Maybe...but not necessarily for worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another interesting potential positive. When you want a visa to visit a country (something we americans don't need to do for most "westernized" nations) you usually need to send along 2 passport-sized photos, which means the PITA of going to get pictures taken. Now, if the embassy of Brunei has a smartcard reader for the passport, they could just download the picture from your passport instead! Electronic storage of visas and such might even eventually let us do all these things over the net.
There are privacy issues with any form of identification, but they rely less on what the identifier is but more on how it is used. If we want to preserve our rights, we need to fight against regulations forcing us to show or carry ID (a la Gilmore). The form these IDs take is not so important (well, unless they want to implant them in our skin, or make them checkable via radio, etc, but these are separate animals...)
Re:Big deal? Maybe...but not necessarily for worse (Score:4, Insightful)
This honestly doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Consider that this changes very little...
... seems to eliminate a less sophisticated avenue of fraud...
This sort of matches my viewpoint too. I mean, as a Brit living in the USA I already have an ID card with multiple features to make it hard to fake and biometric data (photo and fingerprint) - its called a "green card" although only the lettering on the back is green anymore. Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover that theres all sorts of data encoded on it in machine-readable form from my visa application through to the final interview when they authorised giving me the card in the first place. I havent looked into it in any detail because I dont give a rats ass. They have the data anyway and the rules that govern its use dont change just because they stick it on a card. The harder it is for some jerk with a semtex fetish to fake one of these and maybe pretend to be me the happier I'll be. Personally I'd rather not get a vacation in Cuba thanks to identity theft....
Re:Big deal? Maybe...but not necessarily for worse (Score:4, Insightful)
And further considering that your country has made hundreds of these little, and some not-so little, changes over the past twenty years (remember the War on Drugs and Patriot Act?) there's little worry that you'll ever lose basic rights and freedoms. After all, hundreds of these little steps never add up large steps, right?
Welcome.. (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the United State of America. Allow the nice lady at the counter to take your picture, retinal scan, fingerprints, blood sample, stool sample, urine sample, hair follicle, oral swab. After that please check one of the two YES or NO boxes next to "I AM A TERRORIST" statement.
Re:Welcome.. (Score:2, Informative)
9/11 ties (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:9/11 ties (Score:2)
Thats exactly right. I'd hate to say it, and it is extremely conspiracy theorist. But something hasn't smelled right in the last two years with the actions taken by the US government. If we were trying to protect ourselves, I dont think the path we've been taking would be the best path to
Take off your goddamn tin-foil hat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on people....If this had been done 5 years ago the response would have been "A digital picture in my passport? SWEET! One more thing I can try to hack..." Not everything is a facist government conspiracy to rob you of your freedom. Sometimes it's just using technology to make something better.
Re:Take off your goddamn tin-foil hat. (Score:3, Informative)
Surely you don't mean that. I quote my un-technological passport:
Alteration of Mutilation of Passport
This passport must not be altered or mutilated in any way. Alteration may make it INVALID, and, if willful, may subject you to prosecution (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1543). Only authorized officials of the United States or of foreign countries, in connection with official matters, may place stamps or make statements, notations, or additions to this passport. You may ammend or update p
Bring on the tinfoil Red Hats (Score:2, Informative)
What if it were your Microsoft .NET Passport(TM)?
Don't worry about the government robbing you of your freedom; businesses will do it themselves and charge you for the service.
More useless security (Score:2, Insightful)
Why it matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why it matters (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why it matters (Score:2)
Why, that would be horrible... walking around in public and someone being able to recognize you.
Or do you usually walk around with a paper bag over your head?
Will I have to buy a new one? (Score:4, Insightful)
With all the outstanding passports I couldn't imagine the US Gov would re-issue new ones for free. Hopefully we'll all be 'grandfathered' in, although since it is their property they could revoke them in Oct. 2004.
Am I happy... (Score:2)
After that? Don't know, stay at home I guess.
M.
Re:Am I happy... (Score:2)
And yes, the passport is not my property but that of the issuing government I am aware of this.
