Germany Begins Iris Scans at Frankfurt Airport 322
securitas writes "Deutsche Welle reports that at Germany's Frankfurt airport biometric iris scans of airline passengers have begun. The German government says that the six-month pilot project is part of Europe's 18-country Automated and Biometrics-based Border Checks initiative to improve 'border control routines' and domestic security, with a full-scale system to follow. The system uses an iris scan embedded in a passenger's machine-readable passport, which is compared to the passenger's iris with an onsite scan. Travelers must 'sign a data security document' and agree to be checked by border guards. The article also references the capability of an iris scan to determine drug and alcohol consumption. The European Parliament is considering replacing all of its traditional passports with a new European biometric passport by 2005. The IRISPASS system (press release) was built by Byometric systems, Iridian and Oki Electric Industry. More coverage at CNet/ZDNet, AP/USA Today and mirrors at AJC, and CNN."
Iris changes (Score:5, Insightful)
So, does this mean that folks with melanomas of the iris, cataracts, macular degeneration (which is common and can manifest initially through pigment changes in the iris), etc... will have to go through a bigger hassle than the other passengers when traveling?
Also, since the iris does change throughout life, I would guess that one would have to renew their iris scan on their passport from time to time.
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Posting AC since this is offtopic, but younger generations of Germans should not be held responsible for what their grandparents might have done...no more than younger citizens of the US should be held responsible for slavery, or that Jews should be held responsible for the death of christ.
Your racist suggstion that the opposite is true is
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Your racist suggstion (sic) that the opposite is true is little better than the more blatant racism that you claim to oppose.
I'm afraid that you, in your haste to remove the racist label from Nazis and place it on me, missed my point.
I'm not saying that Germans born after the Nazi era are responsible for the Nazi sins of their ancestors.
What I am saying is that Germany went from awarding Iron Crosses, and otherwise accepting Jews into mainstream German society, circa World War I, to putting those same Jews on train to the East in 1942.
What I am saying is that even self-described "liberal" Germans today feel it's acceptable to refer to Turkish Gastarbeiteren as "Germany's niggers" while denying Turks born in Germany the franchise and full citizenship (as cited in Father/Land: A Personal Search for the New Germany by Wall Street Journal reporter and German-American author Frederick Kempe (I don't have the book at hand to give the page number, sorry)).
What I am saying is that as it was possible for Germany to slip from basic acceptance of Jews in 1914 to the Nuremberg laws by 1935 to genocide in 1942, Germans have a special responsibility, not so much to repent for the sins of their fathers, but to be watchful that they don't repeat similar sins today.
To be frank -- if not politically correct -- and with the risk of offending our German friends, the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide), than Germany is to oppress its Turkish or other minorities.
The truth spoken... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Never have I heard somebody using the N word for Turkish people, although in Eastern Germany I wouldn't completly rule it out, but where did you get the idea that this would be acceptable bahaviour in Germany?
Before coming back to the states my wife and I lived in Heidelberg for the last 4 years.
Our neighbors Wolfgang and Inchy were German and Turkish respectively. They had the cutest little boy who they raised bi-lingual. She is running her own hair salon while he is working as an Audi car mechanic. They are both great people and very much liked in the neighborhood.
Inchy being a self asserted, independent woman is maybe not your typical example, but she is very much representative for the 2nd generation of Turkish immigrants.
There are hot-spots were integration didn't happen and did not work. You will find these mostly in large cities such as Berlin, Hamburg etc. It is there were Islamic fundamentalism finds willing followers. Immigrants to distant lands tend to glorify and idealize the state of the culture that they left behind. That is why I find anything that is regarded as typical German in the US either hilariously quaint and completely out of sync with modern Germany or simply embarrassing. That is also why young Turkish people that my parents met in the southern Turkish city of Antalia told them that it is Germany were you can find the worst backwards Turkish people who cling to completely outdated ideas of what is supposed to be Turkish.
