Feeds

* Posts by Brian Drury

8 posts • joined 8 Aug 2007

Saatchi to promote foreigners' ID cards

Brian Drury

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole

Saatchi had better be really, really careful about this one.

There are so many legitimate, practical, technical, moral and financial arguments AGAINST this insane scheme that they could loose all credibility and become a target of ridicule.

To emphasize the minuscule benefits of New Labour's ID Card scheme necessitates concealing/ignoring the massive dangers it represents to British society.

It is a task not dissimilar, and morally equivalent, to promoting the use of Heroin to schoolchildren.

0
0

Top Jock cop calls for universal DNA database

Brian Drury

Top Jock cop calls for universal DNA database

A universal DNA Database - What downside could there be?

How about this:

"A SCHOOLGIRL was raped by a gang who poured caustic soda over her body to destroy DNA evidence".

From: The Sun - Rapists throw acid on girl - 15th Jan 2008.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article688118.ece

0
0

Online ID checks to limit teen booze and knife purchases

Brian Drury

Stu Reeves asked:

Wonder if she supports the ID card?

Yes, it looks like she does.

Her voting record can be inspected here:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/howtheyvoted/0,,-3710,00.html

Unfortunately, it appears she had a majority of 5,650 at the last election, see:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,,-1103,00.html

However, a tactical vote for the Conservatives looks like giving the best chance of unseating her.

We'll have to see what we can do about that...

0
0

Wanted: Gordon Brown's fingerprints, £1,000 reward

Brian Drury

Some Further Information...

The reliability of biometrics does indeed leave much to be desired.

Paragraph 170 of the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on ID cards:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/13007.htm#a28

states that: “The National Physical Laboratory's feasibility study noted that in one-to-one checks good fingerprint systems were able to achieve a false match rate of 1 in 100,000”.

A previous contributor asked “ You already give your name, address, personal information, signature and a photograph of your face. What's the big f*****g deal?”.

On 20th Feb 2007, Blair publicly stated W.R.T. fingerprints on the National Identity Register (NIR):

"They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register." See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/20/nidcards20.xml

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.

At present, I can reasonably expect never to become a crime suspect. If I am forced to hand over my fingerprints to the NIR, that will, of course, no longer be the case.

One last thing – W.R.T. the copyrighting of your biometrics. It appears, unfortunately, that it is not possible. For the reasoning behind this, you may like to read the following post on the NO2ID website:

http://forum.no2id.net/viewtopic.php?t=20791&highlight=copyright

0
0

Schools chief pushes Big Brother out of dinner line

Brian Drury

Some Further Information...

We have to ask ourselves why, out of all the thousands of schools that have fingerprinted their pupils, not one (as far as I am aware) has asked parental permission to do so.

I would have thought that asking permission would have been the first thing head teachers (or any reasonable person) would think of doing.

However, the government argues that, since fingerprint images are not actually stored on the system, the fingerprinting systems comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and, therefore, parental knowledge and consent are not required.

This is quite an incredible position. If the fingerprint data on the computer is sufficient to identify an individual - who cares if an image of the fingerprint is stored or not ? - it makes no difference.

The "fingerprints are not actually stored" argument is just a diversion used by most biometric vendors (and repeated by the government) to fool their customers into believing that the data held on their systems is not sensitive - which is patently untrue.

Teachers have been told that the fingerprint data is "a code”, "a bar code", “a hash” or "a number". It is actually (in the case of Junior Librarian) 300 bytes of data that forms a map of the minutiae (significant points) of a child's fingerprint ( http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com has a good diagram of this).

See:

http://www.microlib.co.uk/news/press_releases/IDK%20Press%20Release%203rd%20July%202006.pdf#search=%22Identikit%20300%20byte%22

for a description of this by MLS (Micro Librarian Systems Ltd) - the suppliers of Junior Librarian and Eclipse products.

For school lunch fingerprinting systems, there is QuickDine, supplied by LCR Limited, which uses the M2SYS flagship fingerprint software, Bio-Plugin.

Here is a link to a M2SYS publicity page that gives this information:

http://www.m2sys.com/pr032107.htm

M2SYS's FAQ gives a similar description of their system to the letter by MLS:

http://www.m2sys.com/sitemap.htm

It's interesting to note that they state that (on a standalone PC) their system can match in 1 second a fingerprint against 20,000 samples in their database (pretty good for a school lunch system !).

The Information Commissioner believes that (w.r.t the biometric technology used by MLS):

“although theoretically possible to use the information obtained from this system to match finger prints taken from the scene of a crime,the resources this would require make this highly impractical” see:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/countries/uk/kidsprint/comm.jpg

This may be true for hackers, but it is not true for the Government.

If, as biometric suppliers frequently claim, the fingerprint templates are of no use to the police, why did The Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight) state:

“they could only access the data as part of an investigation into a specific crime.” see:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070723/debtext/70723-0019.htm

Although the data is encrypted, the Government has the power to demand encryption keys from the system supplier, under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Part III, so that is not an obstacle to them.

What guarantee is there that the Library systems actually operate, and will continue to operate in the way that teachers and parents have been led to believe they do ?

The computers containing the fingerprint data will surely be connected to the Internet, so that software updates can be installed.

Can we really be sure that there is no existing back-door mechanism that will automatically transmit fingerprint data or images to police/government databases ?

Can we be certain that the government will never commission a software update that will introduce a back-door mechanism at some time in the future ?

The schools would probably be unaware of this happening until it is too late (if at all).

Since the current systems have been introduced without parental knowledge or consent, why should the government keep us informed of any subsequent changes to the systems ?

