Posts Tagged ‘ abuse ’

Police repeatedly arrest innocent woman due to mistaken identity

Sep 2nd, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

by Adam Walser

by Adam Walser

The criminals new joy with Biometrics is, once you’ve fool the system, your faked fingerprint is made of the same stuff as fruit pastilles, so you can simply dress the evidence on other innocent victim, without letting the victim any chance to hold himself blameless.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WHAS11) — A Louisville woman says she was arrested by police, thrown in jail and went to court for crimes she never committed three times in the last year and a half because of her name.  The woman’s name is Melissa Ann Richardson, but she’s not the only woman with that name in Louisville.  Richardson says another Melissa Ann Richardson has been getting in lots of trouble and doesn’t show up for court, which is making her life increasingly difficult.
Whenever Melissa Ann Richardson leaves home, she has to have lots of documentation proving that she’s Melissa Ann Richardson because recently she’s been confused with a different Melissa Ann Richardson.  She is also white, has brown hair, green eyes and an October birthday.  The difference is that Melissa Ann Richardson has been arrested dozens of times for prostitution and drugs. “I don’t see any resemblance and that’s just because I don’t want to be affiliated in any way with prostitution,” said Richardson.
The other Melissa Ann Richardson also has an unfortunate habit of not showing up for court.  Twice last year, Melissa Ann Richardson was arrested, booked and had to go to court for the other woman’s crimes. “They told me that it was done. They typed everything in. The clerk said ‘Okay, we’re sorry. It won’t happen again,’” said Richardson.  However, on Friday, Richardson said it happened again.
She was stopped at a red light in a minivan in West Louisville when a police officer pulled her over and questioned her.  After checking her ID, the officer arrested Richardson on charges she says belong to the other woman.  The other Melissa Ann Richardson apparently even gave officers the first Melissa Ann’s date of birth when she was arrested so it was back to jail.
“Usually it’s only been about eight hours. This past weekend, it was the worst of it. It was 33 hours,” Richardson said.  Police say the mix-ups can happen because right now, pictures aren’t placed on e-warrants, which are displayed on officers’ laptop computers so police rely on the information they’re given. A Louisville Metro Corrections Department spokesperson says it’s standard procedure to use a fingerprint scan on all prisoners who are booked.  It’s unclear as to what happened in the latest case.
As for Richardson, she’ll keep carrying her makeshift purse.  “Thank you for not believing me, but I’m out. And if you arrest me again, I’m gonna get out again. But this time, I’m pursuing a different angle. I’ve called our attorney and we’re gonna go that route,” Richardson said.
Late this afternoon, we learned that part of the problem at the jail is that the records for both Melissa Ann Richardsons were apparently merged, leading them to believe they had the right suspect over the weekend.
We tried to locate the other Melissa Ann Richardson to talk to her about the situation today, but like the police, we weren’t able to find her.



Apple has become the BIG BROTHER

Aug 30th, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

Apple looking to profile users with heartbeat sensor, facial recognition on future iPhone?



By:Will Park

About Will -  Monday, August 23rd, 2010 at 12:28 PM PST

Apple The Big Brother

Apple isn’t just looking to keep their iPhone and iPod devices secure from the ever-present threat of users looking to jailbreak their smartphone/media player, the Cupertino, CA.-based tech company is apparently considering using biometric heartbeat sensors to verify authorized users. We recently mentioned that a newly uncovered patent application hinted at Apple’s plans to lock down or remote wipe data on iPhones that have been deemed jailbroken or unlocked. That, in itself, was a bit disturbing, but we’re not sure how to feel about a future iPhone being able to identify users by heartbeat, voice, or facial recognition.

On the one hand, the technology is impressive. We first saw Apple’s patent application on embedded biometric sensors about a year ago. The idea that a smartphone could use integrated sensors to detect users via heartbeat patterns, voice patterns, and pictures of users’ faces is like sweet, sweet music to a gadget geek’s ears. Automatic biometric identification sounds like a geek’s dream come true. In fact, this kind of technology solves one of the initial obstacles to artificial intelligence – the ability to accurately identify people.

Unfortunately, there are privacy concerns at stake here. Worse yet, there’s the unsettling potential that your iPhone could turn snitch on your biometric readings, should you decide to jailbreak your phone. Think about it. Upon detecting that you’re running a jailbroken or unlocked iPhone, this technology could very well report to Apple your unique biometric signature for future reference. From that point on, you could be tagged in some Apple customer service computer as a person to scrutinize when it comes time for warranty repairs or other customer service matters.

