Fingerprints and the new EU Entry Exit system

[dansaskip]

New Zealand and a few other places that you get fingerprinted and checked against the biometric ID.

Well I have been in and out of New Zealand a number of times fairly recently both on my boat and flying and I have never been fingerprinted so I don't know that the quoted comment is accurate.

 

[st599]

Well I have been in and out of New Zealand a number of times fairly recently both on my boat and flying and I have never been fingerprinted so I don't know that the quoted comment is accurate.

Biometric information
Started last year.

 

[Poignard]

We live in an age of mass movements of people travelling for business , pleasure and for criminal purposes.

If it is accepted that a country has a right to know who is crossing its borders, then it follows that some system capable of dealing with the numbers involved will be necessary.

If those who consider a system using fingerprint recognition to be unacceptable, what alternative system would they suggest; bearing in mind factors such as cost, speed of implementation, the need for standardisation, and reliability?

Or would they propose having no system at all?

 

[dolabriform]

We live in an age of mass movements of people travelling for business and for pleasure.

If it is accepted that a country has a right to know who is crossing its borders, then it follows that some system capable of dealing with the numbers involved will be necessary.

If those who consider a system using fingerprint recognition to be unacceptable, what alternative system would they suggest; bearing in mind factors such as cost, speed of implementation, the need for standardisation, and reliability?

Or would they rather have no system at all?

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no system, or that fingerprint scanning is unacceptable. Rather that it is prudent to understand the true nature of these systems and the real costs involved.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no system, or that fingerprint scanning is unacceptable. Rather that it is prudent to understand the true nature of these systems and the real costs involved.

Which seems very different to that which you and the lusty one were espousing earlier.

 

[Poignard]

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no system, or that fingerprint scanning is unacceptable. Rather that it is prudent to understand the true nature of these systems and the real costs involved.

'

The 'true nature' of these fingerprint scanning systems is that people's fingerprints are scanned and stored on a governmental database. How could it be otherwise?

The 'real costs', like all government schemes, will be enormous.

So I'll ask again.

Is there a better alternative? If there is, what is it?

 

[dolabriform]

Which seems very different to that which you and the lusty one were espousing earlier.

I'm not saying that they are of no value, I am saying that they are inherently flawed and should not be taken as a single point of truth. Understand the system.

 

[dolabriform]

'

The 'true nature' of these fingerprint scanning systems is that people's fingerprints are scanned and stored on a governmental database. How could it be otherwise?

The 'real costs', like all government schemes, will be enormous.

So I'll ask again.

Is there a better alternative? If there is, what is it?

Probably not outsourcing this to the lowest bidder / mates of the procurement minister. Bring everything in house and spend the money on real expertise rather than shareholder profit. Keep all data transit off the public networks and onto dark fibre. Treat the data and security better than national security systems. Employ continuous testing and review.

In other words build a better system. I think Lusty would agree with me that it's not the idea that's the big problem, rather the implementation.

edit: Spend lots of money on training to remove confirmation bias as much as possible. Use humans who are trained to spot anomalies

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I'm not saying that they are of no value, I am saying that they are inherently flawed and should not be taken as a single point of truth. Understand the system.

Wriggle wriggle

 

[lustyd]

Is there a better alternative? If there is, what is it?

Any system which can't be defeated with some sandpaper would be a start. Also these systems don't actually require a central database to function, so removal of that from the scope would be useful.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Any system which can't be defeated with some sandpaper would be a start. Also these systems don't actually require a central database to function, so removal of that from the scope would be useful.

Fingerprint recognition can't be defeated by removing your finger prints because no finger prints means no access.

 

[Clancy Moped]

Fingerprint recognition can't be defeated by removing your finger prints because no finger prints means no access.

They can if you chop off the finger in question ??

 

[Poignard]

Any system which can't be defeated with some sandpaper would be a start.

'
Are you able to describe such a system?

Also these systems don't actually require a central database to function, so removal of that from the scope would be useful.

'
If you don't have a central database how would you propose recording the entry and exit of someone who, say, entered the UK at Prestwick airport and left the UK on a ferry from Plymouth?

Sorry if these seem silly questions but I don't share your expertise in these matters; I am just trying to understand exactly what it is you have in mind.

 

[lustyd]

Fingerprint recognition can't be defeated by removing your finger prints because no finger prints means no access.

Strictly speaking it means fallback to alternative methods like the existing photo in the document. Bear in mind though that the system is only trying to match what your "finger" looked like when it was scanned to what it looks like now. Again, that's pretty easy to fake but hugely more valuable in fraud because of the trust put into it. All we achieve therefore is raising the value of fake passports which come with suitable fake fingerprints. Generally speaking, those willing to spend more on such things are the ones we are aiming the system at, so it's better to keep it simple so you can continue to track them more easily.

 

[Poignard]

Strictly speaking it means fallback to alternative methods like the existing photo in the document. Bear in mind though that the system is only trying to match what your "finger" looked like when it was scanned to what it looks like now. Again, that's pretty easy to fake but hugely more valuable in fraud because of the trust put into it. All we achieve therefore is raising the value of fake passports which come with suitable fake fingerprints. Generally speaking, those willing to spend more on such things are the ones we are aiming the system at, so it's better to keep it simple so you can continue to track them more easily.

So your solution is to do nothing?

 

[lustyd]

Are you able to describe such a system?

Yes, your current passport works very well for the intended purpose.

'
If you don't have a central database how would you propose recording the entry and exit of someone who, say, entered the UK at Prestwick airport and left the UK on a ferry from Plymouth?

Sorry if these seem silly questions but I don't share your expertise in these matters; I am just trying to understand exactly what it is you have in mind.

That's a different question. Tracking the movement of people in and out of the country is different from having a completely unrelated database of their personal information and biometrics which can be used in pseudo-policing and other harmful activities.

Also, the database to keep track of who is currently in the country and when their visa expires is a list, and one which should expire as soon as they leave. That's not generally what happens. Needless to say it's a very different thing to know who should have left and finding that person. Neither fingerprints nor databases help to track down individuals who have fallen out of the system in such a way. We don't have the resources to trace such people, so instead we make a system that looks effective so that common folk think it is effective. It is not effective though.

 

[lustyd]

So your solution is to do nothing?

My solution is to only change things when you can add value without making the situation worse. With current technology and current proposals my recommendation would without a shadow of a doubt be not to change anything.

The more our border force are engaged with dingy travel the less they focus on yacht travel. We've massively increased presence in the channel, and we've massively increased visibility of the statistics surrounding illegal immigration. We have not made a blind bit of difference to the problem aside from increasing hate and division.

 

[Poignard]

Yes, your current passport works very well for the intended purpose.

The latest stamp in my passport shows that I entered France last July. There is no stamp showing that I left France in September; which I did.

My wife's passport, (she travelled with me ), showed the same but since returning she has had a new one , which does not show any country stamps.

Passports are paper and card, they may be stolen, altered or forged.

That's a different question. Tracking the movement of people in and out of the country is different from having a completely unrelated database of their personal information and biometrics which can be used in pseudo-policing and other harmful activities.

Also, the database to keep track of who is currently in the country and when their visa expires is a list, and one which should expire as soon as they leave. That's not generally what happens. Needless to say it's a very different thing to know who should have left and finding that person. Neither fingerprints nor databases help to track down individuals who have fallen out of the system in such a way. We don't have the resources to trace such people, so instead we make a system that looks effective so that common folk think it is effective. It is not effective though.

Any database recording people's movements into and out of a country must, of necessity, contain basic data about them: date of birth, next-of-kin, nationality, physical characteristics, address, date of entry/exit, etc. Without that information the database would be useless. Do you object to that information being on file?

Having once obtained that data, what is achieved by deleting it when the person leaves a country; only for it to have to be collected again and re-entered if he/she returns; with consequent delay and expense?

When you renew your vehicle licence you do not expect to have to re-apply for a new licence every time giving all the data about your car; chassis number, colour, number of seats, keeper's name and address, whether it is insured and MOT tested, dates of renewal or SORNS, etc. You know that information is stored on a DVLA database and, if nothing has changed, renewal is a quick and easy process. Why shouldn't the same principle apply with your travel document?

There are many other governmental organisations with databases holding personal information about you, eg the NHS, the Dartford Crossing, HMRC, the Department of Education, the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, the MCA.

Does that not worry you? For example, does it not bother you that the NHS records the most intimate personal details about you? Things that you might not want even your wife to know.

Compared to what is already known about you, the government's maintaining a record of when you enter and leave the country is trivial and inconsequential.

Anyone who wants to live in any kind of organised society is are going to have to face up to the fact that they cannot exist in it as if they were some kind of crackpot Q-anon backwoodsman, without reponsibilties, answerable to no-one but themselves.

