Are Compulsory Biometric ID Cards in our Future?

[bodypilot90 0]

***Proving your identity, and confirming the identities of others with whom you interact, has become one of the biggest problems of the 21st century. The combination of the world-wide terrorist threat and the growing problem of identity theft for the purpose of fraudulent purchases has led many nations to consider new methods for confirming the identities of their citizens and those who visit their countries. We have previously discussed the ultimate identity device: a computer chip physically implanted in the body. That idea has understandably met with resistance from many fronts. This week, let's look at some alternative solutions that governments are considering or proposing.

The U.K. published a draft bill at the end of April that would phase in ostensibly more secure identification documents over several years, beginning with passports that utilize biometrics (fingerprints, retinal scans and/or facial recognition). Drivers licenses and government ID cards that rely on biometrics are also included in the plan. Although the new cards are being called "non-compulsory" (a political move designed to make the idea more palatable to the public), the draft bill includes a provision giving the government the power to set a date for making the new cards compulsory. Oops. It always pays to read the fine print. The card will include a number to identify each person in a central database. To read more about these efforts, see:
http://www.winxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=040511ED-ID_Card

In the U.S., many states are already requiring finger or thumb prints to obtain driver's licenses and state ID cards. Thus far, the idea of a national ID card hasn't caught on, although many politicians, federal law enforcement agencies and others who have something to gain (perhaps most notably, Larry Ellison of Oracle, who would like to provide the software for the national database) have been pushing the idea.

While civil liberties advocates have kept the national ID card idea at bay, other databases have proliferated. The government is in the process of establishing a giant computerized database to check the backgrounds of airline passengers. The Social Security Number, once protected by law from being used for any purpose other than those related to paying into or getting benefits from the social security system and filing tax returns, has because a de facto national ID number. These days, you're asked for your Social Security Number before you can do anything from opening a bank account to ordering cable TV service.

Soon, providing a number probably won't be enough. A number can easily be stolen, and a paper card can easily be faked. It seems inevitable that biometric identification is the wave of the future. Problem is: these methods aren't entirely foolproof, either. For example, iris scan results can be skewed by tears or even long eyelashes (see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/watery_eyes_iris_scan), and fingerprint scans may not work for those with highly callused or worn fingertips. Will biometrics improve the ability to correctly identify persons? Is the extra cost (and the loss of privacy) worth the improvement? Are biometric ID cards just the first step toward the dreaded embedded chip? [/url]

good idea what do you think?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I think so Bill.
Although in what form, and what penalties for not producing them on demand should be the real question.
Us darn ferriners will have to have biometric data on our passports to enter the land of the free pretty soon, I think its a short step to make them compulsory for your citizens in certain circumstances.
Possibly you will need a biometric identifier to say board internal flights for example, you may require them to open a bank account, claim benefits, get free medical treatment, etc. I don't know if they will have to be with you at all times, thats up to your legislators.
Good or bad?
I don't really know, potentially some good could come from them, more likely they will just give people another reason to protest at the erosion of their rights. ID cards are pretty widespread in Europe already, but thats more of a convenience thing as we don't actually need passports to cross European borders if we are members of the EU, but we still need to be able to identify ourselves to immigration officials.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don't get the whole loss of privacy argument. Let's first assume that these cards are only required where we currently require ID (whether or not that will be true in the long run is admittadly an argument but lets just put that to one side for the moment).

Now I already need a card to prove I can drive.
I already need a card to prove I am who I say I am in order to get into another country. Now why is it a loss of privacy if that same document holds my finger print or eye scan instead or as well as a picture? What does it matter? Are people really that worried that joe bloggs might find out what their eye looks like?

If you're worried about the roll out of these cards to other area's of life then don't attack the fact that they're biometric - that simply prevents (or at least significantly reduces the threat of) fraud and identity theft. If the roll out worries you, attack it - attack the idea of rolling out identity requirement measures.

If I'm stopped in the street in America does the police officer not ask to see some ID already? Does it matter if it's biometric? I think it does - it means it's really me and some drug pusher hasn't "become" me. Does it matter that he's allowed to ask for it? Now that's a different question... one that is being confused at the moment for the first one. They are very different issues.

