Europe's top privacy watchdog has condemned planned European border controls as weak and based on inconclusive evidence, claiming they will put Europeans' privacy at risk with no guarantee of increased security. European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Husinx has said proposals announced last month by the European Commission to …
Frattini's losing it.
""We cannot have mafia or traffickers or terrorists using better technology than our police," Frattini said at the most recent announcements of new measures."
The last few terrorist attacks that I recall didn't have anything more high tech than a mobile phone. Or maybe he was speaking out against the plans.
I guess forcing the police/customs to buy and use crap technology is equivalent to giving useful technology to the criminals.
<...>are based mainly on estimates or samples, not on undisputable data.<...>
Throw in a few mathematical models and good ol' media frenzy and you have the basis for all Western decision making - what's his problem?
I don't know why people are so against biometrics. Photo is a for of biometric too? So?
I'm deeply concerned with safety of that information but not with giving it. We need some control over the borders. If you don't think so come to London and see by yourself. I personally know few "illegals" who don't give a shit about anything as they can be evicted any time soon. Guess what their "professions" are...
It's high time to make it right and cut at least part of that Human Rights and Privacy BS.
Oh the Irony
It's high time to make it right and cut at least part of that Human Rights and Privacy BS
as posted by "anonymous coward"....
Biometrics are dangrous
There are quite a few god reasons for making the storage of biometric information illegal:
You can't give up your biometrics. Consider the case where someone's finger was chopped off during a car-jacking, so that the thief could steal the car. If the token was a key, or a password, the owner would have had the ability to give it up.
You can't change them. Consider what happens if someone clones your fingerprints, or puts your data into the database under someone else's name. You can't just treat them as compromised. (Compare: if my PC gets stolen, I can revoke my public key).
Besides, in principle, the government should have no interest nor right to know who is where. We should return to the old system of exit/entry in the UK, where you simply waved your passport: the government got to verify you *were* a British citizen, but it quite properly couldn't tell *which* citizen.
Biometrics for borders now ?
Yeah, that'll be really useful. Not.
The only solution to immigration issues is first, enforcing existing laws - which are never properly enforced due to political pussy-footing and lack of manpower, and second, putting enough manpower into the effort to make it work.
No amount of technology is going to miraculously solve illegal immigration. Footwork and experience are the only things that will.
Plus, as far as biometrics go, I don't see why I should give up all my details to some unsecure, unguaranteed foreign entity just because I decide to go there and spend part of my holidays.
Any country that requires my DNA before letting me in is going on my personal black list and will be removed from possible holiday destinations. They have no right or use to profile me, and I resent in advance any hassle that will arise because there is a mistake in their bloody database.
And mistakes there will be, given the track record of just about any government security process or IT project.
Why should my life be ruined because some stupid git mistakenly decided that my DNA somewhere was a security threat ? What defense do I have in a Gitmo cell ?
I frankly see no benefit to innocent people, and hardly a threat to terrorists.
Name me one terrorist that got caught because of his mobile phone.