But if you are determined to resist the encroachment of the state, instead of fretting about something as piffling as fingerprints on your passport, you'd do better standing up to government's attempts to really control you, by limiting your rights to institute judicial reviews, or to seek legal aid, or to take part in protests, for example.

 

[westernman]

Passports are paper and card, they may be stolen, altered or forged.

And a chip with some of your biometric data which is difficult to forge.
Also in many countries, the chip data is cross correlated with your finger prints and the photo they took last time you entered the country.

It is almost impossible to forge a passport these days.

Much easier to forge the application and get a real one. Particularly in the UK where very few checks are made on passport applications.

 

[lustyd]

The latest stamp in my passport shows that I entered France last July. There is no stamp showing that I left France in September; which I did.

My wife's passport, (she travelled with me ), showed the same but since returning she has had a new one , which does not show any country stamps.

Electronics don't change this at all, if you don't check out properly, you don't check out properly. With 19th century technology you can see the stamp out, with 21st century tech you might be in prison because you couldn't.

Passports are paper and card, they may be stolen, altered or forged.

Computers are trivial to hack for those with moderate skills. With paper at least you're physically holding your entry token so have something to show for yourself. What is your plan if you're in some foreign country and someone deletes your entry in the system? You can't get back, you can't go on, you can't prove you're even a citizen. Your best bet then is a dinghy in the channel, good luck.

Any database recording people's movements into and out of a country must, of necessity, contain basic data about them: date of birth, next-of-kin, nationality, physical characteristics, address, date of entry/exit, etc. Without that information the database would be useless. Do you object to that information being on file?

This is simply a complete misunderstanding of how these systems work. My own country needs my personal info, the country I visit needs to see it only long enough to verify I am who I claim. Amazon don't record date of birth to prove you're old enough to buy alcohol, their delivery driver views it without taking a picture. Simple privacy and respect for data, and it's shocking that Amazon are better at this than a government given their vested interest in your data.

Having once obtained that data, what is achieved by deleting it when the person leaves a country; only for it to have to be collected again and re-entered if he/she returns; with consequent delay and expense?

Privacy, liberty, the list goes on. What is gained by keeping a massive database of people's movements unless you have an ulterior motive?

When you renew your vehicle licence you do not expect to have to re-apply for a new licence every time giving all the data about your car; chassis number, colour, number of seats, keeper's name and address, whether it is insured and MOT tested, dates of renewal or SORNS, etc. You know that information is stored on a DVLA database and, if nothing has changed, renewal is a quick and easy process. Why shouldn't the same principle apply with your travel document?

Why did you think this completely different situation is even remotely relevant?

There are many other governmental organisations with databases holding personal information about you, eg the NHS, the Dartford Crossing, HMRC, the Department of Education, the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, the MCA.

Yes, each has a good reason for keeping the data I let them have. None have a good reason to share or mine that information for other purposes. GDPR is pretty clear about this and explains it well. It's only 68 pages, have a read.

Does that not worry you? For example, does it not bother you that the NHS records the most intimate personal details about you? Things that you might not want even your wife to know.

No, it doesn't bother me because I opted out of the NHS selling my data, as did the other people who understand the issue. If they do anything bad with my data they will go to prison.

Compared to what is already known about you, the government's maintaining a record of when you enter and leave the country is trivial and inconsequential.

Not at all, history has shown that governments tracking their citizens movements is almost always a bad idea. Literally everyone on this thread that understands the subject knows that.

Anyone who wants to live in any kind of organised society is are going to have to face up to the fact that they cannot exist in it as if they were some kind of crackpot Q-anon backwoodsman, without reponsibilties, answerable to no-one but themselves.

But if you are determined to resist the encroachment of the state, instead of fretting about something as piffling as fingerprints on your passport, you'd do better standing up to government's attempts to really control you, by limiting your rights to institute judicial reviews, or to seek legal aid, or to take part in protests, for example.

Anyone who wants to live in a civilised society has to understand trust is a part of that. Sure, bad things happen. That does not in any way justify doing worse things to everyone.
My favourite quote from a film, which sums this up well, is "it's not that I have something to hide, I don't have anything I want you to see". The information is mine, not yours. If you have a legitimate reason to have it I might choose to let you have it, if there is no danger to me from that happening. In this instance the danger is clear and well documented.