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

This threat brought to you by RFID

By Dan Goodin in San Francisco • The Register

Computer scientists in Britain have uncovered weaknesses in electronic passports issued by the US, UK, and some 50 other countries that allow attackers to trace the movements of individuals as they enter or exit buildings.

The so-called traceability attack is not the only exploit of an e-passport that allows attackers to remotely track a given credential in real time without first knowing the cryptographic keys that protect it, the scientists from University of Birmingham said. What’s more, RFID, or radio-frequency identification, data in the passports can’t be turned off, making the threat persistent unless the holder shields the government-mandated identity document in a special pouch.

“A traceability attack does not lead to the compromise of all data on the tag, but it does pose a very real threat to the privacy of anyone that carries such a device,” the authors, Tom Chothia and Vitaliy Smirnov, wrote. “Assuming that the target carried their passport on them, an attacker could place a device in a doorway that would detect when the target entered or left a building.”

To exploit the weakness, attackers would need to observe the targeted passport as it interacted with an authorized RFID reader at a border crossing or other official location. They could then build a special device that detects the credential each time it comes into range. The scientists estimated the device could have a reach of about 20 inches.

“This would make it easy to eavesdrop on the required message from someone as they used their passport at, for instance, a customs post,” the authors wrote.

The attack works by recording the unique message sent between a particular passport and an official RFID reader and later replaying it within range of the special device. By measuring the time it takes the device to respond, attackers can determine whether the targeted passport is within range. In the case of e-passports from France, the process is even easier: electronic credentials from that country will return the error message “6A80: Incorrect parameters” if the targeted person is in range and “6300: no information given” if the person is not.

The research is only the latest to identify the risks of embedding RFID tags into passports and other identification documents. Last year, information-security expert Chris Paget demonstrated a low-cost mobile platform that surreptitiously sniffs the unique digital identifiers in US passport cards and next-generation drivers licenses. Among other things, civil liberties advocates have warned that those identifiers could be recorded at political demonstrations or other gatherings so police or private citizens could later determine whether a given individual attended.

To be sure, the practicality of traceability attacks is more limited because a targeted passport first must be observed within range of a legitimate reader. But once this hurdle is cleared – as would be relatively easy for unscrupulous government bureaucrats to do – the attack becomes a viable way to track a target.

Chothia and Smirnov of the University of Birmingham’s School of Computer Science said the security hole can be closed by standardizing error messages and “padding” response times in future e-passports. But that will do nothing to protect holders of more than 30 million passports from more than 50 countries who are vulnerable now, they said.

And that’s sure to fuel criticism of RFID-enabled identification.

“This is a great example of why e-passports are a bad idea,” Paget wrote in an email to The Register. “It’s simply too expensive to replace vulnerable documents (especially when they have a 10-year lifespan) in response to legitimate security concerns, regardless of their severity. People will continue to poke holes in e-passports; without a mechanism to fix those problems there’s a strong argument that’s we’re better off without the RFID.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199—israelification-high-security-little-bother
The ‘Israelification’ of airports: High security, little bother
Cathal Kelly Staff Reporter 

Voyeurism Security

While North America’s airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel’s, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.

“It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He’s worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

“Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.”

That, in a nutshell is “Israelification” – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death. 
Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel’s largest hub, Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?

“The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport,” said Sela.

The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?

“Two benign questions. The questions aren’t important. The way people act when they answer them is,” Sela said.

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of “distress” — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.

“The word ‘profiling’ is a political invention by people who don’t want to do security,” he said. “To us, it doesn’t matter if he’s black, white, young or old. It’s just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I’m doing this?”

Once you’ve parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.
Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion’s half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.

“This is to see that you don’t have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious,” said Sela.
You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

“The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds,” said Sela.

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil’s advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

“I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is ‘Bombs 101′ to a screener.. I asked Ducheneau, ‘What would you do?’ And he said, ‘Evacuate the terminal.’ And I said, ‘Oh. My. God.’

“Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let’s say I’m (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let’s say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, ‘Two days.’”

A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.
First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

Second, all the screening areas contain ‘bomb boxes’. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

“This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports,” Sela said.

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

“But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America,” Sela said.
“First, it’s fast — there’s almost no line. That’s because they’re not looking for liquids, they’re not looking at your shoes. They’re not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you,” said Sela. 

“Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes … and that’s how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys.”

That’s the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.
This doesn’t begin to cover the off-site security net that failed so spectacularly in targeting would-be Flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — intelligence. In Israel, Sela said, a coordinated intelligence gathering operation produces a constantly evolving series of threat analyses and vulnerability studies. 

“There is absolutely no intelligence and threat analysis done in Canada or the United States,” Sela said. “Absolutely none.”

But even without the intelligence, Sela maintains, Abdulmutallab would not have gotten past Ben Gurion Airport’s behavioural profilers.

So. Eight years after 9/11, why are we still so reactive, so un-Israelified?

Working hard to dampen his outrage, Sela first blames our leaders, and then ourselves.

“We have a saying in Hebrew that it’s much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it’s dark over there. That’s exactly how (North American airport security officials) act,” Sela said. “You can easily do what we do. You don’t have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training.. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept.”

And rather than fear, he suggests that outrage would be a far more powerful spur to provoking that change.
“Do you know why Israelis are so calm ? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies.

They know they’re doing a good job. You can’t say the same thing about Americans and Canadians. They don’t trust anybody,” Sela said. “But they say,… ‘ So far, so good…’ Then if something happens, all hell breaks loose and you’ve spent eight hours in an airport. Which is ridiculous. Not justifiable

“But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don’t know any different.”

BY HENRICK KAROLISZYN AND SAMUEL GOLDSMITH
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Originally Published:Sunday, December 27th 2009, 11:11 PM
Updated: Tuesday, December 29th 2009, 1:25 PM

Some fliers say whole body scanners, which cost about $150,000 apiece, are no more invasive than a security patdown procedure.

Some fliers say whole body scanners, which cost about $150,000 apiece, are no more invasive than a security patdown procedure.

Read more:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/28/2009-12-28_fliers_favor_naked_truth_in_airport_body_scanners.html#ixzz0bZ4ftN3K

Bring on the body scans!

Beleaguered airline passengers said Sunday they have no problem with controversial new “whole body scan” machines that give screeners an undressed view of travelers.

The technology is in use at a handful of U.S. airports, including Salt Lake City and Los Angeles International, and is still being tested by the Transportation Security Administration.

“I don’t mind [the scanner] because it would be in place for safety,” said Samantha Day, 44, who flew into Kennedy Airport from London.

“It’s no more invasive than someone touching every part of your body” during existing patdown security procedures, added Marni Blitz of Robbinsville, N.J.

Opponents argue the machines violate personal privacy because they show images of the naked body. Advocates counter that they’re vital to safety – and would have detected the explosives sewn into the underwear of a Nigerian man who tried to blow up a flight over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The body imaging machines cost about $150,000. They emit some radiation, but experts say it’s far less than what passengers are exposed to on a normal flight.

Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told the Daily News that naysayers have delayed installation of the scanners.

He said the botched attack on Flight 253 shows that they are a needed weapon in the anti-terror arsenal.

“Privacy advocates and the ACLU have slowed or stopped the deployment of the machines with a barrage of objections,” Chertoff said in an e-mail. “The bad guys have figured out this vulnerability. Isn’t it time we deployed these machines?”

Read more:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/28/2009-12-28_fliers_favor_naked_truth_in_airport_body_scanners.html#ixzz0bZ4vfGUI

Australia Post has revealed plans to introduce new technology to allow Post Office staff to take fingerprints, biometric scans and digital signatures from customers applying for services such as bank accounts and passports.

The new Identification Services Program Project is expected to be adopted at all 4,443 retail Post outlets, but is currently being tested at 25 Australia Post-owned outlets across NSW and Western Australia.

If approved by State and Federal Governments, Australia Post would become the first non-law-enforcement organisation to take digital fingerprints for commercial purposes.
The power is currently limited to law enforcement Agencies, the Courts, spy Agencies and the Defence Force.
Spokesperson for Australia Post, Alex Twomey was reported in the press as confirming fingerprinting capabilities would be introduced over the next two years and that staff would be trained in protocols for storing and transmitting customer information.
“Fingerprint information will be stored for six hours at the outlet and then transferred for storage at a central Australia Post database,” Mr Twomey said.
“Under Agency agreements, we would then be required to wipe the information after it was sent to Government Departments or other corporate clients.”
According to reports, Australia Post plans to install the data capture equipment at 375 of its own outlets by the end of June 2010, followed by another 400 in 2011 and then 2,000 privately managed post offices nationwide.
Funding for the Identification Services Program project trial was approved in March 2009.
Chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Dr Roger Clarke said he was concerned over the lack of public discussion surrounding the new system.