Once the fingerprints are in the hands of the government, they will never be deleted and could be compared against prints found at crime scenes, in the same way that Mr. Blair has publicly stated will happen with fingerprints on the National Identity Register - see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/20/nidcards20.xml

Automatic fingerprint matching is inherently imperfect, crime scene prints have a worryingly large (1 in 100,000) chance of being incorrectly matched with an those of an innocent person.

See paragraph 170 of:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/13007.htm#a28

for details of false match rates.

If a child has never touched a fingerprint scanner, there is zero probability of being incorrectly investigated for a crime.

If a child has touched a scanner he or she will be at the mercy of the matching algorithm for the rest of their lives.

0
0

Home Office pops open ID procurement porkbarrel

Brian Drury

Re: Policy suggestion

Quote: "Brian, your link points to a local file..."

Many apologies for that.

Here is the correct link:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2241468.ece

0
0
Brian Drury

Re: Policy suggestion

Quote: "What the opposition (Con/Lib) could do, is state upfront that, if elected, they will instantly void all contracts for ID card suppliers, with *no* compensation."

The following article:

file:///home/bd/Politics/Identity%20Cards/%20Tories%20warn%20firms%20bidding%20for%20ID%20card%20scheme:%20'We%20will%20scrap%20the%20whole%20idea'.htm

states that the Conservatives:

"wrote to Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, giving formal notice that an incoming Conservative government would scrap the project.

It has also warned firms bidding to run the ID card scheme that their contracts would be cancelled shortly after a Tory election win."

I would ask, nay, beg anyone who does not usually vote to use it to defeat this disgraceful legislation - if ID cards can be defeated, it will be the greatest gift you can give to yourself, your children and all future generations in this country.

New Labour: Tough on freedom, tough on the causes of freedom.

0
0

MP slams school biometric guidance

Brian Drury

Some Info About School Fingerprinting

We have to ask ourselves why, out of all the thousands of schools that have fingerprinted their pupils, not one (as far as I am aware) has asked parental permission to do so.

I would have thought that asking permission would have been the first thing head teachers (or any reasonable person) would think of doing.

The government argues that, since fingerprints are not actually stored on the system, parental knowledge and consent are not required.

This is quite an incredible position. If the fingerprint data on the computer is sufficient to identify an individual - who cares if an image of the fingerprint is stored or not ? - it makes no difference.

The "fingerprints are not actually stored" argument is just a diversion used by the government to fool us into believing that the data held on school systems is not sensitive - which is patently untrue.

Teachers have been told that the fingerprint data is "a code”, "a bar code" or "a number". It is actually (in the case of Junior Librarian) 300 bytes of data that forms a map of the minutiae (significant points) of a child's fingerprint ( http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com has a good diagram of this).

See:

http://www.microlib.co.uk/news/press_releases/IDK%20Press%20Release%203rd%20July%202006.pdf#search=%22Identikit%20300%20byte%22

for a description of this by MLS (Micro Librarian Systems Ltd) - the suppliers of Junior Librarian and Eclipse products.

For school lunch fingerprinting systems, there is QuickDine, supplied by LCR Limited, which uses the M2SYS flagship fingerprint software, Bio-Plugin.

Here is a link to a M2SYS publicity page that gives this information:

http://www.m2sys.com/pr032107.htm

M2SYS's FAQ gives a similar description of their system to the letter by MLS:

http://www.m2sys.com/sitemap.htm

It's interesting to note that they state that (on a standalone PC) their system can match in 1 second a fingerprint against 20,000 samples in their database (pretty good for a school lunch system !).

The Information Commissioner believes that (w.r.t the biometric technology used by MLS):

“although theoretically possible to use the information obtained from this system to match finger prints taken from the scene of a crime,the resources this would require make this highly impractical” see:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/countries/uk/kidsprint/comm.jpg

This may be true for hackers, but it is not true for the Government.

If, as biometric suppliers frequently claim, the fingerprint templates are of no use to the police, why did The Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight) state:

“Not only do we know of no circumstance where biometric data have been used by the police, BUT THEY COULD ONLY ACCESS THE DATA AS PART OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO A SPECIFIC CRIME.” see:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070723/debtext/70723-0019.htm

Although the data is encrypted, the Government has the power to demand encryption keys from the system supplier, under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Part III, so that is not an obstacle to them.

What guarantee is there that the Library systems actually operate, and will continue to operate in the way that teachers and parents have been led to believe they do ?

The computers containing the fingerprint data will surely be connected to the Internet, so that software updates can be installed.

Can we really be sure that there is no existing back-door mechanism that will automatically transmit fingerprint data or images to police/government databases ?

Can we be certain that the government will never commission a software update that will introduce a back-door mechanism at some time in the future ?

The schools would probably be unaware of this happening until it is too late (if at all).

Since the current systems have been introduced without parental knowledge or consent, why should the government keep us informed of any subsequent changes to the systems ?

Once the fingerprints are in the hands of the government, they will never be deleted and could be compared against prints found at crime scenes, in the same way that Mr. Blair has publicly stated will happen with fingerprints on the National Identity Register - see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/20/nidcards20.xml

Automatic fingerprint matching is inherently imperfect, crime scene prints have a worryingly large chance of being incorrectly matched with an those of an innocent person.

See paragraph 170 of:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/13007.htm#a28

for details of false match rates.

If a child has never touched a fingerprint scanner, there is zero probability of being incorrectly investigated for a crime.

If a child has touched a scanner he or she will be at the mercy of the matching algorithm for the rest of their lives.

0
0