EU Votes To Create Gigantic Biometrics Database (zdnet.com) 212
The European Parliament voted last week to interconnect a series of border-control, migration, and law enforcement systems into a gigantic, biometrics-tracking, searchable database of EU and non-EU citizens. From a report: This new database will be known as the Common Identity Repository (CIR) and is set to unify records on over 350 million people. Per its design, CIR will aggregate both identity records (names, dates of birth, passport numbers, and other identification details) and biometrics (fingerprints and facial scans), and make its data available to all border and law enforcement authorities.
Its primary role will be to simplify the jobs of EU border and law enforcement officers who will be able to search a unified system much faster, rather than search through separate databases individually. "The systems covered by the new rules would include the Schengen Information System, Eurodac, the Visa Information System (VIS) and three new systems: the European Criminal Records System for Third Country Nationals (ECRIS-TCN), the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)," EU officials said last week.
Its primary role will be to simplify the jobs of EU border and law enforcement officers who will be able to search a unified system much faster, rather than search through separate databases individually. "The systems covered by the new rules would include the Schengen Information System, Eurodac, the Visa Information System (VIS) and three new systems: the European Criminal Records System for Third Country Nationals (ECRIS-TCN), the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)," EU officials said last week.
yow (Score:5, Insightful)
Pick one, EU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The privacy laws of the EU are to restrict the power of private corporations, not to restrict the power of the state. There is nothing incongruent at all about leftists limiting the power of corporations whilst preserving their own.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. Read Saul Alinsky's Rules of Radicals to understand the mindsets. Once you understand the mindsets and psyches, you will not be surprised.
Re:yow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yow (Score:5, Informative)
Sure about that?
https://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/12_other_governments_that_enjoy_spying_on_their_citizens_partner/
Just a few in that list are part of the EU, but there are a bunch more.... was just the first hit on a search.
"they" don't spy on their citizens... They let other governments spy on them and then make a deal to share intelligence data.. Same goes for the US...
We have Wikileaks and Snowden to thank for letting a lot of this information be available to us peasant's..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR has thankfully removed a lot of these loopholes.
And you believe that they follow that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:yow (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no contradiction in those from the EU's perspective - both massively enhanced the power of the EU government. It's not about making things better (or worse) for the citizens, it's about accumulating more power for the pols....
Re:yow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
ehmm... Say that again..
https://hightimes.com/guides/countries-strictest-weed-laws/4/
https://www.tripsavvy.com/marijuana-in-sweden-1626765
Punishment for Possession of Weed in Sweden
The punishments for possession, sale, cultivation, and transport of marijuana can range from a fine to a 6-month prison sentence for minor offenses, up to three years in prison for regular offenses, and up to 10 years for serious offenses.
In Sweden weed is considered like any other prohibited drug so does not really matter if you have crystal meth or some weed.... If you drive a car a week after you last smoked and they decide to do a pee-test or blood test, and they detect trace amounts, you get an automatic DUI and prosecuted for being under the influence..
For some official statistics..
https://www.nation
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other end, you have Portugal, were consuming drugs (hard and light) was made not a crime anymore (having drugs is still illegal).
This freed prison, police and courts for more important jobs (namely pick up the traffic groups), allowed hospitals and "drug centers" to give support, syringe and condoms to junkies and slowly try to move then out of that life, reduce a lot the diseases in that population (and so saving lot of money to health care system) and amazingly, the drug consumption decreased a li
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is.
The US prison population is 702 people per 100,000 population.
The Swedish prison population is 598 people per million population.
Swedish drug laws may or may not be stringent compared to other jurisdictions but they have a tenth of the incarceration rate of the US, even ignoring that over one in five prisoners in Sweden isn't Swedish.
Re: (Score:2)
Closer to 0.7% incarcerated.
And "criminal record" may not mean what you think it does. The FBI considers you to have a criminal record if you've ever been arrested. Even by mistake. You don't have to be convicted, you don't even have to be charged with a crime. If you are arrested, you have a criminal record.
Mind you, I agree that our sentencing guidelines are a bit on the draconian side. And I re
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a giant prison like the US, where 1/3 of adults have a criminal record, and 1% are incarcerated, either in jails or prisons?
