Uncle Sam wants YOUR biometrics

[gadget_lover]

I imagine that a hacker who altered the gov fingerprint files would be sadly disapointed.

Once they arrest you, they print you and run them. Your prints don't match the ones on file. Oops. You go free.

We have plenty of examples where people were arrested because the matched name, date of birth and who knows what else and still go the wrong person. There was one in the paper last year.

A good hacker can already insert a false record. The addition of biometrics will not change that too much.

Daniel

 

[Lightraven]

All I know is that fingerprint scanners and databases are an excellent way to track down criminals. There are obvious limitations, like the use of gloves. But you arrest somebody for a misdemeanor and learn he's got a murder warrant out of Washington State (recent example from our station) and it's one killer off the streets that you didn't have to do a whole big multistate (or multination) fugitive hunt to get. He just got swept up in the day-to-day dragnet of low level law enforcement (by a group of rookies fresh out of the academy, no less!)

I sent up a convicted rapist earlier this year for felony prosecution, but I arrested him for a misdemeanor that would not have even been prosecuted. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, domestic bombers, were caught driving without plates and dumpster diving.

The impetus for our fingerprint system was a scandal that involved an agency (possibly ours) that arrested a guy for a trivial misdemeanor and released him because it failed to identify him as a multiple murderer. That's what most Americans (and I) really hate--serious bad guys going free. Our current system makes those errors less likely.

As far as hacking and corporations and sci-fi nazis and gummy bear gel (mmmm....gummy fingerprints. [drool]. . . ), I'll let you guys discuss that.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

I've read that the Brits have a print scanner that bobbies use for instant ID verification on the street.I would actually love to see more of that. In spite of my fetish for privacy and the fact that I'm somewhat of a 'ghost', the FBI has had my prints since I was 16 in 1967 when I got my first Mariner's Document, which in those days validated the bearer 'For Emergency Service.' (Now long discontimued)

Since I have no use for a DL I'd welcome a quick, effective way to prove who I am since the fed has already had my prints forever...

 

[shakeylegs]

Many persuasive arguments have been voiced on either side of this issue. It seems to boil down to this - if you trust the system, you see the value in biometric surveillance and if you don't trust the system, you see the potential for abuse. Having lived through the last half century, and remembering the many abuses of power by leaders, government agencies, and corporations, I tend to fall into the latter category, expecting that abuses will occur. Try googling (in the spirit of this thread, I'd use something like scroogle.org which doesn't track or log your queries) "FBI surveillance scandals", "CIA surveillance scandals", or "Corporate surveillance scandals" and decide whether audits, codes of conduct, and other precautions prevent serious abuses.
The wallyworld spying and infiltration of consumer groups scandal is every bit as disturbing as COINTELPRO and 50's bio-warfare testing on unsuspecting US populations.

In the past, it may have been easier to turn a blind eye to the abuses, with the justification that if you did nothing wrong you had nothing to worry about. Such rationale is less comforting with an administration as highly politicized and dismissive of constitutional principals as the current one. This administration is not the first and won't be the last. Some will be more abusive and they will have complete surveillance capabilities coupled with extensive profiles (buying habits, emails, associations, credit, asset, gps positioning by cell phone...) on each and every citizen.

My wife grew up in communist Poland, where a blanket of paranoia hovered over everyone. The extensive domestic surveillance program might include your best friend, and you'd never know it. One slip of the tongue, one misplaced criticism of the system, the government, or the local block leader might reverberate you bleeping behind right into the can. People disappeared! It's not pretty when you are forced to live this way. Think about this when you send your next email; when you are standing in front of the atm video camera; When you swipe your credit card; when the traffic cam is watching; when you check a book out of the library; when you release your medical records; when you give up any personal information knowingly or otherwise. While I have nothing to hide, I'm thinking about it as I post this.

 

[gadget_lover]

Forgive my innocense, but exactly how does a government agency abuse the knowledge of your fingerprints? Does some stooge sit in a back room and look for hidden messages in the swirls and loops? Do they lift fingerprints from airport restrooms, hoping to find out who was sitting next to the senator? Do they arrest you if you cut your finger and 'alter' your biometrics?

The only realistic abuse I can think of would be when framing someone, and they don't need a biometrics database to do it. It's much easier to drop a bloddy knife in your garbage can.

