From VNUNET:
Plans to use iris biometrics for the government’s national identity card scheme have been shelved because of cost and technical uncertainties.
I.e. they won't scan your eyes, but will still take your finger prints (even though some people don't actually have fingerprints due to genetic conditions and the prints also match up with Koala bears!). What about the plans for face scans (which only work if you're white and young)?
Also Not Saussure has stumbled across an article by Bruce Sneider which shows that the Yanks are no longer wanting facial and fingerprint scans, as the technology is too expensive and won't work! One of the reasons our Dear Leader is in favour of ID cards (see here for an article he wrote in the Telegraph, which I fisked) is due to US pressure, so now what will he do?
Showing posts with label id cards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label id cards. Show all posts
05 January, 2007
28 December, 2006
The costs of ID cards
From the Sunday Telegraph:
People would be fined up to £1,000 for failing to return a dead relative's ID card, while women who marry will have to pay at least £30 for a new card if they want to use their married name, risking a £1,000 fine if they do not comply.
Terrorists act by concealing their intentions, not their identities: the three countries in the world that suffer most from terrorist violence [I'm assuming one of them is Israel] all operate ID card schemes.
If there is any doubt in your mind about the efficacy of the proposed system, ponder the following. The one group of people exempt from having to own ID cards will be foreigners who have been in Britain for less than six months. Recall this extraordinary fact the next time you hear a minister blathering about the need to tackle terrorism and control our borders.
ID cards don't prevent terrorism. When will the government take notice?
People would be fined up to £1,000 for failing to return a dead relative's ID card, while women who marry will have to pay at least £30 for a new card if they want to use their married name, risking a £1,000 fine if they do not comply.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the fines revelation shows that the scheme "will hit the taxpayer not the terrorists" and is "just another Labour stealth tax".
He said: "It is shocking that the Government is considering charges and fines on people at some of the most sensitive times in life. The Conservatives would scrap this plastic poll tax and invest the savings in practical measures to improve security."
Joan Ryan, the Home Office minister, said that charges would apply "if a person wished to add a married surname to his or her register entry". Based on an estimate of 311,000 marriages a year, that would net up to £9 million a year for the Exchequer.
People would be charged at least £30 for lost or stolen cards. Based on the 930,000 driving licences lost or stolen each year, this would earn the Treasury more than £28 million a year, say the Tories.
In a separate plan that the Tories say could hit millions of students, Mr Reid admitted that applicants will be asked for "all current alternative addresses". Failure to update the register with details such as term-time halls of residence could result in a £1,000 fine.
Just another way to scam the public...
The Telegraph's leader column also states:Terrorists act by concealing their intentions, not their identities: the three countries in the world that suffer most from terrorist violence [I'm assuming one of them is Israel] all operate ID card schemes.
If there is any doubt in your mind about the efficacy of the proposed system, ponder the following. The one group of people exempt from having to own ID cards will be foreigners who have been in Britain for less than six months. Recall this extraordinary fact the next time you hear a minister blathering about the need to tackle terrorism and control our borders.
ID cards don't prevent terrorism. When will the government take notice?
19 December, 2006
Not one, but three databases!
From the BBC:
The government has abandoned plans for a giant new computer system to run the national identity cards scheme.
Instead of a single multi-billion pound system, information will be held on three existing, separate databases.
Now the information will be spread across three existing IT systems, including the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) Customer Information Service, which holds national insurance records.
This might seem a good thing, but, one of the many reasons I'm opposed to the cards is the fact that the data will be linked together. all they're doing is swapping a big, independent database, for several smaller ones, all of which will be linked together - there's no real difference! On top of that, the information in the databases will have errors - what to do if the data in one conflicts with that in another?
Also, once again, the Tories and Lib Dems have the right idea:
They can see what a disaster it'll be, why can't Labour?
The government has abandoned plans for a giant new computer system to run the national identity cards scheme.
Instead of a single multi-billion pound system, information will be held on three existing, separate databases.
Now the information will be spread across three existing IT systems, including the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) Customer Information Service, which holds national insurance records.
This might seem a good thing, but, one of the many reasons I'm opposed to the cards is the fact that the data will be linked together. all they're doing is swapping a big, independent database, for several smaller ones, all of which will be linked together - there's no real difference! On top of that, the information in the databases will have errors - what to do if the data in one conflicts with that in another?
Also, once again, the Tories and Lib Dems have the right idea:
Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, for the Conservatives, said ... the decision to use existing databases was "an admission of what will turn out to be a financial disaster for the taxpayer".
He said Mr Reid "has tried to sneak this announcement out in a written statement that is not subject to scrutiny betrays just how fragile the government's confidence in their own scheme actually is".
Nick Clegg, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "These are sticking plaster measures in which the government is cutting corners to make the increasingly unpopular ID card scheme more palatable.They can see what a disaster it'll be, why can't Labour?
29 November, 2006
Bliar's not as bad as Hitler!
