Biometric Fingerprinting - Pag Talk

[ai_Droid]

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?

 

I just didn't understand why you'd called me ignorant, given this is a discussion forum, if you say something I don't understand, I asked for an explanation. Don't think that's unreasonable?

 

As it turns out, it looks like you don't know what ignorant means, which may be why you thought my post was rude. When I said you were ignorant, I meant you simply don't have enough knowledge of biometrics, and that your comments bore that through.

 

You're doing it again, taking a pretty innocent use of biometrics in a school library and extrapolating that into a prison state identiy system. This is just a convenient way of id'ing kids to sort their library records, let's not get all tin hat about it simply because biometrics are involved.

 

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.

 

Sure data sharing is a problem. It's a problem that I don't see biometrics changing a jot. Now, if we're talking about sharing my dna which identifies me as a high risk of heart desease from my library to my insurance company, then yeah, I see the issue.

 

I don't see an issue with a fingerprint, particularly as I leave em scattered around all day anway.

 

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.

 

What else could the government possibly know about me that it doesn't already?

 

When you say there are far worse privacy invasions what examples are there?

 

Stuff like the trading of marketing and trends information, tracking information, identity theft and fraud.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I was referring to the way you responded to my post with words such as "craptrap", which by that I think you meant "claptrap" and the way you put across that I couldn't have read the thread. I understood what you meant by ignorance which was not what I was taking offence to and I meant the word more in the way of referring to your lack of respect when replying. No lets just leave it at that.

 

If, as you are saying, fingerprints are not a high personal security issue then I really would see no problem in it at all, however, the fact that people leave their fingerprints everywhere does not come into it because those fingerprints are not being used. I was wondering just now whether some of the worry is related to the similarity of giving fingerprints when convicted of a crime.

 

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.

 

 

What else could the government possibly know about me that it doesn't already?

 

I feel it is not about WHAT they know already but how they use the information, how they acquire any further information, and how they enforce people to carry the cards. Of these, the latter is the most important, in my opinion.

 

As to the examples of other privacy invasions I am very much against their occurrence as I imagine you are. I still tend to see NICs as a worse measure or a measure too far because of the issue of being to have one by my government.

[ai_Droid]

I was referring to the way you responded to my post with words such as "craptrap", which by that I think you meant "claptrap" and the way you put across that I couldn't have read the thread.

 

I'm Chinese and I find your ridiculing my english in that way highly offensive.

 

If, as you are saying, fingerprints are not a high personal security issue then I really would see no problem in it at all, however, the fact that people leave their fingerprints everywhere does not come into it because those fingerprints are not being used. I was wondering just now whether some of the worry is related to the similarity of giving fingerprints when convicted of a crime.

 

It's just a fear of biometrics, bourne out of a lack of understanding. As I said, a signature is a biometric and your shopping habits at tesco is a biometric, yet most people are perfectly happy to give that away.

 

Your fingerprint is very collectable, it's really not something you can be coy about someone else taking if they really want to.

 

I feel it is not about WHAT they know already but how they use the information, how they acquire any further information, and how they enforce people to carry the cards. Of these, the latter is the most important, in my opinion.

 

None of which is directly connected to the use of biometrics, so how is it relevant?

[Ringwraith]

What else could the government possibly know about me that it doesn't already?

 

It could know what your fingerprints look like.

 

Don't you normally need to be arrested for this to happen?

[Mr. Sausages]

I wear gloves. Do I have to get undressed now when I go to the library?

[Cronky]

We had to address the fingerprinting issue with our children. We wrote to the school stating that under no circumstances would we let our children's biometrics be sampled and recorded. Government does not need all this detailed information on people. It's just a control thing that's being pushed by the IT industry. Any digital information that you give out must be regarded as insecure these days. You just don't know where it is going to end up or who is going use it. We are protecting our children's privacy and I am sure that, when they are old enough to understand these things, that they will thank us for that.

 

The Isle of Man Government should bin these fingerprint scanners and chuck them in a skip where they belong - with the data erased of course!

 

I remember when we had power cuts were on in the 1960's. School carried on as normal. Why cannot we teach our children without all these gadgets?

[ai_Droid]

We had to address the fingerprinting issue with our children. We wrote to the school stating that under no circumstances would we let our children's biometrics be sampled and recorded. Government does not need all this detailed information on people. It's just a control thing that's being pushed by the IT industry. Any digital information that you give out must be regarded as insecure these days. You just don't know where it is going to end up or who is going use it. We are protecting our children's privacy and I am sure that, when they are old enough to understand these things, that they will thank us for that.

 

Explain to me very simply why using a fingerprint to indentify them is a security risk, and what it's going to be used for that they need protecting from.

 

The Isle of Man Government should bin these fingerprint scanners and chuck them in a skip where they belong - with the data erased of course!

 

They're collecting data about your kids every day, including biometrics, in fact virtually all data a school will have on your child is biometric. Why is fingerprints the one that sets your tin foil hat buzzing?

 

I remember when we had power cuts were on in the 1960's. School carried on as normal. Why cannot we teach our children without all these gadgets?

 

Would you propose to use only cash, and not credit cards too? Never ordered anything from the internet? All of which captures biometrics about you. Not bothered though are you?

[Mr. Sausages]

Behavioural biometrics are captured daily, but which physiological biometrics are in common use?

[ai_Droid]

Behavioural biometrics are captured daily, but which physiological biometrics are in common use?

 

Photographs of their face (my school takes loads of pics of the kids, presents them in a 'what we did this year'), signature/handwriting and voice pattern recognition. The latter not so much in schools I guess. I guess a sickness record might be considered a pysiological biometric.

[Chinahand]

We had to address the fingerprinting issue with our children. We wrote to the school stating that under no circumstances would we let our children's biometrics be sampled and recorded. Government does not need all this detailed information on people. It's just a control thing that's being pushed by the IT industry. Any digital information that you give out must be regarded as insecure these days. You just don't know where it is going to end up or who is going use it. We are protecting our children's privacy and I am sure that, when they are old enough to understand these things, that they will thank us for that.

 

Explain to me very simply why using a fingerprint to indentify them is a security risk, and what it's going to be used for that they need protecting from.

 

 

Its the inverse of the example you used about your google password - in that case you used a weak password, and now what is behind that barrier is important.

 

I believe your fingerprint information is going to become a very important password in the future - all sorts of information are going to be connected to it.

 

But at the moment we are being forced to hand it out that password willynilly without the protections that need to be used to stop this information being abused in the future.

 

Imagine being forced to use the same password for absolutely all your accounts - even trivial ones.

 

I understand and partially agree with you about banks etc only using biometrics as one level of security, but do you really doubt that biometric information is going to be an important part of future security systems - I genuinely worry about that information being used and abused at the moment. The systems aren't set up to protect that information and it risks being cloned for nefarious purposes.

 

At the moment my fingerprints aren't on many databases - those databases do not link to my bank accounts, tax records, etc. I bet you that in 10 years time they will. That concerns me - simple as that. I do not think the controls are in place to stop that digital information being abused at a later date if I am forced to hand it over to the library or whatever now.

[Ringwraith]

They're collecting data about your kids every day, including biometrics, in fact virtually all data a school will have on your child is biometric. Why is fingerprints the one that sets your tin foil hat buzzing?

 

In March 2007, the British government was considering fingerprinting of children aged 11 to 15 as part of new passport and ID card (the latter having been recently implemented in the UK), also lifting opposition for privacy concerns. All fingerprints taken would be cross-checked against prints from 900,000 unsolved crimes. Shadow Home secretary David Davis called the plan "sinister."[22]

 

'Taken from Wiki'

[Mr. Sausages]

Photographs of their face (my school takes loads of pics of the kids, presents them in a 'what we did this year'), signature/handwriting and voice pattern recognition. The latter not so much in schools I guess. I guess a sickness record might be considered a pysiological biometric.

 

I don't think many people have a problem with those. New technologies like DNA, finger print scans, iris scans etc are what people are objecting to. The term "biometrics" covers a lot of things, and a lot of this thread appears to be talking at cross purposes and arguing about different things without realising it.

 

Being scared of new technology isn't unheard of. Some Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans refuse to have their photographs taken because they believe that a photo steals their soul. Perhaps it does.

[Cronky]

ai Droid, I am NOT going to give my biometrics away. That is my right. You clearly disagree. Please tell me . . .

 

What sanctions or restrictions on my liberty would you impose because of my position on the issue?

[Chinahand]

Photographs of their face (my school takes loads of pics of the kids, presents them in a 'what we did this year'), signature/handwriting and voice pattern recognition. The latter not so much in schools I guess. I guess a sickness record might be considered a pysiological biometric.

 

I don't think many people have a problem with those. New technologies like DNA, finger print scans, iris scans etc are what people are objecting to. The term "biometrics" covers a lot of things, and a lot of this thread appears to be talking at cross purposes and arguing about different things without realising it.

 

Being scared of new technology isn't unheard of. Some Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans refuse to have their photographs taken because they believe that a photo steals their soul. Perhaps it does.

 

I think the major disconnect in all of these types of debates is that ai_droid etc is saying it is no different than a photo, or a signature.

 

While those against are replying that a photo or a signature is rarely integrated with the confidential information it is being used to identify.

 

Its the integration of these systems which concerns me - not the biometric itself.

 

One more go - at the moment I'd reasonably happily use my thumb-print as my attavar. In 10 years time I guess doing so would be very risky indeed.

 

But I'm being asked to hand my thumbprint over to all sorts of organizations who I have no control of and who could pass on/use this information in the future in ways I can't control.

 

What is the difference between using my thumb-print and a photo of me as my atavar - the photo isn't going to become a major security feature in future IT systems.

[ai_Droid]

ai Droid, I am NOT going to give my biometrics away. That is my right. You clearly disagree. Please tell me . . .

 

You're not paying attention. You do give your biometrics away already, all day long. Your signature is a biometric authentication, yet you've no worries about using that I imagine?

 

What sanctions or restrictions on my liberty would you impose because of my position on the issue?

 

You want me to answer your questions even though you've ignored mine? Sanctions or restrictions? None. You shouldn't be forced to do anything against your will of course. The problem is, people like you who generalise and moan about this kind of thing without understanding it restrict the rest of us who'd simply welcome a better way of doing things. Why should I be so inconveniced by your ignorance?