ai_Droid Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 One thing I'd like to throw in is the danger of escalating sensitivity of authentication. Google in my book is a really bad example of this. I created my google account years ago, with a fairly weak password, but that's fine, google was only my search engine then. Now, I create documents in google, I prepare spreadsheets of my personal finances, I put photo's of my kids up, I put money into my google wallet and I pay for goods with it. All using that same shite password I set years ago and they've never asked me to change it..... So I can see the argument that a trivial authentication now in terms of thumbprinting can be a danger in future, but only if security systems are daft enough to pile on more sensitive info to an old login. The banks fortunately, the ones that really matter, don't appear to be going down this route. This, like I've been saying, is an argument for more biometric and stronger authentication. I'd far rather google authed me with a username, a thumbprint and some sort of two factor pin. Yes, that means they have more data about me, but it also means I'm better protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Their spokesperson went on to say: “We urge people, especially parents, to see this controversial film – it’s not only for P A G members. Admission is free and everyone is welcome, but places are limited – just reserve a seat by phoning: 863106 or e mailing: info@positiveactiongroup.org” Positiüe Action Group >>>>>>>2 FOR 1 EVENT<<<<<<<< MONDAY 22nd OCTOBER 2007 at CLAREMONT HOTEL, DOUGLAS (A) 6.00 p.m. - Webcasting presentation + questions/answers FOLLOWED BY (B) 7.30 p.m. - FILM - "Taking Liberties" >>>Webcasting at 6.00 p.m. is FREE and open to EVERYONE but the Film is for P A G Members Only<<< MEMBERSHIP CAN BE PURCHASED ON THE NIGHT *********************************************************** So much for a free event. "There's no such thing as a free lunch" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Damn! I was going to go but I'm worried about giving the PAG people my personal details on the membership form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Damn! I was going to go but I'm worried about giving the PAG people my personal details on the membership form. 9/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 To quote LibDem Peer Baroness Walmsley: 19 March 2007 "The practice of fingerprinting in schools has been banned in China as being too intrusive and an infringement of children's rights. Yet here it is widespread." Mrs Cronky and I sat down last night and discussed this issue. There is absolutely no way we will let anyone scan our children's biometrics and hold them on a database. Eventually their details will leak out. Maybe not this year but more like in five years time when folkget casual about the issue or the Government changes it's mind and puts all the data in one place. If your credit card details get nicked you can get a new number. A biometric identifier is unique and once it leaks out off database you are stuck with the problem for life. Scary. Just say NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Sigh. Didn't you read anything that's been discussed here? Note that banks aren't going the biometric route for authentication, they don't consider it strong enough. This is the kind of thing you're going to see from the banks, rolling out over the next couple of years: http://www.natwest.com/microsites/general/....asp?cmp=reader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The only problem I have with this scheme is the fact that it is not secure. If paper records are more secure then use them. Why is it the case that biometric details are required when paper records can do the same job and why is it necessary to submit fingerprints to take out books? I would agree with the statement that the shift to using biometric details has parralels with the recent moves to force national identity cards on us. Having children submit their biometrics will obviously make them think that in future they should be obliged to hand over personal data when told to. I read this about the new passport scheme where there are concerns about the security of the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport What are on these biometric chips? I was never told when I renewed my passport. I also read something about the National Identification Register and read that when renewing your passport your details will be transferred to a register with other personal information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_identity_card I think the national identity card scheme is the most worrying thing and should be opposed. Has anyone read the NO2ID website? http://www.no2id.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The only problem I have with this scheme is the fact that it is not secure. If paper records are more secure then use them. Why is it the case that biometric details are required when paper records can do the same job and why is it necessary to submit fingerprints to take out books? Once again, this is covered in this thread, if you'd bothered to read it. I shouldn't be surprised, you haven't bothered to read up on the issue we're discussing either. A paper system cannot do the same job at all, that much is obvious. A paper system wont be live and searchable for a books location, it won't be web enabled. It won't easily provide stats. It' can't easily be backed up, etc etc. To argue paper vs computer is to basically discount all of the computerisation that has happened over the last 30 years. Why does a library have to be secure? I would agree with the statement that the shift to using biometric details has parralels with the recent moves to force national identity cards on us. Does requiring a signature for anything the school does with your child also have parralel to forcing identity cards? A signature is a biometric, and has been collected for a long time. Your alarmist craptrap is simply ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Did anyone go to the PAG meeting about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Your alarmist craptrap is simply ignorance. And your rudeness is really ignorant! At my university there is no requirement to have your fingerprints taken. All that is required is a plastic card and it is a very simply, the books don't need stamping as they are all scanned using a machine. All I am asking is why it is that fingerprints, in particular, are required. In respect of the ID cards I read that it will be a requirement to submit your fingerprints so I can see why the point is being made that it will make the future generation more conducive to handing over the details upon request without questioning the reasons or challenging any obligation to do so. Also, is there a risk of data sharing with other public authorities? QUOTE