Biometric Passports

sliabh

Not the best location for this, but people may be able to answer the questions

The EU is moving forward with plans to include biometric identifiers in passports [URL=http://]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/25/eu_adds_passport_fingerprints/[/URL]

In the US these passports are to feature RFID chips that are readable at a distance which is a scary concept. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/rfid_passports.html

I have not been able to find out if EU Passports will follow the US route with RFID chips. Does anyone know if this is to happen?

If it is the plan, then it's probably the time to start pushing for this to be dropped. Is there any group working for this (like we had eVoting pressure groups)?

garthv

to be dropped?
as in not goin ahead?
what is it with irish people and technology?Can they just not handle the future?
ffs the whole electronic voting thing was a step into the future and just because a couple of c*nting old biddies couldnt handle it,it was thrown out.Are the Irish people afraid of change?

Sparks

the whole electronic voting thing was a step into the future

Sure it was. One in which electoral results couldn't be trusted. Did you even read the arguments against the electronic voting system Cullen tried to saddle us with?

garthv

ffs man,this country is backwards enough as it is,stop trying to keep us in the dark ages(cheesy methaphor but its too early in the mornin)

sliabh

GaRtH_V wrote:

to be dropped?
as in not goin ahead?
what is it with irish people and technology?Can they just not handle the future?

I have no problem in principle with the storing of biometric information in passports. Its the implementation that is the problem (as with electronic voting).

In the US personal information is to be stored unencrypted on a RFID chip that can be read by anyone with the right equipment at a range of metres, without you knowing. As was described in the Bruce Scheiner article I linked to, this is a major security risk.

I'd rather see a system where the details are stored on a chip that can only be read when it is brought into contact with a reader, not scanned at a distance.

Rev Hellfire

I'm curious as to what you feel people can do with this biometric data you speak of ?
I agree that the data in a unprotected format is less than ideal, but most of it is can be obtained easily elsewhere.

I can hear the black helicopters ...

MrPudding

What is the point of having bio-metric data on passports? What does it actually do? It simply proves that the person holding the passport is probably the person that applied for it, so what? Do you not think that terrorists will be able to get genuine biometric passports in another name? Would you trust a bio-metric passport issued in a country known for corruption and state sponsored terrorist?

MrP

bonkey

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm curious as to what you feel people can do with this biometric data you speak of ?

Well, if its RFID-based, then your movements can be physically tracked should anyone ever wish to.

jc

Hobbes

Anyone upset with RFID passports will be happy to know that the EU plan to put RFID's into the currency. I believe next year is the deadline for that. Although there are tin foil hatters who reckon they are already in there.

sliabh

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I can hear the black helicopters ...

No I am not that paranoid.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm curious as to what you feel people can do with this biometric data you speak of ?
I agree that the data in a unprotected format is less than ideal, but most of it is can be obtained easily elsewhere.

The biometric data is less of a problem as it's harder to reuse. But your name, nationality, date of birth, place of birth, passport number and sex are all in a passport. Having them available in a broadcast friendly format makes it easy for you to be identified in a crowd for criminals or commerical interests.

At the very least it's providing the potential for a major violation of your privacy. You have no control over who is getting to read your personal data. Would you walk down Grafton street with all the information in your passport on display for anyone to see?

sliabh

MrPudding wrote:

What is the point of having bio-metric data on passports? What does it actually do? It simply proves that the person holding the passport is probably the person that applied for it, so what?

What it means is that once a person has been identified as a suspect they are easier to track. Right now you get a false passport with a new photgraph and a new name and even though you are on a watch list you can still travel.

With biometrics you can change the name on the passport, but you can't change your fingerprints. It does mean that you have to have a suspect's fingerprints in the first place, but it raises the bar for a criminal/terrorist that is trying to move around.

A lot of the guys organising the September 11 attacks were known, but travelled on false documents. This would have been much harder for them if they had to have passports with biometric data.