On the upside, it sure would be nice to know that your wayward iPhone was capable of detecting an unauthorized user and alerting authorities (and yourself, of course) that it is in the process of being “misappropriated” – all before you even realized that the handset is no longer in your pocket or purse. Apple’s Find My iPhone feature in its MobileMe service does a great job of tracking the phone and wiping all data (should it come to that), but that’s only possible if you A) know that your phone is missing and B) have a computer nearby to lock/wipe the handset.

The downside, of course, is being denied for customer service on your device because Apple knows that your unique biometric signature has been associated with a jailbroken, unlocked, or otherwise hacked iPhone. That’s not a pleasant thought – especially because Apple customer service is widely considered to be at the top of its game.

In either case, we’re not going to be able to stop the mobile industry’s march towards higher technology and more gadget wizardry as time goes on, so we might as well get used to new tech that makes us feel a bit uncomfortable.

What say you? Would you be inclined to buy a phone that included biometric security and technology that would be able to detect an unauthorized user?

[Via: AppleInsider]

Adobe CTO: Apple’s behavior a throwback to 1984



Biometric Drivers License – PIRATE PARTY OF OKLAHOMA

Aug 25th, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

BY D-USA, ON AUGUST 24TH, 2010

As the first results of our Endorsement Survey are arriving, and we feel that we need to clarify one of our questions and share our reasons for opposing a particular law in Oklahoma.

The Pirate Party of Oklahoma is not opposed to the inclusion of an identifying facial picture on drivers licenses issued to Oklahomans. Our drivers license was not created to be an ID card, it’s only purpose was to certify that the carrier of the license passed an examination by the Department of Public Safety and is authorized to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Oklahoma. For a law enforcement official to verify that the bearer of a license is the licensee in question, the official needs to be able to visually compare the person that is in possession of the license to the person the license was issued to. This objective is achieved by taking the picture at the time the license is issued and then printing it on the license.

The process we oppose is the collection of a biometric picture, in addition to biometric fingerprints, whenever a drivers license is being issued. Biometric facial pictures feature a higher resolution than is needed for a small picture on a license. This high resolution picture is then digitized, a biometric template is created, and together with a digital version of your fingerprint this information is stored in a database controlled by the Department of Public Safety.

Including a traditional photograph on your drivers license enables a law enforcement official to physically compare your face to the picture on the license. Taking your picture and adding your biometric profile stored in a database enables the Department of Public Safety to compare this profile to any other picture they want. This is already happening every time you renew your license, or when you change your address and have a new license issued. The Department of Public Safety takes a new biometric photo, converts it to a digital biometric profile, compares it with the previous biometric profile they have stored in your database, and if they match you get a new license.

The problem with technology like this is the always popular mission creep of our Government. Once the State of Oklahoma is in possession of your biometric profile, it can be used for many applications not originally indented by the legislators who wrote the law. Storing your biometric profile enables the state to use automated surveillance to monitor and log the activities of Oklahomans.

Using CCTV cameras already in use in many places, the state will be able to record crowds and use facial recognition software to scan the faces present at the event and match them to stored biometric profiles. Law enforcement officials would be able to use cameras mounted on vehicles to scan all the faces in a particular area and compare them to the database. Law enforcement officials on foot will be able to utilize hand-held video cameras to record your presence at a lawful rally, then scan all the faces and create a log of all people present. In short time the State of Oklahoma will have a database that shows that Oklahoman X was present at the Tea Party Rally, the Gay Pride Parade, and the Thunder playoff games. And by analyzing your past behavior, the state can anticipate your future actions.

While this might sound very futuristic and unlikely to many Oklahomans, we urge you to keep in mind that the same Department of Public Safety that is responsible for storing and using your Biometric Data is currently in the process of implementing an Automated License Plate Recognition System; one requirement of which is the ability to keep a database of the time and location each license plate was seen, even if no crime was committed.

Our Department of Public Safety has already demonstrated that given the opportunity to deploy an automatic system that gives them the ability to track the driving habits of any given vehicle in the state that passed the proposed camera systems, they will store this data even if no unlawful activity exists. This eagerness by the DPS to create a database of lawful activities does not give us much hope that they will be able to restrain themselves when it comes to the opportunity to perform additional monitoring of Oklahomans.

