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.

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.

Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2010 Report to CongressDepartment of Homeland Security Report of the Chief Privacy Officer Pursuant to Section 803 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007June 23, 2010

Written by RSN Press Release,  SATURDAY, 17 APRIL 2010 15:40

The Rutherford Institute Joins with Broad Coalition to Urge White House and Members of Congress to Oppose Biometric National ID Card

Groups Insist That Comprehensive Immigration Reform Must Respect Civil Liberties and Privacy

WASHINGTON – The Rutherford Institute has joined with a broad coalition of groups urging the White House, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to oppose a proposal by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would include a biometric national ID card in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Signatories to the letter opposing the national ID card are from across the political spectrum and include advocates for privacy, consumer rights, gun owners, limited government and religious liberty.

(A copy of the coalition’s letter is available bellow)

“No one disputes that our broken immigration system harms both immigrants and non-immigrants, but a full scale National ID system is not the solution,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “A National ID would not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work.”

A biometric ID card, like the kind under consideration for inclusion in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation being considered by Congress, is a national system for identifying individuals that is used to determine if they are eligible for rights and benefits-a classic national ID. In order to create a biometric ID, every worker in America would have to present a birth certificate and other identification documents, then have his or her biometric, like a fingerprint, captured.

In its letter, the coalition stated, “A National ID would not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work.” Both Republicans and Democrats have opposed a National ID system. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical “mark of the beast,” and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother. Furthermore, as the letter points out, contrary to the contentions of Senators Schumer and Graham, it would be impossible to create such a system without establishing a national database-a central electronic repository-of Americans’ personal information.

Every government identification system currently in existence requires a database. Databases are necessary in order to reissue lost or stolen cards and as a check on fraud and abuse. Without record keeping, the same Social Security number and birth certificate could be used again and again to issue new cards to different people-defeating the entire purpose of the system. Such a central repository will be irresistible to identity thieves, hackers and those who want to misuse personal information for crimes like stalking.

_______________________________________________________________________

April 14, 2010

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Re: Oppose Schumer/Graham Biometric National ID Proposal within Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Dear Senator:

We write today to express our opposition to a proposal by Senators Charles Schumer (D – NY) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC) to create a biometric Social Security card – one that relies on personal characteristics like fingerprints to identify individuals. No one disputes that our broken immigration system harms both immigrants and non-immigrants, but a full scale National ID system is not the solution.

Both Republicans and Democrats have opposed a National ID system. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical “mark of the beast,” and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother. A National ID would not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work. As happened with Social Security cards decades ago, use of such ID cards would quickly spread and be used for other purposes – from travel to voting to gun ownership.

Contrary to the contentions of Senators Schumer and Graham, it would be impossible to create such a system without establishing a national database – a central electronic repository – of Americans’ personal information. Every government identification system currently in existence requires a database. Databases are necessary in order to reissue lost or stolen cards and as a check on fraud and abuse. Without record keeping, the same Social Security number and birth certificate could be used again and again to issue new cards to different people – defeating the entire purpose of the system. Such a central repository will be irresistible to identity thieves, hackers and those who want to misuse personal information for crimes like stalking. The cost of this system will be extraordinary, running to hundreds of billions of dollars and dwarfing the expense associated with other parts of immigration reform. As one example, the federal government recently began to issue a limited number of biometric ID cards, called Transportation Worker Identification Credentials. It is estimated that the Department of Homeland Security will spend $1.9 billion to issue cards to approximately 1 million workers.

Expanded to the entire US workforce of 150 million people, that would translate to a proportionately greater cost of $285 billion. A biometric system would likely have to be fee based – requiring not just government permission, but also a government fee to work. Adding insult to injury, this unaffordable scheme will probably never work. Even ignoring the enormous difficulties of creating a system to fingerprint every worker and distributing readers to employers across the country, the truth is that some employers prefer the ambiguity of the current process.

Unless significantly greater resources are dedicated to enforcing the law, employers will continue to have a strong incentive to circumvent a broken system. Such enforcement could be accomplished just as easily without a National ID.