The NO2ID campaign placed the following advert in the Guardian, which resulted in a total of 8 complaints (it's not known how many were from Labour people):
Due to the number of complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority were called to make a decision on whether the ad should be removed due to it causing public offence. They said the following:
The ASA noted the ad had been intended to encourage discussion on a sensitive political issue. We considered that, although the ad may have been distasteful to some, it was unlikely to be seen as making a serious comparison between Tony Blair and Hitler but instead as highlighting a lobbying group's opinion that ID cards should not be introduced because of the threat to civil liberty they posed. We concluded that, as such, the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
You should read the full article including their judgement, it's quite interesting, especially the evidence the NO2ID people use.
Due to the number of complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority were called to make a decision on whether the ad should be removed due to it causing public offence. They said the following:
The ASA noted the ad had been intended to encourage discussion on a sensitive political issue. We considered that, although the ad may have been distasteful to some, it was unlikely to be seen as making a serious comparison between Tony Blair and Hitler but instead as highlighting a lobbying group's opinion that ID cards should not be introduced because of the threat to civil liberty they posed. We concluded that, as such, the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
You should read the full article including their judgement, it's quite interesting, especially the evidence the NO2ID people use.
17 November, 2006
RFID passports cracked!
From the Guardian:
"The information contained in the chip is not encrypted, but to access it you have to start up an encrypted conversation between the reader and the RFID chip in the passport.
"The reader - I bought one for £250 - has to say hello to the chip and tell it that it is authorised to make contact. The key to that is in the date of birth, etc. Once they communicate, the conversation is encrypted, but I wrote some software in about 48 hours that made sense of it.
"The Home Office has adopted a very high encryption technology called 3DES - that is, to a military-level data-encryption standard times three. So they are using strong cryptography to prevent conversations between the passport and the reader being eavesdropped, but they are then breaking one of the fundamental principles of encryption by using non-secret information actually published in the passport to create a 'secret key'. That is the equivalent of installing a solid steel front door to your house and then putting the key under the mat."
Within minutes of applying the three passports to the reader, the information from all of them has been copied and the holders' images appear on the screen of Laurie's laptop. The passports belong to Booth, and to Laurie's son, Max, and my partner, who have all given their permission.
Booth is staggered. He has undercut Laurie by finding an RFID reader for £174, which also works. "This is simply not supposed to happen," Booth says. "This could provide a bonanza for counterfeiters because drawing the information from the chip, complete with the digital signature it contains, could result in a passport being passed off as the real article. You could make a perfect clone of the passport."
"The problems could get worse when they put fingerprint biometrics on to the passports. There are established ways of making forged fingerprints. In the future, the authorities would like to have automated border controls, and such forged fingerprints [stuck on to fingers] would probably fool them.
"But what about facial recognition systems (your biometric passport contains precise measurements of key points on your face and head)? "Yes," says Grunwald, "but they are not yet in operation at airports and the technology throws up between 20 and 25% false negatives or false positives. It isn't reliable.
It takes around four seconds to suck out the information with a reader; then it can be relayed and unscrambled by an accomplice with a laptop up to 1km away. With a Heath Robinson device we built on Tuesday using a Bluetooth antenna connected to an RFID reader, Laurie relayed details of his son's passport over a distance of 10 metres and through two walls to a laptop.
There's more on Wired:
In other words, electronic passport theft is about as handy as regular, commercial identity theft. The real hell would come if the authorities didn't bother to stare at the passport but simply trusted the signal from the chip. Which was supposed to be the idea in the first place: these arphids are supposed to be making transit SAFER AND FASTER AND MORE CONVENIENT, not just introducing a new level of Rube Goldberg snafu.
If we simply returned to the security situation status quo ante on 9/10 instead of 9/11, it would be like the civilized world suddenly got over a massive, self-inflicted stupidity virus. Furthermore, we'd be a lot safer.
"The information contained in the chip is not encrypted, but to access it you have to start up an encrypted conversation between the reader and the RFID chip in the passport.
"The reader - I bought one for £250 - has to say hello to the chip and tell it that it is authorised to make contact. The key to that is in the date of birth, etc. Once they communicate, the conversation is encrypted, but I wrote some software in about 48 hours that made sense of it.
"The Home Office has adopted a very high encryption technology called 3DES - that is, to a military-level data-encryption standard times three. So they are using strong cryptography to prevent conversations between the passport and the reader being eavesdropped, but they are then breaking one of the fundamental principles of encryption by using non-secret information actually published in the passport to create a 'secret key'. That is the equivalent of installing a solid steel front door to your house and then putting the key under the mat."
Within minutes of applying the three passports to the reader, the information from all of them has been copied and the holders' images appear on the screen of Laurie's laptop. The passports belong to Booth, and to Laurie's son, Max, and my partner, who have all given their permission.
Booth is staggered. He has undercut Laurie by finding an RFID reader for £174, which also works. "This is simply not supposed to happen," Booth says. "This could provide a bonanza for counterfeiters because drawing the information from the chip, complete with the digital signature it contains, could result in a passport being passed off as the real article. You could make a perfect clone of the passport."
"The problems could get worse when they put fingerprint biometrics on to the passports. There are established ways of making forged fingerprints. In the future, the authorities would like to have automated border controls, and such forged fingerprints [stuck on to fingers] would probably fool them.
"But what about facial recognition systems (your biometric passport contains precise measurements of key points on your face and head)? "Yes," says Grunwald, "but they are not yet in operation at airports and the technology throws up between 20 and 25% false negatives or false positives. It isn't reliable.
It takes around four seconds to suck out the information with a reader; then it can be relayed and unscrambled by an accomplice with a laptop up to 1km away. With a Heath Robinson device we built on Tuesday using a Bluetooth antenna connected to an RFID reader, Laurie relayed details of his son's passport over a distance of 10 metres and through two walls to a laptop.
There's more on Wired:
In other words, electronic passport theft is about as handy as regular, commercial identity theft. The real hell would come if the authorities didn't bother to stare at the passport but simply trusted the signal from the chip. Which was supposed to be the idea in the first place: these arphids are supposed to be making transit SAFER AND FASTER AND MORE CONVENIENT, not just introducing a new level of Rube Goldberg snafu.
If we simply returned to the security situation status quo ante on 9/10 instead of 9/11, it would be like the civilized world suddenly got over a massive, self-inflicted stupidity virus. Furthermore, we'd be a lot safer.
There's always hope...
The People vs ID Cards
From the Mirror:
[R]eaders of the Yorkshire Post were asked in a phone-in poll if Identity Cards should be made compulsory. Seventy-six [%] said "No", and 24 per cent said "Yes".
Tony's wrong about saying people support the things then...
[R]eaders of the Yorkshire Post were asked in a phone-in poll if Identity Cards should be made compulsory. Seventy-six [%] said "No", and 24 per cent said "Yes".
Tony's wrong about saying people support the things then...
15 November, 2006
Delays and extra costs
From Computer Weekly:
Computer Weekly has learned that the Identity and Passport Service is running more than a year behind schedule on an online passport system that is far simpler than the ID cards scheme and costs less than one hundredth of its price.
If they can't do it with something a lot simpler, what makes them think they'll succeed with ID cards?
No wonder the government's going to Court to overturn a ruling under the FOIA that it has to release it's costing of the ID cards project. It would also explain why the roll-out for ID cards to those of us who aren't Johnny Foreigner has been put back to 2009.
Computer Weekly has learned that the Identity and Passport Service is running more than a year behind schedule on an online passport system that is far simpler than the ID cards scheme and costs less than one hundredth of its price.
If they can't do it with something a lot simpler, what makes them think they'll succeed with ID cards?
No wonder the government's going to Court to overturn a ruling under the FOIA that it has to release it's costing of the ID cards project. It would also explain why the roll-out for ID cards to those of us who aren't Johnny Foreigner has been put back to 2009.
13 November, 2006
How things change...
From Peter Black (Lib Dem Member of the Welsh Assembly for SW Wales) on Bliar's comments on ID cards:
In a speech to the Labour Party Conference on 3 October 1995, Tony Blair outlined how he was going to be tough on crime. This included a passage on ID cards:
"We all suffer crime, the poorest and vulnerable most of all, it is the duty of government to protect them. But we can make choices in spending too. And instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands of extra police officers on the beat in our local communities. But the truth is that the best two crime prevention policies are a job and a stable family."
What made him change his tune?
In a speech to the Labour Party Conference on 3 October 1995, Tony Blair outlined how he was going to be tough on crime. This included a passage on ID cards:
"We all suffer crime, the poorest and vulnerable most of all, it is the duty of government to protect them. But we can make choices in spending too. And instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands of extra police officers on the beat in our local communities. But the truth is that the best two crime prevention policies are a job and a stable family."
What made him change his tune?
11 November, 2006
More technological problems with ID cards
From the Register:
The EU-funded FIDIS (Future of Identity in the Information Society) project has warned that implementation of the current generation of biometric travel ID will dramatically decrease security and privacy, and increase the risk of identity theft. In the Budapest Declaration, which derives from FIDIS' September meeting in Budapest, FIDIS calls for short-term damage control measures to be taken (because biometric ID is already being rolled out), and for "a new convincing and integrated security concept" to be developed within the next three years.
FIDIS points out that the new generation of biometric Machine Readable Travel Document (MRTD) is remotely readable at a distance of 2-10 metres, and that current security simply isn't good enough to protect it.
The most significant problems with these MRTDs are:
- Biometrics in MRTDs currently cannot be revoked and since biometric features of the users such as fingerprints and facial features cannot easily be changed, "stolen" biometrics can be abused for a long period of time
- The key to access data on the RFID tag is stored on the passport itself and can be read by humans and machine scanners.
- Eavesdropping of communication between RFID tag and reader
- Cloning of RFID tags in MRTDs
- Abuse of the remote readability of RFID tags in passports
Even more evidence against ID cards, not that Blair’ll listen of course…
09 November, 2006
The Citizen Registration Programme II
I've previously mentioned where the ID cards centres will be based.
Well, NO2ID have a list of the locations where the ID card processing centres will be based. There appears to only one for the whole of London, in Victoria. Some of them, e.g. Blackburn, require planning permission. To any one in the area: lodge lots of complains and then there'll be a public enquiry over the location.
Well, NO2ID have a list of the locations where the ID card processing centres will be based. There appears to only one for the whole of London, in Victoria. Some of them, e.g. Blackburn, require planning permission. To any one in the area: lodge lots of complains and then there'll be a public enquiry over the location.
07 November, 2006
CCTV is a waste of time
In my fisking of our Dear Leader yesterday, I questioned the evidence about the effectiveness of CCTV, which our Dear Leader says the public support.