“These types of initiatives are just too important to introduce without public discussion,” Dr Clarke said.

He said “securing fingerprints and other data across such a large retail network was a major concern as it would be difficult to design a system to protect all information”.

By Swati Prasad, ZDNet Asia – Friday, September 25, 2009 04:59 PM

NEW DELHI–The need for standards and concerns over security and privacy were highlighted this week, as the Indian government prepares to roll out various e-government projects based on biometrics.

“The industry, government and academia need to collaborate to evolve standards for biometrics,” Nandita Jain Mahajan, IBM’s India South chief privacy and information security office, said during the India Preparatory Meeting: Biometrics and Data Protection, held here Thursday. The two-day event was organized by the Data Security Council of India, a self-regulatory organization led by Nasscom.
According Mahajan, the Indian government should adopt open standards to avoid heavy dependence on one technology vendor.
The country is in the process of deploying biometric cards for various e-government schemes, including the national unique identity card and e-passport projects.
“No government wants to be locked into any one technology,” S. K. Sinha, senior director of National Informatics Centre (NIC), said during a panel discussion, adding that India has put much emphasis on standardization for the technology.
“The Indian government is working on a national standard for biometrics [and] wants to have a technology standard that is open and provides a level-playing field so that many vendors can take part,” Sinha said. However, he noted that standards should be established such that they can widely adopted by the industry. “Standards should be implementable,” he said.

Are biometric cards privacy-compatible?
According to Shree Parthasarthy, a director at Deloitte said biometrics is “as old as forensics”, taking into account several factors such as the iris scan, finger prints, appearance, social behavior, skull measurement, voice, and so on. “It’s impossible to replicate or mimic all of these characteristics,” Parthasarthy noted.
And while biometric cards offer better security, he noted that there are several primary concerns over the use of such cards, including questions about privacy protection, misuse of biometric data and how biometrics will support privacy policies.
According to Mahajan, there are three technology components in biometrics: acquisition, extraction and matcher. Often, all attributes of biometric cards do not match and the acceptability error rates can be high, he said.
“If your password is compromised, you can change it, but if your biometrics is compromised, what can you do about it,” he questioned.
Y. D. Wadaskar, managing director of Pune-based IT security products company, WYSE Biometrics Systems, said: “Every individual is unique and therefore, biometrics and privacy go hand in hand. We need to trust these cards just as we trust our doctors and lawyers when we share personal information with them.”
Sunil Dhaka, chief information security officer of ICICI Bank, said the bank has been successful in implementing biometric cards for agriculture-based banking in rural areas.
“Since rural India has no Internet or tele-banking facility, we realized the solution had to be online-offline ready,” Dhaka said. “With such cards, we can do banking at the speed of thought.”

One billion ID cards challenge
Zia Saquib, executive director of Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), who also attended the meet, noted that deploying biometric cards for citizens in New York is different from implementing similar schemes in rural India. C-DAC develops applications for e-government projects.
According to Saquib, data collection and enrolment in rural areas can prove a challenge as “identification is a sensitive issue,” he said.
“We need to have strong authentication processes in place at the time of enrolment, he explained, adding that biometric data must not be stored in the same place as personal data.”
Biometric data must be stored locally,” he said. Saquib also highlighted the benefits of using digital rights management methodology for biometrics, giving users access to information only on a “need to know” basis.
Sinha said generating over 1 billion national unique ID cards cannot be done with small number of stakeholders. “You need different stakeholders for enrolment, creation of database, generating algorithms, verifying and distributing these cards,” he added.
“And when you have so many stakeholders, the need for standards becomes all the more critical,” he noted. Asked how the government plans to address privacy and security concerns over biometric cards, he said it is still too early to provide comments.
Sinha said: “All we can say is that the data will be highly protected and we will put several cyber-controls and encryptions in place, in both online and offline mode.”
Swati Prasad is a freelance IT writer based in India.