The only other case I can think of would be if you were trying to hide and the government had truely turned to a Nazi police state. But even in those cases, I'd rather the police locate the guy named Dan that they really want to kill/torture/deport and leave me alone. If society falls that low, there are other more important issues to worry about.

I, personally, think the paranoia about a national idenification system is overblown. If the local police want to find you, they have your address, your neighbors know what you look like and you probably have some communications device. I figure it would take less than a day for most people to be located if the police spent all their resources on it.

As a normally law abiding citizen, I don't have a lot of concern about being located. I worry more about the ambulance NOT finding my house or the doctor doing the wrong procedure because of mixed up records.

Daniel

 

[Sub_Umbra]

One of the problems is that it's impossible to know if you have something to hide from any government. During the Cold War a Russian named Viktor Suverov said, (paraphrase) You might as well resign yourself to the fact that any of your acts may become criminal at any time. Leaders change, regimes change, alliances change. What was heroic yesterday may be judged treasonous in the light of tomorrow.

It doesn't matter what country you're in -- things may change -- the original intentions become irrelevant at that point..

Those who say that the innocent have nothing to hide are way out on the thin ice, historically. One of the first governmental users of computers was a Scandanavian country (Netherlands?) in the 1930s. Laboriously entering population data on punch cards they created one of the first serious computer databases. When the National Socialists occupied them during WWII one of the very first things they did was run the cards and get a handy printout so they could quickly round up the Jews. ...Things may change.

Another simple example would be commerce. A viable economy cannot exist without at least a modicum of secrecy. Studies must be funded. Decisions must be made. Long range strategies must be created. Products must be developed. Agreements must be made with suppliers. Much of it must be carried out with a certain degree of secrecy if there is to be any hope of remaining competitive and retaining market share.

This rationale also puts the lie to the notion that honest people don't need strong encryption -- the repurcussions in business alone would be staggering if there were no secure way to communicate.

As a man in my mid-50s who has a perfectly clean record I am another who would like to see the government have all of the tools they need to fight terror and crime. The problem as I see it is that they are awash in private data now and have absolutely no way to assimilate all of it, much less coordinate and redistribute it in a way that would serve the stated purpose for it's collection. In spite of this their voracious appetite for ever increasing amounts of data they can't put to use is insatiable. I find it alarming.

 

[NA8]

Looks like another one of those yin-yang things, or double edged sword if you prefer.

 

[gadget_lover]

Looks like another one of those yin-yang things, or double edged sword if you prefer.

Nicely put.

There is currently no single method available to verify that the police-man at your door is really a cop. There's no practical way for the TSA to be sure that the passenger at the screening checkpoint is really who they claim to be. There is no way to be sure that the person renting my house is who they claim to be.

There is also no way to ensure that the government will not turn hostile to it's own people and use the databases to find dissidents, minorities and others they may deem undesirable.

Some folks prefer to just stay off the radar altogether. No phone, no taxes, etc. I'm not sure that works anymore. It would not take that much extra to run through the tax records to see which addresses don't have a current tax return. Same for phones and driver licenses. "Conspicuous in it's absence" is the term that comes to mind. You'd have to live out of town, off the grid and independent of government resources (roads, buses, hospitals, etc) in order to stay hidden from such a search.

Shakeylegs made the point that the feds have too much data to use effectively already. I have to agree. I shake my head when the TSA lets me though the airport checkpoint based on a 10 year old drivers license and a computer printed itinerary, both of which are easy to duplicate. It would be SO simple to at least scan the boarding pass to see if it's valid, and if it's been used already. Our DMV gathers thumb prints and digital pictures. How hard would it be to scan and match both of those?

So I don't worry about gathering the information. I worry about being able to use it effectively for the public good and other proper uses.

Daniel

 

[shakeylegs]

Forgive my innocense, but exactly how does a government agency abuse the knowledge of your fingerprints? Does some stooge sit in a back room and look for hidden messages in the swirls and loops? Do they lift fingerprints from airport restrooms, hoping to find out who was sitting next to the senator? Do they arrest you if you cut your finger and 'alter' your biometrics?