Thanks to Not Sassure, I've come across a report by the Information Commissioner which says:
During the 1990s the Home Office spent 78% of it crime prevention budget on installing CCTV46 and an estimated £500M of public money has been invested in the CCTV infrastructure over the last decade. However a Home Office study concluded that ‘the CCTV schemes that have been assessed had little overall effect on crime levels’.
The Home Office study itself also has the following (on p. vi)
Out of the 13 systems evaluated six showed a relatively substantial reduction in crime in the target area compared with the control area, but only two showed a statistically significant reduction relative to the control, and in one of these cases the change could be explained by the presence of confounding variables. Crime increased in seven areas but this could not be attributed to CCTV. The findings in these seven areas were inconclusive as a range of variables could account for the changes in crime levels, including fluctuations in crime rates caused by seasonal, divisional and national trends and additional initiatives.
and this (p. 48):
[T]he presence of CCTV in an area actually increases worry about crime, possibly because the assumed need for CCTV to be installed makes the area seem more problematic than the respondents had previously thought.
A government report contradicts Blair's own arguments... any other reasons you wanna try, Tone?
Thanks to Not Sassure, I've come across a report by the Information Commissioner which says:
During the 1990s the Home Office spent 78% of it crime prevention budget on installing CCTV46 and an estimated £500M of public money has been invested in the CCTV infrastructure over the last decade. However a Home Office study concluded that ‘the CCTV schemes that have been assessed had little overall effect on crime levels’.
The Home Office study itself also has the following (on p. vi)
Out of the 13 systems evaluated six showed a relatively substantial reduction in crime in the target area compared with the control area, but only two showed a statistically significant reduction relative to the control, and in one of these cases the change could be explained by the presence of confounding variables. Crime increased in seven areas but this could not be attributed to CCTV. The findings in these seven areas were inconclusive as a range of variables could account for the changes in crime levels, including fluctuations in crime rates caused by seasonal, divisional and national trends and additional initiatives.
and this (p. 48):
[T]he presence of CCTV in an area actually increases worry about crime, possibly because the assumed need for CCTV to be installed makes the area seem more problematic than the respondents had previously thought.
A government report contradicts Blair's own arguments... any other reasons you wanna try, Tone?
06 November, 2006
Bliar's reasons for ID cards
Our Dear Leader's written an article in the Telegraph: about why we need ID cards. Let's fisk it shall we?
The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world. Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards' cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event.
Yet..
I am not claiming ID cards, and the national identity database that will make them effective, are a complete solution to these complex problems.
So he admits they're a failure!
Nor is the Government alone in believing that biometrics offer us a massive opportunity to secure our identities.
How about some evidence?
I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime.
Speak to people in Madrid about this...
It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually
By having a big, centralised database of everyone's details?!
The National Identity Register will help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip between the cracks.
Praying on the public's fear of Paedophiles & Ian Huntley. Not a reason, barely an excuse... Anyway, what if the data's wrong? Who pays for screwing up people livelihoods?
Crime detection rates, which fell steadily for decades, should also be boosted. Police... will be able to compare 900,000 outstanding crime-scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.
No such thing as a presumption of innocence then... not bad for a Barrister.
Biometric technology will enable us, in a relatively short period of time, to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services.
See the LSE's ID cards report on the problems involving biometrics...
It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house. In future, we could be automatically alerted when our passports are running out.
A fantastic use of £X billion! I'm sure people are capable of looking at the inside of their passport for the expiration date...
I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don't think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.
A lot of completely separate databases - which are completely voluntary and free - are a hell of a lot better than one costing billions and is compulsory. Also the worst thing about the current ones is junk mail, not thousand pound fines and a criminal record!
Individuals will have the right to see what information is held on them; the register will not contain medical records or tax and benefits information
... at the moment... anyway, Tony, your own government has said medical records WILL be on there!
It was also very clear from last week's arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that's what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.
Any chance of evidence of the effectiveness of CCTV? As far as I can tell it just moves crime into another area - this is used an excuse to have more cameras, not scrap 'em on the grounds of being completely ineffective... Surveys, apart from Home Office ones, show that the more the public know more about ID cards, the less they want them!
On present estimates, biometric passports make up 70 per cent – or around £66 – of the cost of the combined passports/ID cards we want. The additional cost of the ID cards will be less than £30 — or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan.
Any chance of letting us see the evidence for this Tony? after all the innocent have nothing to fear, do they?
He also did a press conference today, which gave another "reason":
But he believed that it was more an issue of "modernity" and of "modern life" - and he backed the use of these new technologies to tackle the new types of crime.
In that case, I want to be Old Skool, mutha'fucka!
But he also confirmed the timetable for Britons' cards has slipped to 2009.
A potential election year - that'll be fun!
The Tories have it right:
The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world. Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards' cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event.
Yet..
I am not claiming ID cards, and the national identity database that will make them effective, are a complete solution to these complex problems.
So he admits they're a failure!
Nor is the Government alone in believing that biometrics offer us a massive opportunity to secure our identities.
How about some evidence?
I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime.
Speak to people in Madrid about this...
It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually
By having a big, centralised database of everyone's details?!
The National Identity Register will help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip between the cracks.
Praying on the public's fear of Paedophiles & Ian Huntley. Not a reason, barely an excuse... Anyway, what if the data's wrong? Who pays for screwing up people livelihoods?
Crime detection rates, which fell steadily for decades, should also be boosted. Police... will be able to compare 900,000 outstanding crime-scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.
No such thing as a presumption of innocence then... not bad for a Barrister.
Biometric technology will enable us, in a relatively short period of time, to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services.
See the LSE's ID cards report on the problems involving biometrics...
It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house. In future, we could be automatically alerted when our passports are running out.
A fantastic use of £X billion! I'm sure people are capable of looking at the inside of their passport for the expiration date...
I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don't think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.
A lot of completely separate databases - which are completely voluntary and free - are a hell of a lot better than one costing billions and is compulsory. Also the worst thing about the current ones is junk mail, not thousand pound fines and a criminal record!
Individuals will have the right to see what information is held on them; the register will not contain medical records or tax and benefits information
... at the moment... anyway, Tony, your own government has said medical records WILL be on there!
It was also very clear from last week's arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that's what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.
Any chance of evidence of the effectiveness of CCTV? As far as I can tell it just moves crime into another area - this is used an excuse to have more cameras, not scrap 'em on the grounds of being completely ineffective... Surveys, apart from Home Office ones, show that the more the public know more about ID cards, the less they want them!
On present estimates, biometric passports make up 70 per cent – or around £66 – of the cost of the combined passports/ID cards we want. The additional cost of the ID cards will be less than £30 — or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan.
Any chance of letting us see the evidence for this Tony? after all the innocent have nothing to fear, do they?
He also did a press conference today, which gave another "reason":
But he believed that it was more an issue of "modernity" and of "modern life" - and he backed the use of these new technologies to tackle the new types of crime.
In that case, I want to be Old Skool, mutha'fucka!
But he also confirmed the timetable for Britons' cards has slipped to 2009.
A potential election year - that'll be fun!
The Tories have it right:
"He claims they will deal with benefit fraud, whilst his own minister pointed out that 95% of benefit fraud is caused by people lying about their circumstances, not their identity.
"He claims they will tackle terrorism, whilst his home secretary on the 7th July last year said 'I doubt it would make a difference'.
"...Microsoft tells us it is more likely to trigger identity fraud on a massive scale.... it will almost certainly cost £20bn, will solve very few problems... it will be Labour's final act of ineffective and expensive authoritarianism."
"All the evidence from Britain and abroad shows that big government databases just become the favoured target for ever more sophisticated organised criminals."
UPDATE: Reading Bliar's comment about them preventing terrorism reminds me of a quote from the sorely-missed World Weary Detective:
The scene: An anonymous provincial town in middle England somewhere. Four plotters gather together in a darkened room. The year is 2008.
Plotter 1: Right everyone. Today is the day. Is everyone ready?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Is everyone a 'clean skin' that has avoided the attention of the greatest security agencies in the world?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Does everyone have a rucksack packed with explosive?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Is everyone fully aware of our warped religious justification for committing mass murder?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Is everyone suitably brainwashed that they will follow my commands without question?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Is everyone willing to die in the name of their cause?
All: YES!
Plotter 1: Is everyone in possession of their ID cards?
All: Errr...
Plotter 1: What? What if you require access to key services on the way to cause carnage on the transport infrastructure of Britain?
All: Err...
Plotter 1: Right that's it. Take off those bloody suicide belts. No ID card no mass murder. If it wasn't for that blasted Blair we would have got away with it....
23 October, 2006
How much will they cost?
From the Yorkshire Post:
A devastating document slipped out by the Government yesterday revealed that the Home Office believes it is impossible to work out exactly what ID cards will be used for, and what biometric data they should hold, until after they are introduced.
A solution looking for a problem...
Home Office Minister Liam Byrne insisted last week that the scheme would cost £5.4bn over 10 years, close to previous official estimates, and that it would be introduced according to plan from 2008.
But his claims were spectacularly contradicted last night in the Government's official reply to a hard-hitting report published by the Commons Science and Technology Committee addressing flaws in the project.
The reply is in paragraph 32 on pages 23-4.
The cost estimates published are based on a reference design and as such are improved and revised as our understanding of the underlying cost assumptions improves. These will continue to be refined through discussion with the market and comparisons with appropriate benchmark projects throughout the procurement and, therefore, remain flexible... Whilst we are keen to remain open and transparent on the level of detail provided to the public in the cost estimates for the programme, we must also protect the commercially sensitive information of our suppliers. The price that they are charging for the technology services will be commercially sensitive.
Sounds about right for Labour - private profit above public need... How much are they going to waste on them before realising they're an awful idea, which no-one wants? I'm assuming a hell of a lot, as the government are incapable of admitting they're wrong & our only hope is that Labour are thrown out a the next election, and replaced by preferably a Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which won't be until either 2009/10...
I like this reply in paragraph 38 on page 28:
During the development of the Identity Cards Programme there is no evidence that Government has thus far imposed politically-motivated deadlines, and no timetable is dictated by the legislation.
Oh really? See one of my previous posts which had the following from the FT:
Labour plans to race forward with the contentious identity cards scheme to ensure the multi-billion pound infrastructure is up and running before the next election, neutering a Tory pledge to scrap it.
But Andy Burnham, the home office minister responsible for the scheme, said Mr Cameron’s “throwaway line” would be rendered irrelevant by the rapid roll-out of the scheme. He said it would be a fait accompli by the 2008 or 2009 expected date of the next general election. “I’m keen to see plenty of ID cards in circulation come the next election,” he said. “The whole landscape will have changed by the time if – and it’s a big if – the Tories ever get anywhere near power.”
How can they make such a blatant lie in an official reply of all places?
A devastating document slipped out by the Government yesterday revealed that the Home Office believes it is impossible to work out exactly what ID cards will be used for, and what biometric data they should hold, until after they are introduced.
A solution looking for a problem...
Home Office Minister Liam Byrne insisted last week that the scheme would cost £5.4bn over 10 years, close to previous official estimates, and that it would be introduced according to plan from 2008.
But his claims were spectacularly contradicted last night in the Government's official reply to a hard-hitting report published by the Commons Science and Technology Committee addressing flaws in the project.
The reply is in paragraph 32 on pages 23-4.
The cost estimates published are based on a reference design and as such are improved and revised as our understanding of the underlying cost assumptions improves. These will continue to be refined through discussion with the market and comparisons with appropriate benchmark projects throughout the procurement and, therefore, remain flexible... Whilst we are keen to remain open and transparent on the level of detail provided to the public in the cost estimates for the programme, we must also protect the commercially sensitive information of our suppliers. The price that they are charging for the technology services will be commercially sensitive.
Sounds about right for Labour - private profit above public need... How much are they going to waste on them before realising they're an awful idea, which no-one wants? I'm assuming a hell of a lot, as the government are incapable of admitting they're wrong & our only hope is that Labour are thrown out a the next election, and replaced by preferably a Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which won't be until either 2009/10...
I like this reply in paragraph 38 on page 28:
During the development of the Identity Cards Programme there is no evidence that Government has thus far imposed politically-motivated deadlines, and no timetable is dictated by the legislation.
Oh really? See one of my previous posts which had the following from the FT:
Labour plans to race forward with the contentious identity cards scheme to ensure the multi-billion pound infrastructure is up and running before the next election, neutering a Tory pledge to scrap it.
But Andy Burnham, the home office minister responsible for the scheme, said Mr Cameron’s “throwaway line” would be rendered irrelevant by the rapid roll-out of the scheme. He said it would be a fait accompli by the 2008 or 2009 expected date of the next general election. “I’m keen to see plenty of ID cards in circulation come the next election,” he said. “The whole landscape will have changed by the time if – and it’s a big if – the Tories ever get anywhere near power.”
How can they make such a blatant lie in an official reply of all places?
22 August, 2006
The Citizen Registration Programme
I know this is late – going on the date of the article, it was just after I’d moved down to the Village and so was without the t’internet – but I’ve only just discovered – via Blair Watch – the locations of the ID card registration centres.
Of interest to me are the ones for London, as well as the ones for back home Oop t’North-west and also north Wales, which are as follows:
Blackburn
I gown up in east Lancashire and I can have a real go at this.
They’re expecting one office – in Jack Straw’s constituency – to serve not only east Lancashire (Blackburn, Burnley, surrounding areas, total pop. approx 250,000), but it appears they’re also expecting it to serve central Lancashire (Preston, Chorley and possibly Bolton), which will have a greater population, and it appears they also want it to Blackpool (pop. 125,000), Morecambe and Lancaster (total pop. 200,000) which will be a real bastard to get to Blackburn from. From experience I know it’ll take the best part of an hour from Blackpool on the train, but at least it’s direct; for Morecambe and Lancaster you’re expecting people to travel for more than an hour and a half on the train (the road is a no-no, as it’s the M6!) with at least one change in Preston! That or they’re expecting you to travel to Kendal, i.e. the Lake District, which will be even worse for public transport, due to it being a rural area!
In total they expecting one office, in an area with bad public transport, to serve the best part of 1 million people!
Liverpool
Manchester
Obvious choices: biggest cities in the area and can catch a lot of the out-lying areas.
Wrexham
This is a bit of a strange choice. Yes it’d be useful for Chester & western Cheshire and north-Staffordshire, but what about people in the rest of north Wales? I’ve got family in north Wales and so I know how bad the public transport is: small, crappy buses, very slow trains (where they exist, i.e. not everywhere). Anywhere west of Rhyl and you’re fucked with this office, especially if you’re one of the island-dwellers (Anglsey/Ynys Mon). There is the possibility of using the one in Aberystwyth, but, again, the problems with public transport apply, possibly more so. They could use the “Remote Communities Service” which will consist of a webcam – nothing like using a secure system, with high resolution pictures! It’s ideal for ID cards!
As for the Village:
London
One centre?! One fucking centre?! One fucking centre to serve 8 million plus people?! As well as the out-lying suburbs? Are they serious? Fair enough there is the (very slight) possibility of those in western London using the Reading centre and those in the far south of London and Surrey using the Crawley one, but come on…
There’s a map on the locations of centres here.
08 August, 2006
Cloned Biometric Passports/ID cards
From Wired:
A German computer security consultant has shown that he can clone the electronic passports that the United States and other countries are beginning to distribute this year.
I've already posted that this has been done to the Dutch ID cards, so corroboration about how they're a complete waste of time.
A German computer security consultant has shown that he can clone the electronic passports that the United States and other countries are beginning to distribute this year.
The controversial e-passports contain radio frequency ID, or RFID, chips that the U.S. State Department and others say will help thwart document forgery. But Lukas Grunwald, a security consultant with DN-Systems in Germany and an RFID expert, says the data in the chips is easy to copy.
Grunwald says it took him only two weeks to figure out how to clone the passport chip. Most of that time he spent reading the standards for e-passports that are posted on a website for the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations body that developed the standard. He tested the attack on a new European Union German passport, but the method would work on any country's e-passport, since all of them will be adhering to the same ICAO standard.I've already posted that this has been done to the Dutch ID cards, so corroboration about how they're a complete waste of time.
06 August, 2006
Meet the new boss...
From the Observer:
Gordon Brown is planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases.
The government doesn’t seem to listen to anyone: no-one wants ID cards.
Far from intending to dump ID cards once he is in Downing Street, Brown is quietly studying how biometric technology - identifying people by unique markers such as fingerprints and iris patterns - could be expanded over the next 20 years to fight crime.
So much for Gordy being different to the Dear Leader… time for a new government.
The plan would make the ID cards scheme cheaper, since companies would pay for access to the national identity register - a government database of biometric information being compiled for the ID cards programme. Brown's plans belie reports that the Treasury, concerned about the cost of ID cards, would ditch them when he became Prime Minister. 'It's almost the opposite - Gordon's thinking about ID cards is that it's part of the answer but there's a much wider picture,' said a source close to him.
Well that’s one way to back the millions… er, sorry, BILLIONS they’re going to spend on them before the whole thing falls apart…
09 July, 2006
ID Cards are a balls-up: Official!
From the Sunday Times:
TONY BLAIR’S flagship identity cards scheme is set to fail and may not be introduced for a generation, according to leaked Whitehall e-mails from the senior officials responsible for the multi-billion-pound project.
The problems are so serious that ministers have been forced to draw up plans for a scaled-down “face-saving” version to meet their pledge of phasing in the cards from 2008.
However, civil servants say there is no evidence that even this compromise is “remotely feasible” and accuse ministers of “ignoring reality” by pressing ahead.
One official warns of a “botched operation” that could put back the introduction of ID cards for a generation. He added: “I conclude that we are setting ourselves up to fail.” Another admits he is planning Home Office strategy around the possibility that the scheme could be “canned completely”.
In one e-mail the prime minister is personally blamed for the fiasco with his proposal for a scaled-down or “early variant” version. “It was a Mr Blair apparently who wanted the ‘early variant’ card. Not my idea,” writes a top Home Office civil servant.
They reveal that the government is “rethinking” the entire scheme with an alternative “face-saving” compromise, which Smith blames on Blair. This “early variant” plan appears to involve collecting and storing biometric data on a temporary ID register but makes no mention of actually using it on cards.
However, officials doubt that this will work. Foord writes: “Just because ministers say do something does not mean we ignore reality — which is what seems to have happened on ID cards until [the contracts were due] to be issued and then reality could not be ignored any longer.”
The emails in question are available here.
Blairwatch has a good analysis. As they say, this must be why they’re stopping Government reports from being published and are trying to clamp down on people leaking things to the media – shoot the messenger and all that…
TONY BLAIR’S flagship identity cards scheme is set to fail and may not be introduced for a generation, according to leaked Whitehall e-mails from the senior officials responsible for the multi-billion-pound project.
The problems are so serious that ministers have been forced to draw up plans for a scaled-down “face-saving” version to meet their pledge of phasing in the cards from 2008.
However, civil servants say there is no evidence that even this compromise is “remotely feasible” and accuse ministers of “ignoring reality” by pressing ahead.
One official warns of a “botched operation” that could put back the introduction of ID cards for a generation. He added: “I conclude that we are setting ourselves up to fail.” Another admits he is planning Home Office strategy around the possibility that the scheme could be “canned completely”.
In one e-mail the prime minister is personally blamed for the fiasco with his proposal for a scaled-down or “early variant” version. “It was a Mr Blair apparently who wanted the ‘early variant’ card. Not my idea,” writes a top Home Office civil servant.
They reveal that the government is “rethinking” the entire scheme with an alternative “face-saving” compromise, which Smith blames on Blair. This “early variant” plan appears to involve collecting and storing biometric data on a temporary ID register but makes no mention of actually using it on cards.
However, officials doubt that this will work. Foord writes: “Just because ministers say do something does not mean we ignore reality — which is what seems to have happened on ID cards until [the contracts were due] to be issued and then reality could not be ignored any longer.”
The emails in question are available here.
Blairwatch has a good analysis. As they say, this must be why they’re stopping Government reports from being published and are trying to clamp down on people leaking things to the media – shoot the messenger and all that…
18 April, 2006
Sooner than you think!
According to the Financial Times, the government are planning to go into overdrive when it comes to issuing ID cards:
Labour plans to race forward with the contentious identity cards scheme to ensure the multi-billion pound infrastructure is up and running before the next election, neutering a Tory pledge to scrap it.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, this month said that ID cards were a monument to over-mighty government. “I promise you this – in office, we will pull it down,” he said.