A biometric ID system would be controversial and unpopular with constituencies across the ideological spectrum. It would require the fingerprinting of every American worker – not just immigrants. It would also require the creation of a bureaucracy that combines the worst elements of the Transportation Security Administration and state Motor Vehicle Departments. For all of these reasons we believe that a National ID system should play no part in the otherwise needed reform of our immigration system.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

American Policy Center

Americans for Tax Reform

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Calegislation

Campaign for Liberty

Center for Digital Democracy

Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights

Citizen Outreach

Citizens Against Government Waste

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Watchdog

Cyber Privacy Project

Defending Dissent Foundation

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Equal Justice Alliance

Former Congressman Bob Barr

Hispanic Leadership Fund

Home School Legal Defense Association

Indian American Republican Council

Liberty Coalition

National Center for Transgender Equality

National Lawyer’s Guild–National Office

National Whistleblower Center

Patient Privacy Rights

Privacy Activism

Privacy International

Privacy Journal

Privacy Lives

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Privacy Times

PrivacyRightsNow Coalition

Rutherford Institute

The 5-11 Campaign

The Identity Project

The Multiracial Activist

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

World Privacy Forum

Pradeep Thakur, TNN - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: After seeking information from the US authorities on who picked up the tab for Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley’s credit cards, security agencies have launched a crackdown against terror suspects using international cards as a mode of funding their operations in India.

In two operations in Lucknow and Delhi, intelligence agencies with the help of local police seized more than 65 international credit cards with at least Rs 4-5 crore withdrawn on them and distributed to sleeper cells, sources said.

In the first operation, the Anti-Terrorist Squad of the UP police last month recovered 20 international cards from two individuals in Lucknow after a close surveillance revealed that they were using the credit cards to draw money and pass it on to sleeper cells in the city on the instructions of Nepal-based masterminds.

In a similar action in the national Capital, officials of the Delhi Police raided a resident in Rohini and recovered 45 international credit cards from his possession along with Rs 6 lakh in cash. Initial questioning of the accused in both the cases that the revealed money was paid in Nepal and the operatives in Lucknow and Delhi were instructed to withdraw it and pass it on to contacts as per orders.

While the income tax department is on the job to map the economic footprint of these jehadis within the country, the government has roped in the Enforcement Directorate to register and investigate each of these cases to identify the sources of transactions made in foreign countries on these cards and further investigate the cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Meanwhile, the government is in touch with the authorities in US and Canada to ascertain who had paid for the credit card bills of Headley and other accused linked to the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.

A year-long investigation in the use of international credit cards by terror suspects in India has revealed that at least Rs 20-25 crore had been spent by them in the recent past across the country. These credit cards were issued in US, Canada, UK, Dubai, Nepal and Bangladesh and the bills were picked up by terror masterminds based there. Agencies are identifying all such payment gateways, their beneficiaries and sponsors.

The authorities are hopeful of busting the terror and narcotics syndicates by establishing a link between the users of such credit cards and their masterminds who are picking up the tab. Though the FBI has shared some details with the National Investigation Agency while referring to Headley’s co-accused Tahawwur Hussain Rana’s company, World Immigration Service, as one of the funding sources which also provided him a cover for his jehadi mission, it is not yet clear who picked up Headley’s credit card bills in the US.

Sources said Pakistan-based jehadi outfits are using the new modus operandi to fund their operatives in India without alerting the security agencies as the earlier hawala mode of funding had come under close surveillance.

WRITTEN BY: ALEX NEWMAN

Dilemma

The Government(s) intend to use Biometrics as an ultimate authentication tool, can they let the private sector use, collect or even share “Governmental” Biometric records?

Are they wonder whether companies will sell biometric data of our body parts the way they sell email addresses and phone numbers?

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators is teaming up with the Obama administration to legalize illegal immigrants and require biometric national ID cards for every American worker, prompting a swift and bipartisan backlash across the nation.

