Biometrics (was Re: Evaluating opinions ...)

[Bill Vermillion]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Fairlight thus spoke:
> In the relative spacial/temporal region of
> Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:06:01AM -0400, Kenneth Brody achieved the spontaneous
> generation of the following:

> > Fourth Ammendment:

> >     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> >     and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> >     violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> >     supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> >     place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

> > Please tell me what rights are violated here. And please
> > tell me how, if this violates those rights, "show me some ID
> > before I'll let you in" is any different. (Or do you feel
> > that asking for ID is a violation as well?)

> IANAL. The only thing I can think of is that by being subject
> to a fingerprint or retina scan, you're being 'searched'
> without probable cause.

You are requesting access to something and the authorization is
a fingerprint.   If you don't want to give them your fingerprint
you don't get access.   It's not different in principle than any
other form of ID, it's just that facial ID isn't that good yet.

I have one place that uses a smart-card to turn on a palm-scanner.
If I don't want to have that done I just can't get into the
building.  How is that a violation.

> Without probable cause, nobody should have the right to access
> what is tantamount to medical records, unless there is prior
> voluntary agreement, as in the case of employment or other
> access to facilities.

A finger print is not a medical record.

> Of course, it's also -technically- illegal to use your SSN for
> anything other than dealings with the Social Security system,
> but try getting into university without using it. Good luck.
> I've never been told how they manage to get around that.

Many have been using the SSN's for student IDs but that is being
changed rapidly. 

> I question the validity of fingerprint analysis anyway.

All that the fingerprint verification devices are doing is mapping
a number of points from your finger print to a numeric code.  They
do NOT store the entire scan of the fingerprint - or at least they
didn't when I last looked at them.    It then compares that numeric
mapping to and authorization database to see if you can access the
computer.   These aren't that sophisticated compared to other
bio-metric devices - but they are far cheaper.

> Yes, it's been used for years, and it's been admissible in
> court far longer than DNA evidence, but DNA testing is actually
> far more accurate.

I can see it now.  You give a a drop of blood to get access to the
system and then wait 2 or 3 weeks for DNA analysis to ensure that
it is indeed you.  In the meantime you are kept isolated so that
there is no possibility of sending in a ringer to take your place :-)

> Of course, -I- see the entire lot as just another way to gather
> intel on people and "plug them into the system" so everyone can
> be constantly tracked.

The RFIDs will do that far more accurately.  That is one concern
now so that anything with an RFID is deactivated upon leaving the
source/store.  However there are RFID's that can be re-activated.
They won't be destroyed like the capacitance devices that are used
to prevent shoplifting.

> I saw a satire several years ago saying that UPC codes were really a
> prototype experiment for something that would have the same acronym:
> Universal People Codes.

Last year a local bank commercial was running a series that showed
people in a competitors bank where they would line up and get
a bar-code stapled to their forehead.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com