Michael
Interesting plan. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it'd be more interesting to make the passport work on more levels, though, such as encoding your driver's license and other relevant information to make it more convenient to use for identification (irregardless of what you're doing, you'd only have to carry one ID wherever you go.) Maybe even include an ability to pay with the card, with a credit issuer encoding their information in the chip -- use the card in a vending machine/gas pump/computer peripheral, verify with a fingerprint, and away you go.
Here's the problem, though (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with biometrics and government-issued 'encrypted' biometric data is that once the technology IS cracked (and it WILL be cracked - make no mistake about that!), then what do you do? You can't change your biometric data (well, not without plastic surgery or eye replacements
This does seem pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real wake up call about passports happened for me when my first one expired. I had memorized the number and assumed that naturally this ultra important piece of ID would be kept for life --not a chance.
I specifically requested to keep my old number and the feds said, no its not allowed.
This struck me as totally bizarre, but by that point I'd travelled enough to have met people who casually threw away their passports and got new ones whenever they got into visa problems so I wasn't all that surprised. Passports are a joke and always will be.
Re:This does seem pointless. (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose you get into bankruptcy. Well, all your financial data is under SS#666-23-2342. If you get a new SS#, would they necessarily know how to trace you if you wanted to open a bank account? Or would they think 'no problem, no background on this SS#' and give it to you? (simplified, I know, but the take the general idea)
Perhaps it's time for a new approach... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I like the idea of more government tech jobs, I can't help but worry about our national security in the era of us-vs-them foreign policy.
tamper-proofing (Score:2)
Re:tamper-proofing (Score:2)
Not that my picture ever looked like me.
M.
Well its about friggin time (Score:3, Interesting)
Aside from the very REAL issue of "who owns the data," were battles over smart cards, chips, which biometric was better, how to store the data. I remember one prototype was a smart card augmented with a 2d barcode, a regular barcode, an OCR-B readable (for hand geometry), and a magstripe
Of course, precision of card printing being what it is, the photo would often obscure or otherwise make the data in the other formats unreadable.
Now the question is how fast will they be able to look up the data at the ports of entry? Hopefully, the squabbling between INS and Customs is done and over. Back then, INS accessed a variety of "look-ups" via Customs. It wasn't pretty.
Let's see if this not only makes the system more reliable, but speeds things up.
Re:Well its about friggin time (Score:4, Interesting)
Automatic (+1, You Poor Bastard, how did you escape with your mind intact?)
> I'm amazed it only took 10 years to cut through enough of the beaurocratic B.S.
ObPeeve: "Bureaucratic".
But apart from that. Damn. At least INS and Customs have been integrated under the same department. That's a start, but it's only a start. The acid test for BICE will be whether or not they can integrate their back-end infrastructure to avoid the problems you outline.
> Of course, precision of card printing being what it is, the photo would often obscure or otherwise make the data in the other formats unreadable.
I'd like to think that today's printers and scanners have gotten good enough that one could steganographically embed biometric data in the photograph. Joe BICEpack at the immigration desk couldn't verify its presence/veracity by eye, but he could sure as heck stick it under a scanner at the port of entry and see if his terminal pops up a warning, like "Picture biometric does not match passport printed data. Picture appears to match Mr. Foo Bar, SSN/ITIN AAA-BB-CC, A#123456789, Mr. Foo Bar is/isn't on watch lists X, Y, and Z. Mr. Foo Bar has/hasn't a track record of customs violations, etc. etc. etc."
The one reservation I'd have about such an approach would be what happens if the scanner at the airport or border crossing gets coated with crud/residue after having processed thousands of passports a week. Perhaps a periodic recalibration with a "test card" (designed to be almost unreadable, worse than the average passport) after a spray on the scanner window with Windex or something could be part of the officer's morning routine. Get in, wipe window with rub, insert test card, re-wipe until test card says "OK", then open wicket for business with real passports.
Fer the record, I hereby place that idea in the public domain. Anyone in .gov who wants to take credit for it is welcome to do so, especially if they can get it - or anything more secure - implemented in less than 10 years.
To the privacy crowd: Privacy's good stuff. But the purpose of a passport is to provide proof of identity and citizenship. Unless you simultaneously advocate anonymous cross-border travel, policies which secure passports from exploits are perfectly compatible with privacy rights as they exist in law today, and as they existed in law before 9/11.