The proposal would unconstitutionally force nearly all Americans to obtain the new “tamper proof” Social Security cards while purporting to require that all employers purchase new $800 ID scanners. It would also provide a “path to citizenship” for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in America.

Led by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, pro-amnesty and national ID legislators have already started the public relations campaign to build support for the “new and improved” version of “comprehensive immigration reform.” In a column published by the Washington Post entitled “The right way to mend immigration,” the two architects provided a superficial glimpse at their agenda. And though the piece is lacking in details, it reveals a dangerous agenda that Americans must oppose in order to maintain freedom.

“Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here,” wrote Graham and Schumer. “We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card.”

The national ID cards would include a “unique biometric identifier,” according to Graham and Schumer. Some of the likely candidates include finger prints, retinal scans, or even the layout of a person’s veins in the top of their hand. Employers who refuse to “swipe the card” would face “stiff fines” and “prison sentences,” the Senators noted. “Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers,” they added.

President Obama promptly signaled his approval and pledged to “act at the earliest possible opportunity.” The White House released a statement noting that the President would do everything in his power to push the issue, and Obama called the Schumer-Graham proposal “a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward.”

After the Democrats recent success in ramming through the wildly unpopular health care “reform,” analysts suggested the “momentum” from that victory could help Obama and the Democrats in their efforts to pass a variety of legislation – including immigration “reform.” And despite broad opposition by a majority of Americans, the agenda marches forward.

But the proposals are already meeting fierce resistance from legislators, citizens and non-profit groups. “This so-called comprehensive immigration reform really means amnesty for the 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in America today,” explained Republican Representative Brian Bilbray of California, the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus. “What part of the word ‘illegal’ doesn’t the president understand?”

Congressman Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty sent out an e-mail to supporters vowing to battle the proposal as well, warning that it was a “statist’s dream” and that the immigration issue was being used as “cover” for an even bigger agenda.

“Instead of controlling the border and enforcing the rule of law, these statists want to control you,” explained the group’s president, John Tate. “Allowing our government to have this much ‘prying power’ in our lives will ultimately result in the TOTAL loss of freedom.”

Tate noted in the letter that this sort battle often determines whether a country will remain free or descend into tyranny. “You see, once ‘well-meaning’ government bureaucrats know exactly how we live our lives, it won’t be long until they try to run them,” added Tate. “In fact, it will only be a matter of time until they spend their workdays making sure you and I don’t go anywhere we ‘shouldn’t,’ buy anything we ‘shouldn’t,’ read anything we ‘shouldn’t,’ eat anything we ‘shouldn’t’ or smoke anything we ‘shouldn’t.’”

In the media, commentators have also blasted the proposal. “Graham’s [Republican In Name Only] tactics will enable the President to turn illegal aliens into documented Democrats.  And in the process, hand the Federal Government yet another way to monitor and control our lives,” explained Roger Hedgecock in a piece for Human Events. “Opposition to this tyranny will come from all parts of our divided political spectrum,” he predicted.

And indeed, even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union is gearing up to fight the “bipartisan” effort. “It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, the ACLU’s legislative counsel. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”

These amnesty and biometric national ID proposals are dangerous for a lot of reasons. And this battle is a crucial one. The Social Security cards will quickly go from being required to work — which is bad enough itself — to being needed for everything imaginable, from health care to everyday purchases. But the problem is not a lack of biometric ID cards for the serfs; it is the wide open Southern border and the unconstitutional incentives encouraging illegal immigration.

Legalizing the tens of millions of illegal immigrants will harm America on several fronts. Not only does it send a loud message that the rule of law means nothing (except if it furthers statist aims), it will also fundamentally alter the voting dynamics of America. The true solution to the illegal immigration crisis is to stop providing perks like welfare to law breakers, and to properly police the border and defend the states from invasion.

