[iwar] [fc:Facing.the.need.for.biometrics]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-01 06:37:36


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2560-1001943375-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 01 Oct 2001 06:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 763 invoked by uid 510); 1 Oct 2001 13:37:46 -0000
Received: from n2.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.52) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:37:46 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2560-1001943375-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.223] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Oct 2001 13:37:37 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 13:36:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 63565 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:36:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:36:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:37:36 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id GAA23944 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:37:36 -0700
Message-Id: <200110011337.GAA23944@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Facing.the.need.for.biometrics]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Facing the need for biometrics

By Greg Langlois, Federal Computer Week, 10/1/2001  http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/1001/news-bio-10-01-01.asp

Last month's terrorist attacks have sparked interest in using biometric
technology to strengthen aviation security, and a report issued last
week details how such technology might be used.  But privacy advocates
say the technology poses serious threats to civil liberties. 

Since the Sept.  11 attacks, there has been a new urgency to deploy
biometric systems at airports, said Richard Norton, executive director
of the International Biometric Industry Association.  Such systems
identify people by unique physical characteristics such as iris
patterns, fingerprints or facial structure.  "The reaction has been,
'Let's get this stuff out there as part of the solution.  Let's move,' "
Norton said.  "Now, people see a compelling case for it."

Biometrics can be used to secure access to restricted areas of airports,
verify passengers' identities and scan terminals for suspected
terrorists or other criminals, he said. 

"Those are the areas we think biometrics are ready for deployment now,"
Norton said.  "There are many viable technologies that can quickly fit
this bill." The increased security measures President Bush announced
last week, including expanding the Federal Aviation Administration's
Federal Air Marshal Program and putting the federal government in charge
of purchasing equipment, didn't address what kinds of technology should
be used at airports.  FAA spokeswoman Tammy Jones said the agency is
considering several security options. 

A report issued last week by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think
tank associated with the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, argued
that biometrics will be "a key technology for airport security in the
future" and called on Congress and the Bush administration to take
specific steps to implement it. 

Under the plan, written by PPI Vice President Robert Atkinson,
passengers and airport and airline employees would be issued a smart
card with a unique, encrypted biometric identifier stored on it.  Their
bodies would serve as "passwords." To pass security checkpoints or enter
restricted-access areas, a person would swipe the card into a reader and
submit to a biometric identification, such as looking into a camera.  If
the photograph and card image match, the person could proceed. 

In an interview, Atkinson said such systems might not have prevented
last month's attacks.  "None of these systems would stop a 'suicide
sleeper' who has a legal driver's license in the United States,"
Atkinson said.  But "this would help with a lot of other related
problems."

A facial-recognition system, linked to a database of pictures of
suspected terrorists, might have prevented some of the suspected
attackers from making it onto their flights Sept.  11. 

"In the case of at least two of the hijackers of the Sept.  11 crashes,
authorities had pictures of them as suspects prior to the attack, and
airport cameras actually photographed them," Atkinson wrote.  "A facial
biometrics recognition system could possibly have identified these
individuals as they entered the airport, allowing security to detain
them." But use of such technology troubles privacy advocates.  They note
that security cameras already cause people to act differently than they
normally would. 

"Facial recognition in public not only watches you, but identifies you,"
said Chris Hoofnagle, legislative counsel for the Electronic Privacy
Information Center.  "It's an added layer of invasiveness that can
impinge upon freedoms."

To be effective, facial recognition must rely on an extensive database,
Hoofnagle noted.  Who is added to a database, who is removed and who
makes those decisions raises major concerns, he said.  For example,
people could be added solely for their political views, he said.  But
Atkinson said simple measures, such as encrypting nontravel-related
information on smart cards and erasing photographs taken by
facial-recognition cameras, could easily deal with privacy concerns. 

"The privacy community has gotten so used to rejecting any new
technology," Atkinson said.  "It's an almost reflexive response.  It
makes no sense on this issue, I think." "IT may alter air travel"
[Federal Computer Week, Sept.  17, 2001] "The state of surveillance"
[Federal Computer Week, June 18, 2001] "The details are in the bio"
[Federal Computer Week, April 30, 2001]

"Can a picture catch a thousand criminals?" [civic.com, Aug.  8, 2001]

Scanning biometrics' potential

A new report issued by the Progressive Policy Institute requests that
any new aviation security legislation:

* Require airports and airlines, with federal funding, to adopt
passenger and employee identification systems using smart cards and
biometric authentication systems. 

* Create a facial-identification system in airports linked to databases
of suspected terrorists and other wanted criminals. 

* Make any new biometric or smart card applications compatible with
governmental and commercial applications. 

Source: Progressive Policy Institute

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:53 PST