On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:46 -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > And, on a completely unrelated note (prompted by a story I read out of
> > the UK), the moment the US (or any other country) starts imposing
> > biometric data collection (fingerprints, iris scans, even DNA, etc.) is
> > the day I will no longer visit that country. The US already does that
> > for many (most?) visitors, but not Canadians, yet.
> >
> > I understand the purpose of the "false sense of security to placate the
> > public", but the moment they start treating me like a felon is the
> > moment they get off my list. Just a personal opinion. TTYL
> 
> I'm curious, is it the idea or the methods that you object to?

I'd have to say both. 

The idea is pointless to me, if someone REALLY wanted to get something
on a plane, they'd find a way, anything created by a human can be
defeated by a human. As a result, I find the "protection" we apply to
flying to be "all for show", it doesn't REALLY make things safer, it
just makes the public FEEL things are safer. Mythbusters recently had an
episode where they tried to fool a fingerprint reader. First they tried
one of those cheap ones you buy for a computer. It was a little
challenging, but a little trial and error and they had a method that
worked perfectly. They then tried it on a "professional" door lock,
turns out it was EASIER to defeat! And these guys are doing this for
FUN, imagine what someone who actually believes they have a "reason on
high" to do things can do.

The methods also are a problem to me. Being fingerprinted to enter a
country makes me feel like a criminal. We're supposed to live in a free
society, yet the worst dictatorships rarely did that sort of stuff. As a
related example, stores in my area have started posting people at the
doors who stop you on the way out, make you open your bag (the cashier
that put the stuff IN the bag is literally 10 feet away), and checks
each item against your receipt. It's pathetically sad, very obtrusive,
and it makes me feel like a criminal. When I can, I avoid all places
that do this.

>  Say, would 
> you be OK if the data collection was non-intrusive in nature? 

Whether biometric type information is collected intrusively or not
doesn't really matter, whether they ask me for my fingerprint, or pick
up the coffee cup I just threw away to get some DNA, I don't see the
difference. Actually, collecting it non-intrusively is probably worse
now that I think of it, with the current methods I at least KNOW what
they want to collect, even though I have no choice over whether they
will.

> For example, 
> most people seem to be OK with being videotaped at airports, etc.

Unfortunately people are only OK with it since it was done so slowly and
incrementally that most people didn't notice it was happening. A recent
study I read determined that CCTV cameras don't really make the area
they cover any safer, so why are they there, what's their purpose?
Perhaps they help the cops figure out who the bad person was, but I
doubt that happens enough to make it worthwhile. 

Although extreme, I do wish everyone read 1984, keeping that novel in
mind really opens your eyes to some stuff trying to be forced on the
public. An example of "keeping your eye on things" was a recent story
from California about the government banning companies from forcing
employees to be implanted with RFID tags. Can you imagine being fired
because you refuse to be implanted with a device? What are things coming
to?

TTYL

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist