PDA

View Full Version : 1984: The new Improved Version



BadUglyMagic
18th August 10, 10:52 PM
Interesting article. To prove its worth a biometric company is providing its equipment and services to make the most secure city in the world. Eventually, they hope to make it to the person you are.

Below is the link to the full article and below that is the first couple of paragraphs.

They plan to make it here (or there if thats were you live) within 10 years.


http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-most-secure-city-in-the-world-welcomes-big-brother?partner=yahoobuzz


Iris Scanners Create the Most Secure City in the World. Welcome, Big Brother

BY Austin Carr (http://www.fastcompany.com/user/219225)Today



We've all seen and obsessively referenced (http://www.fastcompany.com/1675910/minority-report-7-ways-crimefighting-tech) Minority Report, Steven Spielberg's adaptation of Philip K. Dick's dystopian future, where the public is tracked everywhere they go, from shopping malls to work to mass transit to the privacy of their own homes. The technology is here. I've seen it myself. It's seen me, too, and scanned my irises.

Biometrics R&D firm Global Rainmakers Inc. (GRI) announced today that it is rolling out its iris scanning technology to create what it calls "the most secure city in the world." In a partnership with Leon -- one of the largest cities in Mexico, with a population of more than a million -- GRI will fill the city with eye-scanners. That will help law enforcement revolutionize the way we live -- not to mention marketers.

"In the future, whether it's entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris," says Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers (http://www.fastcompany.com/1683572/qa-iris-scanning-cdo-on-minority-report-advertising-and-the-future-of-biometric-security). Before coming to GRI, Carter headed a think tank partnership between Bank of America, Harvard, and MIT. "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says.

Ajamil
18th August 10, 11:28 PM
Interesting, and the point made in the article about knowing our purchasing tendencies and other various info already is a good one. I worry mostly about the use in private activities (eye scan to get into my own car?) and marketing. Tailor-made ads and the like sound nice for the consumer, but I feel they simply make it easier for companies to manipulate us into buying their products.

I thought it quite humorous that every single comment I glanced over was against this type of information gathering and loss of anonymity, and below each comment was a user name, which meant the people had to sign up, and thus give out information about themselves.

How secure would the databases that are collecting all this personal information be? How secure are they now?

kick
18th August 10, 11:30 PM
I do work for an Australian arm of a Japanese security/ camera/ scanner company and the stuff they do over there is unbeleivable, so many of the clients and their children are all GPS logged 24 hours a day, with parameters that sets off alarms if they go outside normal zones etc.

Biometric cameras at Government departments and train stations and camera logs tracking rego plates on all major roads, means even though an individual can be tracked so easily.

Ajamil
18th August 10, 11:36 PM
I don't understand the huge scare over a Minority Report world. I mean really - how long had that system been in place before something actually messed up in it? Just because there's a flaw in the system doesn't mean it isn't a good one. How often does justice mess up in our current system?

elipson
18th August 10, 11:37 PM
I'm so totally against this that I'm suprising even myself.

SifuAbel
19th August 10, 12:18 AM
The eye scan thing was the smallest trifle in that movie. It was the "imprisoned for future crime " stuff that was big brother scary.

kick
19th August 10, 01:09 AM
The eye scan thing was the smallest trifle in that movie. It was the "imprisoned for future crime " stuff that was big brother scary.

What future crime are you concerned you are going to be imprisioned for Rudy?

SFGOON
19th August 10, 01:19 AM
Guys, this is coming one way or another.

It will create efficiencies in society you would not believe. Basically, it will be impossible to lie.

bob
19th August 10, 01:23 AM
Out of all the people on this site, you're the one I have the hardest time telling when you're trolling sometimes.

jvjim
19th August 10, 01:24 AM
Society is built off lies.

Zendetta
19th August 10, 09:06 AM
Guys, this is coming one way or another.

Agree. Still fucked up.

I predict a Thousand Years of Peace. *snicker*

Don't like Big Brother?

Wait'll you see Big Mother.

KO'd N DOA
19th August 10, 09:26 AM
Guys, this is coming one way or another.

It will create efficiencies in society you would not believe. Basically, it will be impossible to lie.