Nothing to fret. (Score:2)
*shrug* I actually think it's a good idea. Not nearly as intrusive as what the EU is doing, and makes things a bit harder to forge. Not more true security, I guess, but instead makes it better for the US to make sure everyone is legit.
Nothing to worry about, unless these things dislike magnets as much as PCs do...
Public good v. privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
My issue is this. A passport should allow me to travel to countries that are on good terms with the United States. It should also have some personal identification because the U.S. has to issue it to me and not just any American.
But, is the addition of further features of personal identification the needless expansion of government knowledge of personal and private affairs (travel)? Or, is it a needful response to the the increasingly international and individual nature of crime and warfare (from international corporate criminals to terrorists)?
EMP people (Score:3, Interesting)
Public-key encryption to ensure validity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Public-key encryption to ensure validity (Score:2)
why not just make a national standard in the state drivers licence with a smart card, leave the state up to the design, but keep a "standard" so that law enforcement can do their job a little easier.
it may be easier to get our info, but then again... all it does is save them AND us time. especially when we're sitting in front o
Contactless? (Score:2, Insightful)
911 tie-in (Score:2)
It's about time ... (Score:2)
It's you! (Score:5, Funny)
"It's definitely you. I don't know who you are, or why you're here, but you're definitely you."
Great.
Cheers, Paul
Biometrics do help increase security (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Biometrics do help increase security (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a reply to your statement above from someone who is probably turning in his grave:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.1.html
Told ya (Score:2)
America Fights Back! (Score:2, Interesting)
I am afraid that this so-called bio-passport will let us fall in the path of high-tech internet boom of late nineties: everybody thought that Internet would positively change our lives and the way we did business, unfortunately nobody thought of outsourcing and digitally imported f
Digital passports are less secure (Score:4, Informative)
I love the quote "you can read a chip and confirm its validity, but you cannot create one. That is the beauty of public key technology," from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services. So they will digitally sign the data, how long will it take for some entity to crack the key and then they can sign the new passport. Once the key is cracked will the US government revoke all passports signed with that key?
I can imagine the h@x0r application W1NPa55P0r7 -- with a USB camera and a simple EEPROM burner you can make your own passport.
Since all the verification information is digital how will a simple security guard check to make sure you didn't just create a simple passport mimic circuit? At least with a physical passport a forgery requires printing equipment and skills that can't be purchased for under $20.00 at BestBuy.
The trouble with most of these types of security measures is they offer no real security above what we already have.
One basic concept of security is you never trust the client -- verify everything! All these security measures have all the data stored on the client! To make this more secure, each passport should contain a unique id and each passport check point should be networked to a central database. The passport reviewer would then see the picture stored on the passport, the picture stored in the central database, and the face of the person standing in front of him. If there are any discrepancies simply punch his ticket for Camp X-Ray.
Improved security with little additional risk (Score:4, Insightful)
The presence of the digital signature, however, provides MUCH stronger assurances that these identity credentials aren't forged; this seems to me to be a very good thing indeed.
Ben Laden has invaded (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
The 9/11 hijackers had valid paperwork because various government agencies were not doing their jobs. These agencies are now under intense scruitiny, and are trying to do a better job to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country again. Smart chip passports will be much harder and more expensive to forge, making it harder for terrorists to travel using false identities. Overall, it's a small, important step in a larger program to keep the USA safe.
Biometric Information (Score:2, Interesting)
So how accurate is facial recognition? or retinal scans? or even electronic fingerprint scans? I mean, with 32Kbytes, is that more than enough information to positively id someone?
How do we know for sure? (Score:2)
I'm pissed off.
Fake sense of security (Score:2)
Not to mention increased profits for whoever builds the passports.
1 Majority dumb asses buy into changing passports because of 9/11
2 ???
3 Profit
big brother (Score:2)
Obviously this is just another grab at our rights and freedoms by an out of control government in the name of 9/11. Here they are changing U.S. passports, which will have no effect on third world country passports and people using them to gain entry into this country. At the same time the illegal allien problem gets worse in this country by the day, and those not caught at the boarder are free to do whatever they wa
The Terrorist Bit (Score:5, Funny)
What the article fails to mention is the most important aspect of the new design: the Terrorist Bit.