It's not the biometrics that I have a problem with. I think that's a sensible move. The problem is the use of RFID chips that can be read by anyone, at a distance without you knowing about it.

MrPudding wrote:

Would you trust a bio-metric passport issued in a country known for corruption and state sponsored terrorist?

That doesn't matter as the fingerprint record in the passport has to match the one the person presenting the passport has when they arrive at customs/immigration. They can't change their fingerprints even if they got a dodgy passport from a crooked official.

MrPudding

sliabh wrote:

With biometrics you can change the name on the passport, but you can't change your fingerprints. It does mean that you have to have a suspect's fingerprints in the first place, but it raises the bar for a criminal/terrorist that is trying to move around.

I appreciate what you are saying but in order to track someone there will need to be a central database of finger prints. This will have to be scanned completely each time a passport is scanned.



What I mean is this, lets say the SSF becomes a proscribed organisation and it’s members are being mercilessly hunted down. I decide things are getting too hot and decide to get a new biometric passport in a different name. I see no reason to believe people will not be able to get genuine false passports. So I get a new passport and I am now Mr Dessert, sweet (pardon the pun.) I go to passport control and hand over my passport, they look up my name and the biometric data matches. Of course it does, when I got my new passport I gave my biometric data and got the passport I am MrDessert.



That is not very good though. It means you just need a new passport in a different name and you will be missed by the watch lists. What you need to do is check my biometric data against every other piece of bio-metric data on record, that way you will find out if I am registered anywhere by a different name. This makes a number of assumptions. The first one is that there is a global database of finger prints that every single passport control station in the world needs to be able to access. Then you have to get people to accept that the process of passport checking could now take a very long time as there are going to be a lot of comparisons to run each time a passport is checked.



Who will administer this database? Where will it be? Who will pay for every countries passport control to be connected to it? What happens when the leased line or ISDN line is some poor developing country goes down and they have no access to the database, are people allowed in or out? Who will protect our data and make sure it is not abused?



MrP

bonkey

sliabh wrote:

A lot of the guys organising the September 11 attacks were known, but travelled on false documents. This would have been much harder for them if they had to have passports with biometric data.

From what I recall, they had valid, legally obtained passports. They just obtained the passport using falsified information. So had the new passports been in place, they would have made no difference.

It's not the biometrics that I have a problem with. I think that's a sensible move.

I agree, simply because a picture is simply not a sufficient means of identification. Consider twins. Consider that my passport mugshot was taken when I was a short-haired, clean-shaven, suit-wearing type. My Visa mugshot (cause Visa cards have that here) on the other hand, has a scruffy, long-haired, goateed bloke on it.

The problem is the use of RFID chips that can be read by anyone, at a distance without you knowing about it.

Agreed, although I do believe the distance is quite small. More importantly though....if they want to compare what is stored against your own prints...they need you to physically be at a scanner......so whats the benefit in employing RFID, other than funding an emerging technology?

That doesn't matter as the fingerprint record in the passport has to match the one the person presenting the passport has when they arrive at customs/immigration.

Yes, but unless those fingerprints are on US record, that makes no difference.

For example, if the US don't have a fingerprint of Osama bin Laden, he can get a passport saying his name is John Smith, with his own fingerprints on it. Voila - matching biometrics under a false ID.

sliabh

MrPudding wrote:

This makes a number of assumptions. The first one is that there is a global database of finger prints that every single passport control station in the world needs to be able to access.

No, each country has (and would continue to maintain) their own watch and barred lists. If just because we are not likely to agree with (for example) the Chinese government that the Dalai Lama needs to be detained immediately as a dangerous radical

MrPudding wrote:

Then you have to get people to accept that the process of passport checking could now take a very long time as there are going to be a lot of comparisons to run each time a passport is checked.

Something that happens already when an alien enters most countries. This is why we have machine readable passports these days. Mine is scanned most weeks when I enter AND leave Germany.

