Really. this is possibly the most peotic political protest I have ever seen. Really hope it works.

if it is indeed lawful to do this? I know the american tv shows get around the finger print issue of needing a warrant by just getting the suspect to touch something "public" like a glass or door knob or something else. Anyone care to comment on how UK law treats this?

Well done for coming up with the scheme to get these fingerprints. Infact I think the scheme should be rolled out to the entire government and let "US" - the common people who the government works for - police them for a change.

Thumbs up - because I would really like Smith's and Brown's thumb prints.

If it is illegal to copy someones finger prints without permission then that would mean we don't have to give our fingerprints to National ID.

Seems like a perfectly rational idea which could/should be extended to protect all who would wish to be paid from the Public Purse, in jobs which the People have provided for them. Poetic Justice in Deed, indeed.

I take it, John Lettice, that that has you crossed of the No10 XXXXHamas Party list.

Oh dear, what a shame. ;-) I'm sure you must be distraught.

If it isn't already possible (and I think it is) it won't be long before we can scan/photograph a finger/thumb-print off a beer glass and have a 3d printer print out a polymer reconstruction of the finger/thumb.

This technology is only going to get cheaper.

Is it only me or does the thought of having my fingers cut off and my eyes gouged out not alarm anyone else?

Is this another reason why old gordy wouldn't touch that olympic torch yesterday?

It's been there for a while now. Not instant, but not bad. All you need is some kind of a base and a polymer-based ribbon printer.

@Wayland: It's all good and proper to think about making the copying of fingerprints illegal... but do you honestly believe the government wouldn't have an exclusion for its own uses?

'Is it only me or does the thought of having my fingers cut off and my eyes gouged out not alarm anyone else?'

I've never met you Neil, so no, it doesn't particularly bother me. BTW, What sort of circles do you mix in where this might actually happen to you? Your'e not a comprehensive school teacher are you?

Similarly, if we could get a copy of their facial biometric we could demonstrate how we could use the data to fool facial biometric matching systems (such as humans) into thinking either Brown or Smith were present. Or maybe their signature, if we could get a copy of their signature we could pretend to sign cheques, documents etc and fool signature checking systems (such as humans) into thinking they were genuine!

Er...

Revocation isn't really the issue with biometrics - it's determining to a reasonable level of probability that the actual source of the biometric data is present when the biometric sample is recorded (using a camera, sensor etc). For example, when you present a photo ID to a person, that person not only checks whether you match the ID but implicitly that you're not wearing a mask, have a photo stuck over your face, and are not a corpse being held up by someone else*. If someone successfully underwent plastic surgery to look like you you would be unlikely to modify your face to revoke the biometric! The key is to develop automated systems that cannot be fooled by masks, photos etc, and this applies to other biometrics such as fingerprints and irises. Unfortunately most fingerprint sensors do not have this capability and rely on human supervision for such checks (e.g. inspecting someone's fingers before putting them on a scanner) - though there are some scanners that do - such as multispectral scanners.

Also, if your biometric is associated with a second factor - and can only be used in conjunction with that second factor (except perhaps for low value transactions) then you can always revoke that factor - just as you would in the past if someone stole your credit card and successfully forged your signature.

In my view if systems are securely implemented and the application of biometric technology done in a way that considers the risks of "spoofing" and includes appropriate countermeasures, there's little to worry about. On the other hand, I guess that's a lot to worry about :). What bothers me is how emotional people are when it comes to their fingerprints being "captured" compared with other biometrics such as face and signature. No doubt it's from long association with law enforcement.

*interestingly research has shown that humans comparing two faces they don't know to determine whether they are the same person perform less well than computer face matching algorithms.

'Is it only me or does the thought of having my fingers cut off and my eyes gouged out not alarm anyone else?'

You don't have to gouge your eyes out etc., just revoke each of them from the allowed list of identification - which is the *real* problem of biometric ID; you can only revoke it 10 times (12 with eyes, 22 with toes too) and then you're stuffed with no access to identification.

Getting the thumb-prints of Smith and Brown would be a good start, but the getting the full set would drive the point home.

>> In my view if systems are securely implemented and the application of biometric

>> technology done in a way that considers the risks of "spoofing" and includes

>> appropriate countermeasures, there's little to worry about

nothing to worry about except maybe for data/application errors – e.g. your data being associated with a serial killer.