Oklahoma legislators are becoming increasingly aware of the threat created by technology such as this, and HB 2923 is a good example of turning towards the right path. HB 2923 would have deleted the biometric data stored by the Department of Public Safety, as well as requiring a return to non-biometric pictures on our license. If would also have prohibited the implementation of radio frequency identification technology , the use of which will require a separate article all together.

As Oklahomans who are concerned with privacy, and the increasing surveillance of our activities, we need to push our legislators to stop this invasive technology before it reaches a point of no return.



Biometric scanners raise privacy concerns

Aug 23rd, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: Articles

By Demian Bulwa • San Francisco Chronicle | Posted: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:15 am | No Comments Posted

Share

OAKLAND, Calif. • When the 24 Hour Fitness chain recently installed finger scanners as a way of verifying members’ identity, it was a public première of sorts for a powerful and fast-expanding technology — and a test of whether consumers will embrace it.

The scanners, which came to the chain’s 60 Bay Area gyms this month, are a form of biometrics, in which people are recognized through a unique physical quality. Although 24 Hour Fitness checks fingers, biometric devices can verify people’s identity based on the contours of hands, eyes and faces, a voice, even a scent or a style of walking.

The technology has become far more accurate and affordable in recent years, allowing it to move beyond longtime police and military uses and to be hailed as a potential solution to the menace of identity theft.

Corporate America has taken notice, as have privacy advocates, who say consumers ought to tread cautiously into a largely unregulated field.

Many companies now have employees punch in with biometrics. At schools, the devices restrict access or allow students to pay for subsidized lunches. The gym at California State University Chico uses hand scanners, while Walt Disney World scans the fingers of pass-holders. In some countries, finger scanners are built into ATMs.

“It’s just part of our cyber-existence these days,” said Dan Miller, a senior analyst at Opus Research in San Francisco, which has focused on voice verification. “The neat thing about biometrics is that you are the thing that identifies you.”

The novelty of the technology, though, prompted an array of reactions at 24 Hour Fitness. Outside a downtown Oakland gym one morning, many customers said they had signed up without reservation for the new “Cardless Check-in” system, seeing only speed and convenience.

“Why not? It’s cool,” said Michael Nguyen, 38, an engineer from San Jose. “It’s not a big deal.”

But others — some of whom refused to participate in the program, which is voluntary — felt as if they had stumbled into a science fiction plot. They worried that the gym was going to do something sinister with their scan, while admitting they couldn’t think of exactly what that would be.

“The only time I ever saw that before was in the movie ‘Total Recall,’” said Isaac Thomas, 36, a Caltrans worker from Vallejo. He said he had submitted to scanning but added, “Now I’m wondering what they’re going to do with my fingerprint.”

“I did not do it,” said Jenica Babbitt, 35, a social worker from Oakland. “I don’t know why I didn’t do it. It just seems weird.”

Another woman said she was concerned about the scanners but for a different reason: She often sneaks into 24 Hour Fitness under a friend’s membership. She declined to give her name.

Company officials, concerned about the public perception of the scanners, tested them for months at some locations while soliciting feedback from members. They say the reaction was overwhelmingly positive, with just 3 percent of people declining to be scanned during the pilot program.

The officials say they have no ulterior motive. They say the scanners simply allow visitors to show up without a club card and an ID, while preventing nonmembers from sneaking in. The company also saves on paper, plastic and postage, having issued 1.9 million cards last year.

Members using the machines must first enroll, submitting to an initial scan. Then, during visits, they punch in a 10-digit code before placing the pad of one of their index fingers over a small window. Using the code, the system compares the finger to the one that was previously enrolled. False matches, or rejections, are rare, the company says.

The system doesn’t actually store fingerprints of the type that could be compared with prints from a crime scene, officials say. The machines, made by MorphoTrak of Alexandria, Va., map out unique points within the ridges of a finger, then convert that information into a binary code— ones and zeroes — that is encrypted.

If someone were able to crack the encryption, said Gary Jones, MorphoTrak’s senior manager for biometric security products, “it would still be impossible to reverse-engineer the information into a person’s fingerprint image.”

Two privacy experts who have followed biometric technology said that, in isolation, the health club’s program may be perfectly safe. But they said consumers should be certain that biometric scans taken at places such as 24 Hour Fitness are stored securely and not used for any other purpose.