The only realistic abuse I can think of would be when framing someone, and they don't need a biometrics database to do it. It's much easier to drop a bloddy knife in your garbage can.

The only other case I can think of would be if you were trying to hide and the government had truely turned to a Nazi police state. But even in those cases, I'd rather the police locate the guy named Dan that they really want to kill/torture/deport and leave me alone. If society falls that low, there are other more important issues to worry about.

I, personally, think the paranoia about a national idenification system is overblown. If the local police want to find you, they have your address, your neighbors know what you look like and you probably have some communications device. I figure it would take less than a day for most people to be located if the police spent all their resources on it.

As a normally law abiding citizen, I don't have a lot of concern about being located. I worry more about the ambulance NOT finding my house or the doctor doing the wrong procedure because of mixed up records.

Daniel

Daniel, despite your innocence, I'm sure you are aware of some of the many governmental and corporate abuses of power over the last half century. I understand that everyone will have a different view. That's why I started the thread - to hear those points of view. And I understand yours to a degree. But I can't feign innocence to abuses of power. Yet I'm prepared to live with "biometrics" and most other info gathering as I have little control over them, especially corporate. I raise the issue only to encourage thoughtful consideration by all citizens because I feel these increasingly comprehensive databases of highly personal information can and will be misused. For instance, an insurance company will sign you up, let you pay premiums for years, then when you make a legitimate claim, they'll terminate you based upon some obscure detail they suddenly "find" in your distant record.

Is there a technology that's been created and hasn't been exploited? I suspect not. Does collection of personal data mean we live in a fascist state? Not necessarily. Does power tend to be abused? Almost always. I'd be more comfortable with any data gathering project if strict guidelines preventing abuse were established and the death penalty were imposed for gross infraction. But that won't happen. And abuses will occur.

Clearly, we are talking about matters of degree, perception, and experience. Supporters of gun control would ban all privately held weapons to prevent the many deaths each year by firearms. Gun owners are prepared to accept the risks in order to preserve their perceived rights. Similar arguments are applied to abortion and drug laws. Such philosophical/political issues are rightly debated and laws emerge to govern our behavior. And one side, will always find reason for a dissenting opinion.

In a country where dissent was a founding impetus, projects such as biometric gathering could in my opinion have a potentially chilling effect on political discourse. Look no further than the the chill this administration was able to cast over dissenting voices in it's march to war. "Unpatriotic!" was all it took. The mass media abdicated it's watchdog roll and political opposition rolled over. Extensive databases profiling the citizenry with highly personal information would only make such intimidation easier. Everyone has weaknesses that can be found and exploited. And though not every authority would exploit such technology, some would.

Remember the TIPS program pushed by Bush in 2002 which would have had the FBI recruiting millions of Americans as informants?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2002/nf20020725_8083.htm
The FBI has not always handled such things gracefully http://www.truthinjustice.org/corrupt-FBI.htm

My wife grew up in Communist Poland where a thick blanket of paranoia nestled around each and every psyche. That regime's extensive domestic surveillance branched down to street level. Your best friend might be an informant and you'd never know it. One slip of the tongue, an off-handed remark amongst friends and you'd be reported. People disappeared. Files were kept on almost all citizens. Those files are now being opened and the information contained has proven highly inaccurate. Even so, the last elected polish government tried to use those old communist files to it's advantage against it's political enemies, with some success.

So while we can look at any info gathering system individually as useful and benign, is there a point where government and industry should be restrained from mining the essence of our personal lives?

 

[Lightraven]

If we only talk about biometric identification by the U.S. government (where people are already required to identify themselves), I don't see much downside. Only a person who wants to falsely identify himself to the government has something to lose. Who is that? A foreign spy, a criminal or a terrorist.

The times and places one must ID himself to the government (or on the government's orders) are occasional--opening a bank account (IRS), getting a passport (State), entering the United States (Immigration, more or less, since only U.S. citizenship is really being determined of U.S. citizens, not their specific identity), getting a job (IRS/Social Security Administration), getting on an airline (TSA). Furthermore, the agencies that are performing these identity checks don't (and often cannot) share information with other agencies, with very rare exceptions.