As the above biometrics only help to ascertain that you are you, it was felt an added feature to easily separate the terrorists from the regular population was necessary.
As such on the application form for your new passport will be a Terrorist checkbox. When the application is processed the Terrorist Bit is set accordingly.
The bit may also be set at anytime by authorized representatives of the US Gov't such as the RIAA, and MPAA. In addition undercover officers looking for any Anti-American expressions or beliefs - including privacy advocates, anti-war activists, free software advocates, alternative energy supporters, and anyone generally disagreeing with the supreme-leader-of-free-nations, George W Bush.
To ensure your security is of the highest order, each passport will include a unique license, the continuation of which requires an annual subscription fee. This license guarentees that no illegal copies of your passport can be made, its likeness replicated, or your identity compromised. The exact nature of the security measures taken are restricted for National Security reasons.
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: a free multiplayer game
Single point of failure (Score:3, Insightful)
The best security relies on people knowing people and knowing things about people. An example: made to measure suits. If you belong to the social group that wears them, you will probably be able to recognise them on someone else. Unlike a car or credit card that can easily be stolen, a made to measure suit is effectively a biometric form of recognition. Nowadays, when a billionaire may wander around in jeans and T-shirt, it's harder for an investment banker to recognise a prospect.
There are examples in the Bible (the ability to pronounce "shibboleth" being used to distinguish friend from foe.) and from WW2 (the Navajo talkers being used as an ultra-secure communications channel.) The upshot is that we now live in a society where people can be extremely anonymous, and this is a huge benefit to both terrorists and criminals.
If we want to live in a society with high levels of security - and on the whole we seem to - we have to sacrifice some of our anonymity somewhere. Is it better to sacrifice anonymity at the local level (nosy neighbours) and have lots of little things that identify you to small groups of people who may be small minded, annoying or intrusive, or to sacrifice anonymity at the highest level (have a single point of identification which is apparently secure, but which is available to many people in government who may be corrupt or criminal?)
I don't know the answer, by the way
digital != secure (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's think about how a person would get one of these new passports:
Like today, a person would conceivably need to have a photo taken somewhere to submit with the paperwork. A simple walk to a 1-hour-photo place will take care of that. Then this person, like today, will go to a govt. office to file the paperwork and sumbit the photo. Like today, the govt. employee will take the photo and paperwork, send it to someone who doesn't care if the photo and name match up - it's not his job, he just makes the passport - and several weeks later the applicant will get a letter in the mail with his passport. So what in this digital "biometric" data is stopping someone from getting a false ID (say, state drivers' licence), getting a photo, and submitting false paperwork to the govt. clerk in the hopes of getting a false passport? Better yet, since the digital photo is "signed" by the US Govt's private key, this false passport is even more authoritative and "legit" than my current (real) passport. Just wrap something in computer-speak, and instantly it's a whole lot safer, apparenly.
The security of any system is only as good as it's weakest link. That weak link in this new passport system still is the human element. True security has three aspects: something you have (like a key), something you are (like a fingerprint or retina scan), and something you know (like a passphrase). Combining these three elements, it is extremely difficult to comprimise a system.
Already in place (Score:3, Interesting)
The greencard project was pretty fun, and I only worked on it briefly (no, I can't help you get one, I have no real ties to the folks that took over the project, and the project was run well so that "inside" information really didn't help you much -- everything I know that isn't useless serial driver crap, you can pretty much get by reading the press releases).
The really funny part for me was the requirement that the card needed to be durable enough to remain readable for up to 5 years, stored in the shoe of a migrant worker. QA on that has to suck
Re:9/11 is just an excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Passport Office (Score:2)
It is an okay situation, seems to work, and I got mine in less then 2 weeks too.
Re:This freaks me out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This freaks me out (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How they tie to 9/11 fears (Score:2)
Terrorists can always do the crime, it's not freakin complicated. They'll learn how to forge, hack and do whatever is needed.
And since I'm no terrorist, I won't be needing this card. Thank you very much!
Re:Valid paperwork? (Score:2)