Sep. 25th, 2001

ciphergoth: (Default)

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1559000/1559245.stm
[Blunkett] also maintained that improvements in electronic thumb or fingerprint technology or even "iris-prints" meant the threat of forgery would not make the system redundant.
Iris codes are a very effective identification technology. They scare the crap out of me. This BBC news story provides a summary of how they work:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1477000/1477655.stm

More information is provided in Section 13.5 of Ross Anderson, "Security Engineering". Here's some tidbits.

They're devastatingly accurate. With any identification system, you can trade off "false accepts" (accepting someone who is not who they say they are) against "false rejects" (rejecting someone who is who they say they are). With iris codes, if you're prepared to put up with a false reject rate of one in ten thousand, you can get a false accept rate of less than one in a trillion.

Unlike fingerprints, iris codes have a very simple structure. As a result, they can be compared very rapidly, and they're not limited to checking that you are who you say you are - it's practical to look up who you are in a database using your iris code. The Nationwide Building Society piloted a cash machine for which no cards were needed - the machine looked you up in their database using your iris code.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_81000/81859.stm

An iris code database for the whole of the UK would fit onto any new PC.

Iris code scanners will be very cheap - they're just a simple low-res digital camera with a fixed-focus lens and fixed exposure. You put your eye in just the right place, close to the lens, and it takes a photograph. However, Anderson says
There's no technical reason why a camera could not acquire the iris from a distance of several feet [...] - it would just cost a bit more - but that brings Orwellian overtones of automatic recognition of individuals passing in a crowd.
Mirrorshades or vanity contact lenses would stop this at the moment. But existing vanity contact lens printing techniques are not fine grained enough to allow me to pass as someone else in an iris code test.

In summary, they might decide they don't need to issue us with ID cards. They may just use the two ID cards we carry with us every day.

Update: More commentary from Ross Anderson
ciphergoth: (Default)
by Simon Davies of Privacy International
In short, the implications are profound. The existence of a persons life story in a hundred unrelated databases is one important condition that protects privacy. The bringing together of these separate information centers creates a major privacy vulnerability. Any multi-purpose national ID card has this effect.
http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
ciphergoth: (Default)
Culled from [livejournal.com profile] antiwar

Happy New Year: It's 1984
by Jacob Levich
The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.

It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0922-07.htm

Profile

ciphergoth: (Default)
Paul Crowley

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2025 10:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios