Fingerprints and the new EU Entry Exit system

[lustyd]

Went to page 3 and still couldn't find the information about gummy bears?

Because you weren't searching for gummy bears. Let Me Google That

 

[lustyd]

But, and it's somewhat hard to see with all the mud slinging that's been going on here, have you actually suggested a viable alternative?

Yes. Yes I have. And explained why it would work the same, and explained the downsides of massive centralised databases of fingerprints. As you say though, it's hard to find because some forum members have done their best to derail the conversation in the hopes that you remain as ignorant as them.

 

[syvictoria]

Yes. Yes I have. And explained why it would work the same, and explained the downsides of massive centralised databases of fingerprints. As you say though, it's hard to find because some forum members have done their best to derail the conversation in the hopes that you remain as ignorant as them.

Could you possibly point me to the post? Thanks.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Yes. Yes I have. And explained why it would work the same, and explained the downsides of massive centralised databases of fingerprints. As you say though, it's hard to find because some forum members have done their best to derail the conversation in the hopes that you remain as ignorant as them.

I am am not sure what your objection was it seemed to start out with fingerprints aren't accurate then it progressed on to the systems aren't capable and then the abuse of centralised records. Which is it?

 

[Poignard]

[...] some forum members have done their best to derail the conversation in the hopes that you remain as ignorant as them.

Aha! a conspiracy!

 

[lustyd]

I am am not sure what your objection was it seemed to start out with fingerprints aren't accurate then it progressed on to the systems aren't capable and then the abuse of centralised records. Which is it?

Several objections as I've explained throughout.

• Fingerprint scanners are not accurate, hence the enhanced security of the new system is a myth.
• Fingerprint scanners are very easy to fool, and require very little expertise to fool, hence more people will find it easier to slip through the border control under false pretences
• Passports which are deemed harder to break will become more valuable, this has generally been shown to increase serious organised crime
• A database of fingerprints at the national level has numerous privacy and liberty implications which are very well documented, leading to false imprisonments, policing by data mining instead of finding real evidence, and various other issues.

These were all discussed throughout the thread by myself and others with fairly robust explanations. No rebuttals have been put forward as far as I can tell, other than name calling and a desire for faster border control. I have never disputed that this system will lead to a massive increase in throughput at the borders to get more people through with more certainty (but less security) than ever before. If open and fast borders were what we wanted we'd remove the gates, not upgrade them.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Several objections as I've explained throughout.

• Fingerprint scanners are not accurate, hence the enhanced security of the new system is a myth.
• Fingerprint scanners are very easy to fool, and require very little expertise to fool, hence more people will find it easier to slip through the border control under false pretences
• Passports which are deemed harder to break will become more valuable, this has generally been shown to increase serious organised crime
• A database of fingerprints at the national level has numerous privacy and liberty implications which are very well documented, leading to false imprisonments, policing by data mining instead of finding real evidence, and various other issues.

These were all discussed throughout the thread by myself and others with fairly robust explanations. No rebuttals have been put forward as far as I can tell, other than name calling and a desire for faster border control. I have never disputed that this system will lead to a massive increase in throughput at the borders to get more people through with more certainty (but less security) than ever before. If open and fast borders were what we wanted we'd remove the gates, not upgrade them.

I have yet to read any evidence about the fallibility of fingerprint scanners, got any credible references.

 

[westernman]

Several objections as I've explained throughout.

• Fingerprint scanners are not accurate, hence the enhanced security of the new system is a myth.

When combined with your photo, the biometric info on your passport and what is already on the central data base they are pretty secure.
Very secure compared to the old system of a board guard comparing your face to your passport photo.

• Fingerprint scanners are very easy to fool, and require very little expertise to fool, hence more people will find it easier to slip through the border control under false pretences

Proper professional ones, such as the ones used by the Chinese government are not easy to fool.
You can fool the one on your iPhone easily enough. But the scanners used by most border control forces are pretty robust and you won't have an easy time in fooling it.

• Passports which are deemed harder to break will become more valuable, this has generally been shown to increase serious organised crime

Of course. Also it is almost impossible to go anywhere these days without a biometric passport with a chip in it.
These are hard to break.

As I mentioned before, it is much easier to get a real one under false pretences. Particularly in countries with very lax rules for obtaining a passport such as the UK.

• A database of fingerprints at the national level has numerous privacy and liberty implications which are very well documented, leading to false imprisonments, policing by data mining instead of finding real evidence, and various other issues.

That train has kind of already gone. If you have travelled out of the UK and EU recently, your finger prints are already on many different databases. Some of which are readily accessible to our Government.

These were all discussed throughout the thread by myself and others with fairly robust explanations. No rebuttals have been put forward as far as I can tell, other than name calling and a desire for faster border control. I have never disputed that this system will lead to a massive increase in throughput at the borders to get more people through with more certainty (but less security) than ever before. If open and fast borders were what we wanted we'd remove the gates, not upgrade them.