Citizens must unite to defeat this effort. If Obama and his allies like Senator Graham manage to force this monstrosity on the American people, the last remaining semblances of freedom will be in critical danger. Americans already said no to amnesty under former President George W. Bush. Why would adding an unconstitutional national ID scheme with biometric data make it any more desirable? This is not the “change” people voted for, and it must be opposed.

Photo of Senators Schumer (left) and Graham: AP Images

The EU’s own working group FIDIS (the “Future of Identity in the Information Society” research network) said safeguards on the biometric ePassports with embedded Chip were too weak.

By: Michael Scott Moore | March 17, 2010 | 05:00 AM (PDT)

One detail from the assassination last month of a Hamas leader in Dubai should, at first glance, ease the minds of privacy experts. None of the hit team — widely suspected to be Israeli Mossad agents traveling under stolen identities — used newfangled biometric passports. The 11 members of the team traveling with falsified European identities, used old-fashioned, unchipped passports, according to Interpol.

Biometric passports were one of the most powerful and unobtrusive changes to international travel that the United States insisted on after Sept. 11, 2001. As a direct result of U.S. pressure, all EU governments introduced more-expensive passports after 2006 that included RFID microchips to broadcast basic personal information, including name and passport number, your photograph, your fingerprints, and (if it’s been collected) a retina scan of your eye.

Washington demanded these passports from friendly countries that maintained visa-free travel agreements with the United States. To stay in the visa-waiver program, Washington said after 2001, friendly nations would have to upgrade their passports to high-tech, microchipped “ePassports” with machine-readable data.

The new documents belonged to what Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff once envisioned as “a worldwide system of tripwires,” set off by personal data, “that make it easy for the vast amount of travelers to move along unimpeded but that make it dangerous and difficult for terrorists to do the same thing.”

But they upset privacy experts who argued that RFID chips radiated unsecured personal details to the world, making it easy for criminals with a simple machine to read them. The EU’s own working group FIDIS (the “Future of Identity in the Information Society” research network) said safeguards on the first biometric passports were too weak.

“By failing to implement an appropriate security architecture,” the group wrote in 2006, “European governments have effectively forced their citizens to adopt new international Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTDs), which dramatically decrease security and privacy, and increase the risk of identity theft.”

After 2006, both America and the EU gave “second-generation” e-passports a measure ofsecurity” though whether they’re really a safe way to carry your data around will be a topic for a future column. The “Crypto Group” at Belgium’s University Catholique de Louvain, says no, and Europol argues that the supposedly secure passports are still vulnerable to counterfeiting by “determined” criminals.

But it’s significant that the team of assassins in Dubai who killed the Hamas commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, used old-fashioned passports. Any group willing to send an international hit team after a man would have to qualify as “determined,” and Mossad, according to Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad officer interviewed recently on Australian radio, has a passport “factory” dedicated to making counterfeits. “They create various types of papers, every kind of ink,” he said. “It’s a very, very expensive research department.”

So the new ePassports are possibly too much of a headache ”for now” for such a sophisticated operation. But tests carried out by The Times of London in 2008 suggested that falsifying an ePassport wasn’t complicated at all, so there could be another reason why Mossad might have avoided using biometric documents. Namely: The databases themselves might be vulnerable.

Jerusalem hasn’t started to issue ePassports yet, and one argument used by their opponents in Israel is that an entire national database of personal details could be hacked and revealed wholesale to a government unfriendly to Israel — say, the United Arab Emirates. Then the border guards in that country would have a way of double-checking the identity of, say, a Mossad agent trying to enter. Then “every Israeli agent who gives his fingerprint at a biometric border control station is liable to be in danger of exposure,” according to the Israeli paper Ha’aretz.

“The fear … is not unfounded,” the paper continues. “A similar database, containing the identity details of Israeli citizens, was leaked a few years ago from the Interior Ministry and can be download today, for free.”

But Rafi Eitan, an Israeli politician and former Mossad officer, believes the agency’s intelligence talents will catch up. “By 2015 most countries will have moved over to biometric identification methods,” he told Ha’aretz. But “… this will not affect the various intelligence activities in the future, because I assess that the organizations engaging in this will find suitable ways to overcome the difficulties ”should there be any.”

There may come a time, in other words, when you’ll need the trappings of a government to do something as tricky as counterfeit a passport.

VIDEO: Cloning passport card RFIDs in bulk for under $250

By: The Kentucky Anti Real ID

The concept of a National ID card has been around for quite some time, back to at least the creation of the Social Security Number (SSN), and while (SSN) is a form of identification, it is not a National ID card in the sense that is being promoted in our time. The push for a National ID card in the modern era started back in the 80′s during the Reagan administration. Reagan, being the type of man he was, knew exactly what this would lead to and flat out rejected the concept. It was brought up in the Clinton administration as well, and while opposition to it was not as strong as Reagan’s, Clinton also did not sign off on a National ID card. Unfortunately, though the times have changed, I feel we can no longer trust our Federal government to operate in our best interest; it has severely broken with the Constitution and the ideals that founded this union. After 9/11 everyone was scared, angry, wanted protection from terrorism, and in that hysteria, most people did not care what it was or how it worked. As a result we got the PATRIOT Act written two years before 9/11 that gives the government the authority, among other things, to enter your house when you’re not there and to take anything. It’s called a “sneak and peak” (and they say trust us on healthcare). The Military Commission Act (MCA) was passed that has language so vague that it could catch average citizens in the category of a “threat” to the government and warrant the same treatment our government gives terrorists. During the process of making us safer a National ID card also became law in 2005 that was tacked onto a tsunami relief and military spending bill as a national security measure meant to guard against terrorism, illegal immigration and identity theft. Being attached to the type of bill that it was guaranteed no opposition, and so it sailed right through Congress straight to the President where it became law.

I will now remind everyone at this juncture what a couple of founding fathers has to say about Liberty and Security:

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson

“Those willing to sacrifice Liberty for Security will get neither and deserve neither”

-Benjamin Franklin

The issue of REAL ID and all it entails is too complex to give in this medium, but I will give a brief overview and then direct you to a few sites where you can get all the dirty details. REAL ID is not just a National ID card but much more as it is an INTERNATIONAL ID card. When REAL ID became law, DHS had a non-negotiated rule making process, and so they inserted international regulations. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a UN agency, are the ones charged with setting the ISOs for identification programs of the various participating countries, and there are a lot that are participating. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) will be the entity that will see to the implementation of REAL ID. AAMVA is American in name only. As they state on their website they are an international organization. Then there are the corporations, most prominently, a company called L1-Identity Solutions. This corporation has a monopoly on identification cards (i.e. drivers licenses) like Microsoft does on computer operating systems.

The required data on these cards will not just be our physical attributes for identification purposes but our religious, political, educational, medical, financial, sexual, firearms, and biometric data will be on this card. Considering the fact that all our information will be on this card and that the state DMV databases will have to be linked and consolidated, the information will be held primarily by one corporation, and our government will be sharing it with any “nation” of the world such as Canada, England, Mexico, Australia, Russia, China, or Iran to name very few. There is no possible way for our information to remain secure. The more information or data on us that is compiled and shared, the more likely it will be stolen (130 million credit card numbers stolen). Note that one of the pieces of data that will be collected is biometric. When most people think biometric, they think fingerprints, iris scans, DNA; however, the biometric of choice is facial recognition because it can be taken without your knowledge or consent. A mathematical algorithm will be used based on your facial features to assign you a specific number. Law enforcement personnel do not need numbers to identify you, but a camera and computer surely does, and we are well on our way to being a surveillance society more than you think we are.

By: Stephen Patrick Hoffman, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

Abstract

Biometric identification techniques such as retinal scanning and fingerprinting have now become commonplace, but near-future improvements on these methods present troubling issues for personal privacy. For example, retinal scanning can be used to diagnose certain medical conditions, even ones for which the patient has no symptoms or has any other way of detecting the problem. If a health insurance company scans the retinas of potential clients before they purchase coverage, they could be charged higher premiums for conditions that do not present any issues. Not only is this unfair, but the ease with which these scans can be conducted—including scanning without the subject’s consent or knowledge—present disturbing privacy concerns and suggest an Orwellian future, instead controlled by Big Business rather than Big Brother.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine it is the year 2030. As you walk down your street to visit your favorite coffee shop, a camera mounted at the nearest intersection tracks your movements. Initially, you are just a set of pixels transmitted to a video screen somewhere; however, after your movement has been picked up by the camera, it uses algorithms based on general body and skull structure to pinpoint the location of your eyes. Once the camera has found your eyes, it projects an infrared beam of light into your eyes which would not be noticed because infrared light is not visible to the human eye. Using the reflection of the light from your retinas and choroids, the camera photographs the vasculature structure of your eyes and runs it against a database of known criminals, immigrants, and even people dissenting from popular opinion. If your retinal pattern matches that of a person listed in the database, the computer transmits this information to the proper authorities. All of this happens before you even step through the door of the coffee shop. This Orwellian1 future of an omnipotent Big Brother is not consistent with a free democracy subservient to the people.

However, this is not the only worrisome issue presented by this scenario—what if private companies, instead of the government, are the ones running those cameras? What if a health insurance company installs these cameras outside its offices to identify individuals and detect disorders and illnesses before they walk through the door? Retinal vascular patterns have been shown to anticipate future illnesses as well as conclusively identify several illnesses that the individual suffers from, and many of these are hereditary or genetic conditions. If the insurance company knows what you are susceptible to before you are personally aware or have been notified of, and uses this to refuse coverage or charge a higher premium for the policy you apply for, they have appropriated something extremely private of yours without consent and may use this knowledge to profit from your supposed “condition,” regardless of whether those future or current illnesses have manifested or will manifest themselves. Why should such an intrusive procedure be allowed without any concern to the privacy rights of those being examined?

Suggested Citation

Stephen Patrick Hoffman. 2010. “Biometrics, Retinal Scanning, and the Right to Privacy in the 21st Century“

Should our body be considered a form of property to government?

Biometrics and Security should enhance rather than conflict with individual privacy and dignity. As stated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): “Human beings should never be treated as merely means to an end” – Namely, ‘Human beings are already the purpose, they must not be sacrificed to fulfill other purposes’.

By: JILL SCHENSUL – TRAVEL COLUMNIST

E-mail: schensul@northjersey.com

OK, let’s calm down for a second. I think it’s time to put this issue on whole body scanning — aka “TSA porn” — in perspective.

Yes, these scanners can put together a good idea of what’s underneath our traveling clothes. That’s the point, after all, when looking for concealed weapons. But some privacy groups, passengers and elected officials watching out for our modesty think the results are a little too creepily lifelike. As Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, coiner of the TSA porn epithet, said: “Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane.”

The scans don’t exactly look like naked people. More like naked … avatars.

The TSA also says the machines have a program that blurs faces/identities. And they point out, on the Web page of information about the machines, that the scanner “does not store, print, transmit or save the image. All machines have zero storage capability and all images are automatically deleted from the system after they are reviewed by the remotely located security officer.” It’s not like you’ll be seeing yourself on some scangallery.com site in the future, or finding your head cloned onto some X-rated body.

Probably not, anyway.

An Internet watchdog group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC], has obtained documents from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting that the TSA wasn’t being transparent about what the machines can do; apparently, there’s a “test mode” that does allow for data storage and the export of images. Only employees with high-level clearance can access this particular mode, though, and certainly those folks are too busy poring over lists of terrorists and the like to be unleashing such unflattering images upon cyberspace.

‘Virtual strip search’

No matter what their ultimate fate, even subjecting travelers to these scans is an egregious invasion of privacy — tantamount, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, to a “virtual strip search.”

Hello? When was the last time these protesters went through a security check?