I am 100% with you that the citizenship laws in Germany are completely bogus. They are one of the main reasons why I voted for the Green party in the last election because they sincerely want to let go of these stupid ethnic focused definitions of what is considered German. Being fluent in German and sharing the values of modern-day multi-ethnic Germany is what should count and nothing else.
I am very much in favor of Turkey joining the EU. Once this happens this issue will be moot anyway (EU citizens are free to live and vote on the town council level anywhere in the union).
The main difference between Germany and the US is that there are hardly any neighborhoods in Germany that I don't feel save to walk in at night.
Inner city segregation is much worse in the US. And the school diversity is back to the level before the busing started in the 70s.
I don't think the US is in any position to point fingers at Germany for not learning of its mistakes.
The lesson that we drew from history is that democracy has to be defended at all cost. I don't mind that an administration that I trust knows who I am and where I am knowing that this information will not be abused. I have this level of comfort and faith in the German as well as EU institutions and the contemporary German governments (may they be social-democrats or conservatives). But I don't blame any American for not having the same level of comfort with American institutions because I certainly don't have either.
Re:Iris changes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to ignore your other points not because they are not valid, but because they'll lead us far off topic, and are very much subject to argument.
(As to Germans referring to Turks as "niggers", I gave the reference for that (Kempe's Father/Land) when I originally posted about it.)
You say that you're comfortable with the contemporary German government having information about you and your whereabouts, because have a "level of comfort and faith" in the German government and the current European Union institutions.
Fine. I congratulate the German people on living under a democracy, and I do not seek to minimize the effort that must have taken, emerging from dictatorship, ruin, and division in 1945. (And to some extent I must also claim credit for my country and, specifically, the Marshall Fund and the US policies toward the BRD after the war.)
But that's not my point. Currently you see no reason to fear the German government, and its retention of information about you.
You also wrote that "[t]he lesson that we [Germans] drew from history is that democracy has to be defended at all cost." I've noticed that Germans often talk about defending "democracy" and less often about defending "liberty". Perhaps it's merely a matter of translations, but I'm not sure -- perhaps it's also a matter of outlook or Weltbild. But it's not a matter of opinion that Hitler was democratically elected, winning a plurality votes and seats in the Reichstag in 1932.
So in addition to defending democracy, I think we need to defend liberty. Part of that is never allowing government -- no matter how good a government, no matter how well intentioned, no matter what checks and balances the Constitution promises -- to accumulate too much power over, or information about, the individual. Because a good government today can become a Fascist dictatorship tomorrow -- and more often than not it will do so with the enthusiastic support of the people, a people often fearful and hungering for the security only a Fascist government can promise ("A Volkswagon in every garage and death to the Bolshevik and Jewish untermenschen!").
I suspect that, like you, Berthold Guthmann also felt no reason to fear the German government, or its records on him.
In World War I, Fliegerleutnant ("Flight (second) lieutenant") Guthmann, an observer and gunner on military aeroplanes, earned the Iron Cross, 2nd class (the same as that also awarded to Adolf Hitler), the Tapferkeitsmedaille (Medal for Bravery), and the Verwundetenabzeichen (the wound medal, equivalent to the Purple Heart). His recommendation for the Iron Cross reads, in part, "Lt. Guthmann is brave and a fine officer, although Jewish...." In 1943, Guthmann and his family were arrested for being Jewish; Guthmann was eventually murdered at Auschwitz.
I'm not saying the current German government will abuse its iris-scanning. It probably will not. But how sure can you be -- especially in the face of German history -- that every future German government will resist the temptation to use these records in abusive ways? That's the lesson Germany needs to have learned from the Nazi era.
Your comment, well-intentioned as it is, as civilized a picture as it presents of 21st century Germany, is evidence that that lesson has not been learned. (But it's a lesson only incompletely learned in the U.S as well, not that that should be any consolation to anybody.)