Well to be fair to the GP's uneducated ramblings, the EU here *is* copying the idea of biometric databases for border control from the USA. It's just the EU has internal borders which makes it more complicated since you can't simply get fingerprinted with your passport.
Speaking of which. ... I got fingerprinted for my passport. I'm actually genuinely surprised I'm not in some EU wide database biometric already.
Constitutional failures versus what? (Score:2)
Interesting branch of the discussion. I was drawn in by the "interesting" mod, which turned out to be an indirect response to a slightly insightful quasi-rhetorical question about a paradox of privacy. Which turns out to be linked to some typically weird morning thoughts...
I think my main response would be along the lines of "...unlike the US, where we now have the worst liar and biggest criminal in charge." Makes a motorcycle hoodlum look like a girl scout.
Does it really go back to Prohibition? Did that mi
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Europe some time -- most countries are like a breath of fresh air compared to the USA.
I have been to Europe numerous times. In some ways, it is a breath of fresh air, but the laws and attitudes are still evolved from extreme concentrations of power.
So I took a breath of "fresh" air, but it wasn't really fresh, it was different. There was still the foetid stench of monarchy infusing that "fresh" air.
There is just as much morally reprehensible crime in the EU as there is in the USA or KSA or the Philippines. Nothing new there, but in the USA, people have less of an expectation of supreme power
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The old "EU" is more "evolved" than the US argument, eh? Whatever the sentencing data indicate, the EU is throwing people in jail for "hate speech," the definition of which runs oddly parallel to speech that does not tow the line of those in power. That's real authoritarian policy, regardless of how you aim to smear the US fetish for liberty. I'm not sure why anyone would believe the whole "it's for better law enforcement" line in the EU given their recent record on "justice."
Go to the US and you might find
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Very different than Germany and much of Europe, where only the rich may drive
That's bewilderingly ignorant. So much I can only assume you're maliciously trying to spread misinformation. Stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look. More nonsense. Have you ever even been to Germany?
When I lived there car ownership was far from uncommon.
When I visited last year car ownership was close to ubiquitous.
Just because Germans cycle a lot doesn't mean that they don't also have cars. They just like cycling.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
EU citizens have a chance to vote their frustration at or acceptance of EU in May.
It makes no fucking difference. Shit, the UK voted to leave the entire corrupt morass and look what's happened.
Passport , bio ID card horse already bolted (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Biometric data has been a controversial topic for a long time. And the collection of biometric data was introduced into the EU in 2004 on a national basis, still in the wake of the 9/11 political aftermath. You know, all that fluffy war on terror that has been used left and right to push otherwise questionable legislation.
So this massive violation of privacy pre-dates the GDPR by 14 years. Time enough for most of us Euros to get used to it and don't question it that much any more.
The bi
Make shit up [Re:yow] (Score:2)
Illegal for you to do, legal for them to do. The DNC in the US has proposed banning air travel for us citizens,
What?!
No.
The problem with anonymous cowards on /. is that they just make shit up wholesale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you even Occasio-Cortez, bro?
You must have missed AOC's "Green Deal" where she proposed eliminating most air travel among many other equally insane and unworkable things.
Strat
Ugh (Score:1)
Remind me never to travel to China. I would never want to have my data in some massive governmental database!
Re: (Score:2)
Member countries of EU already have the same.
All that is happening is that member countries will share the data now.
Yeah, I want the police in france to be able to find out that the person they just grabbed is a criminal from my country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the bit about "third country nationals"? Vast majority of UK citizens will visit the EU at some point, and they will be captured in the system.
If your concern is about the capturing of the data and how it is used, then you are far better off being part of the system that makes the laws than walking away from it.
Spying (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think this will somehow be contained to just law enforcement and border crossings, you are incredibly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Who thinks this won't just end up as one big database that will let anyone in the government spy on you.
Government will definitely "spy."
I am surprised about the narrative. If this were to be in Venezuela, Russia, Iran or 'any of those countries", the narrative would be of what one would call a "hostile state."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The question is will governments be willing to limit themselves in the use of this new database to spy on its citizens?
