Earlier today Bruce Schneier wrote about a University of Washington study which demonstrated how to track people through their Nike iPod Sport Kit. Pretty creepy in itself, but as Schneier points out the study has much scarier implications in terms of the ease of tracking RFID chips. If university researchers can put together a tracker that interfaces with Google Maps for $250, imagine what Homeland Security can do with their petty cash box.
Read the a PDF of the full University of Washington paper here.
Here's another story on biometric monitoring in airports. Last week London's Heathrow Airport began a twelve month trial in biometrics use in their Terminal 3. The first passengers the program is being tested on will be from Hong Kong and Dubai. They will be asked to submit a fingerprint scan which will be tied to their passport information and run through criminal and immigration databases to determine whether one is "safe" for travel. Facial recognition culled from scanned passport photos will be used as well. At the moment the program is voluntary and being promoted as a way to hasten check-in times, but Heathrow authorities have been very clear that this project will be expanded to include more terminals, more countries, expanded biometric records, and compulsory passenger participation.
The possible use of biometric ID in the US warranted only an occasional brief mention in the spring of this year:
but now the US is pimping it full force. The US now talks of biometric ID as an integral part of its forthcoming immigration policies including a newly proposed global immigration database. To be perfectly clear, this is nothing less than a global biometric database being pushed by the world's superpowers. The Register mentions the database being promoted as a way "to stop criminals and other undesirable migrants at a vast, biometric border that is likely to include, at the very least, the EU countries, Australia, and Canada." Although, I have the feeling that such a database is news to most Canadians.
Troy Potter, the biometrics programme manager for the US Department of Homeland Security's biometric border control programme, hints that the US will be seeking to standardize immigration laws and implementation among the involved countries. The US has already succesfully linked police databases with the UK in an experimental intelligence sharing project. The question of whether such a global biometric database is possible is not an issue; the only question is how soon governments can agree on the standards which would allow this to happen.
Read the full Register article on the international immigration database here.
Read a Telegraph report on developments in biometric ID in the UK here. I have to say, the UK is really ahead of even the United States in this regard. Against tremendous public outcry, within the next two years the government plans to implement ID cards which "are likely to contain data including 10 fingerprints, two iris scans and a face scan." All to magically stop terrorism. Hats off, British law makers!
For a little more understanding of why Fundamentalists are reacting to biometrics and the RFID chip in particular, here is the section of the Book of Revelation that has them so worked up:
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."
To me, the most troubling aspect of RFID implants aren't fears that it is being promoted by a vast Satanic conspiracy. I'm concerned that people are volunteering to open themselves to constant tracking and monitoring to reap the benefits of being a human Clapper. I know that people are willing to sacrifice a lot (eg. soldiers) in the name of increased daily convenience, but how hard is it to turn on your own light switch, cyberpunk?
Here's another lengthy documentary on biometric surveillance from the CCTV camera capital of the world. It has some great examples of just how easy it is to compromise "high security" biometric devices. The Brits appear to be making a lot more noise about surveillance and biometrics than the US and Canada, don't they? Not that the noise seems to be doing the public much good. . .
Perhaps surprisingly, a lot of the resistance to biometrics is coming from Fundamentalist Christians. Their fears of biometrics hinge primarily on the RFID implant and parallels to the "Mark of the Beast" prophecies. Below is a homemade mashup video about that particular subject.
The following video is from a sharp BBC documentary (an episode of The Money Programme, actually) looking at surveillance and privacy in Britain. It's mostly related to commercial interests pushing surveillance systems and biometrics. Quite an in-depth look at a number of applications and a very critical view of the authority being granted to those surveilling us. Definitely worth a watch. Parts two and three are linked below.
Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author keeping a critical eye on biometric developments and flaws. His blog, Schneier on Security, is a great place to stay abreast of news on these issues.
Here is an excerpt from his book Beyond Fear that relates to my earlier post about the Malaysian man who lost his finger to car thieves:
Someone might think: "I am worried about car theft, so I will buy an expensive security device that makes ignitions impossible to hot-wire." That seems like a reasonable thought, but countries such as Russia, where these security devices are commonplace, have seen an increase in carjackings. A carjacking puts the driver at a much greater risk; here the security countermeasure has caused the weakest link to move from the ignition switch to the driver. Total car thefts may have declined, but drivers' safety did, too.
Here is a video produced by We The People. They love their Nazi Germany parallels and Schindler's List music a little too much, but there are a lot of good news clips in there.
