Biometric Data

TheEnforcer

Looks like the big boys will soon require the handing over of Biometric data to travel into or out of any country. I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/20/interpol-facial-recognition

What do the boardsies think??

Hee hhee hhee he, sneaky, sneaky, it will protect us from the "bad guys"?

Danbo!

TheEnforcer wrote: »

What do the boardsies think??

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

R0ot

noblestee wrote: »

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

I hope to god Big Brother finally kicked him in the hole. :pac:

Boom_Bap

TheEnforcer wrote: »

I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

TheEnforcer

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

Why not have a camera in your front room, you might get an attacker coming in some day???

The dead are alive and well, I see.

R0ot

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

Someone doesn't know what biometric data is.

javaboy

I assume the OP wears gloves at all times to avoid Big Brother getting his fingerprints?

BaconZombie

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

sure about that....it's having a picture of you taken. Is CCTV a violation of basic human rights?

If it helps catch crooks, then why not?

javaboy

R0ot wrote: »

Someone doesn't know what biometric data is.

Are you talking about the Guardian writer or Boom_bap?

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

robinph

Taking pictures won't help prevent anything. Might make figuring out who did the "bad thing" was long after the event, but even that is doubtful as it would mostly just be used for putting pictures of the "bad guys" on the front of the next days papers once it's all over.

TheEnforcer

javaboy wrote: »

I assume the OP wears gloves at all times to avoid Big Brother getting his fingerprints?

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

Have you no sense of privacy.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

javaboy

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

What laws specifically allow covert collection of data?

Have you no sense of privacy.

Yes I do.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

Wrong.

Quazzie

Private things should be done private places. Things done in public places are.. you guessed it.. Public!

TheEnforcer

javaboy wrote: »

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voicing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

TheEnforcer

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Private things should be done private places. Things done in public places are.. you guessed it.. Public!

:rolleyes: Private security guard: "bend over"
Quazzie : "is that far enough?"

Fratton Fred

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

you obviously don't watch any of the police camera action type tv programmes then.

I have nothing to hide, I don't care.

javaboy

TheEnforcer wrote: »

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voiceing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Prominent thinkers such as.....?

Are you talking about the "it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than......" idea? Because I don't think that's the same thing really.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

Ugh. No. I won't read the Sunday World thanks.

Kiera

noblestee wrote: »

I think run_to_da_hills is on holiday or getting slow

He's off fapping over his new found friends post!

TheEnforcer

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you obviously don't watch any of the police camera action type tv programmes then.

I have nothing to hide, I don't care.

Here we go. This man sits watching police propaganda shows everynight.

Ever think of all the people filmed and not shown? Or do you think at all?

dsmythy

OP, what are you up to that you're worried about being caught over?

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

TheEnforcer

dsmythy wrote: »

OP, what are you up to that you're worried about being caught over?

Brilliant, what did that take 19 replies?

dsmythy wrote: »

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

Yes, burned down preferably.

dsmythy

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Brilliant, what did that take 19 replies?

Yes, burned down preferably.

It's tired old and worn but true. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

That's grand about the cctv. Can you start in Dublin City Centre because i feel like going on a drunken rape spree over the weekend without getting my mug caught on tape.

Quazzie

I find paranoid people really funny.

"they're out to get me" roughly translates as "I wish I was important enough that someone actually wanted me. Coincidently this type of talk is more common in Mental Hospitals than in public forums. Ever wonder why?

javaboy

javaboy wrote: »

BOFH_139 wrote:

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.
And yes denying people there right to privacy is a breach of their human rights.

It has? When exactly was that? How was it proved? Wouldn't a single instance of it being used to identify a criminal prove that it does work?

Well BOFH_139? How was it proven that CCTV doesn't work to solve crimes?

javaboy wrote: »

What laws specifically allow covert collection of data?

Are you avoiding my question Enforcer? What laws are you on about?

robinph

dsmythy wrote: »

Do you want all cctv to be taken down?

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

javaboy

robinph wrote: »

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

By that logic we shouldn't bother to fight crime at all since places with high levels of policing still have crime.

cooperguy

BOFH_139 wrote: »

It been proven that CCTV does not work to prevent and/or solve crimes.

I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of places where cctv has been put in and crime has dropped HUGELY

dsmythy

robinph wrote: »

Well the only purpose of the cameras seems to be in creating crap shows for Sky so far, not sure that they have achieved anything else by having all the cameras around. The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

People still get away with things but how many more would also do so without it? Most crime is committed by repeat offenders. The more of them collared the less crime there should be.

The only time cctv fails is when it is poorly implemented with shoddy pictures or poor maintenence.

Now if you go to my website you'll find good quality cc...

cooperguy

robinph wrote: »

The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere on the planet, bad things still happen there, bad people still don't get caught. What benefit is there in actually having the cameras there, unless you work for the CCTV manufacturer?