What happens in facist or communist countries is an example of how to misuse a tool. They also misused guns and tanks and German Shepherds. The real solution isn't to take away the "tools of oppression," it's to remove the oppressors themselves. Didn't Beretta make guns for Mussolini? I carried a U.S. government issued Beretta for years. American tanks (like the one I trained in) use a cannon made by Rheinmetal. I don't know Rheinmetal's history, but I could take a guess. And German Shepherds are used by my agency like most military and law enforcement agencies.

 

[NA8]

The real solution isn't to take away the "tools of oppression," it's to remove the oppressors themselves.

You should point that out to your boss and get back to us on his reaction. If he's agreeable, have him run it further up the chain of command. :devil:

 

[Lightraven]

Oh, my bosses know my position. Their position is that I should be in a different line of work.

As for the elected "oppressors", you have one vote, just like me.

 

[NA8]

Their position is that I should be in a different line of work.

That doesn't sound good. Ever think of being a lawyer ?

 

[daveman]

It's sad. This country is going down the crap hole by its own doings and yet its citizens gladly cheer on. I guess history does repeat itself; every empire will eventually shoot itself in the foot and bleed to death.

 

[Lit Up]

Aside from the obvious abuse issue, the problem with biometrics is that it's all so new and so easy to get wrong. Some will probably remember a couple years ago when Tsutomu Matsumoto, a Japanese cryptographer, made fake fingers from Gummy Bear gel that fooled almost all of the fingerprint scanners being used by the government. The problem is not that fooling the machines was doable -- the problem was/is that an amateur could do it with cheap materials obtained anywhere and the government was completely blindsided by the weaknesses in those devices. I believe that the scanners are still in use but with an armed guard by each one.

I would try to hold on to my biometric data as long as I could. If one of my passphrases is compromised I can change it easily enough. What do I do when my biometric fingerprint signature file is hacked, stolen or sold? That's it for my prints.

All of this unproved hardware is being sold to them with promises of performance and security and they're putting real data into these systems -- without really having much experience and no track record to stand on. I'd rather be the last entered into the system than the first.

Biometrics in everyday commerce would even be much worse, if that could be possible. I'll muddle through with cash until I'm dragged kicking and screaming into the future -- or present, err...whatever.

I don't blame you, fingerprint scanners are a joke. I have/had one on my PC to toy around with that was lucky to recognize my print 1 out of 9 attempts.

Just a matter of time before somebody abuses the system and we have a lot of Sandra Bullock in The Net victims running around.

 

[turbodog]

Essential liberty and not having to interact with a government are two completely different things. Essential liberties were enumerated in the Bill of Rights so there would be no argument that speech, religion, arms, search and seizure, compelled testimony, legal representation, cruel and unusual punishment, quartering of troops, and later, equal treatment, were considered the essentials.

There is no freedom to enter or leave the U.S. unidentified. It may surprise some people to learn there is no freedom to leave the U.S. at all and the fourth amendment doesn't apply to anybody entering or leaving the U.S. A U.S. citizen has greater rights in the U.S. than a non-citizen, so identification of each is necessary to establish who gets which rights. Likewise, someone on a fourth waiver, such as a parolee, must be identified to establish his lack of 4th amendment rights. Certain persons are prohibited from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and must be identified. This is all very obvious to generations of Supreme Court justices.

The main fingerprint databases I use contain an aggregate of millions of persons. The supplemental databases have millions more. The technology is pretty new, and I doubt most law enforcement agencies have it. A computer does the analysis, checking only the fingerprints, not any biographical data, so lying by arrestees or data entry errors by the processing officer are irrelevant to getting a match. Missing fingers and damaged finger pads are also not a hindrance, as long as some fingers have legible prints.

But obtaining your biometrics BEFORE a crime is committed IS compelled testimony. Any nowdays the police are storing that info for ANY arrest, even unintended ones.

So you get arrested by accident/mistaken identity/false witness/flat out illegally and then YOUR info is permanently stored.......

 

[Sub_Umbra]

...So you get arrested by accident/mistaken identity/false witness/flat out illegally and then YOUR info is permanently stored.......

Even without ever being arrested, if you're asked for prints or DNA to rule you out as a suspect and you cooperate by giving them, the info remains forever after you've shown you're not the guy. Some law abiding citizens have sued (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to have this information expunged.