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the efforts of the previous German and USA generation, and is of no credit to our generation. Just as it is unfair to blame the young Germans for what they grandfathe
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand you concern for not granting a government the power to collect all sorts of information about it citizens. I think the Datenschutz (data-protecti
offending our German friends (Score:4, Insightful)
I think entirely the opposite is true - due precisely to their country's history, the German people are far less likely to oppress or otherwhise mistreat ethnic minorities than other countries (i.e. the US).
Germans suffer greatly under an (often subconscious) apprehension over how they appear to be treating other cultures. Germany is much more likely than most countries to be scrutinised for it's actions concerning minorities, for as soon it makes a controvesial move there will instantly be cries about how it is reverting to form. Austria elects a right-wing government and no-one blinks an eye, Germany has the world's eye upon them and thus adopts a far less forceful approach in it's international relations.
To be frank, Germans have a much more tolerant and open-minded view towards foreigners than most Americans - and I've never heard anyone refer to the Gastarbeiter as "Germany's Niggers". The comparison is apt only in the sense that both groups are one of largest minorities in their respective countries - at least virtually all african-americans speak English. This is getting off topic, but the problem with the Turkish peoples in Germany lies in equal parts with them and us. Some have a tendency to form enclaves and refuse to assimilate or even learn German. When you walk down streets where every shop sign is both in German and Turkish (except for the pub/social club, which is just in Turkish), all the kids on the street are Turks, and nary a word of German is spoken between the teenagers on street corners, you wonder whether the Regierung (Government) might not have a case for denying citizenships to those who aren't making an effort to become part of the German community.
Unlike in 1935, the German government of today (for all their flaws) makes plenty of effort to try and integrate the immigrants currently living here into mainstream society. Stronger border controls just mean they can focus on the problem at hand, rather than having a growing pool of people who have to be adressed.
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the scary thing is that modern Americans still believe a lot of the "God blessed America" nonesense that allowed them to conceience displacing an entire race of people.
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Iris changes (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, this leaves me wondering. We hear a lot of negative stuff about universal ID cards of one stripe or another (I won't go so far as to call it FUD, it may be quite reasonable). Most of the cautions expressed seem to revolve around duplication / forgery by criminals etc.
Anyone have any info on how hard it would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner? Might be a good substitute for universal IDs. I mean, the ostensible principles of univeral IDs aren't all bad...
Re:Iris changes (Score:2)
Print an image onto a contact lens?
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Insightful)
>>would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner?
You don't have to fool the scanner. According to the article the iris print is stored on a card/passport that you present. So all you have to do is forge the source.
If they were looking up your iris in a master database that would be a different issue.
Forge the source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't quite right - while the passport is scanned, this isn't for iris data, merely to ascertain who you claim to be. The iris code corresponding to this identity is then retrieved from a central database and compared with the results obtained by the security terminal. From the press release:
"First, passport data is captured by a passport scanner and checked against a database. The iris recognition system then identifies the individual's iris to verify a match between the individual and the legal
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you've got a decent image of the iris, these systems are really rather good. This one in particular uses algorithms developed by John Daugman from the Computing Lab at Cambridge, who claims all-but-perfect results for his algorithms. While he's chosen to commercially exploit his work rather than make it widely available (as well he might), his basic techniques have been re-implemented by other researchers who've obtained similarly astounding results. The list of results from his webpage is really qu
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Iris changes (Score:4, Insightful)
The beauty of identity theft + biometrics is that there's no way to issue another account. :)
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Rick Lockridge: Illness and aging cause changes to your eyes, but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death. That's why EyeTicket and others feel iris-recognition technology is superior to thumbprint recognition and other competitors.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Iris changes (Score:4, Funny)
So, does this mean that folks suffering from death (which is common and can manifest initially through pigment changes in the iris), etc... will have to go through a bigger hassle than the other passengers when traveling?
Re:Iris changes (Score:2, Funny)
While it shouldn't be a problem for the dead guy (he has a bigger problem than getting past airport security), it could be a problem if you gouge out [imdb.com] someone else's eye to try to get past a scan.
Re:Iris changes (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Iris changes (Score:4, Informative)
So, their irises do change, certainly in colour. There aren't many 6-12 month-old terrorists running around, so maybe that's not an issue. But what Lockridge said is clearly wrong.
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Informative)
This is absolutely wrong. Especially with pathological changes.
And yes, I am a vision scientist.
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Interesting)
I submit this idea, does it even matter? How many terrorist acts are commited by people who snuck, 9-11 was commited by people who came into the US legally
Re:Iris changes (Score:5, Interesting)
And, drugs---you mean like antidepressants and anxiolytics, both of which are wont to induce mydriasis?
"I'm sorry, sir. Dilation says can't let you on the plane. You're either on speed, or you're on happy pills, and either way, we don't want you."
If there are other detectable characteristics in the iris area besides pupil dilatation, I'd love to know. Any ocular pharmacology researchers out there?
Minority Report (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minority Report (Score:5, Funny)
"this technology is scary" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that has probably been said by someone about pretty much every technology we use today. It isn't the technology that's scary, it's what people might do with it. Almost every new technology has the potential for good, as well as evil.
Re:"this technology is scary" (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree. But with a congress passing legislation like the Patriot Act, I believe the potential for evil is reasonably feared.
Re:"this technology is scary" (Score:2)
Of course, being that this is Slashdot, I can understand making a comment as quickly as possible (and thus not clarifying one's opinion) in order to try and make first post. I'll even admit to having done it before myself.
Re:Minority Report (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't. Hollywood's been predicting that the world will rot for decades. Instead, it slowly gets better and better.
Technology can be dangerous if it is absorbed too quickly. There's no time for thought and adjustment. However, we have a very big population, and that means technology is very slow to be adopted, and by then proper precautions are usually taken.
It's also worth noting that nearly everything people imagine happening that would be real 'bad' has large problems with practicality. The benefit has to outweigh the practicality, and nearly everything that people are afraid of fails that test in one form or another. Somebody told me once that they were afraid that if electronic identification got too out of control, the gov't would watch what everybody's doing. You could get stopped from boarding an airplane because you were at a Muslim church earlier that day. (Note: That's what he told me, that's not my own idea there.) Everybody worries that it'll be the case, but nobody thinks abou twhat it'd take to do that. Besides requiring a massive computer network and central data archive to store all this information, a computer has to go in and do the analysis on it. Hello?! There are 300 million people in this country. We're a long ways away from having that data available. Then there's the whole matter of false positives. Make it too sensitive, and you'll have a lot of people chasing false leads indefinitely. The only way it would practically work is if it looked for VERY strong stuff. Even then, you still have to have a human review it and make a judgement call. The United States Gov't would have to front a LOT of expense and co-ordinate a massive effort to do what people are afraid of, and the benefit is... What? Total control? Our gov't isn't after that. It's too hard to acquire, too hard to maintain. On top of all that, even those in power find themselves in a not so lovely position. I'm sure Mr. Adolf had a terrible time knowing who his friends were.
It's not that I'm trying to be dismissive here, I'm just not sold on the idea that it's all that scary. I am quite happy to support the right checks and balances, however. If we were talking about electronic law enforcement (as opposed to electronic flagging, which is what this technology is about) you'd be having an entirely different conversation with me.
Re:Minority Report (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I come and live in your world?
Re:Minority Report (Score:3, Insightful)
300 million people isn't a big deal to a computer. Think of it like this: You can hold a lot of details about a person's life within a single megabyte of text. Try printing a whole megabyte of raw text and you'll see that's quite a dosier. (*note, do note use the bloated MS Word format where "hello world" takes up 128K) Using 1MB per person, that comes to a mere 300 gigabytes of data. Hell, Google
So, tell me........ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, tell me........ (Score:5, Funny)
I sense an opportunity for profit (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I sense an opportunity for profit (Score:2)
At least they aren't... (Score:5, Funny)
ACCESS DENIED! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ACCESS DENIED! (Score:5, Funny)
Boy you really gotta laugh at the guy that fails the test twice.
They won't get me! (Score:2, Funny)
Well personally... (Score:2, Funny)
Hm. (Score:3, Interesting)
So you get a passport made with a fake iris scan, just like you would get one with a fake photo.
Or would it cryptographically check with a central office to make sure the passport iris scan is the same one you got when you applied for the passport? Whole other can of worms...
Re:Hm. (Score:2, Interesting)
passport number and iris scan don't match --> access denied
well... (Score:2)
you just have to do two things:
#1 you check the digital signature of the actual data payload on the passport (which probably contains other things besides the iris scan, things like your name, address, blah blah blah)
#2 you do status checking on the certificate that was used to sign said data (just in case it was compromised, hey, it could happen).
#1 will already give you a pretty high level of confidence that things haven't been mucked around wi
Re:Hm. (Score:2)
- Across the internet
- To/From MS Windows OS driven machines
I feel like I'm quoting from Cluedo.We've all seen the movie .... (Score:2)
What Privacy? (Score:2)
Colored contact lenses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Colored contact lenses (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Colored contact lenses (Score:3, Informative)
I've got the non-opaque ones, which is basically a colored transparent circle in the middle of the lens. It does tint my vision a little, but the brain gets used to it. I don't use them for photography. This type does not lighten dark eyes. I'm pretty sure you could easily get an iris print through these.
The opaque kind has a printed fake iris-like pattern on them, and are clear in the middle (and they don't tint your vision) I didn't l
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol introduced this in 2002 (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/27/schiph
What me, worried? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What me, worried? (Score:2)
But I'd have to say that Germans would probably be the last people to abuse that data considering that a vast number of them know the con
Re:What me, worried? (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? Future use in DEA witchhunting campaigns? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cuff him, the computer says he might be high!
On the one hand... (Score:5, Informative)
Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.
Re:On the one hand... (Score:5, Informative)
Abnormalities? (Score:5, Interesting)
The beginning of the end (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait until this stuff gets cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
All transactions are electronic. Think "Credits" in "Total Recall".
All movement is scanned. Think eye scanning in "Minority Report".
All new information is copyrighted, and DRM free info is exchanged amongs the population like drugs are today. Think "Matrix" where Neo gets his little disks for cash, before he goes and follows the White Rabbit.
All information is put together in a database, where the Government can search it at will, without a warrent. Think "198..." scratch that. Think "2004", TIA project, Echelon, Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, Patriot Act III (comming soon to a Democracy near you) et. al.
FUN!
Big Brother State (Score:4, Informative)
Does having an "arresting station" in one's own dwelling-place not sound a bit more chilling that eye-scanning?
This will just make terrorist groups... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This will just make terrorist groups... (Score:3, Funny)
Unbalanced security (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an endless battle. If countries carries on trying to defend themselves like they do now (mostly in the US, but also in other countries), they'll all turn into huge menacing police states. and terrorists will have won. If those countries don't defend themselves, terrorists will blow things up forever and will have won again.
What the world really needs is a true force of education in dangerous countries, a project that spans over 2 or 3 generations. The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad? They're not doing jack squat, and neither are any other countries concerned by terrorist threats. Instead of starting to implement that long-term, but only real solution to the terrorist problem, they barricade themselves and make life miserable for their own populations.
Re:Unbalanced security (Score:3, Funny)
But dude, we have to do it to protect our freedom and our way of life.
You're not against freedom and our way of life. . . are you?
KFG
Re:Unbalanced security (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who are waving the terrorism banner right now are using it to distract us all from the other, real, serious problems.
Such as the U.S. National Debt, &etc. That is not Freedom.
Re:Unbalanced security (Score:3, Insightful)
Those schools would be called "non-interference in foreign domestic affairs," "removal of military presence in foreign nations" and "non-endorsement of repressive monarchies."
Unfortunately such an education tends to raise oil prices.
Anyway, those measures wouldn't stop fanatics like Osama -- just the common and middle-class people who wind up supporting him,
As one who's actually worked with iris scanners... (Score:5, Informative)
A typical fingerprint has about 10 points that can be uniquely identified, and on a thumbprint scanner you're lucky to get 5 or 6 of them reliably. The iris has roughly 26 unique points that can be picked up every time. Back when I was working with Iridian's stuff they used a low light video camera to basically take a picture of your eye...no funky lasers or anything like that. Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye (a la Demolition Man, I believe) and hold it up to the scanner.
Additionally, the iris pattern (and thumbprint or voiceprint in other applications) is never held as an actual pattern; it's just a hash based off of what comes off the scanner, so privacy was not much of a concern.
Thank goodness (Score:3, Funny)
What if.. (Score:4, Informative)
Also, Keratoconus is a disease that causes the cornea to deform. This would cause scans of your iris to change. Also, people with this often have cornea transplants. The stitches (which are sometimes left in "forever") are right over the iris.
Never trust the client (Score:4, Insightful)
We tested them at work (Score:2, Informative)
They seem to work quite well. There is one "drawback" though: you can only use them to identify people who are already in your database. So it can only be used to authorize personel and not to identify visitors for example. This will remain like this until governements start keeping databases of biometric records.
Ofcourse this isn't very evident because the TTEI-resolution of 2001 specifically forbids pr
uh oh (Score:2)
I just saw minority report a few weeks ago. I very quickly thought to myself "when some government tries this mandatory retina scanning shit, humanity is done"
thanks EU.
I'm wondering when some government is going to require every citizen to wear a mark. maybe the same government will link the mark to being able to participate in monetary transactions.
I'll be moving to a desert, thanks.
Re:uh oh (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I object to both. I've never been a criminal, and don't see why I should be treated like one. The sad thing is that the UK are heading towards ID cards (completely useless) as well. Oh but you won't have to show them on demand, just present them at a police station within 7 days... As if there's a difference...
Simon.
Open Biometrics for the home? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always had a geeky dreamproject of supplementing my traditional lock and key entry to my house with biometric security devices. The idea being that in the event of a systems failure, instead of being locked out of the house I could fall back to the old lock-n-key method.
My idea would be to use either iris-scanning, breath analyzation or some combination of the two (ideally a choice so that if one were to fail, say the iris, the breath analyzer would let you in). Much more efficient than fumbling around for keys in the dark! And a blessing to the drunken Irishman I can sometimes be (not all, but SOME stereotypes certainly hold more than a little water...and occasionally some whiskey too!) I digress.
But the last time I checked, (this was a few years ago) such devices were not so readily available. And when you could find them they were exorbitantly expensive. Insult to injury drivers were only available for NT. Not that it would be that terrible to set up an NT box for this purpose, but Linux of course would be much preferable.
So my question is, has this situation changed? Has the price of this technology become more available and affordable? Still prohibitively expensive? Any sourceforgian opensource driver alternative for the devices that are?
Obtention of "lost" passport? (Score:5, Informative)
In France and Belgium, for example, you can walk into a police station and declare you have lost your passports (the prevalence of muggers and pickpockets makes it an easily believable story). You have to provide a birth certificate. What is it? An ordinary piece of paper, incredibly easy to counterfeit. Once your ID has been "established" by this "proof", the authorities will issue a new set of ID documents: forgery-proof ID and biometric passport. With your supplied name and photo on it.
If at least, they keep a database of iris scans, forgers would be able to do it only once. The article doesn't say anything about such a database.
So this is a nice strong link in the othewise very weak security chain in Europe.
Re:Obtention of "lost" passport? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, they don't hand you the passport when you leave. They don't send it to the address you specified. They send it to the address that is stored in the central registry of people.
Sure, you could probably change that address for a random person, but I'm fairly certain he'd notice in the two to four weeks it takes to get a passport.
Of course, the next step is then to fake a person who is out of the country for a month or so vaca
Re:Obtention of "lost" passport? (Score:3, Informative)
Looking up "security" and "stolen passport" in Google leads to interesting stories. Looks like some EU countries have "misplaced" tens of thousands of blank passports, which got stolen right from the storage rooms of passport offices. What good is it to have holographic imprints in the paper if you put the blanks it in a badly protected drawer? And remember, boys and girls, such a passport gives you access to all the EU, 'cuz Europeans don't need no big bad borders no more. You cannot
It's optional! (Score:5, Informative)
It's setup as a convenience for frequent travellers. Its opt-in, if you would like to call it that way.
WTF does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Mr. John Q. Terrorist gets on the plane and hijacks it, sending 150 people crashing to their death in the sea. HE'S FRIGGIN' DEAD. Who cares what his biometrics are?
Two months later, another terrorist boards a plane and hijacks it. Oh, GOOD. They got his iris scan! The world will be safe!!!
I'm sorry, but I don't know of many suicide terrorists that strike twice.
Oh, and if you want to comment on how this isn't about terrorism and is more about catching known criminals, etc.... again... what does it matter? Their iris scans aren't on file anywhere else... and if they're really a criminal considering travelling overseas or even internationally, I *think* they would have the sense enough to utilize false documents.
There are other ways of travelling.
I fail to see what this will solve or even help.
its called the base rate fallacy: (Score:5, Interesting)
assuming that if a person is corretly identified 99.999% of the time. if there are 500M (roughly all of europe) people in the database, then the mistake rate would be approximately 500 ppl. So for every individual going through, there are 500 possible individuals which he could be. This is not even the full application of the base rate fallacy, there is not enough research published on iris recognition for it to be fully analized (this is a *very* rough estimate).
*this does make alot of sense for a passport comparator, b/c no one could then steal a passport and use it, unless they want to take the risk of prison on a single hand of poker: with only a royal flush being the way to win (roughly equivalent odds as getting through with some else's passport).
Which means that you can only be tracked IF:
The passport has a chip in it with your personal information upon it, and that information (after a verification of your iris) is sent to a data mining facility. No other means of tracking is possible.
-big brother is not watching you, he keeping your attention every moment of every day; making sure that you never think about anything except what he tells you to think. Making sure that you never feel anything that he doesnt tell you to feel.
But whom can you trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO it's doubtful if this will change anything in the effective security level. - A number of convicted terrorists were native citizens of non-listed non-suspicious countries or naturalized there, with legal passports.
An even bigger number were from a suspicious country with legal papers, which were certified by U.S. officials, including visa and so on.
To me it seems that the main problem of people with invalid or forged papers is that they are just economic refugees, having not even enough money for proper papers.
Too few money does not seem to be the primary problem of today's terrorists. At least not of those who I heard of.
This one time, in Frankfurt... (Score:3, Funny)
As the agent patted me down, which he did to everyone, he actually grabbed my crotch. Apparently this was a standard part of the pat-down, but it was news to me. Shocked, I blurted out the first word of German which came to mind: "Danke!" I turned eight shades of purple and we all laughed, then they let me through.
So what good does it do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another Country Not to Visit (Score:3, Insightful)
The main gate is clanging shut now (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that pasports are necessary, and I would submit to good old picture ID, of course. Seems to have worked for a very long time. I do detest having to state various things about my private life (are you married? divorced? where's your wife? A: why the hell is that your business?).
The 40 or so hijackers that crashed the jets were here on perfectly valid ID's. No biometric scanning would have made a difference.
So, why are we submitting to this crap? And do you think that the powerful in the U.S. will be ducking their heads into retinal readers when they travel? Do you think the Saudi royals will?
Do you think they will stop at retinas? DNA will follow. Then RFID tags to track us. All in the name of Safety. Although none of these things will stop criminals from blowing something up. They merely have to keep their noses clean until they attack.