Thats a very simple question to answer. Less bad stuff happens, more bad stuff gets caught. I dont think anybody expected all crime to stop around the CCTV. They arent magic.

thelordofcheese

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Looks like the big boys will soon require the handing over of Biometric data to travel into or out of any country. I think this is crazy, and a violation of basic human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/20/interpol-facial-recognition

What do the boardsies think??

Hee hhee hhee he, sneaky, sneaky, it will protect us from the "bad guys"?

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Interesting point, consent was required in the past. However in the past few days "laws" have been passed to enable the covert collection of data.

Have you no sense of privacy.

Let me guess, all your little life is spread over BEBO, are you a little celeb?

TheEnforcer wrote: »

As many prominent thinkers of the past have said (you won't find todays puppets voicing anything other than the party line) it is better to have a few murders every year, you'll get it anyway, and live in a free state.

Read the Sunday World lately, you would think this place was like the wild west in its prime. Same old story, scare the plebs and rush in new laws to protect (read enslave) them/

TheEnforcer wrote: »

:rolleyes: Private security guard: "bend over"
Quazzie : "is that far enough?"

Y'see, heres the problem. Any actual concern over the concept, implementation and use of a biometric data system is overshadowed by the fact that every single one of these threads descend into the OP acting like a cretin and calling everyone else a 'pleb' or 'sheeple' or somthign else.
And then nobody listens to you because you're acting like a moron.

Now, surely you'd have realised this by now, because i'm guessing it's not your first attempt to 'warn' people.
The only conclusion is that you're just an attention seeking troll who actually has no interest in any of the possible ramifications of a biometric system, you just need to have someone pay attention to you for longer than five seconds.

Of course if the opposite is true and you genuinely believe in this then you're probably the best thing to happen to the case for biometric data. Nothing strengthens a case like having all the opposition to it be comprised of dribbling lunatics and the socially backward.

BaconZombie

Billions of pounds spent on Britain’s 4.2 million closed-circuit television cameras has not had a significant impact on crime, according to the senior police officer piloting a new database.

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville said it was a “fiasco” that only 3 per cent of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3877670.ece

cooperguy wrote: »

I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of places where cctv has been put in and crime has dropped HUGELY

javaboy

So if 3% of street robberies are solved via CCTV, how then can you argue that it has been proven that they do not work to solve crime. Clearly they do work. Not as well as some people might have thought. But they do work.

Wile E. Coyote

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Billions of pounds spent on Britain’s 4.2 million closed-circuit television cameras has not had a significant impact on crime, according to the senior police officer piloting a new database.

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville said it was a “fiasco” that only 3 per cent of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3877670.ece

That post has just proved that cctv does work. Maybe not as well as people were expecting but it does work. And one of the comments in that piece that you just linked to also prove that it works.

We seem to have forgotten that CCTV footage was used to arrest the failed bombers of July 21 before they had a chance to fix up their bombs and then go out to do their evil. I would have thought that CCTV paid for itself in that one incident

Fratton Fred

TheEnforcer wrote: »

Here we go. This man sits watching police propaganda shows everynight.

Ever think of all the people filmed and not shown? Or do you think at all?

I try and watch, but my tin foil helment interferes with the TV signal :mad:

At least it stops the bastards reading your thoughts:eek:

kevmy

True CCTV may not prevent many crimes from happening but it surely helps catch the criminals after the fact. That in itself would be worthwhile.

On topic how is taking pictures of people an invasion of privacy? Is your face private? How is this any different than wanted posters?

People confuse human rights and privacy with being allowed to do whatever they want.

Your privacy is internal to yourself. It is very difficult to invade your privacy by use of CCTV cameras - unless it is used in bathroom cubicles or your own house.

javaboy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I try and watch, but my tin foil helment interferes with the TV signal :mad:

At least it stops the bastards reading your thoughts:eek:

Road Wars is the worst police propaganda show of the lot. Did you know if you rearrange the letters in Road Wars you get Sow Radar??????? Sow=female pig, pigs=police-> ROAD WARS=POLICE RADAR!!!!

I think the only logical conclusion to draw is that Road Wars is a vehicle of the police propaganda machine and it's primary purpose is to steal our thoughts! :eek:

Run_to_da_hills

The "Mark of the Beast" option for the forehead would not work effectivly without a facial recognition database.

BaconZombie

And to get back to Biometrics, most of it is easily hacked.

The government plans to use ePassports at Immigration and Border
Control. The information is electronically read from the Passport
and displayed to a Border Control Officer or used by an automated
setup. THC has discovered weaknesses in the system to (by)pass the
security checks. The detection of fake passport chips does not
work. Test setups do not raise alerts when a modified chip
is used. This enables an attacker to create a Passport with an
altered Picture, Name, DoB, Nationality and other credentials.

The manipulated information is displayed without any alarms going off.
The exploitation of this loophole is trivial and can be verified using
thc-epassport.

Regardless how good the intention of the government might have been, the
facts are that tested implementations of the ePassports Inspection System
are not secure.

ePassports give us a false sense of security: We are made to believe
that they make usemore secure. I'm afraid that's not true: current
ePassport implementations don't add security at all.