It is conceivable, they said, that a law enforcement agency could figure out a way to compare fingerprints with a database such as the one kept by 24 Hour Fitness. It’s also possible, they said, that finger scans could be stolen as credit card numbers are.

Jared Kaprove, an attorney who focuses on domestic surveillance at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said, “It’s easy to get a credit card reissued, but you can’t get your fingerprints reissued.”

Posted in MedicalNational on Monday, August 23, 2010 12:15 am Updated: 11:26 pm.



NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA BEGIN FINGERPRINT IMMIGRATION CHECKS

Aug 22nd, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has begun fingerprint checks with Australia as part of a biometric programme to strengthen border security and prevent identity fraud.

The programme will expand to include checks with the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States under the umbrella of the Five Country Conference (FCC), which has developed a system for securely – and with substantial privacy safeguards – matching fingerprint biometrics of persons of interest. Fingerprints of FCC citizens will not be shared“.

The system will help INZ combat fraud and strengthen border security by helping identify, early in the immigration process, people with criminal histories or those using false identities.

“Organised crime groups and illegal migrants are increasingly using identity and passport fraud to evade detection,” says Arron Baker, INZ’s Programme Manager for Identity and Biometrics.

“Biometrics uses technology to improve on traditional checks using names to detect and prevent these people from entering New Zealand. It is a fast, effective and privacy protecting way of quickly facilitating genuine clients while filtering out those who pose risks to New Zealand.”

INZ signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 30 June 2010, and is now completing similar agreements with the UK, Canada and the US.

The Department of Labour completed a Privacy Impact Assessment of the system in close consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. This is available to the public at http://www.immigration.govt.nz.



Canada: Privacy Watchdog seeks to stop Fingerprinting

Aug 10th, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

POSTMEDIA NEWSAUGUST 10, 2010 2:02 AM

Canada’s privacy watchdog has gone to court to stop the collection and storage of fingerprints from students who apply to medical schools.

Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart launched legal action in Federal Court last week, accusing the American Association of Medical Colleges of violating the Canadian law that governs electronic personal information.

The association administers the Medical College Admission Test on behalf of schools in the U.S. and Canada. It uses “biometric identity verification” to stop cheating on the tests.

But it also means the fingerprints and photographs of Canadian students who write the MCAT in Canada — even if they plan to attend medical school in Canada — could later be accessed by U.S. authorities under the Patriot Act.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Read more



Why no one wants DHS to play cyber mall cop

Jul 25th, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: Articles

The public has repeatedly rebuffed attempts by the federal government to centralize identification management

By Mike Spinney – Jul 22, 2010

Mike Spinney is a senior privacy analyst at the Ponemon Institute, which conducts independent research on privacy, data protection and information security policy.

The Homeland Security Department recently announced an initiative aimed at creating a more secure system of online identification. According to its Web site, the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace seeks to “improve cyberspace for everyone — individuals, private sector and governments — who conducts business online.”

That’s certainly a noble goal. But the very existence of NSTIC begs two very important questions: Does protecting me and my fellow citizens while we transact business online fall within the department’s areas of responsibility? And does DHS truly believe it can do what the private sector, driven by a clear and compelling profit motive, has yet to successfully accomplish?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no. DHS should focus on doing what its name implies — protecting the homeland — and resist the urge to demote itself into the role of national cyber mall cop.

I say this not to demean the department, which shoulders a weighty load in addressing the manifold threats to our shores in this age of terrorism, but because any effort by DHS to create a voluntary trusted identity program is doomed to fail.

The recent experience and backlash associated with Real ID — rebuffed by the general public and legislatively rejected by 11 states before being scrapped — and high-tech passports — subject to ongoing criticism for their security vulnerabilities — demonstrate that the public is uneasy at best and at worst dead set against any attempts by the federal government to centralize identification in any form. Another national identification storm cloud is gathering on the horizon in the form of the Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment provision of pending immigration reform. With every attempt at using technology to track citizens, George Orwell’s shadow grows longer.

Conspiracy theories aside, lessons learned from the evolution of Social Security numbers into a de facto national financial credential — in spite of being prohibited by the law that created them for any use other than the management of Social Security benefits — should be enough to remind us of what can happen with a national identification program even when it is conceived with the best of intentions.

Of course, DHS would not be the first organization to fail at creating a broadly successful universal digital identifier. Devices such as smart cards and tokens have been in use for years and are effective for managing identity-based access to secure enterprise systems. But such technology works best in a single organization because cost and management issues temper their advantages in broader applications.