"why did it take you so long to pick up the milk?"

It was crazy busy, and got stuck in traffic.

"Thats funny the iris scanner says you stopped in the bup for a beer.


There will be back doors for this, for sure, but it will cost you plenty.

Cullion
19th August 10, 09:43 AM
It's a horrible idea that will be milked like crazy by the corrupt sociopaths that run it.

Quikfeet509
19th August 10, 10:06 AM
It would make shows and businesses that make money off of marital infidelity bankrupt, i.e, Cheaters and divorce lawyers.



How could that be a bad thing?

KO'd N DOA
19th August 10, 12:38 PM
In the bathroom at my local McDonalds restaurant, was a flat screen tv/gizmo above the urinal showing an image. There is an alluring women, standing between two models of the car. No big deal. Suddenly she says "Hi" She tells you to look at the one you want to know more about. You look, the screen changes, and you listen to her go on about the car. She askes you to choose, using your eyes, the various components of the cars.

2 things then when through my head -
#1 they can get my information and preference on cars, and other products...

#2, The computers - and potentially blackmailers/ divorce lawyers - would know my eyes were not looking at the cars.

SFGOON
19th August 10, 07:39 PM
I'm not trolling at all. In fact, I'm becoming very directly involved in something equally as controversial involving biometrics. (I'm being deliberately obtuse to protect the persons who are lending me their support.)

Unless you're convicted of a crime, this is a voluntary measure. You don't have to sign up for it. Those who do will benefit from enhanced security - it will be impossible to steal someone's ID or commit financial fraud.

This actually means an enhanced level of both privacy and security. It will make people more accountable for their actions. It will close many of the gaps which allow for corruption in our current system, not encourage more of it.

Much of what is wrong with the world will be remedied by this.

Not trolling - I swear to God.

Ajamil
19th August 10, 08:02 PM
Another interesting facet is the internet information pooling currently in use. This is mostly used by things like Google ads and spam, but it can easily go further. Imagine an insurance company denying you health insurance because you've been looking at sites about cancer, or quitting smoking? Or imagine because you participate in car drifting forums that your car insurance premiums go up?

(Liberally stolen from an NPR discussion.)

SifuAbel
19th August 10, 10:36 PM
Helloooooooooooo!!! Sunglasses duhhhhhhhh!

Just as there are technologies FOR something its not very long before someone cooks up something AGAINST it.

What will be really scary is IF the technology becomes mandatory.

Keith
20th August 10, 12:30 AM
Unless you're convicted of a crime, this is a voluntary measure.
For now...

SFGOON
20th August 10, 01:04 AM
Even if it isn't, so what?

We have social security numbers now, DOBs, many things are used to identify who is who.

Except, they are all subject to forgery. Biometrics aren't.

It's safer, more reliable, more efficient and honest.

elipson
20th August 10, 01:05 AM
I'm not so much worried it being used to identify, but to track people, without their knowledge or consent.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 01:20 AM
It's not like there's going to be someone on the other end monitoring every little fucking movement. You are not that exciting, unfortunately.

Nobody is.

The data will be stored, and retrieved when necessary. Nobody's going to have their finger over the button waiting for YOU to litter.

elipson
20th August 10, 01:33 AM
No. But I don't want someone to be able to go into that data bank and look at where I was over a period of time.

It's a matter of principle.

And while the average person may not be that interesting, politically involved persons and the wealthy might be that interesting to certain people.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 01:45 AM
That's why we have warrants, probable cause, etc.

That sort of shit can be done right now with cell tower pings, point of sale debits, store security cams, etc.

Right now, it's all one sided. There's no additional security to the public because this system exists.

By formalizing it and making it highly visible, you'd actually be more protected against it.

Arguments against such a system come only from logical fallacy and knee-jerk emotional responses.

Robot Jesus
20th August 10, 01:56 AM
it will make it harder for me to create a new public persona next time I "die". YOUR ENDANGERING THE MASQUERADE!!!!! you are inviting a reckoning.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 02:44 AM
The cake is a lie.

Robot Jesus
20th August 10, 02:52 AM
only if it wants to be.