Will governments be willing to punish themselves for violating citizen's privacy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who thinks this won't just end up as one big database that will let anyone in the government spy on you.
No one. The difference is in Europe people aren't afraid of governments, so they generally behave with the data they are given and use it mostly for beneficial things.
Inevitable and largely irrelevant news. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the fact that people are free to cross borders un-monitored within the EU then it is hardly surprising that countries have harmonized their databases. Don't you want the local hospital to be able to identify you? The local police to know who they just arrested for fighting at the soccer game. After all Facebook doesn't just know your identity anywhere on the planet, it knows how much money you have and what kink you wank to. So what "privacy" issue are you worried about exactly, the one where the State hemmed in by laws and open access legislation can find out who you are to provide services - or a shadowy private company who want to use big data to turn you into a profit center subject to no laws or monitoring? I suspect that most of this thread will be about the former. "They" really do have you under their thumb, only it is not actually "a government" who will be running the rest of your life is it. Is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who're these angels who control the Men-With-Gu (Score:4, Insightful)
The British civil service is largely made up of the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge - the actual brightest. Government is indeed authoritarian but you get to vote for people who can change how it operates. In Europe for example people voted for single payer health care which costs half what the American privatised health care does with similar outcomes. There is always argument to be had whether some services should be in the state sector and some others not. I don't see much call for Americans to pay for National defense for example through private industry. You pay government taxes for defense. There would on the face of it seem to be a good case to pay private industry to do the job given that the US spends more than the next ten nations put together on it. I support your thinking that private industry should do those jobs that it is most efficient at. Taxes are indeed theft when they are being used to pay for gold plated toilet seats on aircraft carriers and foreign wars of little help to the American people.
Re: (Score:2)
graduates of Oxford and Cambridge - the actual brightest
You're not serious, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. could drop out of NATO since it's not bound by any treaties ceasing hostilities there. Just
Re: (Score:2)
What's his excuse for what? Multiple European nations taking a free ride on NATO and/or the US and/or their big neighbours for their defence?
Web page ad = SWAT raiding your house (Score:2)
Yes, Facebook "knows" that cookie #6,494,630,464,026 visited a forum about pistols, so they show me an ad for
50% off holsters. This is obviously a great harm to me.
Much less harmful is the government tracking me, and when they see I have an interest in pistols and happen to live near a certain school, I end up with a SWAT team busting down my door and shooting my wife.
To me, an abusive government is slightly more concerning than an ad on a web page. You're free to disagree. (And maybe you better disagree,
Re: (Score:1)
"unmonitored". Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:2)
No passport checks at the border. Sure the CCTV records your vehicle registration in the first town you hit, same as everywhere in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
You forget that the advertiser also gets to decide what to charge you when you buy a product based on what they know about you. You forget that the advertiser knows what products you will be buying before you do. You forget that the advertiser potentially knows everything about you. The government would indeed be scary if it had that sort of knowledge about you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and of course the advertiser can be a political fund feeding you targeted misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the best fucking sig ever! Also, I block all scripts, so afaic that guy is talking about him not me. My browsing ip changes a lot. I don't even have to vpn its that often. Not only do I not see ads, they can't track me either, so........ definitely think GP is huffing something..
NCIS/CJIS (Score:2, Troll)
To speed up recognition services (Score:2, Insightful)
some people will be required to wear yellow stars of david, others will be required to wear a star and crescent.
EU citizens from Germany will be required to wear a swastica.
US Citizens visiting the EU will need to wear an orange haired troll doll until 2021.
And people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, given that FB builds psychological as well as biometric databases, and given that they sell (or rather lease) those to the governments (and other companies and anyone with money), FB is still scarier.
Doesn't mean this isn't bad news, but it's small potatoes compared to FB.
Pick Up That Can! (Score:1, Troll)
Would all the EU apologists, remainers, Statists and anti-border fanatics like to say something?
Anything?
Anyone?
The EU which they love, which they idolize,
keeps restricting freedoms, keeps removing rights,
increasing costs, increasing regulations,
and never, ever causing the rich, powerful and corrupt any problems.