Hands up who can guarantee that the database entries will be 100% accurate on a db of several million records of this type?

Now keep it is you can guarantee that the application will return the right data in all circumstances?

Finally keep it up if you considered it can't be hacked?

So how many in the software game even put the hands up

I wonder if I can obtain a copyright on my fingerprints, then charge any agency a "license" fee when they want to use them for ID?

I feel we should in-undate the Patent Office now. 60m people copyrighting their prints should keep them busy for a while!

I have some brown envelopes with lots of MPs fingerprints on them. Any good?

Also, I can't wait til they ask for a DNA sample to prove who you are. I'm up for that anytime :)

There you are at the bank at lunch break, you get to the cashier and then you have to make a withdrawal for your withdrawal. I suppose they could ask for blood....but the bastards already have all of mine....

Nice one NO2ID....same should be done for many other politicians and other private advocates of this ridiculous s*it they are trying so desperately hard to push on the majority. Does anyone out there have a hard copy of the CCC mag in question? If so please drop to fortuzero.wordpress.com cheers ;)

Retinal Scans and DNA samples next please, all of your biometrics will belong to the people.

This is seriously wrong and hopefully illegal, if not then hopefully some good will come out of this `event`.

Bottom line I deem this more a attack upon the UK goverment and UK security as a whole than I do making a point. On that note if I had said fingerprints all the money in the world no matter how impacting upon my life wouldn't make me change my mind on this at all. No, no and no. But hey I'm British so go figure.

On a technical note - there are ways to obtain peoples fingerprints from distance, but we all dont have super HD camera's with zoom lenses and respective processing software now do we!

But the whole area of using fingerprints as security is akin to using a password written across your forehead - so were security realy counts in biometrics. Why use ifngerprints. A human based biometric system is way more secure in combination with a fixed based password (one time better though) system.

--

idiot's - just say no.

of Smith & Brown wearing gloves on all of their public engagements.

Or, possibly, having a squad of lackeys in front of them to open doors, etc, and a further squad of lackeys following them and polishing everything they *do* touch.

There is an obvious reason for Fingerprints and DNA biometrics to be more emotive than facial and signature based biometrics. And you almost caught that at the end of your post in mentioning the connection with law enforcement. The problem with both fingerprint and DNA evidence is that they are used for law enforcement. Take the example of the fake fingerprint of the German Interior Minister from last week. Now that is available, how hard would it be for a criminal to plant fake fingerprints at a crime scene. 10 years ago that was unlikely to be a problem if you were a law abiding citizen, since in the absence of a conviction your fingerprints and DNA would never be on a database. Now, the Police can arrest you on a whim and get your fingerprints and DNA on a database, increasing the chance for criminals to get away with biometric evidence planting. If the Government had a full database of all citizens, it would be even easier. As a poster on another article said, what's stopping a criminal from collecting a load of used fag buts from outside a pub and throwing them away at scenes of crimes? Similarly, when the first big theft of data from the government database occurs, what's stopping people making casts of fingerprints and leaving them at crime scenes?

Essentially, a population wide biometric database, especially one that is open enough to allow it to be used for authentication for a wide variety of services (ie currently proposed ID cards), has an obvious law enforcement risk. Firstly, there would be a number of miscarriages of justice as incorrect/planted biometric evidence is used to gain convictions in lots of cases. Then as the miscarriages come to light, suddenly fingerprints and DNA become a whole lot less useful in law enforcement than they were before the scheme.

someone will anyway.

The value of all biometric data is that there is only a 1:n chance of a duplicate appearing.

The more complex the data the higher that chance and theoretically the safer the identification is with the chances tending to infinity for a duplicate occuring.

But as everyone who buys a lottery ticket knows, no matter how bad the chances are winning its always worth a punt as your numbers might come up.

Theoretically, as I understand how chance and odds work, there may also be someone with your fingerprints or identical DNA walking about somewhere on the planet.

Be a shame if they were a serial killer, who would believe you in court.

Is it possible to copyright our own fingerprints - so that if somebody like, for example, the government tries to obtain them without your expressed permission you can sue them??

I'm not saying copyright all fingerprints, just your individually unique ones!! :)

Should be easy to get gordon's fingerprints. They're alll over my payslip for a start!

as far as I read it copyright belongs to the creator of the work in question. You didn't create your fingerprints but perhaps there's a good case for arguing that your mother did !!

Of course, a more general argument could be for the Creator. Hence government would need to obtain permission from whatever/whoever you believed to be the creator of your fingerprints.

You already give your name, address, personal information, signature and a photograph of your face. What's the big fucking deal?

I wonder, then I realize why it is that the gov't scares me more than any street thug.

"a [sic] attack upon the UK goverment [sic] and UK security as a whole"

Minor problem: it isn't at all clear that biometric ID works. Many knowledgeable, thoughtful people have pointed out defects in the scheme. Meanwhile, only simpletons like NuLabour fall for the sales spiel of the companies who want to suck at the public titty while building this useless, privacy-destroying, ineffective system. NuLabour (and their ilk) need to stop looking for magic and/or silver bullets for society's woes.

Moreover, even supposing that biometric ID "works", it's highly doubtful that it enhances security in any useful way. Don't forget that the airplane hijackers of 9/11 were all in the US legally, and all had valid ID.

The whole point of this amusing scheme is to make the unworkability of biometric ID so obvious that even the dimwitted Mr. Brown will have to back away from it.

Big deal? Possibly because it might get a bit "clerical" and there might be "errors".

As an example - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5001624.stm. Not a big deal if you're not in the 0.03%, then.

I will pay another £1,000 for anyone who can give me fingerprints which are clenched around Brown's throat. That guy is personally responsible for stealing the pension pot for millions of people, a crime which will run for several decades. Allegedly. Probably. Maybe.

The problem is along with the errors , we have a small problem with a large number of people in residence in prison innocent of the crimes they have alleged to have committed from small crimes all the way up to capital offences due in part to excessive and inherent racism and basic corruption within the Police Forces themselves using a process called the "Stitch !" or willingness to commit absolute perjury and tell deliberate lies under oath !

This fact has been well documented in many countries often ! Allied to the fact that even when cornered many perpetrators within the force that commit these criminal acts and follies of injustice are usually unpunished both in court and by fellow colleagues within the force who field numerous fallacious excuses to evade the real issue , to remain free to commit further similar perjury crimes ! At times even senior commanders tell deliberate lies in public , as a recent premeditated murder of an innocent man at a tube station by serving Police Officers highlighted ! Only in very rare cases are these criminal thugs in the blue uniform actually punished for their crimes or sacked from their jobs as punishment .

This in turn does not give one much confidence in any system the where political wankers who told many lies about the current war on terrorism with alleged weapons of mass deception , create these "Stalin Police State Laws!"

Proceed with this nonsense at full speed ahead !

The Shirley McKie case that made large headlines in Scotland seems rather ignored or forgotten elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4967160.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5112568.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6363185.stm

[etc, etc, etc]

At least we know that we are safe with our British law enforcement system, can't say the same about Johnny Foreigner's. Or perhaps our government-after-next.

"With a projected 60 Million people on the NIR and with a false match rate of 1 in 100,000, we can expect about 600 incorrect matches for each crime scene fingerprint."

Or to put it into more personal terms, *YOUR* fingerprint will match (on average) 9 unsolved crimes. If you are lucky, they might not be too serious.

I’m thinking of calling it Burke & Hare, Biometric and DNA recovery agents to the nefarious.

Anyone who doesn’t mind rummaging around the odd bin or two collecting various documents, old shoes, hairbrushes, spray cans and the like are more than welcome to join — probably a good sideline for those in the waste management industries.

The idea is to create off the shelve packs of virtual people catering to the infamous and nefarious no-good doers ranging from the cheapest @ £4.99 containing just a few strands of hair and perhaps a toe nail clipping to the full blown (getting away with it guaranteed, for quite a long time) packs for around £149.99, containing refurbished fingerprint stamps with associated DNA, various pieces of associated documentation, assorted swatches from torn clothing and used tissues.

With the roll out of the biometric database I’m sure the “re-implication” business is going to take off.

Personally, I'm quite happy for the government to have my biometric data on record providing there is some suitable recompense for keeping that data. I suggest something in the region of 50GBP per month per instance. For sure, it being on two separate database is two separate instances.

Of course this depends on the whole "biometric data is my property" argument. But then if they compel me to submit my biometric data (rather than following me around for a couple of weeks getting my data off pint-glasses), I'd consider it like somewhat like a in-voluntary sperm bank.

Anyway it's not about whether they have your biometric data or not, it's about the implementation of the system that contains your biometric data. It's not like the government have covered themselves in glory on that front.