[Jimbo 0]

On the subject of a national ID card, I tend to agree with the ideas put forth in this essay:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I don't get the whole loss of privacy argument. Let's first assume that these cards are only required where we currently require ID (whether or not that will be true in the long run is admittadly an argument but lets just put that to one side for the moment).

well it may be that ssn# were only to be used for social security. Now the Number is needed to get credit, pay for the armed services ect, ect. Maybe a id chip like they give dogs. Who knows if they could put a combo cellphone, mp3 player speedpass style credit card and id you might be able to sell them

but then people might cut off your arm just for the mp3 player

maybe they feel they maybe tracked, black helicopters and such.

[PhillyKev 0]

Biometrics is not the issue for me. But we don't have a mandatory national id card here, don't know about you. Once one is implemented it would be very simple to create laws about having it with you at all times.

If a cop asks me for my id when I'm walking down the street. I don't have to give it to him....yet.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If a cop asks me for my id when I'm walking down the street. I don't have to give it to him....yet.

It's the whole Cold War notion about the USSR. "Papers, please" (and the please is not really a request.)

In truth though, if you are stopped for cause, even a minor one, not having ID could translate into detainment. And not having your health care could put you in a bind if you were in an accident. We're not too far removed from the above. We stil should resist codifying it on principle and note it offers no improvement.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In truth though, if you are stopped for cause, even a minor one, not having ID could translate into detainment.

If you're stopped for cause, having id is not going to help you either.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

I don't get the whole loss of privacy argument. Let's first assume that these cards are only required where we currently require ID (whether or not that will be true in the long run is admittadly an argument but lets just put that to one side for the moment).

well it may be that ssn# were only to be used for social security. Now the Number is needed to get credit, pay for the armed services ect, ect. Maybe a id chip like they give dogs. Who knows if they could put a combo cellphone, mp3 player speedpass style credit card and id you might be able to sell them

reply]

AND THE INCOME TAX WAS TO BE TEMPORARY!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In truth though, if you are stopped for cause, even a minor one, not having ID could translate into detainment.

If you're stopped for cause, having id is not going to help you either.

Not every offense requires the cop to haul you off. You sign a promise to appear (ticket), and go on. But if your identity can't be settled, they may have recourse to keep you instead.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

good idea what do you think?

What happens when someone steals your biometric id? You can't just call up the DMV/bank and ask for a new one. Think it's not possible? Think hard.

Early computerized fingerprint readers (middle 90's) could be triggered just by breathing on them softly. They were triggered by heat and moisture, and when the breath condensed on the optical plate it provided enough contrast to read the previous fingerprint. The mind boggles. Tissue cultures, gel casts, DNA theft, the works. It's not cloning we're talking about here... and it doesn't take a GED to do this kind of biology.

As Mr Schneier describes, the Risks are massive and the benefits are small.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Please explain to me how a card containing digitally encrypted data of my retina and fingerprints will help someone steal my DNA.

Please explain to me why someone stealing my biometric ID card is worse than someone stealing my photo ID card.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Damn you beat me to it Matt.

"Please explain to me why someone stealing my biometric ID card is worse than someone stealing my photo ID card."

But if someone takes your photograph, don't they steal a wee bit of your soul?

BTW if someone really, really, really, wants to steal your DNA they can do it any time they like, there's nothing you can do apart from adopting the life of a recluse.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please explain to me why someone stealing my biometric ID card is worse than someone stealing my photo ID card.

There a presumption of perfection with the latter.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Please explain to me how a card containing digitally encrypted data of my retina and fingerprints will help someone steal my DNA.

Getting DNA and cell samples is easy, humans leave a trail everywhere they go and on everything they touch. Stealing it is part of defeating certain biometric systems, though obviously not fingerprints and retina scans.

Quote

Please explain to me why someone stealing my biometric ID card is worse than someone stealing my photo ID card.

