Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

Updated Schedule for U.S. Biometric Passports 224

Posted by michael from the papers-please dept.
SRain315 writes "The story from the Chicago Times via Yahoo! give more details about biometric information to be added to U.S. passports. Trial run this fall, full production next year. Slashdot covered this last year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Updated Schedule for U.S. Biometric Passports More

Updated Schedule for U.S. Biometric Passports

Comments Filter:

  • fp (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:13PM (#9162544)
    who will get first passport?

  • won't work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:14PM (#9162548)
    from article:
    The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.

    this is useless, all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter, not that they would be stupid enough to try anyways.

    • Re:won't work (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      all it does is prevent existing known terrorists from trying to enter

      It doesn't even do that. Plenty of illegals come in without passports.
    • It also prevents someone from passing as the person whose passport they've stolen. As someone who has had a passport stolen, anything that makes it more difficult, hopefully impossible, for someone to use my passport is a welcome advance, not least because it makes it less attractive to steal it in the first place as it would effectively be worthless to anyone that can't match the biometrics. As it stands now, it's basically a crisp $500 bill.

      Perfect? No. Better than the current standard? By a long shot.

  • Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:16PM (#9162559) Homepage Journal

    The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.

    I'm sure that works well when the first-timers are suicide bombers that are traveling one way one time only... after all, the high-ups like bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri fly back and forth out of Laguardia all the time, right?

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:18PM (#9162570) Homepage Journal
      Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.

      "In Soviet America, Passport stamps You!"

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Catbeller ( 118204 )
        Damn straight. Some of the stupider government officials might think that they are tracking "terrorists", but the smart boys know they are building exit detectors at the national gates that will provide seamless information integration about their own citizens. We're being locked in.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @04:20PM (#9162873) Journal
        Fake security - real control. This is to keep people IN - not out.... "In Soviet America, Passport stamps You!"

        The parent got modded funny for the Soviet Russia joke; but he should be getting modded Insightful for pointing out the real reason from these new passports.

        Like me expand a bit on his insight: these biometric passports are the thin edge -- a proof of concept, if you will -- of mandatory National ID cards.

        Indeed, Homeland Security will point out stories, like the one posted above about the 88 illegal immigrants taking a domestic flight from California to New Jersey and the general ability if illegals to bypass our borders, as evidence that we will need a "fool-proof" way of ascertaining identity not only at the borders but inside the United States.

        And since the biometric passport will by then have been, however reluctantly, accepted, the government will apply the same technology to National ID cards.

        Of course, a National ID card is only useful if it's checked, so expect to see uniformed men asking you to present it: "Your papers, Citizen!". This will also have the useful -- for the government -- side effect of getting the citizenry used to seeing and docilely taking orders from uniformed "security" officers; you can already see that happening in airports and government buildings, where we've all learned to shut-up and passively follow orders from any guy with three days of training and a badge, on penalty of delay, harassment or arrest.

        (This acclimation to the presence of soldiers as quasi law-enforcement, incidentally, is one of the requirements Army War College grad Charles Dunlap posits for "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012" [metafilter.com], co-winner in 1992 of the of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92 Strategy Essay Competition -- in other words, it's not a fringe tin-foil hat screed.)

        Expect also that the government will quickly thereafter require presentation of the National ID for transactions that "terra'ists use", like banking or buying plane and train tickets, similar to the "Know Your Customer" requirements of the "Patriot" Act. A little way down the road, expect that the government will expanded the "significant economic activity" to encompass all credit card purchases -- and perhaps using the fig leaf of "preventing (economic) identity theft", will require your National ID Card be presented for all credit card purchases.

        At that point, you'll either have to present you National ID Card several times a day, or remove yourself from "the grid" entirely. I can think of few ways better to suppress dissent than letting anyone contemplating it know that their movements can be tracked with this sort of granularity: "why did you use the ATM machine a block from the People Against Surveillance meeting, Citizen? are you a member of this anti-Patriotic organization"?

        Now, some will accuse me of wearing my tin-foil hat too tight: I'll refer them to the subpoenaing of protest groups' membership records (dropped only after unfavorable publicity) [why-war.com], the CAPPS II Airline screening and the subpoenaing of women's medical records of their abortions (this link from BusinessWeek, of all places [businessweek.com], the FBI investigation of Freedom of Information act requests [dailytexanonline.com], and the Federal prosecution -- even after state charges were thrown out of court -- of peaceful protestors against Bush [mercurynews.com]. And there are, unfortunately, many many more examples of the current administration supressing dissent -- in fact, if you're reading this, please reply with links to more of these cases.
        • Thanks, Orth'.

          I am a bit terse, and hoped that to those paying attention, my two lines would convey what you so clearly and explicitly delineate.

          Anyway - you have the debatable distinction of "friend" status.

  • War Passporting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slashrogue ( 775436 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:17PM (#9162563)
    Questions of privacy also had to be addressed because the chips will use radio frequency identification technology to transmit data. Without protection, the technology theoretically might allow people--identity thieves, for example, or intelligence agents other than immigration officials--to electronically and surreptitiously determine the identity of a passport holder.
    I hope that these passports will come with some kind of jacket of material that can stop the radio transmissions or whatever -- sorry, I'm not much of a geek to know the intricate details of that kind of thing. I really don't think that such protection should be limited to those "in the know" about such things -- all American citizens traveling abroad should be given an information packet about the dangers of leaving that sort of data exposed to anyone and everyone in the country you're visiting.

    • You don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:51PM (#9162739) Homepage Journal
      And neither does 99.9% of /.

      There are cryptographic protocols that are well known and widely implemented to make sure that your smart card won't even talk to anything but an authorized system. There is no way that somebody can just go out and buy an ISO 14443 reader and war drive your pocket. They need the proper keys to talk to the card and if they don't have them they are out of luck.

      • There is no way that somebody can just go out and buy an ISO 14443 reader and war drive your pocket. They need the proper keys to talk to the card and if they don't have them they are out of luck.

        To which I reply... millions of dollars have been invested in all sorts of great smart card technology, and DirecTV is still facing an uphill battle.

        Sure, if you are trying to protect a limited number of expensive smart cards, which are read by a limited number of readers, then perhaps you got something. Even Di
        • You are correct that DirecTV has had constant problems. They have a difficult situation in that they are not in constant two-way communication with the cards when in use and each card does not have a unique key.

          I don't know what the readers have to do with this. The keys don't have to live in the readers, they can be in a hardware security module in a server in a physically secure facility.

          You are correct in that they could be some security breakthrough in before the cards expire, but unless it involv

      • I am less concerned about identity thieves getting the data from the RFID chips than government agents. The article says:

        "Questions of privacy also had to be addressed because the chips will use radio frequency identification technology to transmit data. Without protection, the technology theoretically might allow people--identity thieves, for example, or intelligence agents other than immigration officials--to electronically and surreptitiously determine the identity of a passport holder."

        The biometric
        • If the portable reader contains keys then this is a problem. If the portable reader has a network connection back to the server that has an HSM that contains the keys then this isn't a problem. Or at least someone extracting the keys from the reader isn't a problem. Abuse by an authorized user would be a problem in any system.

          You are also assuming that a pin or some other user authentication wouldn't be needed to gain access to the information.

          So you do raise valid concerns but they can be addressed.

  • I'm surprised... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Myrmi ( 730278 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:17PM (#9162564)
    That americans aren't demanding bioimperial passports...

  • Terrorists? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beeplet ( 735701 ) <beeplet@gmail.com> on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:19PM (#9162575) Journal
    "The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country."


    Do they really think this is going to be effective against terrorists? Or is this just another way of saying to the public, "Look, we're doing something! And it's intrusive to your privacy so it must really work!"

    How many "known" terrorists enter the US? How many of those enter on stolen passports? As far as I know, all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas. This kind of program would have had no effect on preventing them from entering.

    On the other hand, many people do enter the US on forged documents, particularly people from poorer countries who come here illegally, looking for work. I could see how this kind of biometric ID could help identify such illegal immigrants, if that were the goal. But I just wish people would stop trying to tie everything in to the "war on terrorism" - it distracts from the real problems that this kind of technology might be useful for.
    • Do they really think this is going to be effective against terrorists? Or is this just another way of saying to the public, "Look, we're doing something! And it's intrusive to your privacy so it must really work!"

      I'm afraid it's even worse than you think. I'm afraid it's rather "We always wanted to do something that's intrusive to your privacy, but we were afraid of the public outrage... but now, thank's to 9-11 we can do all we ever wanted plus more if we just label it as a couterterrorist measure". In
    • >>all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas.

      that is actually not correct. 3 or 4 of them were known terrorists (to CIA) but there were no shared database (that exists now) to cross-check and identify those individuals at the border.
      Another group within 19 were here on expired / invalid visas.

      • Thanks for pointing that out. I had only read about those who were here on valid student visas. (Whether or not those visas should have been issued in the first place is another question... apparently some of the applications were rather open to suspicion - with the benefit of hindsight of course.)
    • What's to stop a bad guy from getting on a small boat in Canada/Mexico and motoring/sailing/etc. 100 miles down the coast or across a great lake and just getting off the boat in the U.S.? Why would they even need a passport? Seems to me if they really wanted in, they'd get in.

    • "How many "known" terrorists enter the US? How many of those enter on stolen passports? As far as I know, all of the Sept. 11 terrorists were: a) unknown as terrorists and b) here on valid passports and visas."

      At least two of the 9/11 hijackers where known terrorists and known members of Al Quaeda and entered the U.S. semi legally. The CIA knew when they entered the U.S. they just neglected to tell the FBI so they weren't followed and quickly disappeared. If they had been tailed 9/11 probably wouldn't ha

  • Is this any more secure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by strook ( 634807 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:19PM (#9162578)
    From the article:
    "As the system is envisioned, Americans still will be able to mail their passport photographs to the State Department. The department will encode them into the passport chips and add them to a database."

    So, you never even get personally face scanned. They put information into the chip that lets a face scanner automatically check if your face looks like the picture on the passport... which is exactly what the humans sitting at the desk do anyways under the current system. What is this adding to our security?

    Besides buzzwords.
    • What is this adding to our security?

      It's not about security. This biometrics thing achieves 3 goals:

      1) A high-profile "look how much we do to ensure your safety" effect

      2) Save money by firing flesh-and-blood security guards

      3) Make several biometrics hardware maker's execs extremely wealthy

    • Re:Is this any more secure? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It adds a layer of security in the sense that you can't just remove/alter the picture from an already valid passport, which often is done. Professionals can remove the old picture and put yours in. Why do you think that there is a market for stolen passports? Other people can use them! However, it's harder for them to do this if there is a central database to verify that the picture is the same.
      • If they were just concerned that the picture in the passport was the correct one a simple database of image scans that could be accessed by customs agents would be plenty -- no need to embed anything in the passport.

        The only way this system provides anything that's not utterly pointless is if an image of the person presenting the passport is compared to the information embedded in the passport.

        But of course even that is of little value unless the customs agent is removed from the picture and the entire pr

  • Similar to UK ID cards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Myrmi ( 730278 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:21PM (#9162584)
    The UK government is trying to introduce ID Cards [bbc.co.uk] that sound similar to this. I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on. These included contact lenses, I believe, as well as long fringes disrupting measurements between significant facial features.
    • "The UK government is trying to introduce ID Cards that sound similar to this."

      You mean, David Blunkett wants to introduce ID cards. Nobody else does.

      "I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on. These included contact lenses, I believe, as well as long fringes disrupting measurements between significant facial features."

      The UK problems are deeper than that, and not merely related to biometric technicalities (you know how many million pe
    • I'd be interested to know if the Americans have taken on board problems that the UK trial encountered early on.

      On a semi-related note, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which is some quasi-non profit group (email for more on that) for DMV administrators for all of North America, has rejected biometrics for driver's licenses and state ID cards...at least, for now.

      Why? They want reliable 1 to 300 million matching. I think they feel that anything below that would be too subject to cr

  • Mexico (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tsunamifirestorm ( 729508 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:22PM (#9162594) Homepage
    Will they scan everyone entering the US from Mexico (and Canada)? At some border places it all ready takes an hour to cross...

    • Re:Mexico (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:28PM (#9162614)
      Will they scan everyone entering the US from Mexico (and Canada)? At some border places it all ready takes an hour to cross...

      Do like many Mexicans do: take the short route across the Rio Grande, it only takes 30 minutes and they don't require you to be scanned...

      Seriously thought, this police-state "security" with borders as tight as a prostitute's legs amounts to installing a steel door on a camping tent.

  • Chip? With software of course? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PeterPumpkin ( 777678 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:24PM (#9162601) Journal
    I don't like this idea. Last thing I need when I'm in some third world country is passport showing a blue screen of death. "Welcome to Congo, Mr. Thread Exception!"

  • Quick, renew your passport! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C3ntaur ( 642283 ) <panystrom@gm3.14ail.com minus pi> on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:26PM (#9162610) Journal
    I've been meaning to do this, and this is just the kick in the butt I needed... I'm going to get one of the last chip-free ones issued. I have no doubt that no matter how much reassurance the power-grubbing muckety-mucks give that this will be secure, it won't be. Remember the Diebold electronic voting machines?

    Thankfully, passports are good for 10 years from their issuance, and hopefully by then they'll have the most serious bugs worked out.
    • Thankfully, passports are good for 10 years from their issuance

      Boy, are you naive.

      Here in New Zealand the government sold us "lifetime" drivers licenses that were good for up to 40 years or so, according to the expiry date clearly printed on them and depending on your age.

      This was an iron clad contract between the government and drivers insomuch as:

      1. An offer was made (to provide a lifetime drivers license)

      2. The offer was accepted (by all those drivers who signed the forms and agreed to drive legall
    • I disagree. By gaming the system you're only giving yourself the illusion of protection--the power that was able to take your privacy in the first place still defeated you, and gained ground. Instead of expending energy renewing your passport, why not write your congresscritters and donate money to the ACLU and EFF instead?

  • My passport has a photo of my face on it. (Score:3)

    by karlandtanya ( 601084 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:31PM (#9162630)
    Does that count as recorded biometric information?

  • Privacy vs freedom. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @03:35PM (#9162643) Homepage Journal
    It's pity to watch all those protests against violating your privacy. And no, I don't disagree about them, they are perfectly valid and right. It's just sad that they are.

    Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people, allows you to do mostly anything that doesn't mean serious harm to others, doesn't steal from you, that respects you and provides you with all basic necessities a good government should.
    Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected, then analysed for potential abuses of the system, then discarded when none, or some not important enough are found? While knowing that whoever actually tries to ruin your life will be caught and stopped just the same you would be if you actually meant some serious harm?
    Collecting personal data by itself is harmless. It's how it may be abused is bad. And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)

    • Re:Privacy vs freedom. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zarhan ( 415465 )
      Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people, allows you to do mostly anything that doesn't mean serious harm to others, doesn't steal from you, that respects you and provides you with all basic necessities a good government should.
      Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected, then analysed for potential abuses of the system, then discarded when none, or some not important enough are found? While knowing that whoever actually tries t
      • You guys in Finland are just one disclosure away from losing that trust. You've heard the phrase, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Well, your governments may not have absolute power, but they certainly have a boatload, so be prepared for a boatload of corruption. It *is* human nature, all it takes is the wrong person in the wrong place with the wrong justification.

        The problem we in the USA have is the our government is already openly corrupted by corporate lobbying (bribes), and

    • Re:Privacy vs freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bgeer ( 543504 )
      And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)

      Yes, actually. The US gov't (and Canada and EU for that matter) have shown a shocking willingness to criminalize reasonable behavior at the behest of campaign-donating big money corporations. Just look at the Skylarov case.

      When the bar for criminal behavior can drop from 'robbed a bank' to 'possession of a prohibited organism' t

    • Re:Privacy vs freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @06:33PM (#9163464) Journal
      Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people,... Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected,... Collecting personal data by itself is harmless.

      Ok, I'm thinking of your utopia. I'll even make it a better utopia: I'll posit that no business try to hack into the government databases for personal gain. And I'll go so far as to pretend that no government employee with access ever abuses that access for personal reasons. [copwatch.org]

      Now, imagine that your utopia is The Netherlands. And imagine it's not May 15, 2004, but May 15, 1940 -- one day after The Netherlands surrendered to Nazi Germany. Note that in surrendering, The Netherlands legally turned over government control to the Nazis. Presumably that would included your database -- if the Nazis hadn't simply seized it outright.

      Your utopian database contains the details of all residents, anyone who might join the Resistance, and all the Jews -- including Otto and Edith Frank and their daughters Margot and Anne.
      The Frank family managed to hide from the Nazis for two years; how long do you think they'd manage in your "utopia".

      Now some will say that there's little chance of Nazi invasions these day, so we should feel safe with "utopian" databases. But it doesn't take a foreign invasion to radically change a government: sometimes it just takes an election, of an Anzar or a Berlusconi or a Blair & Blunkett team or a Bush or a Howard -- or a former war criminal like Waldheim.

      Remember COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]?

    • Re:Privacy vs freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @11:27PM (#9164847)
      "And it's sad people have strong reasons not to trust the government enough to willingly provide it with their personal data. ...or, maybe, are there so many wannabe criminals? ;)"

      Many of the people that are afraid of intrusive government are political dissidents who object to the actions of the people currently in power. These "security" measures usually start out aimed at foreign enemies and criminals and nearly inevitably end up being using to punish political dissidents who are vocal opponents of the people in power.

      For example, there are strong indications that the Bush administration is already using their no fly list to punish antiwar activists and political dissidents. A bunch of agencies can add your name to this list at their whim. There is no protocol to find out why your name was added to the list, or legal process to get your name taken off it. There are people that are guilty of nothing more than vocal opposition to the current regime that are being turned away at the airport or being subjected to detainment and intrusive searches thanks to this list. It slows down an antiwar activist if they have to drive cross country to a protest to voice their first amendment rights. Taken to the next level, as it is in full blown police states, the same list will be checked at train and bus stations and then at check points on the highway. At that point you stop traveling. At that point its to late to realize where all these intrusive measures you thought were so benign were leading.

      http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08062003.html
      http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,58386,00.h t ml

      You just can't trust a benevolent government because they often turn malevolent and you may not know it until its too late. The U.S. has had its share of malevolent abusers of information in Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover who used their knowledge to attack and destroy political opponents. Hoover in particular went to great lengths to destroy Martin Luther King because he was advocating equal rights for blacks and was opposing the U.S. war in Vietnam. He also apparently neglected to return a call from Hoover and no one was allowed to no answer when Hoover called. King was no criminal but Hoover treated him like one.

      You simply can never trust people who have power. As the saying goes it corrupts. The people who get it want to keep it and will often do anything to that end, reference Richard Nixon, 1972. The people that have power also want to inflict pain and discomfort on anyone who opposes how they are using their power.

      If the people in power decide to launch a stupid war, get a lot of people killed, and people start objecting to it, they people in power can abuse all these databases to make life hard for their political opponents and dissidents.

  • Nit-picking (Score:2, Informative)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 )
    There is no Chicago Times. There is a Chicago Sun-Times and a Chicago Tribune.

    This is from the Chicago Tribune.

    But, what do I know. I only live there. :)

  • Time to start making tin foil contacts

  • EU Database (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @04:09PM (#9162817) Homepage
    Your name, age, address, and photograph is going to be stored in the EU passport database the instant you cross an EU border if the US Biometric passport is issued.

    Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.

    Eventually, everyone everywhere that has a passport will be stored in every country's passport database, as the billions of international travellers criss cross the globe.

    This will not happen if the Biometric passport effort fails. In the article, the spokesperson from one of the companies set to make billions out of shearing the western population talks about there not being "showstoppers". There are showstoppers. Ask any Australian about their sucessful fight against ID cards.

    We can have a more secure passport without a centralized database [theregister.co.uk]. The problem is that the governments WANT centralized passport databases for the purposes of control. This biometric push has nothing to do with making passports that cannot be forged.

    But you know this!

    • Re:EU Database (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tadu ( 141809 )
      Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.
      Huh? In opposite to the USA, the EU does have laws to govern the use of data. And it was the US who forced the airlines to submit the data against constitutional rights, or they wouldn't be allowed to fly to the USA anymore. Somehow you've got your facts wrong here.
    • Americans will have no control over what is done with this data. It will be retained forever, and shared within the EU as the EU sees fit.


      I think you crossed EU and US.

      It is mainly what happens to EU citizens when entering the US.

      And unlike the EU the US is very silent about what happens to the data and how long it is going to be retained.

      The EU takes privacy (still) a lot more serioius than the US does.
      • I think you crossed EU and US.

        Wow. Ok lets do it step by step:

        American goes to Germany.
        Presents her passport.
        Passport is scanned
        Data checked against EU shit-list
        Record of crosing created in EU Database.
        If record already exists, add crossing details to record.
        If record does not exist, create new record.