But as a Liberal, should I say anything, anything against the EU, I am smeared as a right winger.
Authoritarian Fascism, defended and supported by the Left, the Right and
the new Aristocratic Elite.
Pi
Re: (Score:3)
Other than that they got the idea from the USA who have been fingerprinting people at borders for ... shit I don't know but it certainly happened over 10 years ago already.
You can see me out here right? It's because you live in a glass house. Now put down that rock or it'll look bad for you.
But while I'm feeding trolls:
The EU which they love, which they idolize,
No one idolises or loves governments. They only idolise or love specific actions from said governments. People who use the terms idolise or love when talking about any government are typicall
Re: (Score:2)
But as a Liberal, should I say anything, anything against the EU, I am smeared as a right winger.
There is plenty to criticize about the EU, but if all you do is lazily repeat right-wing propaganda then don't whine if people lazily lump you together with the right wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because if you don't want to be tracked, and monitored when you do anything... You must be criminal, or a right wing NAZI!!!! . Or both! *Gasp*
1984 idiocracy! (Score:1)
it honestly starts to be 1984 and idiocracy!
Curious (Score:2)
....that they race ahead to link all this data together on the people in the EU, yet there's still essentially not even an effort to create a harmonized border patrol/coast guard yet?
What might one infer from such priorities?
Clickbait title (Score:2)
Databases that already exist and are already used by various law enforcement are being unified.
Brexiteers are hypocrites (Score:2)
This would help enormously by giving every member country access to these databases.
Officials also said (Score:1)
DNA Profile (Score:2)
Overreach by the EU... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet the EU has more freedom in real terms than the US. Fewer psycho cops that will kill you for "reaching for a gun." Lower rates of mass incarceration. Looser drug laws, depending on country.
The US has the 2nd Amendment -- all other metrics of freedom are worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're reaching for a gun, then you deserve to be shot by the cop. Yes, we have too many people in jail, mostly because of our "War on Drugs" that the vast majority of us now recognize was a mistake. What else would you like to bitch about?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because to you all cops are pigs, which just makes you a complete moron. There are shitty people in all professions, and the cops who do those things need to be sent to jail. But unlike you, I know that the vast majority of police in the US aren't like that...I know several personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Percentage-wise, white people are shot by cops more than black people are shot by cops.
Sorry, Mr. Anonymous Coward, false.
Depending on the study, the race of people shot by police ranges from 34% black (Guardian) to 52% black. (note blacks are about 12% of the population).
However, when it comes to unarmed civilians shot by police, the statistics are a lot worse. An unarmed black person is between 9 and 28 times more likely to be shot by a policeman than an unarmed white person. (reference [harvard.edu])
Some fraction of these are captured on video and generate some amount of outrage. Most, however, are
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the people who moved to America were largely the poor who did so for economic reasons.
That means they were confident/entrepreneurial (Score:1)
Poor people, as you think of them, hold up their hands and beg from the powers that be.
The people you describe were downtrodden because they didn't fit into the European hierarchy; they didn't kowtow to the religious or secular authorities, and therefore were either stripped of their resources or forbidden from upwards mobility. They saw opportunity in America, because there they would be free from such impositions.
There was no Welfware State; those people weren't immigrating to a gracious, well-built, deve
Re: (Score:3)
Without Principles, that's Tyranny of the Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
South Africa is in the process of amending its Constitution "democratically" to allow for confiscating centuries-old farmland from white farmers without compensation, in order to redistribute it to black people of their choosing.
"It will all be legal" say the politicians, and fools like you hear "It will all be moral; it will all be good, by definition."
Without principles (such as strong property rights; i.e., Capitalism), then Democracy is just a freewheeling tyranny of the majority—mob rule. If the only principle is the winning vote, then you're doomed to inevitable terror.
Re: Without Principles, that's Tyranny of the Majo (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as the United States unilaterally made laws to force the native tribes off their lands.
Turns out, the law is decided by the winners. Everywhere. Always has.
Those Dutch were the descendents of violent thugs who stole the land and enslaved the people. They have no legal or moral right to the land.
Because modernity won. And the Dutch lost.
Re: (Score:1)
> ...the descendents of...
In your new world, two of the established principles are:
- you carry guilt from your forebears regardless of your conduct
- there is no private property since there is no limitation on the justification by which it can be removed from you
- native-born citizens will have different rights based purely on their race
Doesn't sound very modern to me, it sounds like you are the kind of person who would be burning witches or cheering on the Nazis had you been born in a different era.
Re: Without Principles, that's Tyranny of the Maj (Score:2)
So, in your world, the spoils of violent crime are cleansed of legal entanglements upon being inherited?
Re: Without Principles, that's Tyranny of the Maj (Score:3)
Perhaps in theory. In practice, the U.N. thought 1900 years of development wasn't enough to override the rights of Jews to Israel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Without Principles, that's Tyranny of the Majo (Score:5, Interesting)
"Those Dutch were the descendents of violent thugs who stole the land and enslaved the people. They have no legal or moral right to the land. Because modernity won. And the Dutch lost."
Ah, but now here's the rub - is there a legal or moral right to return that land to the descendants of the people who had it before that, when they in turn were also the descendants of violent thugs who stole the land and enslaved the people?
Take, for example, the area around Johannesburg and Pretoria (the former Transvaal), seized by Afrikaaner (Dutch) settlers in the 1830s at the expense of the Northern Ndebele (a.k.a. Matebele) people, who were forced across the Limpopo river into what is now Zimbabwe. Sounds like it should be fair enough for them to make a land claim and take back what was theirs from the invaders, right?
Except: The Matebele tribe was founded by Mzilikazi, a former Lieutenant of Shaka Zulu. He and his people lived in Zulu territory well to the southeast, until he quarrelled with Shaka, rebelled, and fled - initially north into Mozambique, then west into the lands that the Afrikaaners would later take. Arriving there, he slaughtered the local tribes and engaged in a scorched earth tactic to ensure that even the lands not actually used by his own tribe in the area could not support other tribes. When did this happen? The 1820s.
The fact that only a decade or so passed between successive conquests obviously makes this an unusual case, but the fact remains: go far enough back, and there's not a single piece of land anywhere that wasn't at some point taken forcibly from someone by someone else. And while I have great sympathy for the notion that if you buy or inherit stolen property you can't complain when its former owner comes to claim it, things are considerably less cut and dried when that former owner in turn got the property by theft, or inherited it from someone who did.
At a certain point you just have to draw a line under history, admit that nobody really has a "legitimate" claim to ownership of the land, and try to establish the rule of law so that in future land is no longer taken from people against their will.
Re: (Score:3)
At a certain point you just have to draw a line under history, admit that nobody really has a "legitimate" claim to ownership of the land, and try to establish the rule of law so that in future land is no longer taken from people against their will.
That, or realize the uncomfortable truth that private ownership of land is largely an illusion, and you are merely renting it from the state in the form of taxes. On a long enough timeline, everyone will be subject to eviction.
Re: (Score:2)
That, or realize the uncomfortable truth that private ownership of land is largely an illusion, and you are merely renting it from the state in the form of taxes. On a long enough timeline, everyone will be subject to eviction.
Well, if you were designing a private property system from scratch - say, settling an entirely new planet with no prior ownership claims - you might well define ownership along those lines; the planet as a whole is the shared property of all humans, with the right to exclusive access to individual plots being "sold" to individuals via some sort of auction system (where a "higher price" is a promise to pay a higher level of future taxation - that way access to the best land goes to the ones with the best pro
Re: (Score:2)
I like you. You see things clearly and unfogged by emotion.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not authoritarianism, it's democracy.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Even the Nazis held elections [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a democracy, it's a democratic republic!
you vote to represent your self, so vote correctly.
And you do not need always opposing ideas, you just need different! and several small differences make a huge difference in the end.
what you need is multiple opinions, many groups, many heads, but big political groups and lobbies reduce those heads to just 5 or 6. Political parties are the problem, as the professional politics. Forces "group votes" should be ilegal
Most people vote in to political party as the
Re: (Score:1)
Hah. Moderated troll for telling the truth.
Slashdot has really gone to the dogs.