Biometrics and User's Rights? 31
cornjones asks: "Does anybody know anything about biometrics and user rights? I am supposed to give a handscan to my building for gym access. I don't really have a problem w/ this persay but I want some sort of assurance as to what the scans will be used for (and that they will be deleted fully when I leave). It may be a bit paranoid right now but these scans don't change over your life and the trend is towards these scans being used for more and more applications. I talked to the VP and he said he would sign a privacy doc if I could find one. I did a little searching and I haven't found anything good. Does anybody know of any groups or papers on protecting the use of biometric identifying information?"
Let Me Write One For You. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let Me Write One For You. (Score:1)
i'd suggest they publish it as their policy (like privacy statements on websites) or maybe have everyone being scanned sign it. this way, anyone else as uncomfortable as you might be reassured.
Umm (Score:4, Insightful)
In South Carolina I believe, they had a law that allowed the DNA samples taken from newborns to be kept indefinately. The samples are used to detect and aid in fighting diseases, but the hospitals were dealing with and giving the samples to rather dubios corporations with nerving ties to the government. Thankfully, a Republican state senator labored long and hard and finally set a limit on how long this data could be kept and who dealt with it.
It seems that a number of politicians on both sides are starting to speak up about bioethics and civil liberties in general at state and local levels--however the future looks bleak from Washington.
Re:Umm (Score:3, Informative)
Holy Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm not some paranoid delusional. They've tried to pass a law here where anyone who buys or sells any item at a pawn shop would be required to provide their fingerprints to the pawn shop. The fingerprints would then be turned over to the police (who, no doubt, would put them into the NCIC database). Yes, that's right; private transactions between private companies and private individuals would require fingerprints turned over to the cops. We aren't talking guns here, we're talking CD players, cubic zirconia rings, gold necklaces, all the various stuff you find in pawn shops.
The "logic" behind this proposal is that thieves often fence stolen goods at pawn shops; thus pawn shop customers often purchase stolen goods, either intentionally or unintentionally. By requiring that every pawn shop transaction be accompanied by fingerprints, stolen property and those responsible for its theft could supposedly be tracked down more easily. At the same time, the police could add to their fingerprint database of "persons of interest" - that eerily Doublespeak new category which means "they're not even a suspect but we're watching them anyway."
Well, that's a grand idea at first glance. The problem is that pawn shops have plenty of legitimate customers as well - think eBayers - who aren't doing anything wrong and do not deserve to be treated like criminals. It would be easier to track down stolen property if every transaction required you to donate a blood sample. It would be easier to track down stolen property if a law was passed requiring a Lo-Jack device in every tangible good. Hell, it would be easier to track down stolen property by forbidding anyone but the government to sell things to the public. Just because something makes crimes easier to solve, doesn't mean it's a good idea!
My point is that, at least in the USA, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. We're supposed to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure. I'd certainly consider mandated fingerprints at the pawn shop to be unwarranted seizure of those fingerprints. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who believe that the ability to solve/prevent crime trumps all other rights. There are a lot of people who believe that outlawing guns will stop murder, or that making non-DRM-compliant computers illegal will stop piracy. You get the idea.
And then what? Either you provide that ID or you don't get hired? Either you provide that ID or you can't buy gas for your car to get to the job you don't have anyway? Either you provide that ID or the grocery store charges you more for food than they charge those who do provide that ID? Think fast: which one of those is already taking place? Who do you think is getting access to your purchase records from the grocery store [villagevoice.com]? I'll save you the trouble, and quote from the article (emphasis mine):
Still not concerned about private companies having your personal data? s/grocery store/your company/g and s/grocery lists/biometric information/g if you don't see the problem. Suppose one day someone in your company's HR department decides to "fight terrorism" by donating every employee's retina scan to the FBI - that's not a problem? It's going to happen sooner than later. Believe me, I never thought I'd see the day when grocery stores tracked individuals' purchases, much less the day when the entire database was willingly handed over to the government.
Further, a lot of biometric devices (and even manual techniques like fingerprint dusting) are susceptible to forgery. Perhaps not as much as they used to be, but still plenty enough to make me nervous. As biometrics become more pervasive, what happens when the grocery store requires your thumbprint, or voiceprint, or retina scan, etc. in order to check out? Suddenly they have a copy of the very "key" that gets you into your office at work, disarms your home's security system, authenticates your bank transactions, and even puts you at the scene of a crime. Sorry, but I'll keep my thumbprint to myself.
No, if someone really REALLY wants to fuck you over, you aren't going to know about it until it happens. If someone wants to try it on me, I'd prefer that they not have access to my fingerprints, my grocery bills, or anything else that's my own goddamn business.
Shaun
Re:Holy Shit (Score:1)
was the quote from 1984 where I bookmarked, before hopping over here to slashdot. Oh my.
I don't think the parent poster understood your substitution syntax. Hopefully, he'll request an English translation if s/a/b/ is still ambiguous.
P.S.
Your mention of corporate entities divulging pertinent personal information really cannot be emphasized enough. In recent memeory, Lindows.com gave Microsoft it's mailing list and subscriber list *immediately* with no hesitation, before anyone had any idea they might be so violently inconsiderate. I was left with the impression that they had the list ready to go, and were waiting for the Microsoft lawyers to request the mailing list. They had turned the list over days before the event was publicized.
P.S.S.
No one has cut off my thumb (yet) to gain access to the NOC that my employer uses.
Re:Holy Shit (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Holy Shit (Score:1)
thanx for the eloquent write up
Re:Holy Shit (Score:4, Interesting)
IMO, brushing off those whom are trying to warn you of the dangers of freely giving up your privacy is a slippery slope. Sure, YOU may not care that ABC Company has individually identifiable information on you. This, however, is not to say that someone else does not. Now let us say that ABC Company gets bought out by XYZ Company. Each has seperate data on you. After the acquisition, Now *1* company has twice as much data. Who is to say that THEY will be as responsible with your information?
Increasingly a disturbing trend (IMO) among corporations is to guide (force) their customers to do things they way THEY want, not the way the market wants. A recent notable example of this include grocery stores and the "Plus Customer" cards. At first, it was only one store. So I exercised my freedom to shop elsewhere. Now, EVERY grocery store (in my area at least) has such a system in place. Now by default, I must submit to their will. Yes, I realize that it is entirely possible to give false information, but I find the entire situation that I have to LIE to a grocery store to buy goods or pay ENORMOUSLY (sometimes 2x as much) inflated prices frightful.
I value my privacy very much. Having worked at a bank for many years, I can tell you the amount of "trivial" data life-altering (mortgages, loans, close your acct, etc) decisions are made off of, you should concerned to.
So before spouting off about everyone not being out to get you, please consider hard what you are giving up as you can NEVER reclaim it.
--like the others said... (Score:2, Interesting)
OR.....
personally I would never go to that gym, tell 'em why too, because it sucks.
This biometric stuff has got to stop, people have got to start saying NO or it will in fact be full total bigbrotherville within a few short years now. It's this smarmy creeping incrementalism. make a little compromise here, a little compromise there. People wonder when it will stop-big hint it's NOT going to stop until you say NO and make it stick. Stores do it, now government does it, it's obscene. Last month I go to buy a cheap car part, they want my full name address and phone number at checkout, or their computer won't work!. I tell the clerk to get $%^*ing stuffed, well, I didn't cuss but got close, and I'm LOUD in the store, tell (her in this case, who was the manager) that my receipt with the cheap car part they give me for the cash I give them is all they need and are gonna get or it's a big fat no sale and I never come back. I did the same at the dentists when they wanted two full pages of info including social security number that had zero to do with anything about some tooth. screw that. I insisted, got the dental work, paid cash, left. 99% of most people would just sheep it out and fill it all in. Phooie, it's not necessary, tell these bozos no or go someplace else. No more, and no damn thumbscan or retina scan or palm scan-zip nada ain't happening. I'm not giving any store or building-access my biometrics voluntarily, they can byte me. Not handing some doofus drone clerk my personal info either, they can byte me I'll find a work around.
Choose once choose wisely, you can exercise without going to some stoopid gym, vote your conscious always, you'll never go wrong long term that way.
good luck.
User rights to biometric data (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:User rights to biometric data (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that this is the reasoning...and it was established by the US Supreme Court sometime in late 1960's--that fingerprints were just another thing to be measured on the body. That was used in the basis of the California Supreme Court decision in the mid 1980's that protested the California driver's license fingerprint requirement (mandatory 1982, optional 1977. One of the great things discovered in that decision is that while the fingerprinting was optional from 1977 to 1982, the DMV nevertheless lifted fingerprints from the applications signed by those drivers who declined to be fingerprinted. That to me indicates just an unimagineable level of dishonesty and poor ethics.)
At any rate, the odd thing was that the Californa Supreme Court decision was based on the concept that the fingerprints were needed to protect the integrity of the photo driver's license document. Indeed, the court specifically cited that in 1982 2000 fraudulent licenses were issued by the DMV. However, 100,000 fraudulent licenses were issued by the DMV in 2000--and the DMV never really explained how fingerprinting was meant to stop fraudulent license issuance. Nor did the DMV ever get to explaining what to do with individuals whose fingerprints were unreadable (which I think offers a great way of introducing an equal protection situation, since a person could go through the complex process of becoming fingerprintless.) Finally, California is the only state I know of which has made the California DL/state ID card "officially recognized identification" which is just one step below mandatory identification, and fingerprints are required for either.
Some day, I hope to put that alltogether and have a lot of fun at the DMV's expense.
Re:User rights to biometric data (Score:2)
Re:User rights to biometric data (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
With regard to today's world, here in NZ the only really mandatory way to give ID is a photo and/or a signature and I'm fine with that. We don't have amazing crime rates that would really warrant biometric scans.
Off the hook [2600.com] had a show a bit back about this being mandatory in stores and the question really boils down to - After you press your hand/finger on this pad, where and for how long will it be stored?
I think that if the scan will just be used for ID and then dumped, then it's ok, but in your case your scan is actually stored somewhere else for comparison.
Simply - Get used to it, soon DNA scans, retinal scans, dental scans and psycological scans will be required before you walk ouside to verify that you're not a "threat" to the outside world.
The problem with biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you have the same problem when you give your home address or phone number, but these things can be changed, while changing your handscan is not easy to do.
Not to nitpick... (Score:2, Offtopic)
The expression is per se, not persay. I hate it when people use a word they can't spell!!!
<rant mode="off">
Re:Not to nitpick... (Score:1)
But now that I know I won't make the mistake again.
but if we are nitpicking, the correct spelling would be two words not A word, wouldn't it? B)
You have the right (Score:1, Insightful)
Monopoly? (Score:1)
You have the right... to go to a different gym.
What if there is only one gym within 100 miles? What if all gyms have the same type of contract? Is there a choice?
Monopoly? No, just some whining. (Score:2)
Irrelevant. The gym is a private business. Unless there is a law (and there isn't) it'll stay that way.
The local grocery store doesn't sell non non-fat Breyer's French Vanilla ice-cream[0]. In fact, there isn't a grocery store within 50 miles of me that does. That doesn't give me the right to force them to sell what I want so I have a choice.
[0] - Damnit, there are just somethings that shouldn't be non-fat.
Re:Monopoly? No, just some whining. (Score:1)
ej
Re: (Score:1)
What I did (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I had to come up w/ a document before this story got posted, I am still very interested in any comments but here is what I submitted to them:
This agreement between (Owner) and (Tenant) was agreed to on ________________________.
The purpose of this document is to provide a fair use definition for the use of biometric information gathered by the Owner The original intent of this biometric information, in the form of a hand scan, is to validate the Tenant as being allowed to access the XXXXXXXX during the tenancy. This hand-scanner is a biometric device collecting biometric information and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Definition. Biometric is an adjective describing the ability to authenticate a user based on biological features. Therefore, Biometric information will be information based on biological features. A biometric device will be a device that collects biological features.