You seem to be confused about what biometrics are. Your photo isn't used how people biometrics would be used, it's on the other end of the spectrum of automation. Your photo is there for another human to perform a gut-check on the rest of the data on your id card. Biometrics would /be/ some or all of the rest of the data on the card. The part of the card that would be replaced would be the credit card number, driver's license number, social security number, or equivalent. Whereas numbers are assigned more or less arbitrarily to people, fingerprints and retinas are not. Once your essential biometric data is compromised you're kaput until you can get a new body. No amount of calls to the bank or DMV will help you get a new biometric ID.

Biometrics can't be used to replace a photo because there's simply no way that millions of people will ever be trained to assess them--machines will always be involved in digesting biometrics into a form that people can understand, and therein lies weakness.

It's just as bad for a photo to be used as a biometric data source...

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

You didn't answer either question!

I'm not confused about how biometric's work - they work EXACTLY the same way as a photo does - in fact a photo is a form of biometric data. It is simply a way of confirming with reference to physical attributes, that you are the correct holder of that card.

The only difference between the two is that a machine scans my retina and compares it to the encrypted data on the card. If the two match I am who I say I am. With a photo - a person (fallible + corruptible) compares my face to the data on the card; just the data is in pictorial.

It’s also a lot easier to find two people who look alike than two people who have the same fingerprints or retina.

You also seem to be under the impression that once someone has my card I can no longer use MY retina scan or fingerprint. Why?

That data is still assigned to me. I get a new card, I can continue being me. Unless someone can replicate my actual eyeball and actual fingerprint then they cannot pass themselves off as me and that technology is far beyond even science fiction.

If my card is stolen I notify the authorities and the chip number that is on that card is registered as stolen. The number is unique to the chip not to me - it registers the chip as stolen not me and not my data. Any card reader that card is swiped through now flashes red and gets the holder arrested. The stolen card is now useless and cannot be used to impersonate me.

Unless you're talking about being able to A) break into the gov't computers and adjust the data, or B) replicate my body tissues its gonna be hard to mess with the system.

How hard is it to stick another photo on top of my current photo driving license and pretend you're me?

Ok, so let’s say you've stolen my biometric id card. It's got encrypted info about my fingerprint and retina scan. How are you going to use that card against me?

Lets say you’re a common crook out to steal a couple of hundred $ or perhaps an asylum seeker just looking to pretend you’re a citizen so you can get handouts. How are you going to break the system? At the moment you could blue-tack a photo of yourself on top of the card or forge my signature and all of a sudden you are Mr. Smith. But now you have this funny chip…how are you gonna crack it?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You didn't answer either question!

Aye, the questions are tangential to the pitfalls of biometric ID, that's the point

Quote

The only difference between the two is that a machine scans my retina and compares it to the encrypted data on the card. If the two match I am who I say I am. With a photo - a person (fallible + corruptible) compares my face to the data on the card; just the data is in pictorial.

Then we agree there is a major difference. We differ in our a priori trust of computers vs people. I think computers today are and for the medium to long term future will be both more falliable and more corruptable than people in all interesting cases pertaining to ID.

Quote

You also seem to be under the impression that once someone has my card I can no longer use MY retina scan or fingerprint. Why?

Not your card, your data. Your card may not physically hold the data, but that's irrelevant. It's that once your identity is compromised the patrons of the system won't ever again be able to differentiate the real you from the compromised you. The manifestation of your ID in the physical form of a card is not relevant to the failings of biometric systems.

When you lose your credit card identity (your CC#, exp date, etc) the old number is deactivated and you get a new one. Your association with the old one is invalidated and you are paired with the new one. When you lose your biometric ID data (ID in this sentence is not the same as ID card) you'll have to appeal to your deity for a new one. Doing it this way eliminates what's called revocability. Would you disagree that revocability is a Good Thing?

Quote

Unless you're talking about being able to A) break into the gov't computers and adjust the data, or B) replicate my body tissues its gonna be hard to mess with the system.