Border security in most places in the world is higher and more secure than ever before.

If you want to see a really secure border, fly into China. The border is very secure, very efficient and fast. And they deal with huge numbers of passengers (Beijing Capital City Airport, Shanghai airports etc).

And yes they have my finger prints. And yes the French government knows exactly when I went there. I recently had a visit from a high ranking officer in the French equivalent of the MI6 who was very interested to know whom I had met.

 

[lustyd]

I have yet to read any evidence about the fallibility of fingerprint scanners, got any credible references.

It's your choice not to have read it, and there's no reason I can see that you'd choose to read if I repost links or post new ones.

 

[steveinnice]

Because you weren't searching for gummy bears. Let Me Google That

If you'd quoted my whole post you would see it was an attempt at humour. Anyway we used to use sticky tape to transfer a fingerprint when we wanted to stitch someone up.

 

[lustyd]

When combined with your photo, the biometric info on your passport and what is already on the central data base they are pretty secure.
Very secure compared to the old system of a board guard comparing your face to your passport photo.

The appearance of security isn't always security. The document itself is more secure, sure, but the appearance that it's harder to break makes it less secure overall. If I can get a passport with my prints and a false identity there will be no questions at all about the authenticity, and because the guard will be replaced with a fingerprint reader, there is also nobody to be suspicious. The central database plays no role in this activity either way, the biometrics can and have been included in the document.

Proper professional ones, such as the ones used by the Chinese government are not easy to fool.
You can fool the one on your iPhone easily enough. But the scanners used by most border control forces are pretty robust and you won't have an easy time in fooling it.

Why do people always roll out the spectre of China in these discussions? They supply all of our devices for the most part, and we have identical tech. All easily fooled if you do the smallest amount of research. Retina scanners less so.

Of course. Also it is almost impossible to go anywhere these days without a biometric passport with a chip in it.
These are hard to break.

Indeed, and I don't think any of us objected to passports with chips. I may be wrong there, there was a lot of cruft in the thread.

As I mentioned before, it is much easier to get a real one under false pretences. Particularly in countries with very lax rules for obtaining a passport such as the UK.

Indeed, but if your prints are on file it's also easy enough to get a real one with different prints which won't be questioned. Under false pretences. However now you've raised the value chain for such documents to the point it becomes worthwhile upping the game to sell them. This generally means serious organised crime, which would seem to be the opposite of what we're going for with border controls, no?

That train has kind of already gone. If you have travelled out of the UK and EU recently, your finger prints are already on many different databases. Some of which are readily accessible to our Government.

Sorry, I don't agree with the "we've already lost so let's jump to endgame" idea. Perhaps one day governments will be trustworthy enough to do such things without problems, but I rather think if we got that advanced border control would no longer be an issue since people would be free to travel anyway. You only have to build higher walls while you're trying to keep people out.

Border security in most places in the world is higher and more secure than ever before.

If you want to see a really secure border, fly into China. The border is very secure, very efficient and fast. And they deal with huge numbers of passengers (Beijing Capital City Airport, Shanghai airports etc).

And yes they have my finger prints. And yes the French government knows exactly when I went there. I recently had a visit from a high ranking officer in the French equivalent of the MI6 who was very interested to know whom I had met.

Border security certainly has more theatre than it used to, I'll give you that. I don't agree that it's more effective or more secure, it's just different. It needs to be in a world of mass media and fake news.

 

[lustyd]

If you'd quoted my whole post you would see it was an attempt at humour. Anyway we used to use sticky tape to transfer a fingerprint when we wanted to stitch someone up.

Sticky tape doesn't work with modern scanners because they measure capacitance (hence the gummy bear), temperature (gummy) and occasionally pulse via light, again a gummy bear works if thin enough. Needless to say a gummy bear is only the most basic tactic, a little digging will reveal many more.

Also, appologies, poignard put me in a bad mood with the whole thread!

 

[westernman]

Border security certainly has more theatre than it used to, I'll give you that. I don't agree that it's more effective or more secure, it's just different. It needs to be in a world of mass media and fake news.

It is much more effective and secure.

Before you only needed a passport with a photo which only vaguely needed to actually resemble you to get through any border control in the world. And you only needed to get the passport application form and your photos signed by any old doctor or engineer (and whose signatures were never verified or checked).

I have friends who got around visa limitations by swapping passports between them. They looked close enough to each others' photos so as that did not cause any suspicions.
.
Now, they know that the passport is yours. And they know when you were last in the country, and in many countries where you have been and the places you stayed in. Some countries share data between themselves and most have access to all the airlines' databases as well.

Now the easiest country to get into without the authorities being aware that you are there is probably the UK.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

It's your choice not to have read it, and there's no reason I can see that you'd choose to read if I repost links or post new ones.