Imposter

MrPudding wrote:

What you need to do is check my biometric data against every other piece of bio-metric data on record, that way you will find out if I am registered anywhere by a different name. This makes a number of assumptions. The first one is that there is a global database of finger prints that every single passport control station in the world needs to be able to access. Then you have to get people to accept that the process of passport checking could now take a very long time as there are going to be a lot of comparisons to run each time a passport is checked.

That check only needs to be ran when the passport is being issued. It does however assume that a person who wants a false but real passport will already have a genuine passport.

Bonkey wrote:

Agreed, although I do believe the distance is quite small. More importantly though....if they want to compare what is stored against your own prints...they need you to physically be at a scanner......so whats the benefit in employing RFID, other than funding an emerging technology?

At the moment this technology can only be read over a small distance. Who knows what advances would occur in the future to allow it to be read from longer distances. I think Schneier covered this in his article.

Is it just the Biometric info they're storing on the chip or is it all information (name, DOB etc as well as biometric info)?

sliabh

bonkey wrote:

From what I recall, they had valid, legally obtained passports. They just obtained the passport using falsified information. So had the new passports been in place, they would have made no difference.

Correct, but what I said was the organisers were known, not the guys that carried it out. Some of the people responsible for co-ordinating the attacks, providing funding and training were tracked from time to time in the far east and entering and leaving the US. If you read the 9/11 comission report they are strongly of the opinion that restricting their ability to travel would have had a major impact on the plans.

bonkey wrote:

Yes, but unless those fingerprints are on US record, that makes no difference.

Certainly, but all around the world there are watch lists of "potentials". This would just be updated with fingerprints.

bonkey

sliabh wrote:

If you read the 9/11 comission report they are strongly of the opinion that restricting their ability to travel would have had a major impact on the plans.

Yup. I'm actually somewhat skeptical of that conclusion, but regardless, the point I would more lean towards is that I honestly don't believe that this updating of passport tech will significantly impact their ability to travel.

Certainly, but all around the world there are watch lists of "potentials". This would just be updated with fingerprints.

Easy to say, but hard to implement.

You need to have the fingerprints first...which isn't as easy as it sounds. I mean...in most places, the only reason you'd have their fingerprints is if they were convicted of something previously...

Also...think about it...what purpose does the RFID-enabled-passport serve in checking fingerprints? You can physically fingerprint the individual at check-in, and compare against your database of "watch out for these". So why would you need to update the passports at all? Why aren't they already doing this? Answer : impractical or too costly. RFID-passports won't make it any easier...they will actually add another set of comparisons to be done (instead of passenger vs watch-list, it will be passenger vs passport and passenger/passport vs watchlist.

The only possible benefit is that the passport can be compared against the watchlist remotely, but unless you're gonna test every passenger anyway, you won't be sure that the passport biometrics match the passengers. It still doesn't really improve security.

jc

jc

sliabh

bonkey wrote:

So why would you need to update the passports at all?

To prove that the person holding the passport is the person that it was issued to. For a person travelling to the US that is not a criminal/suspect they would not have the fingerprints of everyone in the world. So how would they confirm that the person in front of them is correct for the document, except by confirming the scan they just gave matches the record in the passport.

But this isn't really for discussion as the decision has been made that biometrics are going in so that is not going to change. What is up for discussion (and what I was asking about) is the use of an RFID chip to store the data.

monkeyfudge

As far as I know the only information that RFID chips contain is an ID number. When scanned, this ID number is used to retrieve the relevent data from a database.

So if a 3rd party wished to obtain your information, they would also need access to this database. But there is nothing to stop other groups using the ID number for their own databases, with their own information on it. Take the social secuirity number in the US for example, that is used for all sorts of marketing purposes now. I was trying to purchase airline tickets over the phone last time I was in the US, and they wouldn't let me because I didn't have a social secuirity number.

I think the whole RFID thing is a bit dodgy. In Barcelona there is a night club where you can have a chip surgically implanted in your arm, so that you can use it to pay for drinks.

sliabh

monkeyfudge wrote:

As far as I know the only information that RFID chips contain is an ID number. When scanned, this ID number is used to retrieve the relevent data from a database.