At the consumer level, where individuals might be using multiple identities for a broad range of applications, any secure identity system would need to take into account the highly complex vagaries of human behavior. Doing so successfully in the private sector would be a feat with a multibillion-dollar payday — and there’s plenty of money and brainpower being spent on that effort already.

Consider, too, the challenges DHS faces in successfully launching a trusted identity program when the agency lacks the trust of the general public. In the Ponemon Institute’s annual Privacy Trust Study of the United States Government, DHS ranked 70th among the 75 federal agencies studied. The Citizenship and Immigration Services agency and Customs and Border Protection agency, both of which are part of DHS, ranked 74th and 75th, respectively.

If DHS believes that a more secure online experience will enhance homeland defense, that goal would be better served by the creation of an educational program that makes people more aware of how to safely conduct online activities. When you get beyond the Beltway, you find that too many people are making unsafe decisions online not because the technologies and techniques are lacking but because they simply don’t know any better. If left to persist, public ignorance will be the downfall of any trusted identity strategy.



The fake passport blog – part 2

Jul 21st, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: Articles


In a country where Nepali’s, Bangladeshis and Pakistani’s can practically walk across the border – why should a terrorist bother to fake a biometric passport?

It could come useful in certain situations. Why would someone like David Headley risk a clandestine crossover, when he could live in the best of hotels, mix in the most hallowed social circles – legally? It’s also a neat trick to shift blame to an Indian citizen, after a terrorist attack.

But an “attack” is not the only thing a cloned biometric passport can be used for. It can also be used to steal your identity. For cheap. If my last post made you believe it’s almost impossible to mess around with a biometric passport, I’m very sorry. Because this one – is about how it’s already been done. With equipment that costs less than ten thousand rupees.

Lukas Grunwald, a German security expert, did it in 2006. British newspapers reported on a similar stunt by Adam Laurie, in 2007. Jeroen Van Beek, a researcher in the Netherlands, actually walked into Amsterdam airport with a fake biometric passport made in the name of Elvis Presley. He was not stopped.

Just Google their exploits – most technically minded terrorists probably already have. Here’s a quick account of how they did it.

A biometric passport has a chip, about the size of the one in your mobile phone SIM. That chip is embedded in a radio transmitter, slightly smaller than your visiting card. The entire unit is then sealed, into the last, thick page of our passports. You’ll get one of these things when you apply to renew your passport.

Effectively – this passport is now a tiny radio transmitter. It emits radio signals at a certain frequency. And over those radio waves, it transmits the information stored in its chip.

If you have a radio scanner listening in on that specific frequency – you can intercept that data. You could be standing ten meters away, you wouldn’t even need to touch the passport. You could read it, then clone it.

I’ll get into the specifics later. But here’s why you should begin to get worried.

1.) Let’s say a terrorist knows he looks a fair bit like you. First, he’d clone all your passport details by eavesdropping on the chip. Then insert his new, cloned chip into a fake paper passport he’s already made.

He’d grow a beard or a pony tail – to confuse the airport guards. When they test his passport on their reader, it wouldn’t ring any alarms – after all it’s a perfect clone of a perfectly valid passport.

When they try to physically cross check his appearance against your facial image stored on the chip, they wouldn’t spot a difference. A biometric facial or fingerprint scanner would have rung alarms – but they’re very expensive and used at very few counters. So a terrorist COULD cross borders – using YOUR passport details.

There is also a psychological problem – if the machine says a passport is OK, airport officials will tend to believe it and drop their guard. They won’t bother to do a more careful physical check. Because that would take more time – and after all wasn’t the biometric passport meant to save time at check in counters?

2.) Or let’s say it’s scamsters who want to target you. The postman or courier boy who delivers your passport home, could copy details from its chip, without even opening the envelope. So could a hotel attendant abroad – when you show him your passport to book a room. Among those details, will be an exact digital copy of the first page of your passport.

This first page is something we often photocopy. We use it as a proof of identity – to open a bank account, to apply for a new phone connection, for a driving license etc. The scamster could send that first page to an Indian bank and open a new account in your name. And funnel in dirty money into it, without you ever knowing.

3.) There’s another loophole in the “Biometric Passport as extra security” scheme. When you walk into a country like the US with your passport, your info is not only scanned and crosschecked – it’s also stored on their servers for a very long time. This supposedly happens to all passports presented at immigration – part of their “War on Terror” is keeping track of the details and frequency of people’s visits.