Link to Video => http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3185369830560352967&hl=de

http://freeworld.thc.org/thc-epassport/

Run_to_da_hills

BOFH_139 wrote: »

And to get back to Biometrics, most of it is easily hacked.



http://freeworld.thc.org/thc-epassport/

Biometric smartcards and E passorts are total waste of time without having additional on the spot facials or thumb scanning.

The first E passport was cloned within hours of being issued

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6182207.stm

BaconZombie

Thumb scanners can be bypassed using just gelatin.

basically you lift the fingerprint, scan it, and reproduce it in the type of gelatin
used to make gummy bears (could easily be done with gummy bears, and you could eat the evidence!).
this worked for optical and conductive sensors, and would likely also work for capacitive sensors
though you might have to dope it or adjust the moisture content. to make the gummy bear type
gelatin finger, you make a
reverse image with photolithography on a circuit board, which is the way hobbyist make them, and the
supplies are widely available, and use that to form the fake "finger tip" with finger print. it's a
scam, like many, many security technologies.

http://seclists.org/vuln-dev/2004/Jan/0078.html

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Biometric smartcards and E passorts are total waste of time without having additional on the spot facials or thumb scanning.

The first E passport was cloned within hours of being issued

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6182207.stm

javaboy

This thread started out as an ideological rant against biometrics. Now it's turned into an attack on their implementation.

If they were implemented flawlessly, would people still have objections to the use of biometric technology? And if so, what alternative would they propose?

Run_to_da_hills

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Thumb scanners can be bypassed using just gelatin.

Thumb print scanners can also be "by passed" by swabbing your thumb with nitric acid, try swabbing this on your face just before a facial recognition scan. :eek:

robinph

javaboy wrote: »

This thread started out as an ideological rant against biometrics. Now it's turned into an attack on their implementation.

If they were implemented flawlessly, would people still have objections to the use of biometric technology? And if so, what alternative would they propose?

Yes, because they will still leave the laptop containing the database on the back seat of a taxi.

javaboy

robinph wrote: »

Yes, because they will still leave the laptop containing the database on the back seat of a taxi.

It's only a matter of time!

But let's say there's no screwups and no memory keys containing our DNA left on the back of the 76A etc., do people really have a problem with biometrics?

humanji

javaboy wrote: »

It's only a matter of time!

But let's say there's no screwups and no memory keys containing our DNA left on the back of the 76A etc., do people really have a problem with biometrics?

Have you not seen Terminator? It all ends badly!

TheEnforcer

javaboy wrote: »

Are you avoiding my question Enforcer? What laws are you on about?

New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups

By Jason Lewis
Last updated at 12:33 AM on 19th October 2008

• Comments (86)
• Add to My Stories

MI5 and the police may be allowed to secretly collect genetic samples from items such as cigarette butts and teacups under new laws that could massively expand the national DNA database.
The powers would allow investigators to break in to suspects’ homes to collect DNA which could then be shared with foreign governments to check for links to crime and terrorism.

TheEnforcer

Another tip, with this facial recognition technology, expect to be asked to remove sunglasses in all buildings. The main means of verifying the person is the distance between the eyes.

Of course others will now wear sunglasses all year round, hopefully we won't get mistaken for the "new" ireland type.

javaboy

TheEnforcer wrote: »

New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups

By Jason Lewis
Last updated at 12:33 AM on 19th October 2008

• Comments (86)
• Add to My Stories

MI5 and the police may be allowed to secretly collect genetic samples from items such as cigarette butts and teacups under new laws that could massively expand the national DNA database.
The powers would allow investigators to break in to suspects’ homes to collect DNA which could then be shared with foreign governments to check for links to crime and terrorism.

Ok I read the Daily Mail article you linked to (I'll take a shower later) and it seems to be about a law that hasn't been passed yet. Nothing to get too panicky over just yet. Lots of laws get proposed but never make it to the statute books. Any update on whether this one got through or not?

And besides, the proposed law doesn't seem to give the police any huge new powers. So they would be able to get prints and DNA off your cigarette butts or teacups. Big deal. There is absolutely nothing stopping any citizen who might have more malicious aims than the police doing this already. I don't see too many people going around in bunny suits to avoid giving away their precious biometrics at the moment.

And as for using sunglasses to counteract facial recognition systems, are you also going to mask your speech to avoid voiceprint recogntion? Are you going to use a funny walk to avoid gait recognition? Just stay at home if the whole thing worries you that much.

TheEnforcer

javaboy wrote: »

Just stay at home if the whole thing worries you that much.

The fact that this issue does not worry a lot of people is frightening.

But then the little guys think it is all to protect them.

Homer

/I'm off to post a link in Humour to this thread... That Enforcer fella is taking some of whatever Kerry Katona is on.. Pure Nuts

Threads like these are why I love boards! (And subscribe....hint hint!!)

Quazzie

TheEnforcer wrote: »

But then the little guys think it is all to protect them.

What have dwarves got to do with it. Are they in on it too.. Little fuckers