ID Matters - Ripe for Satire

[detective-boy]

but you can't omit cloning, it is the major part of CC fraud isn't it?

Indeed ... but the use of biometrics would make such cloning far more difficult ... and there would be no reason why an ID system couldn't be set up with passive exception reporting type stuff to flag up potential cloned cards in an equivalent way to credit cards where usuage is passively monitored for unusual spending patterns.

Although databases and linked systems bring some difiuclties and potential dangers, they also bring lots of opportunities to improve our society, many of which will only become apparent when we bring them into use.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_Moon

Mr. Spoon travelled to Button Moon which hung in Blanket Sky, in his homemade rocket-ship.

Mr Spoon landed on Button Moon and decided to bring out his telescope to look at what Hare and Tortoise on 'Junk Planet'. He also wanted to see what Mrs. Spoon, their daughter, "Tina Tea-Spoon" and her friend "Eggbert" were getting up to.

However, just as he was about to look through his telescope, a member of Her Majesty's constabulary promptly arrested Mr Spoon for voyerism and spying on people without a license. He had his telescope confiscated, was issued with an ASBO banning him from owning, renting or using any telescopic device and was handed 6 points on his rocket license for using his rocket to carry out his misdemeanors.

 

[Jonti]

It's not necessarily true that the use of biometrics will make cloning more difficult. Not if there's a few 100,000 flat print readers (whatever) scattered around the country. The more of those there are, the more likely they are to be misused.

The situation is almost beyond satire. The id cards, the big brother database scheme or "National Identity Service", is fantasy. It is not possible to build what the politicians have described.

IPS are misleading the public. The NIS can't work as advertised. They are ignoring the evidence. They provide no evidence of their own to support the case for the NIS. They are living in a fantasy land at our considerable expense. The NIS is a charade.

The full open letter to the head of IPS is well worth a careful read.

 

[likesfish]

The cunning plan to collect your id card from a chemist/ post office shows a fatal flaw garbage in garbage out. some low paid bod chucked some cash to put rubbish hey presto legit ID.
saw this on the falklands once the high secuirty HQ you had to have a sperate ID for. An Exercise to check its secuirty failed massivly as one of the infantry had been tasked to make the ID cards
SO a team of sabouters rocked up with legit id cards walked in and caused havoc

 

[moon23]

Indeed ... but the use of biometrics would make such cloning far more difficult ... and there would be no reason why an ID system couldn't be set up with passive exception reporting type stuff to flag up potential cloned cards in an equivalent way to credit cards where usuage is passively monitored for unusual spending patterns.

Although databases and linked systems bring some difiuclties and potential dangers, they also bring lots of opportunities to improve our society, many of which will only become apparent when we bring them into use.

Even setting aside the civil liberties arguments about privacy or power arguments about whether it is the job of Government to provide a centralized Identity approval and verififcation system for free citzens


Even setting aside the civil liberties arguments about privacy, or power arguments about the role of the state e.g. whether it is the job of Government to provide a centralized Identity approval and verification system for free citizens through which transactions pass, there is another problem. Biometric verification simply does not work. It’s flawed both due to our technical ability (which might arguably improve) but more importantly is flawed due to the constraints arising from the nature of the human body and the logical mathematical problem of statistics and comparison. As you ramp up the process on a national scale there will be so many false matches as to render the entire system unworkable.

I suggest reading this report for a comprehensive argument about why biometrics won’t work.

A far better system for verifying Identify is a network based approach whereby it’s established through our interaction with different organizations. Mr Smith is not Mr Smith because it says so on his card, but because Mr Smith interacts with a wide range of organizations. Mr Smith is an organic entity. Authorities can investigate a suspect and cross compare details with different organizations to detect anomalies. It’s hard work but that’s how you detect criminals and terrorists through anomalies in the minutiae of daily existence, not through mass systems which will quickly be exploited by organized criminals.

It’s also a lot more difficult and time consuming to fake a range of documents. For instance, if you credit card gets cloned, it’s possible to re-establish your identity through the other links in the chain that together form your legal recognised personhood. Even if individual organizations like you Bank use biometric technology you details stored with them are separate in a ‘silo’.

 

[detective-boy]

I suggest reading this report for a comprehensive argument about why biometrics won’t work.

I have done. It raises some issues. It also makes a lot of assumptions. I don't believe it provides anything like an absolute "argument about why biometrics won't work" any more than glib statements by politicians provide anything like an absolute argument why they will.

It’s also a lot more difficult and time consuming to fake a range of documents.

Not if they have no recognised and standard forms or any security features. Or if there is no means of connecting them with the person presenting them Which is why our current system is such a fucking shambles. We have recognised this for centuries - it is why we began to rely on signatures, and then photographs. Biometrics provide an opportunity to make the next step change. I believe the technology (whilst not perfect) is now good enough to do that. I do not know enough about how the biometrics will be used (and nor do any of the people writing the articles that you link to, hence their assumptions) to know whether the best will be made of them or not.

 

[moon23]

I have done. It raises some issues. It also makes a lot of assumptions. I don't believe it provides anything like an absolute "argument about why biometrics won't work" any more than glib statements by politicians provide anything like an absolute argument why they will.


Not if they have no recognised and standard forms or any security features. Or if there is no means of connecting them with the person presenting them Which is why our current system is such a fucking shambles. We have recognised this for centuries - it is why we began to rely on signatures, and then photographs. Biometrics provide an opportunity to make the next step change. I believe the technology (whilst not perfect) is now good enough to do that. I do not know enough about how the biometrics will be used (and nor do any of the people writing the articles that you link to, hence their assumptions) to know whether the best will be made of them or not.

Well we are talking by in large about hypothetical systems, because the plans for how ID cards and biometrics will operate shifts every few months and are largely incoherent. .

There is no clear Idea or direction about what they will do or how it will work, despite literally hundreds of millions spent on consultancy. That seems to be a huge flaw in the project to me! You can be critical that people like David Moss make some assumptions, but the shifting sands of IPS mean it’s inevitable. I mean first we hear there will be a big central system with facial, iris and fingerprint biometrics, then we hear there will be separate inter-linked databases, then we hear it’s just fingerprints, and then we hear that although there are no scanners people can phone up a hotline to check the details on a card! The whole thing is a farce.

 

[detective-boy]

The whole thing is a farce.

I quite agree that it would be far better if the whole thing was researched, thought through and then consulted on as a coherent whole.

But the fact that it isn't, and so we don't know how it is proposed it will hang together, means that we simply cannot dismiss it as ineffective ... which is what all these articles do. As I said, they raise valid issues. Those issues may or may not already be recognised and be being taken into account. Or they may be now they have been raised. But you cannot dismiss the whole thing as unworkable when you do not know what the whole thing actually is!

 

[Jonti]

... Biometric verification simply does not work. It’s flawed both due to our technical ability (which might arguably improve) but more importantly is flawed due to the constraints arising from the nature of the human body and the logical mathematical problem of statistics and comparison. As you ramp up the process on a national scale there will be so many false matches as to render the entire system unworkable.

I suggest reading this report for a comprehensive argument about why biometrics won’t work.
...

That's right, the 'planned' system won't do the job, and it will fail for a mixture of mathematical, engineering and human reasons. Very much worth a careful read.

It's a shame that the snake-oil salesmen are calling the tune. Verification and authentication protocols are important for everyone, and for commerce. But the needs of 21st century digital culture are not going to be met by this grotesque simulacrum of a card index system

 

[moon23]

I quite agree that it would be far better if the whole thing was researched, thought through and then consulted on as a coherent whole.

But the fact that it isn't, and so we don't know how it is proposed it will hang together, means that we simply cannot dismiss it as ineffective ... which is what all these articles do. As I said, they raise valid issues. Those issues may or may not already be recognised and be being taken into account. Or they may be now they have been raised. But you cannot dismiss the whole thing as unworkable when you do not know what the whole thing actually is!

That's why I can dismiss it as unworkable, becuase there is no clear technical direction as to it's feasibilty and no principled argument as to why we should have to have ID cards.

 

[Jonti]

Following the revelation that using flat print fingerprinting technology, 19% of the able-bodied participants could not have their identity verified, and neither could 20% of the disabled ...

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declared themselves to be "concerned", "surprised", "regretful", "sceptical" and "incredulous" at the "confusion", "inconsistency" and "lack of clarity" of IPS's plans for the NIS. The confusion, inconsistency and opacity remain, three years later. Among other things, the Committee recommended that IPS conduct large-scale field trials before choosing which biometrics to use in the NIS. They haven't.

Don't confuse us with facts, we've made our decision