A. Go in through the front door with your compromised biometric ID. It's the Sword of Damocles.

B. Your tissue is not protected. This is the no-GED-required bit. Tissue grows easily, and we drop free samples everywhere. All it takes is a petri dish. Replicating tissue != cloning. The specific example of replicating tissue is not applicable to retinas or fingerprints, as they are not replicated simply by replicating tissue. Tissue samples would defeat biometrics based on genetic alleles and other properties of tissue.

The Big Problem with biometrics is that the compromises are not well understood. Broad awe of technology is not enough to provide security. It's precisely our poor understanding of the failure modes of biometrics that makes them an extremely poor choice for ID.

It's absolutely fallacious to suggest that the paucity of studies done on biometrics implies they are safe.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

A. Go in through the front door with your compromised biometric ID.

How do you do this? Your fingerprints do not match those on the card? Your retina does not match that on the card? How are you going to use this card for anything?

Quote

. Your tissue is not protected... != cloning.

We are a very very long way from being able to clone fingerprints or retinas. Unless you know of some miracle way of doing this a biometric card with fingerprints and retina scans on it relates to me, and only me and can never relate to anyone else.

If it cannot relate to them it is useless to them. This is linked to your argument about revocability. If they can't use it why do I care if they have it? I can just get a replacement... my fingerprints will still match down at the bureau because they are attached to my hands. Their fingerprints and retina scans will never match the card so the card will never be of any use to them.

It is revoked in all practical sense - as soon as it leaves my possession the ability to use it has been revoked, as you do not match up with the card. Gluing a photo of yourself on top of it quite simply no longer cuts it.

You put the argument that it is the data that is important as opposed to the card itself. Ok, you now have my fingerprints. Now what are you going to do with them? How are you going to use that data against me? You can't reproduce my fingerprints, so what use is the data to you.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

We are a very very long way from being able to clone fingerprints or retinas.

No, we're not. Cloning fingerprints to the point that they fool the current generation of readers is really quite trivial for those who are interested in doing it.

Quote

You can't reproduce my fingerprints,

Wanna bet?

http://www.computerweekly.com/Article112549.htm

The presentation mentioned in the article:

http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/security/present/s5p4.html

The biggest problem with using biometrics as the end all/be all of identification systems is that they're only as good as the original ID (that is performed by a person). Any criminal wanting to be someone else should have about as much trouble obtaining a fake ID in a world of biometrics as he does today.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Fair enough - good job it'll have our retina scan on there too then

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Fair enough - good job it'll have our retina scan on there too then

and how does that help you when the criminal has an ID with your name and information on it but HIS biometrics? the same way a fake ID now can have a valid (but misapplied) identity and a picture of the person using it.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

and how does that help you when the criminal has an ID with your name and information on it but HIS biometrics? the same way a fake ID now can have a valid (but misapplied) identity and a picture of the person using it.

It doesn't.

The largest problem I see with the concept of biometric ID cards is that people will blindly accept them. I mean, why shouldn't they? They're based on BIOMETRICS for cryin' out loud! How could they possibly be fraudulent?

Biometrics are a nifty technology, don't get me wrong, but a national ID system based on them? No way. No freakin' way.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The largest problem I see with the concept of biometric ID cards is that people will blindly accept them. I mean, why shouldn't they? They're based on BIOMETRICS for cryin' out loud! How could they possibly be fraudulent?

I find it pretty amazing that fingerprints are allowable as positive id in court. It's pretty well established and accepted in the scientific community that finger print matching is more of an art than a science. Two different finger print experts can come up with wildly different results when given the same samples to look at.

[mr2mk1g 10]

That's true, other than the fact that these cards will be an awful lot more difficult to fake than curent photo ID's, there is little to prevent that kind of abuse.

Of course, that's not to say they would be worse than a photo ID but simply just as bad as a photo ID. That's the only question I've been asking. How are biometric ID's worse than photo ID's?

The only reason I can think of is that they may initially generate a degree of complacencey in that people will believe them to be infallible. That wont last long though if criminals start to crack the system.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

That's true, other than the fact that these cards will be an awful lot more difficult to fake than curent photo ID's, there is little to prevent that kind of abuse.

Why? What about them is going to be difficult to fake?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.