KO'd N DOA
20th August 10, 11:59 AM
You mean the *embellishment* on my resume might be noticed?

What a scary new utopia.

Cullion
20th August 10, 12:55 PM
Even if it isn't, so what?

We have social security numbers now, DOBs, many things are used to identify who is who.

Except, they are all subject to forgery. Biometrics aren't.

It's safer, more reliable, more efficient and honest.

Biometrics are subject to forgery. You forge them at the point where the 'correct' biometric data is checked in a database, rather than by trying to alter your Iris/fingerprints etc..

SFGOON
20th August 10, 02:03 PM
Adequate encryption, access logs, and physical security would ameliorate that. Well beyond the point where the benefits outweighed the risks.

How many credit card terminals are in use today? Does the rate of digital theft nullify the benefits of this system? This is a 16 digit number we're talking about, 23 if you count the expiration date and the security code.

Given the level of redundant, self monitoring security assigned to the current system, I can't imagine any intrusion going undetected, or being quickly discovered via auditing of network logs.

What would be involved in such a theft? I'm thinking a hastily written screenplay and a scientologist would have to be involved.

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/mission-impossible-pic.jpg

elipson
20th August 10, 02:20 PM
That's why we have warrants, probable cause, etc.

That sort of shit can be done right now with cell tower pings, point of sale debits, store security cams, etc.

Right now, it's all one sided. There's no additional security to the public because this system exists.

By formalizing it and making it highly visible, you'd actually be more protected against it.

Arguments against such a system come only from logical fallacy and knee-jerk emotional responses.

Except that at the moment I choose to be involved with those things, and can not use them if I don't want to. From the jist I got in the article these things would be scanning you at random in public.

I understand what you're saying, it's a line of thinking I went down also, and I'm not saying it can't be done in a responsible manner, but that guy in the article made it seem like you'd be scanned everywhere you went and in everything you did, without your knowledge and whether you like it or not.

Cullion
20th August 10, 02:30 PM
Adequate encryption, access logs, and physical security would ameliorate that. Well beyond the point where the benefits outweighed the risks.

How many credit card terminals are in use today? Does the rate of digital theft nullify the benefits of this system? This is a 16 digit number we're talking about, 23 if you count the expiration date and the security code.

Given the level of redundant, self monitoring security assigned to the current system, I can't imagine any intrusion going undetected, or being quickly discovered via auditing of network logs.

What would be involved in such a theft? I'm thinking a hastily written screenplay and a scientologist would have to be involved.

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/mission-impossible-pic.jpg

You watch too many action movies and read too much cyperbunk. The system would be flawed in the registration process.

'Come and get your biometric ID!'

'Okay, here's my iris print, and this is my totally authentic and secure passport as proof of identify! and just to be certain here are 2 bank statements'

You see how that works ? Garbage in, Garbage out.

Spend billions on 'custom crypto' (probably an algorithm from open ssl resold at vast markup by some consultancy) and guard the hardware with Navy SEALs. It's already too late.

On a technical level, you're also placing enormous faith the security of large govt. IT projects. They tend not to be as secure as banks.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 03:02 PM
If and when the actual guy presents for it, there's going to be a brief shitstorm, followed by the speedy arrest of the impostor.

Given that the biometric system would be tied to the financial system, the levels of security employed should be state of the art.

With the value of existing databases such as AFIS, NCIC and CODIS being extremely high, it is very telling that compromises of such databases are quite scarce. It's unlikely any of you know what these are without a google search. They are three federal databases of fingerprint data, criminal history data, and DNA samples. I know for a fact I am represented in all three. Most of you don't, and therein lies the danger.

Making such a system more ubiquitous and therefore visible will create a political impetus towards more security and fairness. In many forms it already exists, and participation is either compulsory yet obfuscated, or voluntary yet insidious in it's methodology.

Would you rather such a system be semi-secret, as it is now?

Cullion
20th August 10, 03:49 PM
If and when the actual guy presents for it, there's going to be a brief shitstorm, followed by the speedy arrest of the impostor.

How ? what records are they going to check to know that he isn't really the person your own passport and social security records say he is ?

Do you know how many more active social security numbers there are in your records than there are actual living Americans ?



Given that the biometric system would be tied to the financial system, the levels of security employed should be state of the art.

See above. Garbage in, Garbage out.



With the value of existing databases such as AFIS, NCIC and CODIS being extremely high, it is very telling that compromises of such databases are quite scarce. It's unlikely any of you know what these are without a google search. They are three federal databases of fingerprint data, criminal history data, and DNA samples. I know for a fact I am represented in all three. Most of you don't, and therein lies the danger.

I'm not represented in them yet. What happens when I turn up at a US border with a valid Irish passport in a different name ?



Making such a system more ubiquitous and therefore visible will create a political impetus towards more security and fairness. In many forms it already exists, and participation is either compulsory yet obfuscated, or voluntary yet insidious in it's methodology.

Would you rather such a system be semi-secret, as it is now?

I would rather not live in a vast open prison constantly surveilled by people I've never met and have no reason to trust.

Robot Jesus
20th August 10, 04:02 PM
In the bathroom at my local McDonalds restaurant, was a flat screen tv/gizmo above the urinal showing an image. There is an alluring women, standing between two models of the car. No big deal. Suddenly she says "Hi" She tells you to look at the one you want to know more about. You look, the screen changes, and you listen to her go on about the car. She askes you to choose, using your eyes, the various components of the cars.




theres a coors light add they used to have at the urinal at a bar I frequented. it was a faux videolink with the womens washroom. three attractive women would walk up to the screen and comment on how awe inspiring you penis is. why is it the worse the beer the better the add.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 04:04 PM
Let's say someone turns up for a biometric ID, but the person he's trying to represent already has fingerprints on file with AFIS. There's a lot of risk involved for the perpetrator.

The porosity of the current social security system is no secret. It's actually quite easy to obtain a number. You just need a birth certificate (no standard at all for these,) and some form of government ID. It can even be a prison-issued ID.

Biometrics would remedy the problem very quickly. The system as it stands is extremely insecure, hence the levels of petty fraud and identity theft. This cannot be allowed to stand.

A few things happen in the scenario, and it's not uncommon. Usually, you're just given an alias if everything checks out. If your prints are flagged or you or your alias are on an NCIC watch list, you'll be held until your identity can be confirmed or established.

"Surveillance" implies people are watching. That wouldn't be the case here. As it is, you have no reason to trust the people who are doing it right now, semi surreptitiously. Making it public and overt would at least create a greater degree of political reciprocity.

Cullion
20th August 10, 04:09 PM
You're assuming that it would be safe because 'you're only noticed if people who work for the appropriate authority go looking for you'.

I don't believe that a database that unified people under a single identity and was able to access everything from their financial transactions to the location of their last phone call wouldn't be abused.

Police officers and minor local government officials get caught in the UK abusing the databases we have on a regular basis. Inane, petty, but very inappropriate stuff, like marital disputes, or business dealings that have nothing to do with their govt. job.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 04:30 PM
Yes, but they were caught, too. Accessing NCIS for personal reasons can cost an official their job. There are (rather effective) countermeasures against such abuse, evidenced by the fact that these people were caught at all.

Separation of powers is an effective remedy for unchecked ambition or abuse. Nobody's suggesting that be taken away.

Also, levels of access can easily be tiered. It works that way right now, in fact.

I do miss my NCIC/WACIC access, for sure.

Cullion
20th August 10, 04:38 PM
Yes, but the ones you read about in the newspaper were caught

fixed.

Once you accept that the staff themselves can be the security risk, you become nervous about how much personal data they have access too.

There's no real way of protecting people from a bad sysadmin with root access and physical access to the hardware.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 05:32 PM
Would you prefer a system where almost anyone, not just public servants, can assume your identity and take out loans in your name? This is happening at such a high rate right now that there aren't enough public resources to remedy it. Those who commit identity fraud are very likely to get away with it.

Ultimately, the costs are passed along to the law-abiding public in the form of higher interest rates, or higher retail prices.

Sysadmins can be subject to monitoring too - especially with biometric technology.

No system is perfect, but what is proposed is much less imperfect than the hodgepodge sieve in place now.