But Andy Burnham, the home office minister responsible for the scheme, said Mr Cameron’s “throwaway line” would be rendered irrelevant by the rapid roll-out of the scheme. He said it would be a fait accompli by the 2008 or 2009 expected date of the next general election. “I’m keen to see plenty of ID cards in circulation come the next election,” he said. “The whole landscape will have changed by the time if – and it’s a big if – the Tories ever get anywhere near power.”
At first I thought “Fuck!”, but that I thought “The more the rush it, the greater the chance of a complete balls up occurring as they technology won’t be ready, especially with this government’s record with big IT projects,” so I’m in favour of this plan – the earlier the better, I say!
By the way, does anyone find it disturbing that the government are rushing through the ID card roll out simply because they want to screw the Tories (or a potential coalition government) into keeping them, not because they are confident about the technology?
Labour plans to race forward with the contentious identity cards scheme to ensure the multi-billion pound infrastructure is up and running before the next election, neutering a Tory pledge to scrap it.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, this month said that ID cards were a monument to over-mighty government. “I promise you this – in office, we will pull it down,” he said.
But Andy Burnham, the home office minister responsible for the scheme, said Mr Cameron’s “throwaway line” would be rendered irrelevant by the rapid roll-out of the scheme. He said it would be a fait accompli by the 2008 or 2009 expected date of the next general election. “I’m keen to see plenty of ID cards in circulation come the next election,” he said. “The whole landscape will have changed by the time if – and it’s a big if – the Tories ever get anywhere near power.”
At first I thought “Fuck!”, but that I thought “The more the rush it, the greater the chance of a complete balls up occurring as they technology won’t be ready, especially with this government’s record with big IT projects,” so I’m in favour of this plan – the earlier the better, I say!
By the way, does anyone find it disturbing that the government are rushing through the ID card roll out simply because they want to screw the Tories (or a potential coalition government) into keeping them, not because they are confident about the technology?
11 April, 2006
I am a man, not a number!
From the International Herald Tribune:
Most South Korean Web sites require members to register by presenting a name and matching 13-digit "resident registration number.”
The number, issued by the government to every South Korean at birth, is the closest thing the country has to a human bar code. For four decades, it has been a dominant form of identification, used when people buy a house, open a bank account or apply for a library card. The first six digits are the holder's year, month and date of birth. The numbers also reveal sex and place of birth.
The system, however, has a big problem: It is relatively easy to steal names and their matching numbers.
The police say that some people with access to the databases of businesses that store customer information have been collecting them and selling them to data brokers. Web sites with poor firewalls are vulnerable to hackers who can extract the personal data. Indeed, it is possible to find names and matching ID numbers just by using Google.
“It has become too easy to get random resident numbers,” said Kim Young Hong at Citizens’ Action Network, which campaigns for greater online privacy. “The resident number no longer serves as a proper way of identification.”
Our ID cards will also have their own number, which will be as easily to fake as the Korean one.
Most South Korean Web sites require members to register by presenting a name and matching 13-digit "resident registration number.”
The number, issued by the government to every South Korean at birth, is the closest thing the country has to a human bar code. For four decades, it has been a dominant form of identification, used when people buy a house, open a bank account or apply for a library card. The first six digits are the holder's year, month and date of birth. The numbers also reveal sex and place of birth.
The system, however, has a big problem: It is relatively easy to steal names and their matching numbers.
The police say that some people with access to the databases of businesses that store customer information have been collecting them and selling them to data brokers. Web sites with poor firewalls are vulnerable to hackers who can extract the personal data. Indeed, it is possible to find names and matching ID numbers just by using Google.
“It has become too easy to get random resident numbers,” said Kim Young Hong at Citizens’ Action Network, which campaigns for greater online privacy. “The resident number no longer serves as a proper way of identification.”
Our ID cards will also have their own number, which will be as easily to fake as the Korean one.
02 April, 2006
More on ID Cards
You’re probably heard that the ID Cards Bill has been passed. I was going to say summat but I’ve been so pissed off, that I couldn’t do anything – paralysed by hatred, I guess…
Hell! Even Bloggers4Labour are opposed to them! as they say:
It's pessimistic, but perhaps the new ID infrastructure has to completely crash and burn as a lesson for future Governments.
Anyway, here’s an article about how badly things will turn out – hopefully, things will be even worse.
Also take up this (which I found over at Not Little England):
At the next General Election [and also in the up-coming Local Elections], at every Hustings, in every constituency up and down the country, we ask
Will you vote to abolish the National Identity Register?
If they don't say yes, we get them out. Regardless of party.
The Guardian has this:
People who opt out of having an identity card when they renew their passport will still have to pay the full £93 combined cost of both cards, the Home Office disclosed yesterday.
The decision is a setback to anti-ID card campaigners hoping to develop a boycott on the back of the last minute opt-out compromise which defused parliamentary opposition.
And, if Labour win the next election:
Mr Clarke also confirmed that he would expect the legislation making it compulsory for everyone to hold an ID card to be introduced after the next general election.
See also this, about the logistics of the system, especially the database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
