Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Estonia Tests "Contactless" ID-Cards 251

Posted by timothy from the man-exists-for-the-state dept.
borkee writes "Estonian MEAC and CMB start testing a new version of a national ID card containing what they call 'contactless' extensions. Although they do not specifically disclose to us, taxpayers, what technology is used there, it must be quite obvious that it's nothing less than RFID. Add to this, they'll have person's biometrics in memory. (Security gurus of course know: biometrics just don't work.) Soon you can track us poor Estonians by our GSM phones and by our ID cards too!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Estonia Tests "Contactless" ID-Cards More

Estonia Tests "Contactless" ID-Cards

Comments Filter:

  • so ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DZign ( 200479 ) <averhe@ g m a i l . com> on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:25AM (#9918400) Homepage
    like someone wants to track you ?

    and as always when new technology is introduced, it will probably take a long time (let's say 2 years or so) until every department (communal house, police department, hospital,..) which needs to get information from your id card, will have the correct reader installed, so until then it's used the old fashoned way.

    btw are you guys required to have your id card with you all the time ?

    • Re:so ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by asd-Strom ( 792539 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:35AM (#9918432)
      No we don't need to have our ID card with us all the time. It's required to own a card if you're older than 15 but you could just keep it home in a box.

    • Re:so ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:44AM (#9918454) Homepage
      like someone wants to track you ?

      No, they're not interested in the average Joe as long as he remains that. But should he ever become or try to become someone of power and importance (or just too annoying), they'd love to have all sorts of dirt to wreck your life, career and credibility. It is considerable leverage both to prevent you becoming an influence, and controlling you if you do.

      The KGB etc. were notorious for collecting vast amounts of information. Most of it they never needed, but they had it in case that person was turning out to be a problem. As long as you are a good little pawn and do nothing "wrong", there is no problem. That was true even in the Soviet union. So then you don't have any problem with them gathering this information?

      Kjella

      • Re:so ? (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        In Soviet Russia, they--uh--the, no wait...um--I'll get back to you on that.

      • Re:so ? (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        No, they're not interested in the average Joe as long as he remains that. But should he ever become or try to become someone of power and importance (or just too annoying), they'd love to have all sorts of dirt to wreck your life, career and credibility.

        You also have the problem that there is a catagory of people interested in the "average Joe". Criminals, especially organised crime (which includes other country's "intelligence services), for purposes of identity theft...

        The KGB etc. were notorious for
      • Screw the KGB, look into the German Democratic Republic. They had more informers per capita than any other society in recorded history. There was a ratio of 1:63 full-time informers. Including part-time informers, the ratio was approximately 1:6.5. The Germans are still compiling personal files from the records the Stasi attempted to destroy; at current rates it will take another 375 years to finish re-assembling the estimated 37,500,000 sheets of shredded paper.

        Personally, I wouldn't care if they collect

    • Ummm, you hate privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Joe 'Nova' ( 98613 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @06:31AM (#9918724) Homepage
      Before this gets labeled flamebait, this kind of intrusion really pisses me off.
      The problem with this technology is it not only tracks you, it will allow tracking of your activities. What you buy. Where you go. The ability to, for good or bad, compile a docier on your life.
      The only thing preventing this from happening before was the sheer logistics of it. Now that its real, I would like to wake people out of slumber.
      I mentioned the ability to do good. I might even call them selling point excuses:
      Tailored ads. Stand in front of a Coke machine with reader-"Mr. Jones, you like Cherry Coke! It's been a while since you've had one! Go ahead-we won't tell the Other cola co.!" This ad is beamed into your head(REAL technology-trial balloon tested in Japan!)-another distraction. If they are powerful enough readers, billboards changes to emphasize something in area based on your personal tastes.
      Use for convenience. Make it a feature before it becomes mandatory.
      For inventory/shipping control. Box 'a' has XXX going to YYY. You don't even need to scan for it directly.

      Look folks, Walmart is forcing the use of tags on all their products. If the reader can read your RFID, it can read those too. Instant knowledge base of all the things you do, what you buy, or don't. Become a nonprofitable customer not well dealt with. Ack.
      The potential for abuse is way to great. I have heard of no laws about the use of RFID tags. Right now they are being used on Gillette razors, being very expensive and easily stolen. Problem is, these chips are being made by the billion. You tryin' to tell me they sell BILLIONS of razors? Bah! There are 'plastic watch' chips for military use, used in Haiti for the refugee crisis.
      Some tech specs-they are supposed to be burnt out at time of purchase, but they aren't, possible shielding on metal products(cans, etc.) Current readers have up to 20' read range. To deactivate them, microwave for a few secs, but set item on fire. Some are embedded in sandals. That would come in handy for tracking you. Unless you are an anti 1984ist(wow!, created a newspeak!), this should start to sound nasty. Someone with a scanner with devious intent could know all about you by scanning your curbed Hefty Cinchsack. Take an item, plant at a scene of a crime. *knock knock* "Mr. Jones, we have evidence that links you to...."
      Like I said, there are ZERO laws concerning the use of these buggers. No search warrants, just scanning.
      I try to be well informed, but biometrics seems better, because you know when they are being accessed, but still intrusive. With this junk(RFID), you will have the Law of Unintended consequences knocking on your door.
      There are way too many possible abuses to go into, thx for patiently reading rant.
      • Got a link or citation of any sort for "beamed into your head(REAL technology-trial balloon tested in Japan!)"? It sounds patently ridiculous and any actual technology this is similar to would be vastly different from how you've described it, I think. Still, I'm always interested in educating myself. If you've got the link, post it here or submit to /. for the front page. Something tells me that if it's legit, it'll get posted.
    • in soviet russia..

      you know, there is a free world outside of america too. we do not need resueing. rather, PLEASE dont rescue us.

      • Re:so ? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Pogue Mahone ( 265053 )
        This begs the question "is the a free world inside America?"

        Posted anonymously to avoid observation by the KG^H^HDHS. Oh, damn...

    • Well acourding to our tracking systems you went round to that drug dealers house every day for more than a month.

      Maybe you spent a few too many hours in a mosque.

      Maybe you a postman...

    • Re:so ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @07:47AM (#9918939)
      When you go to an international airport, you should make sure your mobile phone is turned off, or people will clone it on the grounds that you'll be out of the country and won't notice for a few weeks. This contactless technology is looked upon favourably by Blunkett, so I face the prospect of having to take my passport to the airport wrapped in a Faraday shield to prevent people reading the information and burgling my house on the grounds it will be empty for a few days.

  • Info on Biometrics not being safe ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acebone ( 94535 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:28AM (#9918408) Homepage
    Where can I read about biometrics not being safe ?

    That's very interesting, and I've never heard about it before. I mean surely the pattern in your eyes and your fingerprints are unique and does not change, no ?
    • Thats the point, your eyes don't change, your fingerprints don't change.

      So as soon as someone has your fingerprint they can just make a fake thumb and be you anywhere they go.

    • Re:Info on Biometrics not being safe ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sique ( 173459 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:46AM (#9918460) Homepage
      Biometrics have a limited recognition rate, that means: a considerable amount of false positives (wrongly identified) or false negatives (wrongly refused). Often all you can do is having a compromise, either admitting the false positives to have less false negatives, or having lots of people wrongly refused by the system, so the human operators have to manually sort out the remainings.

      Due to the limited recognition rate, you can often easily fool a biometric scanner. Face recognition systems are often fooled by holding a picture of the right person before the lense. Same often works for iris scanners. Finger print scanners can be fooled by fake fingerprints made from wax (stearine). Hand scanner sometimes are easiest. Cut out a cardboard with the right hand profile.

      Most of those biometric scanners thus should never run unattended, to minimize manipulation as stated above. And if you have humans watch the scanners, you could as easily have those humans perform the checks themselves, probably getting better recognition rates.

      Biometric scanners may give you additional security, if you use all the common methods like picture ids, signature and similar too, because now an attacker has not only to disguise himself accordingly, but has to fake the biometric data too. But without a central database for crosschecking the data, its rather meaningless. If he can fake a picture ID with his face and a false name, he can also fake the biometric data to fit his own data. As a stand alone tool the biometric scanners are not really ready.
      • But for ID cards, I'd expect a central database to contain all the info on that card (I'd be surprised if for current ID cards there wasn't a central database, which would just have to get a few more fields).
      • As a stand alone tool the biometric scanners are not really ready

        That I think is the big gotcha - they are not ready yet - as these technologies improve, and as more money is poured into these kinds of research, we will see marked improvements in these systems...
        • Currently the situation is this: Most biometric scanners are not used to improve security, but to increase throughput for check points, so less human work is necessary. If biometrics improve, so will sink the number of humans working at checkpoints, thus allowing more manipulating of the scanner. To me it looks as if there is something like an accepted level of error, and this one seems to be quite independent from the used technology. So from a security point of view, even sophisticated biometrics with muc

      • The problems of Biometrics (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jetmarc ( 592741 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @06:25AM (#9918713)
        Once you detect fraud being done with your biometric identity,
        where can you revoke your fingerprint and have a new one issued?

      • While all the points you mentioned are valid concerns, especially False Acceptance Rate (FAR) & False Rejection Rate (FRR), there is technology that overcomes most of these limitations.

        Have a look at AuthenTec's [authentec.com] TruePrint Technology. In summary, "TruePrint Technology uses a patented radio frequency (RF) imaging technique that allows the sensor to generate an image of the shape of the live layer of the skin that is buried beneath the surface of the finger." This makes spoofing of fingerprints nearly imp

        • This phone actually uses several layers of authentication: First: The authentication is tied to the SIM card or a similar ID inside the phone. Second: The phone itself is protected by a PIN, so not everyone can use it. And then there is the third layer, the finger printing.

          All together create a quite high security, because it checks for three different things: 1) Something the user possesses (the phone with the right ID), 2) Something the user knows (the PIN to activate the phone) and 3) something the user
    • When I think of Biometric ident usually fingerprints and iris's come to mind. The former is quite simple to fake as shown by gummy bears [cryptome.org]. The latters complications are discussed here [iris-recognition.org], with methods ranging from simple to replacing an eye or digging one out. It seems the most secure form of ident would be through DNA, however we all know the dangers and benefits associated with cradle to grave tracking.
    • There is only one of you. You have one set of fingerprints and one set of unique retinal patterns.

      If someone manages to compromise this, say by lifting one of your prints off a discarded coke can, or removing one of your eyeballs, then you're - as the kids say - 0wned.

      Sure biometrics may be mildly harder to compromise than a password, but a password is a hell of a lot easier to revoke if it has been compromised.
    • I mean surely the pattern in your eyes and your fingerprints are unique and does not change, no ?

      That's the problem, if an attacker can bypass the sensor and feed data directly into the recognition engine (which can be as simple as splicing a few cables) all he needs is a copy of your biometric data (which he can get from doing the same thing to any sensor you use) and he can present your authentication credentials anywhere that biometrics are used.

      If your credit card or passport is stolen, it can be blo
    • Can't say about retinal or iris patterns, but fingerprints are so dodgy, even when compared by experts, that the US government felt the need to ban funding of any study into how reliable they are. (New Scientist report [newscientist.com]).

      I think we can assume that if they thought the results of such a study would be positive they would be pouring money at it, in the hope of being able ditch that embarassing `images are very like themselves' study.

    • Well, the problem with fingerprint readers is that you leave your password on aything you touch.
    • What if Wesley Snipes pulls out your eye and sticks it in front of the scanner?

  • Sweeping statement (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ItsIllak ( 95786 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:30AM (#9918419) Homepage
    (Security gurus of course know: biometrics just don't work.)

    They do? There are plenty of viable biometric measurements out there. They are not 100% reliable, but when compared to wetware trying to remember passwords they stack up pretty well.

    I for instance have a finger print reader on both my palmtop and my desktop. In the limited environment I have, they identify and authorize perfectly well.

    • Re:Sweeping statement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Znork ( 31774 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:40AM (#9918443)
      "I for instance have a finger print reader on both my palmtop and my desktop."

      And everyone else, for instance, has access to your fingerprints on every object you've touched in recent time.

      Or are you using gloves?
      • Indeed, there are copies of my fingerprints all around. However, once you loose physical security, you loose security anyway.

        Also, if someone has the resources to fabricate fingerprints that will fool the reader, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot I can do about it. Almost all security is simply a means of raising the cost of hacking it to a level above it's value.

        • Re:Sweeping statement (Score:5, Funny)

          by Amiga Lover ( 708890 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:00AM (#9918494)
          Almost all security is simply a means of raising the cost of hacking it to a level above it's value.

          You are completely correct, and I have implemented a cunning plan that has made the effort of hacking me not worth doing.

          I have no life, no job, no financial prospects and no worth to my identity. I plan to soon get a criminal record and become a terror suspect. Eventually I will also return my internet connection to a 2400bps modem, and will be insanely secure, as there will be no worth in breaking my security

          Take that, evil hackers of the world, TAKE THAT!
        • Indeed, there are copies of my fingerprints all around. However, once you loose physical security, you loose security anyway.

          So there is no point in having the identification hardware in the first place.

          if someone has the resources to fabricate fingerprints that will fool the reader,[...]

          IIRC, this consists of a small quantity of gelatine.

        • Re:Sweeping statement (Score:4, Informative)

          by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:20AM (#9918555) Homepage
          the resources to fabricate fingerprints that will fool the reader...
          Almost all security is simply a means of raising the cost of hacking it to a level above it's value.

          It has been well established that cost and resources involved in defeating a fingerprint scanner amount to little more than some gummi bears. [google.com]

          -
      • "And everyone else, for instance, has access to your fingerprints on every object you've touched in recent time."

        How does one go about making use of those finger prints, and how hard would it really be to make a system that defends against false readings?

        • Re:Sweeping statement (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Alsee ( 515537 )
          How does one go about making use of those finger prints

          Google knows all. [google.com]

          how hard would it really be to make a system that defends against false readings?

          Apparently very hard. It seems that all commonly available scanners are easily defeated by Gummi Bears.

          -
        • "How does one go about making use of those finger prints"

          Photoetching can be used to create molds, for example, either to fake fingers or finger covers.

          Of course, you can defend against such forgeries by measuring things like skin conductivity and temperature, but those are even easier to fake than the actual print.

          Fingerprints, like most biometrics, are just not that difficult to copy. Compare it the protection against forgery we have in currency, and the protection of being a pattern of ridges on a lea
    • The greatest problem is that once your fingerprints have been duplicated by someone, you can't repudiate the prints and issue yourself new ones. The same holds for all biometrics.

  • pardon my ignorance, but (Score:3, Informative)

    by v1x ( 528604 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:31AM (#9918425) Homepage
    Admittedly, I dont know too much about the Estonian political system etc, to comment on the issue of choice, and how much of it the people there had when their government decided to introduce such a thing. However, it has been my experience that outside the US, a lot of cultures dont seem to make that big a deal about privacy, so maybe it is not that big a deal after all to Estonian citizens.

    OTOH, RFIDs have already been implemented by clubs, etc to have painless billing, etc, so there are at least a few people around the world who dont think they are that big a deal.

    Living in the US, however, my own fears are based on what I have heard about the privacy issues surrounding such technology, in that anyone with a scanner can find out a dangerous amount of information about you without your knowledge or consent; so to me it seems like a bad idea at least until someone can manage to convince me otherwise about how my information will be protected.

  • Cool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:40AM (#9918442)
    This could have some nifty scientific uses even if you can't decrypt the data. Just think of the sociological experiments. Knowing exactly who's on what road, when? Who shops where? The possiblities are mind-blowing. And the sample would be great because it's taken from the public.

  • Broken (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:51AM (#9918473) Journal
    A good ID verifying-device (card, token, whatever):

    * Does not contain or rely on biometrics. Generally can change, and once copied/forged one can never change the identifying information.

    * Is capable of doing public-key encryption on-card. The information that identifies the person never leaks to the device. (Technically, this can be done with symmetric encryption as well in conjunction with a trusted centralized server, but this has some drawbacks.)

    * Has a PIN, so that stealing the card is not sufficient to impersonate a person.

    * Has a PIN entry keypad *on-card*, so that false readers and bogus ATMs cannot steal PINs.

    * If any data must go back to the card owner, has a rudimentary display *on-card* (say, a calculator-style LCD display), so that a false reader or bogus ATM cannot say that someone is paying "$10.00 to WalMart" for something and actually having them pay "$14.00 to Joe Hacker".

    * Should support a scheme where personal identity is not disclosed, but a persona is (my "persona" at the moment is "0x0d0a"). This is because any national ID card will naturally be used by other systems as well, and without this step, severe privacy abuses will occur. This requires use of a trusted, centralized server or of a card that can natively store multiple identities.

    * Allows one to disable the trusted nature of the the card quickly and easily if it is lost, and in a manner that cannot be easily done by others (which would allow a denial-of-service attack against the card owner).

    * Can handle water, crushing force, and high temperature.

    * Can fit in a wallet.

    * Should have the ability to log identity verification usage, so that the user can sync his card up with a computer or similar and check to see what he actually signed off on two days ago.

    This certainly isn't a complete list of desireable characteristics, but it's a start.

    • Re:Broken (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:19AM (#9918548) Homepage
      is a system that relies on a mix of documents that you choose to provide, and not something provided to you by the state, no matter how cool it is.

      Estonians, dont whine about ID cards; do what the Australians did [google.com] and refuse to carry them at all.

      Your government will withdraw the scheme. Guaranteed.

    • Re:Broken (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Serious Simon ( 701084 )
      A good ID verifying-device (card, token, whatever): * Does not contain or rely on biometrics.

      If it contains NO biometrics at all, it becomes very difficult to make sure the ID actually matches the person presenting it. Imagine a passport without a photo or any other biometrics...


    • I _AM_ me, not only do I know this for an ABSOLUTE FACT, but those people that I know (family, friends, lovers, ect) also know it (and vice versa of course)

      Outside of a body-snatcher type science fiction film I am my own walking talking biometric identifier, even a 20-seconds-to-complete perfect genetic clone still won't fool anyone unless you can ALSO fill that perfect genetic clone with a perfect copy of my brain and memories, attitudes, experiences, dreams, fears, etc etc etc.

      The idea that ANY subset o

      • EG

        I _can_ verify that that is indeed my driving licence.

        My driving licence cannot ever verify that this is indeed me.
        • I _can_ verify that that is indeed my driving licence.

          The real point of your driving licence is to prove that you are permitted to drive certain catqagories of of motor vehicles on the public road. Generally that you have passed some tests to show basic competence and have not subsequently been caught doing stupid things which endanger other road users.

  • Biometrics DO work, when used appropriately (Score:3, Informative)

    by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:53AM (#9918481) Homepage Journal
    People just don't understand what biometrics are for. They are not appropriate as a primary means of verifying identity, but they do work well as a supplement to other methods.

    I think the problem is you've got some sales monkeys who are selling the idea of biometrics as an authentication pancea to pointy-haired types, which is just further proof that non-technical people should never be in a position of authority or act in a primary decision making capacity where technology is concerned.
    • Thank you. It's just a type of lock, and any lock can be defeated if you're willing to work at it. They're more about convenience for the "unlocker" than they are about identifying the person.

      All the discussion about gummy bears and digging out eye-balls makes me laugh. Most secure installations I've been around have a guard standing next to the biometric device to prevent any manipulation of the device in an unusual way. I think the only time I've seen unattended biometrics has been at Black Mesa [sierra.com], an

  • RFID or contactless? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 09, 2004 @04:53AM (#9918483)
    I can't read the article, but are you sure it's talking about RFID? Contactless smartcards are different to RFID tags. Maybe the paranoia's well founded, but there is a very important difference between an application card which can be pressed to a reader rather than inserted, and a tag which is designed to be tracked from several feet away.
    Which is this?

  • Mmmm... Possibilities :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:01AM (#9918499)
    I dont't think, it's too hard to format this lil' pecker and rewrite the data, when the specific card readers/writers become aviable. Since it's contactless, U don't have to show the real pic on the card anyway.

    And about this GSM-tracking? I'd like to whack that bastard who came up with the idea to bring this to the public. It's pretty dawm hard to give your girlfriend impression you're doing overtime @work, when your phone puts you in the strip-club.

    GSM-Locator [delfi.ee]Simple.

  • Why is everything RFID, and why is it suddenly a privacy issue. Don't bother answering that question, please.

    Smartcards like this are usually contactless in that they can be at most several millimetres away from the reader (The power levels achieved typically allow only a very small separation (a few millimeters) between the card and the reader.)

    I guess that They can increase the power signal until a satellite can read it, but AFAIK if they can do that, privacy issues are the least of my worries.
    • "at most several millimetres away from the reader (The power levels achieved typically allow only a very small separation (a few millimeters) between the card and the reader.)"

      Wrong. The ones at my work can read cards 12"+ away from the pad.
      • Wrong. well good for you, you have an RFID-style vicinity card that you use.

        I lifted that quote straight from a manufacturer's website, you'd think they know the operating characteristics of their cards now wouldn't you?

        In any case, there are different types of cards, ranging from ones you have to touch to the pad (close-coupled cards) to ones that operate a small distance away (proximity cards) and ones like you have, (vicinity cards) not to mention real RFID tags. It makes a big difference on the applic

  • Isn't Estonia (Score:3, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:05AM (#9918515) Homepage
    where Dilbert always goes on business trips?