For product tracking purposes (as is being suggested in supermarkets) that is true. But you can store other data in there as well. I have hear of data capacities of up to 64 kilobits in passive tags.

Swarfboy

This is pants....while not agreeing with the idea of even having my 6 month old sons fingerprints taken.... I suggest this...
Why not just chip everyone...it's where we are heading anyway..why waste time money and effort. Just chip them man!

Hobbes

The issue with them is "Who can read them". If it is a passive sensor put into passport then I personally don't think it is a big issue. As it can only be read from less then a foot. Max would be 10 feet.

Now if they have a battery to boost gain then you can be talking over 300 feet. Which is an issue.

Most Passports btw already have biometric information in them, but it is in encoded into a barcode on your passport. UK doesn't have this yet though and are adding it. So requires a certain reader.

Btw, all you need is tinfoil lined bag and your passport can't be scanned.

Hagar

None of this will matter when the good ole USA suceeds in it's master plan of taking over the world. We'll all be Americans living in America. We won't need passports because we'll always be in the USA! Besides all our peronal details will be hidden in the Coca Cola logo which was emblazoned on our foreheads at birth.

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

We'll all be Americans living in America.

Doubtful. Its much better for the US to create a "Territory" instead of a "State". That way you still pay American taxes but have no say in who gets elected.

seamus

Hobbes wrote:

The issue with them is "Who can read them". If it is a passive sensor put into passport then I personally don't think it is a big issue. As it can only be read from less then a foot. Max would be 10 feet.

That's what I'm thinking.

The key here is that the data is unencryted (that means that not only can it be read by anyone, but anyone can also create their own cards, with the right equipment) and readable at a length. A guy heads into an Airport departures, doesn't even have to go near the gate, sits there with a paper to read/laptop, and he could read hundreds, even thousands of passports in a single day. Take those detais, alter them slightly for a different individual (change fingerprints, hair color, race, etc), and print off a new passport for thousands of different people.

Too easy.

therecklessone

Hobbes wrote:

Doubtful. Its much better for the US to create a "Territory" instead of a "State". That way you still pay American taxes but have no say in who gets elected.

Did somebody mention the Boston Tea Party?

And I don't mean a Red Sox celebration...

luckat

As I understand it, the US is going to hold information on all European citizens' biometric passports, whether they are going to travel to the US or not; the converse is not so.

Swarfboy

Chip Them.... Chip Them All.. Now.!

bonkey

Yes yes. We heard (and ignored) you the first time.

bonkey

sliabh wrote:

To prove that the person holding the passport is the person that it was issued to.

And we come back full circle.....because this doesn't really help with security

What is up for discussion (and what I was asking about) is the use of an RFID chip to store the data.

Fair enough...I would have said that using anything to store data is worthless if the data doesn't solve the problem its supposed to, which would have meant that the value of the information should first be ascertained...but either way.....

The use of RFID is pointless. It solves nothing over and above non-transmission-based tech (if anything at all is solved by the proposed implementation of either).

To make matters worse, the use of RFID is potentially problematic, depending on the nature of the information stored. Identity-theft is already a big issue, and here's a system where (for example) someone could theoretically scan and store identity-relevant information for anyone in their vicinity.

The most charitable option that I can think of is that its being pushed to help boost the emerging RFID industry, both in terms of getting it accepted and in terms of indirectly funding the area.

After that, the only other options that can't be summed up as "its a mistake" would all seem to be where the government wants to do more with this chip then just use it to crack down on terrorism....cause it ain't gonna do this.

jc

Hobbes

Another thing I would be curious about is, what is going into the chip and can it be written to?

If it contains anything more then a serial number (of the passport) then there is a problem.

If it can be written to, then that is a serious problem. Someone with the right material could cause havoc in an airport. Remove someones serial and put in another of someone who they want to send to costa-del-gitmo.