We The People Will Not Be Chipped is a group strongly opposed to RFID chip implants (duh) and use their site to report on news in biometrics and RFIDs specifically. They make a lot of ties between the current climate and IBM aiding the Nazi's in their human data processing through the thirties and forties.
In addition to the link i posted earlier, Alex Jones has another site with with a section specifically on biometrics. As I mentioned, Jones tends to favour massive conspiracy theories and strict interpretation of the Constitution, but his site is definitely worth a look. There is a lot of information on there, it just tends to be skewed in a certain direction. Read more here.
This fall I began a library studies program at the University of Toronto. One day I hope to be a Big Time Librarian, until then I am simply a nerd. There is a reason I mention this. It is because I wanted to mention a discussion that was held during a class of mine last week. The discussion was regarding the US government's sharing of information (or lack thereof) in the wake of disasters like 9/11. We got into how a lack of valuable information feeds into limiting privacy and other rights of citizens. I was reminded of the burning of the Reichstag in Berlin which was so pivotal in establishing the Nazi empire. All it took was a few promises of protecting a frightened citizenry from imagined Communist terrorists to allow Hitler to be given the power to write his own laws free of oversight. It was a case of disseminating misinformation to control the people of Germany. The loss of individual rights and government safeguards wasn't merely an unfortunate by-product of the misinformation; it was the endgame.
I feel similarly about what has happened in the years following 9/11. Whether or not you believe a handful of terrorists carried out the attacks on their own, the US government has subsequently worked very hard to propagate misinformation about the attacks to suit their own ends. Everything from the war in Iraq to the limits on citizens' rights has been accepted because of government misinformation. Faked testimony from Kuwaitis prior to the first Gulf War and the Gulf of Tonkin incident similarly used disinformation to further the US agenda, but neither of those involved the degree of technology or open assault on private citizens' rights that we see now.
The use of biometrics is just one measure that the US government (and now increasingly numbers of gov'ts around the world) has insisted is necessary to protect the public from the undefined threat of nameless terrorists. So if biometric applications are being aggressively rolled out as a result of misinformation, what the endgame they serve?
Okay, I am the first to admit that Alex Jones is more than a little prone to hyperbole, hysteria, and paranoia, but I also believe his role in the discourse on security and privacy to be a vital one. Jones may well be a conspiracy nut, but he can always be relied on to be the one shouting, "The emperor has no clothes!" Just keep your defenses up when he starts to talk about the Satanic/New World Order cults that keep the emperor's clothes hidden in a secret underground bunker.
Anyway, here is Jones' brief look at the biometric entry system now being implemented at SeaWorld, not unlike the system mentioned earlier as being used in DisneyWorld.
...before you get detained. Facial ticks and expressions are now being observed by "behaviour scanners" at more than a dozen airports around the US. Signs of stress in the faces of would-be-passengers will be cause for security personnel to question, search, and detain you.
Of course, there is no such thing as a universal indicator in everyone's face that would reveal they are lying or under stress. Furthermore, security personnel making minimum wage in airports have proven ineffective at monitoring x-ray machines, let alone being asked to function as behavioural scientists. So what is the chance of this measure curbing terrorism? Is it greater than the chance of giving citizens a false sense of security?
According to this BBC article, police in the UK now have portable fingerprint scanners which can instantly link to a database of 6.5 million prints from any roadside.
The TechDirt blog had an interesting point about stat faults inherent in the program, stating, "The mobile fingerprint scanning device is only 95% accurate and only about 6% of people will be in the group of drivers who give false information and have fingerprints already on file (which has to be the target group). How successful will this scheme really be?"
This month Citibank Singapore unveiled fingerprint scanners at points-of-purchase throughout the city. At the moment only holders of Citibank's Clear Platinum card can pay through the biometric system. It seems the bank is beginning its biometric rollout by targetting the coveted taste-making 25 to 34 year old demographic that makes up the bulk of its Clear Platinum card holders.
Currently, the convenience of a quick fingerprint scan to pay for goods is tempered by the 7 digit PIN that must be entered to complete any transaction. This requirement begs the question, then what's the point? I think this is both an effort to troubleshoot the technology in a larger public arena, as well as part of a larger effort to aclimatize people to the idea of daily biometric use. It has been quite some time since Wal-Mart and Costco were first reported to be eyeing biometric identification. . .
Read more about this biometric rollout and the companies behind it here.