        This is what will happen if biometric passports are unleashed. The EU is already well advanced in its plans to build its centralized database of all biometric identifiers; do you really believe that they w

        • This is what will happen if biometric passports are unleashed. The EU is already well advanced in its plans to build its centralized database of all biometric identifiers; do you really believe that they wont keep a detailed record of who crosses into and out of the EU, and how many times and where they have done it? And do you really believe that they will not share this data? Like I say elsewhere in this thread, the EU has already agreed to share passenger data with the USA; this will be no different.

          Th

    • The EU CAN'T use passport data as it sees fit - only insofar as allowed by the rather stringent data protection laws here - e.g. no indefinite retention. You can be CERTAIN that this info will not be sold to corporations. You also have the right to query what info is held, and update it if incorrect.

      Unfortunately, EU citizens will have no right as data collected by the US when they visit. It is a point of considerable consternation that the data sharing deal is going ahead when the data protection situatio
  • And there are a lot of comments about:
    destruction of civil liberties
    won't work
    swiss cheese borders
    invasion of privacy
    blahblahblah

    Ok...maybe all those are valid comments.
    But what will work, short term (20 years or so)?
    The obvious long term solution is to elevate the human condition so that these guys won't want to blow things up. But that will take decades/centuries, if ever.

    Face it...there are large groups around the world that wish to blow things and civilians up for various political, religious, and jus

    • This is an intelligent group. Can the negativity and come up with something!

      (Oh, and stamping your feet and yelling "Get rid of Bush!" isn't the answer.This has been going on far, far longer than Bush has been president, and will continue long after he's gone.)

      You said it yourself --> Better living conditions for everybody.

      And yes, that won't happen, and no removing Bush won't make that happen. Live with it. The US has one big ugly bulls eye on on her ass and if the US doesn't change the tone in the

      • No. It's not jut the US, and it's not just 'foreign policy'.

        Bombs found on a railroad track in France. US foreign policy? No
        Explosion near a police station in Athens. US foreign policy? No.
        OBL stated he wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. We were there at the behest of the Saudi govt.
        They want to reverse 500-800 years of history, and restore Moslem rule in Spain. If not, hey...let's blow something up.
        Blow up a hotel in Bali.
        Gas a train in Japan.
        Fertilizer bombs in London.

        It's far more than the cu

        • OBL stated he wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. We were there at the behest of the Saudi govt.

          Actually the Saudi Government wanted the US troops out as well. For quite some time.

          They want to reverse 500-800 years of history, and restore Moslem rule in Spain. If not, hey...let's blow something up.

          Because of the bombs in Madrid? As far as I remember there was never anybody really claimning responsiblity, it all seems to be speculation and even that claimed it was because of Spains involvement

  • Can make things worse (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @04:34PM (#9162929)
    So once these are issued, a little while later they're cracked and people make fakes relying on the notion that the passport will be checked with less scrutiny because it checks out on the computer. This is like how digital licenses are swiped to validate age when buying alcohol, but they look less at the photo. Technology like this can have the effect of making people less careful when checking someone's identity.
    • You wont be able to fake these ID's with customs agents, or anyone else with the biometric scanners, because they will mostly likely be checking the biometric information against a central database. If you stole the passport information your biometric info won't match it unless you have the sophistication to produce contact lenses that fool the eye scans or synthetic finger prints to fool the finger print scan.

      These ID's really are hard to forge though the use of the RFID chip is particularly scary since

  • Leeloo Dallas...Multipass (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pythagorus ( 779697 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @04:51PM (#9163015)
    How better to desensitize herds into accepting it... Think of the stormtroopers in 5th Element...ubiquitous A/V mapping in Demolition Man(not to mention Arnie as pres.)...eyescanners in Minority Report...going back a ways, total identity check in Gattaca... The question isn't what affect this has on the now...What's the long term goal here? I can't fathom... Imagine Columbus, Magellan, Polo, any of them being asked for biometric ID! It's as ridiculous as the concept that any of us really own anything!
  • I dont care about people coming in the US personally. ( we have enough now thank you very much ).

    When are they going to extend ( force upon ) this to actual citizens?
  • Won't all the Loonies of the Right [amazon.com] [www.capsteps.com] who vote for Bush The 2nd again this fall see this as the mark of the beast and go ape over it?

    Or will it just silently be slid into place with little reporting, and then be too late?

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Close