In theory, a corrupt official in the department could gather your private data and sell it to people on the black market. Right now – someone else can’t easily match your unique biometrics. But technology gets better everyday, so a leak in the department would mean a terrorist could walk around with your identity.

4.) Another pinprick in the “security” angle. At least one researcher has shown how to trigger a small bomb when it comes close enough to radio signals transmitted by a particular country’s passport. Terrorists could also use a similar technique can to single out people of a particular country from a group – and target them for kidnapping/elimination.

It’s not just passports. The technology can be used to eavesdrop and clone other RFID or Radio Frequency Identification Devices. That includes the card you use to get entry into your office, your new driving license and perhaps even the upcoming UID or Universal Identity card.

Getting back to the passports. Inexpensive Radio Frequency scanners can easily be bought online. You could also build one by modifying the Bluetooth receiver on your PC. Software like Golden Reader, that let you communicate with a passport chip, are easily available on the net. The International Civil Aviation Organization or ICAO – the nodal agency behind the biometric passport movement, has it on its website.

When held over a passport reader at the airport, the chip and the reader first challenge each other with a code. Once each is satisfied the other’s a genuine party – the chip transmits the info it carries to the reader.

To prevent people from eves-dropping on this exchange, the designers of biometric passports used a simple trick. They printed a twenty four character, two line strip of data on one of the pages of the passport.

This “Strip” is called a “Machine Readable Zone”, or MRZ. Only after swiping this strip through a machine, would the passport reader be able to generate a valid challenge that the passport chip would respond to. So whoever wants to read the passport, would have to have it open, in his hand.

Smart. The problem is, the characters they’ve decided to print on that strip. Your date of birth, your passport number, its date of expiry and so on – in a specific pattern.

Clever programmers can guess those details. Your DOB, they find from sites like Facebook. From public databases online – they observe patterns in a long series of passport numbers. They also find out the number of passports issued everyday in the country.

They feed all that research into a maths formula that’s often used by companies to generate things like random credit card numbers. And crack the MRZ of your passport, on a normal home PC, in under two hours. The big expense – about Rs 10,000 for a radio scanner. With the MRZ code, a terrorist or scamster can suck data from your chip, standing upto ten meters away at the check in counter.

Governments could of course put in place a more complex passport numbering system. But though such demonstration attacks have been widely reported in the foreign press, they haven’t moved on this yet.

When someone like a postman has the luxury of holding your physical passport in his hand, he can suck it dry with another trick. He swipes the passport against his radio scanner many, many times.

The more the number of swipes, the higher the chance of the computer mathematically guessing the security code. In an ATM, if you enter the wrong code thrice – you’re locked out and can’t withdraw any money. A similar safety feature hasn’t yet been built into these passport chips.

A small backgrounder on how all this started in the first place. After 9/11, America decided that all foreigners entering its borders would need to have machine readable passports with biometrics – on the assumption that these would be tough to forge.

It demanded this of the 27 countries that had a visa waiver agreement with it. Most of Europe fell in line and soon, the rest of the world.

After researchers publicly carried out attacks on these passports, FIDIS, or the “Future of Identity in the Information Age” – a European Union funded body called the technology used in them “poorly conceived”.

“European governments have forced their citizens to adopt documents which dramatically reduce their security and privacy and increase the risk of identity theft.”

The Indian Government however – doesn’t seem to have listened.



Cancer Drug Erases Fingerprints

Jul 3rd, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: News

BBC – NEWS

A commonly-used cancer drug can make patients’ fingerprints disappear, potentially causing problems for foreign travel, a doctor warns.

One patient was held by US immigration officials for four hours before they allowed him to enter the country.

The case is highlighted in the journal Annals of Oncology.

The patient’s doctor, Eng-Huat Tan, from Singapore, advised all travellers to the US being treated with the drug capecitabine to carry a doctor’s note.

Dr Tan, based at the National Cancer Centre in Singapore, said several other patients had also reported loss of fingerprints on blog sites, with some also having problems entering the US.

Dr Eng-Huat Tan
National Cancer Centre, Singapore

“It is possible that there may be a growing number of such patients. They should prepare adequately before travelling to avert inconvenience”

Dr Eng-Huat Tan
National Cancer Centre, Singapore

His patient, a 62-year-old man, had head and neck cancer that had spread, but which had responded well to chemotherapy.

He was prescribed capecitabine to help prevent the cancer coming back.