Now, I know that I am unemployable in corporate America now and forever, for they operate in some realm other than constitutional democracy. I don't grant them the right to make me pee on command, or track my private life (they can fire you for going to a union organizing meeting on your own time -- ruling was upheld).
But this -- I'm not going to guess, I am going to state that very soon I am locked out of Europe. And if the U.S. follows the EU's lead, I won't be able to leave the United States because I would refuse to have my biometric data taken for a passport?
I'm never able to travel out of the U.S. unless I submit. They won't let me leave.
I'm in prison. We all are.
Woohoo! Gattaca! Europa! Europa! (Score:3, Funny)
- Won't this be a problem for eyedentical twins?
- Your passport Mister Willard. "Eye don't think so!"
- Rods? Cones? Where the hell is my luggage?
- Sir, can you remove any loose change from your eyelids...
- Sorry maam, your scan keeps coming up "Grape Juice $2.95."
And an airline joke or two off the cuff...
1. Thank you for flying Air Lingus. Oh no, THANK YOU!
2. Will you be smoking or non-smoking Herr Schrodinger?
3.
Okay, now to the schtick.
Yes, isn't it wonderful. At last something macabre and frighteningly science-fictioney is crossing over into our lives, citizens. At last we can unite in glory, as one. Travel is a very cautious affair, citizens. I ask you, should we not take every possible precaution?
So you see.
There is no deriding this measure, my fellows.
It follows then, that we should adopt a similar solidarity in our daily lives. We are one body. We are one, whole, together.
The 21st century is here! Let's do the 21st Century Cheer!
DNA!
DNA!
Nanobots! Nanobots!
DNA!
Siss Boom Bah!
Gat Ta Ca!
Iris scans! Cyberspace!
Siss Boom Bah!
Human clones!
Reality shows!
Dick Clarke's corpse is still alive!
Human clones!
Martian brine!
GMO wine!
The spice must flow! We rule the soul!
We're free, cool, and fine!
Terror War!
What's it for?
Raining death from outer space!
Terror War!
Woohoo! We love you Twenty First Century!! Big kiss! Mmmwwwahh!
Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh fer crying out loud. (Score:2)
Oh, it's all for the security of the United States.
Ah! I was wondering why those Germans in Germany were scanning passengers in a German airport as part of a European initiative. Turns out it's to secure the United States!
Tell me, are European tinfoil hats more stylish than the American variety?
Re:Oh fer crying out loud. (Score:3, Informative)
No, but the whole rush towards biometric data in passports was triggered not least by the US, as pointed out in the USAtoday article linked in the story:
"Germany passed laws after Sept. 11 attacks that provide for biometric features to be added to passports and personal identity papers. Post-Sept. 11 U.S. legislation also requires 27 c
Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now our own [US] government is a lot more like the Dritten Reich than the current german government.
As far as many europeans I know this doesn't bother them, because it's not more invasive than many other things that happen over there.
Be careful about throwing around the "Nazi" term - it may offend some of us around for many reasons, especially when it's inappropraitely and racistly used like you just did.
Re:(Cliche Slashdot post...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Never, the thing you seem to remember is a statement to the effect that the tactics Bush is using are eerie similar to the tactics Hitler was using.
And if you think that statement is not true you might want to get a good history book some time.
Re:Aye, Aye, Cap'n (Score:2)
I predict a rise in the number of passengers who claim to be blind.
I predict me not going back to Germany until they realise this is stupid if the rest of the EU doesn't do it too.
Shortly after that, I predict either going to Germany, or more likely, not going back to the EU.
Re:Me as a German (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe, but than they wouldn't make a press release [bmi.bund.de], right?
"Der Grosse Bruder" (Score:4, Informative)
The German authorities will not be able to enforce this system for a long time, as it is impossible to force all other countries to provide such data.
Besides, did you ever notice that Europeans have to provide biometric information when applying for a US visa?
Sebastian