A similar discussion here... http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...c=9827&st=0 I agree with the person who says "personally the day every person can be uniquely identifiable, accountable and recognised will be a good day for humanity" Why would it be a good day for humanity? I can see why it would be a good day for business and goverrnment when all this information can be accessed so 'efficiently' and accurately but not for everyone else. We can all be uniquely identified with the systems already in place. In respect of ID cards it seems to be a very inhuman measure for humanity in compelling people to submit their personal details, as it is my very personal data and I do not agree with the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 And your rudeness is really ignorant! Care to explain that? At my university there is no requirement to have your fingerprints taken. All that is required is a plastic card. All I am asking is why it is that fingerprints, in particular, are required. Convenience. It's a library for kids, kids lose cards. Fingerprints don't require cards. Fingerprints are also pretty low security so not really useful for much else. Why would it be a good day for humanity? I can see why it would be a good day for business and goverrnment when all this information can be accessed so 'efficiently' and accurately but not for everyone else. We can all be uniquely identified with the systems already in place. In respect of ID cards it seems to be a very inhuman measure for humanity in compelling people to submit their personal details, as it is my very personal data and I do not agree with the scheme. Lots of reasons, prevention of fraud and terrorism for one. Currently your financial transactions are often authorised purely on one biometric, your fingerprint. A biometric that for most of us is already in the public domain. That lax security has to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Care to explain that? Does it really need explaining? I was referring to how you responded to my previous post. I found it rude. Why would it be a good day for humanity? I can see why it would be a good day for business and goverrnment when all this information can be accessed so 'efficiently' and accurately but not for everyone else. We can all be uniquely identified with the systems already in place. In respect of ID cards it seems to be a very inhuman measure for humanity in compelling people to submit their personal details, as it is my very personal data and I do not agree with the scheme. Lots of reasons, prevention of fraud and terrorism for one. Currently your financial transactions are often authorised purely on one biometric, your fingerprint. A biometric that for most of us is already in the public domain. That lax security has to improve. But the problem is the fact of compellence, this is something that we should be given a choice about. Although terrorism and fraud may be particular threats I do not think they warrant carrying a card and I have not had a vote or carried my opinion to the government in respect of these cards. It is not for the government to demand that citizens MUST have an identity card and must therefore be obliged to submit person details whether they like it or not. I am aware of the simplicity that comes with use of the card and also the fact that many businesses have biometric details but the data has been submitted by choice. For example, I made a choice to open a bank account and give details but what the UK and Manx government is supposed to be bringing is another matter. So I suppose my only concern about these library cards would be the possibility of data sharing between other public authorities. If there is no data sharing or sharing only with the authorisation of the person involved then I see little problem. But the library should not be allowed to pass any details to anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Does it really need explaining? I was referring to how you responded to my previous post. I found it rude. Rude sure, but how am I ignorant? So I suppose my only concern about these library cards would be the possibility of data sharing between other public authorities. If there is no data sharing or sharing only with the authorisation of the person involved then I see little problem. But the library should not be allowed to pass any details to anywhere else. What does that have to do with the authentication system used? Currently, I signed a membership form to join onchan library, so that's a biometric that I'm trusting them with. I really don't see how my fingerprint is any different. In fact, it's better, because you can't authorise financial transactions from me with my fingerprint. As I said, it's ignorance, this is just another system of identification. There's far worse privacy invasions than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Rude sure, but how am I ignorant? Sorry I wrongly using the word ignorant as a synonym for something like "lacking in respect to the extent that I am thinking 'what a f*cking arse". Is there any need to be clever about it? So I suppose my only concern about these library cards would be the possibility of data sharing between other public authorities. If there is no data sharing or sharing only with the authorisation of the person involved then I see little problem. But the library should not be allowed to pass any details to anywhere else. What does that have to do with the authentication system used? Currently, I signed a membership form to join onchan library, so that's a biometric that I'm trusting them with. I really don't see how my fingerprint is any different. In fact, it's better, because you can't authorise financial transactions from me with my fingerprint. As I said, it's ignorance, this is just another system of identification. There's far worse privacy invasions than this. Do you not think data sharing is a problem, i.e. the library transferring their records to other public authority departments when requested to? I don't know whether that can or will happen. As far as I am aware the new national identity scheme is to be a centralisation of the identification details that are held by government already. I disagree with rationale behind this centralisation, I don't believe it is required and that the threat of terrorism warrants it. Furthermore, as I was saying before, I believe I am right in saying that the ID are to be compulsory. They should not be and it only makes it a little worse that citizens will be charged for them. When you say there are far worse privacy invasions what examples are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 As I said, it's ignorance, this is just another system of identification. For state ID cards of any kind you can see my finger print any time you ask - no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.