The only reference I have read was about fingerprints being miss identified on the basis of less than 12 points of reference being used which was a load of twaddle as the ones in use at borders use typically 16 points, the French use 17. Then again if there is any doubt signalled by your fingerprint you won't be going anywhere quick.
So where is this evidence that fingerprint scanners can be fooled.

 

[lustyd]

It is much more effective and secure.

Before you only needed a passport with a photo which only vaguely needed to actually resemble you to get through any border control in the world. And you only needed to get the passport application form and your photos signed by any old doctor or engineer (and whose signatures were never verified or checked).

I think the old system was just more pragmatic about the reality of controlling a border. The new system pretends to be better, but suffers all of the same issues. They don't know the passport is yours, but now they implicitely trust that it is because computer said yes.
They don't know when you were in the last country unless you are consistent with which passport you use. Many people have many passports, many of those quite legally. Some passport authorities share information, some don't.

Agree the UK is quite easy to enter if you're determined.

 

[lustyd]

The only reference I have read was about fingerprints being miss identified on the basis of less than 12 points of reference being used which was a load of twaddle as the ones in use at borders use typically 16 points, the French use 17. Then again if there is any doubt signalled by your fingerprint you won't be going anywhere quick.
So where is this evidence that fingerprint scanners can be fooled.

As I said in response to that post, the 12 or 16 point thing is irrelevant since it only addresses the question of whether the scanner can reliably detect that a given print is a given print. Knowing that an apple is an apple is all well and good until you show the computer a photo of an apple and it's unaware of the difference, and that's one of the problems here. One link I posted explained the use of cyanoacrylate (superglue) fumes to get a print, this isn't the whole process but it's the start of a pretty straightforward task list to make your own prints, potentially from the passport you just stole from someone which has their prints all over it. Part of this was shown in James Bond once, so it's hardly a secret.
That's part of the issue, if there isn't any doubt about the print, there isn't any doubt at all. it's infallable

 

[syvictoria]

Surely carrying a mobile phone realistically provides more opportunities for being tracked by the authorities than providing fingerprints at a border?

Edit: Closely followed by the photo you upload to Facebook et al.!

 

[westernman]

As I said in response to that post, the 12 or 16 point thing is irrelevant since it only addresses the question of whether the scanner can reliably detect that a given print is a given print. Knowing that an apple is an apple is all well and good until you show the computer a photo of an apple and it's unaware of the difference, and that's one of the problems here. One link I posted explained the use of cyanoacrylate (superglue) fumes to get a print, this isn't the whole process but it's the start of a pretty straightforward task list to make your own prints, potentially from the passport you just stole from someone which has their prints all over it. Part of this was shown in James Bond once, so it's hardly a secret.
That's part of the issue, if there isn't any doubt about the print, there isn't any doubt at all. it's infallable

The finger print is connected to the passport. The passport connects to the data base of our flight information, visa applications previous entries/exits and hotels you stayed in.

Getting reliable print off something to create a print to fool a modern finger print scanner is very hard. Most places take prints from all your fingers and thumb on one hand. Very hard to find and copy all those prints. And get them in the right order!

Stolen passports do get reported.

I think the old system was just more pragmatic about the reality of controlling a border. The new system pretends to be better, but suffers all of the same issues. They don't know the passport is yours, but now they implicitely trust that it is because computer said yes.
They don't know when you were in the last country unless you are consistent with which passport you use. Many people have many passports, many of those quite legally. Some passport authorities share information, some don't.

Agree the UK is quite easy to enter if you're determined.

The old system where some old guy just looked at your face and at your passport was not anything as like as secure as now. He had nothing to go on. As I said, I have friends who have used each others' passports in the past. They could not do that now with biometric passports and finger print data-bases.

They do know when you were last in the country. They will match up the different passports you use. Some countries will also question you if you use a different passport on exit than on entry or from one journey to another. Others don't care as they all point to the same set of records anyway.

The easiest way to get illegally across a border is still hidden in the back of an articulated truck trailer. Much easier and more reliable than trying to fool a finger print scanner or a biometric measurement camera.

 

[lustyd]

Surely carrying a mobile phone realistically provides more opportunities for being tracked by the authorities than providing fingerprints at a border?

Edit: Closely followed by the photo you upload to Facebook et al.!

All optional though, and easy enough to stop. It's also harder than you think to tie those records back to useful information at that scale reliably.

 

[lustyd]

The old system where some old guy just looked at your face and at your passport was not anything as like as secure as now. He had nothing to go on. As I said, I have friends who have used each others' passports in the past

Secure and accurate are not the same thing. Reliably matching a passport to a human doesn't improve border security.

Indeed, and we've all been through a Balearic (or similar) control where they barely even looked up to see if it was a passport. That's why I said the old system was more pragmatic, the new one doesn't really improve things it just adds theatre and deters the low end from trying. Have you thought about why it's important that you stay 90 days and not 91? As someone who can work remotely I've given it a great deal of thought and the system makes less sense than it first seems. It all boils down to tax, of course, as all things do.