2. Scope Limitation. Biometric deployments will not be expanded to perform broader verification or identification-related functions than originally intended. Any expansion or retraction of scope will be accompanied by full and public disclosure allowing individuals to opt-out of system usage.
3. Limited Storage of Biometric Information. Biometric information will only be stored for the specific purpose of usage in a biometric system, and will not be stored any longer than necessary. Biometric information will be destroyed, deleted, or otherwise rendered useless when the system is no longer operational; the Tenant's user information will be destroyed, deleted, or otherwise rendered useless when the Tenant is no longer expected to interact with the system or upon termination of the lease, whichever occurs first. The Tenant will be provided with documentation describing how the data was destroyed, deleted or otherwise rendered useless.
4. Collection or Storage of Extraneous Information. The non-biometric information collected for use in a biometric verification or identification system will be limited to the minimum necessary to make identification or verification possible.
5. Protection of Biometric Information. Biometric information will be protected at all stages of its lifecycle, including storage, transmission, and matching. The Owner agrees to take all reasonable precautions against compromise with the biometric information.
6. Limited System Access. Access to biometric system functions and data will be limited to certain personnel under certain conditions, with explicit controls on usage and export set in the system.
7. Segregation of Biometric Information. Biometric data will be stored separately from personal information such as name, address, and medical or financial data.
8. Ability to "Unenroll". Owner has the right to control usage of their biometric information, and the ability to have it deleted, destroyed, or otherwise rendered unusable upon request. This includes all copies of the information on the "live" system and any backup systems.
9. System Purpose Disclosure. The purposes for which a biometric system is being deployed will be fully disclosed.
10. Use of Biometric Information Disclosure. Owner will disclose the uses to which biometric data are to be put, both inside and outside a given biometric system. Biometric information will only be used for the purpose for which it was collected and within the system for which it was collected unless the Tenant explicitly agrees to broader usage. There will be no sanctions applied to the Tenant should they decide not to agree to broader usage of his or her biometric information.
11. Disclosure of Individuals and Entities Responsible for System Operation and Oversight. As a precondition of biometric system operation, it will be clearly stated who is responsible for system operation, to whom questions or requests for information are addressed, and what recourse individuals have to resolve grievances.
12. Disclosure of Biometric Information Protection and System Protection. Tenant will be informed of the protections used to secure biometric information, including encryption, private networks, secure facilities, administrative controls, and data segregation.
Agreed to and signed:
Most of this came from hacking up the "Best Practices" Document at www.bioprivacy.org
good question (Score:1)
This is a big question that the Biometrics industry and government have been trying to answer for a while. You may want to do a search for AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) or TSA (Transportation Security Agency). From what I've read or seen in class, they have been dealing with this issue pretty recently. You may also want to look up NIST or INCITS.
I think the biggest questions that they are trying to answer are: who owns the biometric template? who stores the template (user on a smart card or company on a server)? what happens if your biometric becomes associated with someone else, vice versa?
As one of the other posts pointed out, there are already a number of other things that could hurt your privacy a lot worse (like SSN, credit info, etc) than having to use a hand geometry reader to gain physical access. As far as a company sharing your data with another company, that goes beyond the scope of the biometric and has to do with each individual companies policy.
If you want to read up on hand geometry readers, check of Recognition Systems' Hand Key II [handreader.com]. This is the product that I have had the most experience with.
If I remember correctly the Hand Key II uses:
One thing to note is that it does not store a picture of your hand. It only stores the 1s and 0s that make up your template. At that point, I would be more worried about how/where the template is stored and it being used for a replay attack. Also, it takes 3 dimensional measurements meaning that it is going to be very hard to spoof the device with a fake version of your hand. To top it off, the attacker needs to know your PIN. I'm not saying it is impossible, but highly unlikely.
I have THE solution for you. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I have THE solution for you. (Score:1)