Invasion of privacy is what it’s all about. A veritable humiliation, violation marathon, from shoe removal to pocket-emptying, from undoing belts to declaring underwire bras, from swabbing our laptops to disassembling our carry-ons and pawing through purses. And the ultimate de-privatization – usually reserved for the beep-producers – is to be ordered into wanding position, to stand in that Leonardo DaVinci arms-and-legs-spread mode and be subjected to hand scanning and hand-goosings that somehow seem to suck all the freedom out of your soul.

All done before an audience of your peers. Who get to watch the belts come off and the beer bellies bared and the plumber-butts revealed as the beltless pants begin sagging. All in all, I’ll take the scanner.

The more worrisome aspect of these new machines, to me, is the radiation issue. I just keep thinking of those rolls of fogged film I’d get back from the labs every so often. The long strip of nothing but eerie billows of gray, the fallout of overradiation.

So when the TSA tells us the new scanners’ X-rays are harmless, I think about the little sign they used to have at the security screening area, way back when, that assured us X-rays would not harm film up to 400 ASA. And I think about all that gray.

The TSA already has 40 whole body scanners at airports around the country, and, since the recent close call on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, has decided to buy and deploy nearly 450 more.

There are actually two types of scanners being tested. Experts in the field of radiation seem in agreement that millimeter wave technology, which uses radio frequency energy for scanning, is harmless.

Opinions vary on the safety of the backscatter machines, which use low-level X-rays. The dose of radiation is small – about 0.1 microrem of radiation, compared with 100 microrem for a chest X-ray or 10,000 microrem for a CT scan.

According to TSA officials, backscatter machines produce a clearer image.

Radiation danger?

In an article on the American College of Radiology’s Web site, Mayo Clinic neuroradiologist Peter Kalina questions the use of even small doses of ionizing radiation in non-medical applications. “The amount of radiation may be extremely small and safe, but parents have to grasp that their 4-year-old child is being subjected to radiation. Some parents will be concerned,” he says.

David J. Brenner, a Columbia University professor of radiation oncology and public health, worries about subjecting pregnant women to the scans, too. He also says that about 5 percent of the general population is radiosensitive, among them women who carry certain breast cancer genes.

The TSA says these scans will be voluntary – you can opt for the pat-down if you want.

Kalina is concerned about a potential scenario in which a less-developed nation might adopt backscatter scanning technology, but fail to keep its scanners calibrated. “As a traveler,” he has said, “I don’t know who’s checked that machine or equipment. Can I be sure there won’t be a larger dose of radiation coming from it?” I believe he said this before the recent discovery that 206 patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles received eight times the normal dose of radiation from a CT scan machine with a computer-resetting error.

Risk-benefit analysis

But all these debates are secondary to the real question: Are the benefits worth the risks, hassle, humiliation and expense?

The new scanners might do a better job than the current technology but obviously have their drawbacks, and opinions vary on whether they can reliably detect weapons hidden in body cavities. And they’re simply an option – not even a terrorist can be forced into one.

The scanners are a good straw to grasp at after the latest high-profile oops in the security system was brought to light.

The problem is, every new measure is simply a reaction to the latest near-miss, a Band-Aid rather than a real systemic change for the better. Various tech companies that make the equipment will certainly benefit in the short term, but will the cost and the risks really benefit the war on terrorism and make us safer?

I’m with Bruce Schneier, an internationally recognized security technologist who said that while whole-body-imaging technology “works pretty well,” the financial investment is a mistake. He believes money would be better spent on intelligence-gathering and investigations.

“It’s stupid to spend money so terrorists can change plans,” he said by phone from Poland, where he was speaking at a conference. If terrorists are swayed from going through airports, they’ll just target other locations, such as a hotel in Mumbai, India, he said.

But the orders are already in for another 100 of these machines. So, well, we’ll deal with it. I’m going to opt for the whole scan thing, especially if I don’t have to take off my shoes. And the new option should at least cut down on the incidence of plumber butt.

But technology is just one link in the security system.

And as the recent incident shows, no matter how much intelligence we gather, no matter how many alert systems we put in place, they’re useless if ignored.