    Rus

    • Re:Isn't Estonia (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The country Dilbert always goes to is Elbonia.

  • Some Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trailwalker ( 648636 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @05:10AM (#9918526)
    Estonia has a large non citizen population, mostly resettled Russian nationals. There are serious questions about who is a citizen and who isn't.

    This, and other problems that arose from the long term Soviet occupation make a secure method on identification necessary.

    Under their circumstances, the Estonian Government believes security is more important than privacy.
  • I have a smart card which is a 12 month unlimited bus pass (and so worth more than my PDA now I come to think of it).

    This is contactless, in the sense that it is read by just being placed on top of a box on the bus. I doubt it can be read from further away (or they'd just put detectors in the door and speed up the queue).

    Luckily they use a worthwhile biometric for identification. There is a photo on the card and a human being looking at it.

  • How's Estonia, a poor country, funding all this? Money from the EU? Is it being used as a testing ground for rolling out the same scheme in Western Europe?
    • How's Estonia, a poor country, funding all this?
      Not that poor, Estonia has really embraced communications technology over the past few years, to the point that it is now one of the more wired countries in the EU.

    • ..you read too much Dilbert, I initially read Estonia as Elbonia. :-)

    • Estonia's governmental projects are actually efficient, unlike in certain Western Europe nations where money for projects like this are squandered on bureaucracy and contractors going tits-up before completion.
  • Tinfoil hat wearers might try the following method:

    1) Fry the electronics in the card by putting it in a microwave oven etc.

    2) Report the card as lost and get a new working card.

    You can then keep the working card wrapped in tinfoil and use it only when you really need its identification technology.
    Otherwise use the card with the disabled electronics as you would use a 'normal' ID card.

  • this can't be shaping up to be all that bad [theregister.co.uk] now, could it?

  • Sounds like there will be a market for... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Fanta Menace ( 607612 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @06:05AM (#9918667) Homepage

    ...Faraday-cage id card wallets

  • In Finland.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @06:36AM (#9918730)
    It has pretty much always been possible to track any given persons GSM mobile phone. You wouldnt believe the amount of crimes this has helped solve and prevent as well as the amount of people who get lost and get found only thanks to their phone signal. Everyone I know owns a mobile phone. Everyone I know KNOWS that you can be tracked through your cellphone. I am yet to hear ANYBODY complain.

  • libertarions unite!! whine about RFID (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Isn't that what this is?? If a secure way can be found to implement RFID isn't that a good thing?? Small losses of personal liberty when we have a global threat to non-muslims seems imsignificant. Chose your priority, life and security vs. political correctness. Oh Nancy, I'm afraid!!!! If want to improve RFID technology, be part of the solution, dont just be a group of frikking whiners like usual.
  • As an EU country, Estonia will have to not only follow the EU Personal Data Directive [dataprivacy.ie] but also write and implement data protection legislation with the EU Directive as a minimum basis.

    So at least for now, the Estonian government (or whoever else) cannot "just" track anyone in Estonia.

  • What's supposed to work them? Forgetable passwords?

    Biometrics work. And the level of detail beats the snot out of some password.

  • "Misplacing" your ID-card in someones trunk.

  • Sounds Pretty High-Tech (Score:3, Funny)

    by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @10:25AM (#9919865)
    Especially for a country whose economy is based on the export of its most plentiful natural resource: Mud.

    Oh, Estonia ... I was thinking Elbonia. Sorry - my bad.

  • I have Contactless ID cards too ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @10:26AM (#9919871) Homepage Journal
    This is a magnetic card which needs to be moved about 1 1/2 inch in front of the reader . The magnetic card is topped by a Photo ID , so it the contactless means almost zero wear and tear of swiping.

    All doors in the office open as soon as you flash the ID cards (the doors beep , and everyone looks up at you as if to say "what are you doing roaming around") ... being a card-puncher like this means they track my in and out timings (like when I leave my floor for lunch or stuff).

    The entry into various rooms are restricted like this (this is an outsourcing company , so clients are very very paranoid about "nonfull disclosure" being maintained). Testing server room doors could with your ID could even get you fired here ..

    It need not be RFID or anything magic - just extend the reader to something like the metal detector in an airport to read this magnetic ink (holding this against the noonday sun shows that these are lines/bar-codes running the whole length of the card like those security threads in currency)....

    And I'm sitting here clocking the first 9 1/2 of the 47 1/2 hours needed for the week , commenting on slashdot :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close