The consequences of biometrics as a security mechanism

In my state of residence, Georgia, the government collects a fingerprint in exchange for allowing motorists to drive legally. What happens to that fingerprint after it is collected?

A hacker club has published what it says is the fingerprint of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany’s interior minister and a staunch supporter of the collection of citizens’ unique physical characteristics as a means of preventing terrorism.

In the most recent issue of Die Datenschleuder, the Chaos Computer Club printed the image on a plastic foil that leaves fingerprints when it is pressed against biometric readers.

No-one from the Germany-based group has been able to test the foil to see if it can fool a computer into believing it came from Schauble. But the technique has been shown to work with a variety of other people’s prints on almost two-dozen readers, according to a colleague of the hacker who pulled off the demonstration.

We can collect all the biometric data on the assumption that everyone will eventually commit a crime. And eventually, someone will commit a crime without even being physically present. Take me, for example. I am a concealed carry permit holder. For that “privilege” Georgia requires all ten of my digits to be recorded. Imagine a criminal gets a copy of my fingers and thumbs and plants them on a crime scene, framing me for murder. It will happen. Maybe not to me, but to someone. Bureaucracies are sloppy. Biometrics do not deter or prevent crimes. In some cases biometric records may make it easier to prosecute crimes but their collection is an invasion of privacy, assumption of guilt, assault on freedom and will inevitably just escalate the complicated system of crime and punishment we all suffer under.

Similar Posts:

• HR 1592: Interference disguised as ‘assistance’
• Communications training
• The Drug War is a war against individuals and freedom of choice
• A surprise party
• Of cowards and cretins