I don't care what rationalizations Law Enforcement uses to justify this practice, it still stinks. As far as the privacy concerns of citizens go, they don't care -- they don't have to.

 

[Lightraven]

The Supreme Court has shown that it is concerned about privacy and its privacy based rulings affect the rules I work under.

The Court has expanded the interpretation of the 4th amendment "to be secure in their persons and possessions" fairly recently to include concepts of privacy. A government agent may not only not take or disturb a person or a person's things without a warrant supported by probable cause (Courts soon realized that warrants were impractical for most arrests, searches and seizures, but the probable cause requirement remains), but also may not obtain information that is intended to be private without probable cause.

The list of what is considered "private" by the Court is lengthy and interesting. But as a rule, if something is actively hidden from public knowledge in a reasonable way (such as a letter in an envelope, a telephone call between two parties, a closed car trunk, closed curtains in a person's home), it is protected against government monitoring without probable cause. Even something as simple as climbing a tree to peek over a backyard fence is prohibited by the Court's interpretation of the 4th amendment "Privacy Doctrine." Of course, abortion decisions are regarded as entirely privacy based.

A government cannot forcibly take physical evidence or data from a person unless probable cause exists to believe that a person has committed a crime because a government cannot "seize" the person to perform the collection without probable cause. Driving or flying is an exception, and considered a privilege given under the requirement to surrender blood for an alcohol/drug test.

Once physical data (handwriting, blood, DNA, breathalyzer, fingerprints) has been collected from consent or forcibly from probable cause, there is no requirement or expectation that it be destroyed. On the contrary, law enforcement agencies are viewed as highly suspicious or incompetent when evidence is NOT preserved. Physical based data--fingerprints, DNA, etc.--is not considered testimony nor a "possession." This has been ruled on by the Court.

However, a government (not just law enforcement) can and does require physical data to get certain government jobs, a passport, driver's or pilot's license, gun, concealed weapon's permit and a few other "compelling interests."

 

[shakeylegs]

The Supreme Court has shown that it is concerned about privacy and its privacy based rulings affect the rules I work under.

The Court has expanded the interpretation of the 4th amendment "to be secure in their persons and possessions" fairly recently to include concepts of privacy. A government agent may not only not take or disturb a person or a person's things without a warrant supported by probable cause (Courts soon realized that warrants were impractical for most arrests, searches and seizures, but the probable cause requirement remains), but also may not obtain information that is intended to be private without probable cause.

"

Despite the stance of the Supreme's, private data continues to be gathered illegaly, perhaps innocently, perhaps not. Unfortunately, there are officials in postitions of authority who condone, hide and lie about such violations. Google "Gonzales knew of fbi violations". Testifying before congress as the administration tried to renew the patriot act, Gonzales said that no violations of privacy or illegal gathering of private information had occurred. This despite his having received reports to the contrary thoughout the months prior.

Despite policies and procedures designed to prevent abuses, there are those who will knowingly and deliberatly abuse. If we allow our governmental and corporate agencies to gather vast personal info databases, then strict guidelines should apply and violations of those guidelines should carry extremely harsh penalties as a deterrent. I could live with that but I don't see it happening.

 

[Lightraven]

Well, let's not confuse illegal with unconstitutional, though they are similar to a government agent in that they are both rules by which he/she must abide. The constitution only limits government action, not private. Private entities are subject only to the law, giving them greater leeway to do things that people would not like.

Illegal conduct is punished as you'd expect--fines and prison, probation and possibly a felony record.

Unconstitutional conduct is punished in different ways, depending on the reason for the violation, whether an individual or an agency is to blame, and whether there was also illegal conduct. It is possible to violate law and constitution with the same act--and that often results in prison, because of the ability to be tried twice--as LAPD officers Koon and Powell were.

I doubt that violations of the constitution, absent any illegal conduct and done out of ignorance or excessive zeal to get the bad guys, would result in any significant sanction against an individual officer. For example, if I'm at a checkpoint and ORDER everyone to open their car trunk because I'm determined to find the missing little girl in the Amber Alert, I'd likely get pulled from the point and told to knock it off.

In a criminal case, judges have been known to verbally nail officers in court, especially when a criminal goes free on the constitutional violation. Whether this has any practical effect on the individual officer's career is hard to say.