Although the drug is commonly used to treat a range of cancers, it can cause chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet, leading to peeling, bleeding or blistering of the skin.

Over time this can lead to the loss of fingerprints.

Dr Tan’s patient developed mild side effects, and because they did not affect his daily life, it was decided that he should keep on taking a low dose of the drug.

In December 2008, after more than three years of capecitabine he travelled to the US to visit relatives.

Dr Tan said: “He was detained at the airport customs for four hours because the immigration officers could not detect his fingerprints.

“He was allowed to enter after the custom officers were satisfied that he was not a security threat.

“He was advised to travel with a letter from his oncologist stating his condition and the treatment he was receiving to account for his lack of fingerprints to facilitate his entry in future.”

Security measures

Foreign visitors have been asked to provide fingerprints at USA airports for several years.

The images are matched with millions of visa holders to detect whether the new visa applicant has a visa under a different name.

It is uncertain when a patient will lose their fingerprints, and in this case the patient was not aware that he had.

Dr Tan said: “Patients taking long-term capecitabine may have problems with regards to fingerprint identification when they enter US ports or other countries that require fingerprint identification and should be warned about this.

“It is possible that there may be a growing number of such patients. They should prepare adequately before travelling to avert inconvenience.”

Martin Ledwick, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said: “In a minority of cases, some chemotherapy drugs can cause hand and foot syndrome, where the skin can begin to peel on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet.

“For most people, this is reasonably mild.”



How will biometrics affect our privacy?

May 27th, 2010 | By Innovya follow-up | Category: Articles

by Jonathan Strickland

We’ve all seen movies in which a character has a retinal scan to prove his or her identity before walking into a top-secret installation. That’s an example of a biometric system. In general, biometrics is a collection of measures of human physiology and behavior. A biometric system could scan a person’s fingerprint or analyze the way he or she types on a keyboard. The purpose of most biometric systems is to authenticate a person’s claimed identity.

Biometrics tend to be more convenient than other methods of identity authentication. You might forget your ID at home when you head out the door, but you’ll still be able to use biometric devices. Imagine verifying your identity while at the store by swiping your finger across a sensor.

But along with convenience and security comes a concern for privacy. For biometrics to work, there needs to be a database containing the relevant information for each individual authorized by the system. For example, at that top-secret installation, every employee’s biometric signature would have to be recorded so that the scanners could verify each person’s identity. This might not present much of a problem on its own. If the only data the system stores relates to the actual biometric measurements, privacy violations are at a minimum. But by their very nature, biometric systems collect more information than just the users’ fingerprints, retinal patterns or other biometric data. At a basic level, most systems will record when and where a person is at the time of a scan.

I Recognize That Face

Biometric systems with cameras may use facial recognition software or study the way you move to identify you.

You might think of fingerprint or retinal scanners when you hear the word Biometrics, but the term has a broader definition. Facial recognition technology falls into the biometric category. There are already several cameras on the market that can detect faces. A few are able to recognize and remember a group of faces. You just take a picture of a friend, tag the photo and the camera will automatically tag any future photos of that friend. It’s both cool and creepy.

Imagine using this technology in public places to identify the people passing through. For example, a major city might install cameras at high-traffic areas to scan for terrorists or identify criminals. While the motivation for using that technology might be pure, it creates difficult privacy issues. The city would have a record of everyone who passed through that neighborhood. The technology treats everyone as a suspect as if it’s only a matter of time before each of us commits a crime.

And what happens if the technology makes a mistake and misidentifies someone? Weather conditions, clothing, hairstyles and even the cleanliness of the lens could affect the ability of the camera to identify people. Critics might ask: Why install a system that’s unreliable?

What happens if a person suffers an illness or injury that changes his or her appearance? Such a change could present problems with biometrics. Adjusting the biometric system to accommodate the change could also result in a violation of the user’s privacy. The system administrator now knows more details about the user.

A society with pervasive biometric systems would make anonymity a virtual impossibility. Should that society become oppressive or otherwise abusive to the population, the citizens would have few opportunities to react without revealing their own identities.

Groups like the Biometrics Institute are aware of privacy concerns and strive to create processes to limit the chance for biometric applications to violate a person’s privacy. Other groups advocate that companies, governments and other organizations conduct a privacy assessment before installing a biometric system. With vigilance and caution, we may find a way to incorporate biometrics into our lives and still maintain our privacy.