Cullion
20th August 10, 05:45 PM
Would you prefer a system where almost anyone, not just public servants, can assume your identity and take out loans in your name?

It's not a binary choice. You're assuming that I need a single, centrally managed, identity in order to refute such fraudulent claims.



This is happening at such a high rate right now that there aren't enough public resources to remedy it. Those who commit identity fraud are very likely to get away with it.

Ultimately, the costs are passed along to the law-abiding public in the form of higher interest rates, or higher retail prices.

Sysadmins can be subject to monitoring too - especially with biometric technology.

No system is perfect, but what is proposed is much less imperfect than the hodgepodge sieve in place now.

I think you're being a little bit utopian, and simultaneously ignoring much relevant detail about how our system of credit actually works.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 08:12 PM
Not refute them, but prevent them from occurring in the first place. In the US, such cases are nearly impossible to refute and recovering from identity fraud can take years. In the interim, your credit rating suffers, and there have even been cases where people have been successfully sued for debts incurred fraudulently.

What is it about the credit system you think I'm missing?

Cullion
20th August 10, 08:20 PM
Not refute them, but prevent them from occurring in the first place.

You can't have a legal system which prevents immorality without turning the populace into robots. It would require the total suppression of every angry or wild urge anybody ever had, all watched by machine, all run by ordinary, fallible human beings. It's dangerous.



In the US, such cases are nearly impossible to refute and recovering from identity fraud can take years. In the interim, your credit rating suffers, and there have even been cases where people have been successfully sued for debts incurred fraudulently.

Your proposed system is still vulnerable to 'identity fraud'. Identitify fraud is really quite rare, but you've been subjected to a propaganda campaign about 'identitiy' for a good few years now. Shake it off. It's dangerous bullshit.



What is it about the credit system you think I'm missing?

The very people you hope to be partners in your verification system are basically godfathers in _the_ organised crime syndicate that's slowly killing our economies.

srs.

SFGOON
20th August 10, 10:14 PM
Oh for Christ's sake. It's not as though I'm some gullible collge sophomore. I had no idea how prevalent identity theft was until I worked as a cop. I'd take at least two ID theft reports per week. Scary shit, where the bad guys also had the victim's PIN number. The youngest victim was four years old. Holy shit dude WTF four? As in born in 2005?

Yup. A preschooler.

In light of this, biometrics are rather more secure than the medevil practice of a signature and the presentation of a photo ID which can be reproduced on an inexpensive inkjet printer.

Nobody's talking about surveillance. You're just not interesting enough to surveil. These "gangsters" you so fear are far too busy making money to worry about the excruciating minutia of your day.

I think you've been brainwashed by George Orwell and Stanley Kubric to the border of being unreasonable, even (dare I utter the word,) myopic!

MYOPIC!!

Cullion
22nd August 10, 07:40 AM
Nobody's talking about surveillance.


Yes you are.



You're just not interesting enough to surveil. These "gangsters" you so fear are far too busy making money to worry about the excruciating minutia of your day.


It's not a question of being 'interesting' to some shadowy and frightful intelligence agency. It's a question of that surveillance power being available to any cop who you thinks you might have fucked his wife.

SFGOON
22nd August 10, 06:26 PM
Let's stop bickering over linguistic minutia. If it's "surveillance," then it's not because some group of people is tracking and analyzing you movements in real time to gain conviction level evidence regarding any wrongdoing.

It's no worse than your ISP logging the websites you visit and retaining these logs for a given period of time, or your cellular service provider logging your calls, even after the bill has been settled.

These data logs are not as open as you seem to think. Such information is tenable only through a warrant singed by a judge. Legal precedent indicates that an officer may search public records regarding criminal history and driver's status without a warrant, but information on a person's movement or financial transactions requires a warrant be issued. This would apply to any future system, as well.

Either way, if a cop wants to commit a crime against your person, he's going to. He's a cop and has a perverse level of power and credibility with the legal system.

You shouldn't have fucked his wife, dude. That's your mistake.

Again, nobody's out to get you.

Cullion
22nd August 10, 06:43 PM
Let's stop bickering over linguistic minutia. If it's "surveillance," then it's not because some group of people is tracking and analyzing you movements in real time to gain conviction level evidence regarding any wrongdoing.

I don't disapprove of this because I believe some Illuminati is out to get me. I disapprove of this because I know that the limited caste of people who will control and have full access to this data are all too human. That's why I'm always skeptical of centralisations of power.



It's no worse than your ISP logging the websites you visit and retaining these logs for a given period of time, or your cellular service provider logging your calls, even after the bill has been settled.

Yes it is. Those are voluntary relationships that I can terminate, and easily work around using simple technological methods available to any reasonably alert comp. sci undergraduate or keen computing hobbyist when I wish.



These data logs are not as open as you seem to think. Such information is tenable only through a warrant singed by a judge.

Sorry, not in the UK or much or Europe. Part of the the disagreement here is that we're coming from the perspective of growing up in countries with radically different legal traditions here.



Legal precedent indicates that an officer may search public records regarding criminal history and driver's status without a warrant, but information on a person's movement or financial transactions requires a warrant be issued. This would apply to any future system, as well.

Either way, if a cop wants to commit a crime against your person, he's going to. He's a cop and has a perverse level of power and credibility with the legal system.


What you're describing represents a fairly radical centralisation of power, and new powers, for the agents of the state.



You shouldn't have fucked his wife, dude. That's your mistake.

You've just tacitly accepted that agents of the state will have new powers that they will abuse beyond the remit of their position and blamed the person annoyed them in their personal lives.

This is one sided. If a cop fucks my wife, I won't have the same power of harassment.


Again, nobody's out to get you.

'The innocent have nothing to fear' is a phrase that should chill any thinking student of history to the bone.

SFGOON
22nd August 10, 09:13 PM
Centalizations of power are all too problematic. This is why checks and balances, compartmentalization of authority, and separation of powers exist.

I have no doubt that abuses of power can and will occur. What must be asked when establishing any new tool of governance is "Will the efficiencies created outweigh the externalities?"

Removing the ability to effectively lie (to law enforcement and/or financial institutions,) would serve as an incredible deterrent to crime and fraud. This would make obtaining loans much easier for those genuinely qualified, and reduce the risk of loss due to crime. Costs of producing goods and rendering services would go down even further.

In the case of the cocksmith cop; I'd submit that you have fairly decent powers of harassment. You know who he is, you know where he works, he fucked your wife which could imperil his career, you can accuse him of unauthorized access of the system for personal benefit which can be easily proven, you're golden.

Personally, I'd like to see the public given a high degree of access to review the contents of this system as well. Mind you, I know that will never happen in a million years - but I think it would represent the be-all end-all of human decency and liberty.

As it stands right now, the innocent have much to fear. Financial fraud is too easy to commit, and conviction rates for crimes are much too low to serve as an effective deterrent.

Cullion
23rd August 10, 03:14 AM
Removing the ability to effectively lie (to law enforcement and/or financial institutions,) would serve as an incredible deterrent to crime and fraud.

Not for the institutions holding the surveillance authority it wouldn't.

SFGOON
23rd August 10, 04:45 AM
They'd be just as subject to external scrutiny, and no doubt even more than the average person as they went about the functions of their job.

Again, I'm not saying that abuses of the system won't occur. It can and will happen simply due to human nature.

However, the benefits provided by such a system will grossly outweigh any costs.

Would you want to live in a world without cars?

Do pollution, gas prices, and the possibility of vehicular assault or reckless driving outweigh the benefits of cars?

Cullion
23rd August 10, 04:58 AM
They'd be just as subject to external scrutiny, and no doubt even more than the average person as they went about the functions of their job.

No they wouldn't. These kind of groups tend to become very self-regarding and see the outside world as 'civilians'. Police officers in the US already think that they shouldn't be judged by members of the public when it comes to accusations of excessive force because the public 'wouldn't understand'. The groups with these powers would act in exactly the same way.



However, the benefits provided by such a system will grossly outweigh any costs.

Like what? You keep saying things like 'people won't be able to lie!', but all you've got is a system where a minority of the population will have access to vast amounts of information about the rest of us.



Would you want to live in a world without cars?

No, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where it was a matter of law that stated I had to own a car and use that approved and registered car for all my travel.