National ID cards - good idea?

[PaulMcgrathsknees]

If IBM did ID cards????????!!!!!!!!

Fast forward to 2 mins 36 to get to the really bizarre stuff!

First bit is IBM historical conspiracy blah!

I'm all for ID cards rather than that madness!

[snowychap]

But the whole thing only really works as a worrying conspiracy if one has a big name company connected to the whole idea.

Someone like IBM....

[PaulMcgrathsknees]

Or Verichip! Or mad scientist Professor Warwick at Reading!

UK article - Chip a prisoner

IBM have the patent though!

Aluminium hat time!

[tonyh29]

UK article - Chip a prisoner

I've an even better idea ..pair the chips up to another(random) prisoner and don't let them know who they are paired with ... and if they get separated by more than a predefined distance it kills them both .. It will stop prison escapes

actually , this will make a great plot for a film ..screw you guys , Hollywood here i come ......

:-)

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

UK article - Chip a prisoner

I've an even better idea ..pair the chips up to another(random) prisoner and don't let them know who they are paired with ... and if they get separated by more than a predefined distance it kills them both .. It will stop prison escapes

actually , this will make a great plot for a film ..screw you guys , Hollywood here i come ......

:-)

*Wedlock is the film I think, Rutger Huer. Something round your neck so if you escape the other geezers head gets blown off.

*maybe bolox

[snowychap]

Has anyone come across the 'mylifemyid' campaign being rolled out by the Home office?

It appears to be aimed at 16-25 year olds and runs along the lines of:

ID cards are good. Do you worry about your identity being stolen? Have you had your identity stolen? ID cards are good. You're young, you go on Facebook/Bebo. You share details about yourself. Beware. ID cards are good. You're the generation who ought to be worried. ID cards are good. This is an unbiased, balanced debate; we've already had the debate ourselves but we thought you'd like to debate it so you feel all grown up and involved but we've already made the decisions so it's a bit too late and altogether rather futile - still you'll think your opinion is being aired to people and we still reckon we'll convince you that ID cards are good.ID cards are good.Innit.ID cards are good.

[snowychap]

Following on from the loss of those passports last week:

‘Fakeproof’ e-passport is cloned in minutes

New microchipped passports designed to be foolproof against identity theft can be cloned and manipulated in minutes and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports.

Tests for The Times exposed security flaws in the microchips introduced to protect against terrorism and organised crime. The flaws also undermine claims that 3,000 blank passports stolen last week were worthless because they could not be forged.

In the tests, a computer researcher cloned the chips on two British passports and implanted digital images of Osama bin Laden and a suicide bomber. The altered chips were then passed as genuine by passport reader software used by the UN agency that sets standards for e-passports.

The Home Office has always argued that faked chips would be spotted at border checkpoints because they would not match key codes when checked against an international data-base. But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined.

Some of the 45 countries, including Britain, swap codes manually, but criminals could use fake e-passports from countries that do not share key codes, which would then go undetected at passport control.

The tests suggest that if the microchips are vulnerable to cloning then bogus biometrics could be inserted in fake or blank passports.

Tens of millions of microchipped passports have been issued by the 45 countries in the belief that they will make international travel safer. They contain a tiny radio frequency chip and antenna attached to the inside back page. A special electronic reader sends out an encrypted signal and the chip responds by sending back the holder’s ID and biometric details.

Britain introduced e-passports in March 2006. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States demanded that other countries adopt biometric passports. Many of the 9/11 bombers had travelled on fake passports.

The tests for The Times were conducted by Jeroen van Beek, a security researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Building on research from the UK, Germany and New Zealand, Mr van Beek has developed a method of reading, cloning and altering microchips so that they are accepted as genuine by Golden Reader, the standard software used by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to test them. It is also the software recommended for use at airports.

Using his own software, a publicly available programming code, a £40 card reader and two £10 RFID chips, Mr van Beek took less than an hour to clone and manipulate two passport chips to a level at which they were ready to be planted inside fake or stolen paper passports.

A baby boy’s passport chip was altered to contain an image of Osama bin Laden, and the passport of a 36-year-old woman was changed to feature a picture of Hiba Darghmeh, a Palestinian suicide bomber who killed three people in 2003. The unlikely identities were chosen so that there could be no suggestion that either Mr van Beek or The Times was faking viable travel documents.

“We’re not claiming that terrorists are able to do this to all passports today or that they will be able to do it tomorrow,” Mr van Beek said. “But it does raise concerns over security that need to be addressed in a more public and open way.”

The tests also raise serious questions about the Government’s £4 billion identity card scheme, which relies on the same biometric technology. ID cards are expected to contain similar microchips that will store up to 50 pieces of personal and biometric information about their holders. Last night Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, called on ministers to take urgent action to remedy the security flaws discovered by The Times. “It is of deep concern that the technology underpinning a key part of the UK’s security can be compromised so easily,” he said.

The ability to clone chips leaves travellers vulnerable to identity theft when they surrender their passports at hotels or car rental companies. Criminals in the back office could read the chips and clone them. The original passport holder’s name and date of birth could be left on the fake chip, with the picture, fingerprints and other biometric data of a criminal client added. The criminal could then travel the world using the stolen identity and the original passport holder would be none the wiser.

The Home Office said last night that it had yet to see evidence of someone being able to manipulate data in an e-passport. A spokesman said: “No one has yet been able to demonstrate that they are able to modify, change or alter data within the chip. If any data were to be changed, modified or altered it would be immediately obvious to the electronic reader.”

The International Civil Aviation Organisation said: “The PKD ensures that e-passports used at border control points . . . are genuine and unaltered. In effect it renders the passport fool-proof. However, all states issuing e-passports must join the PKD, otherwise that assurance cannot be given.”

[Gringo]

Tin hats on - 1984 or brave new world?

Unmanned spy planes to police Britain

The Government is drawing up plans to use unmanned "drone" aircraft currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter terrorism and aid police operations in Britain.

The MoD is carrying out research and development to enable the spy planes, which are equipped with highly sophisticated monitoring equipment that allows them to secretly track and photograph suspects without their knowledge, to be deployed within three years.

The plans have been backed by the House of Commons Defence Committee but have attracted criticism from civil liberties campaigners concerned about the implications of covert surveillance of civilians.

The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can obtain clear images while flying at up to 50,000ft. If ministers give the scheme the go-ahead the UK will be among the first countries to use UAVs to monitor its own citizens.

___________________________________

The MPs say full consideration should be given to evidence given to the committee by a weapons company that meeting the air safety requirements would open the way for UAVs to be used in disaster relief, crowd control, anti-terror surveillance, maritime searches and support for the Coastguard, police, fire and intelligence services.

____________________________________

I believe some police forces have already trialled some smaller drones, but this scale gives a little more scope to the data capture. Now we see the usefulness of the afghan / iraq conflicts - the govt can test out their new toys before deploying them in the UK.

[snowychap]

From that article, some dickhead said .. you certainly cannot blame police ...for wanting to use them.

Yes one can, if one believes in the concept of policing by consent. Tosser.

Also:

The BAE Systems consortium is partly funded by a number of government agencies, but not the MoD, which has an observer status on the project, called the Astraea programme. The next stage of the project is due to cost £44m, with private companies providing half of that.

Which private companies?

..a consortium of UK companies, including BAE Systems, Thales UK, Rolls-Royce, EADS, QinetiQ, Flight Refuelling and Agent Oriented Software.

And I'm assuming they'll be wanting something for their £22m investment?

[Awol]

Tin hats on - 1984 or brave new world?

....

I believe some police forces have already trialled some smaller drones, but this scale gives a little more scope to the data capture. Now we see the usefulness of the afghan / iraq conflicts - the govt can test out their new toys before deploying them in the UK.

The rumour - and it's in the public domain - is that they are already flying over Birmingham and trying to intercept voice print matches for Talibrum fighters recorded by the Nimrods in Afghan who have since come 'home'. Also doing the same thing 'oop North in the Leeds/Bradford area.

I'd be surprised if the intention was to eventually use them as a replacement for plod on the street (purely because of the cost element of buying, operating and maintaining huge numbers of UAV's) but I guess you'd be silly to rule anything out these days.

[snowychap]

snowy/Awol, you've not got it right at all, in your inferences.

Fair enough, Blandy.

I was just going on what was said by the defence committee who, it seems, had been told by someone that this was a runner.

I assumed that as they were suggesting that the MOD got involved in funding that there was some kind of defence angle other than just developing regs to satisfy the CAA, &c.

Not expecting you to post any more :winkold but thankful for what you've already posted to clear up incorrect deductions from what had officially been said.

[villa4europe]

i cant be assed to read through all those pages so dont know where this is at!

personally my take on ID cards are that they are a good idea if they store a bucket load of info on each person without sacrificing their privacy, ie info such as passport, driving license, national insurance number, blood type etc

but if all its going to be is a bit of plastic on it with my photo name and address then its pointless

and that said it can be so super it can turn water into stella, if its £90 i still refuse to have one

[PaulMcgrathsknees]

UAVs?

How are these going to spy on anyone? Surely there's too much cloud cover?!

[blandy]

snowy/Awol, you've not got it right at all, in your inferences.

...I was just going on what was said by the defence committee who, it seems, had been told by someone that this was a runner.

I assumed that as they were suggesting that the MOD got involved in funding that there was some kind of defence angle other than just developing regs to satisfy the CAA, &c.

Not expecting you to post any more :winkold but thankful for what you've already posted to clear up incorrect deductions from what had officially been said.

But you're not, though, are you. You're going on a newspaper article which put its own "journalisitc license" on a "story". No quotes, no extract from defence committee report. No facts, just shoddy journalism.

I'm not "correcting" what's been said officially. I don't need to. I'm commenting that the newspaper article is a load of arse, and full of incorrect deductions. Then people read the article, seem to take it as "fact" and further deduce all kinds of things as the logical extension of what "must" be happening.

[snowychap]

From the Defence Committee paper The contribution of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to ISTAR capability:

A follow-up to ASTRAEA will be necessary to ensure that this work continues; its successful conclusion is likely to have a direct impact on the ability of industry in the UK to provide MoD with leading-edge autonomous technologies in the coming decades. It will also be critical if UAVs are to make a major contribution to supporting national security in the UK”

In its memorandum, Northrop Grumman highlighted the potential benefits of developing solutions relating to UAVs and airspace:

The culmination of efforts to integrate full sense-and-avoid capabilities into UAVs will open the way for UAVs to migrate into civilian roles and applications. These will include ...crowd control, anti-terrorism surveillance...

We see UAVs, when permitted to operate in the same airspace as manned aircraft, as playing a major role in operations relating to both civil and national defence.

I'd imagine that their story stemmed from these kinds of things included in the report.

[blandy]

I'm sure their story did stem from that, but the inferences drawn from the facts by both the paper and you and whoever started that "UAVs over Brum and Yorkshire" nonsense do not tally with the facts. - The bit you wrote about Afghanistan

...this scale gives a little more scope to the data capture. Now we see the usefulness of the afghan / iraq conflicts - the govt can test out their new toys before deploying them in the UK.

is wrong on several counts.

Firstly, the "data capture" part and then the using Afghanistan and Iraq as places to test "toys" before rolling them out in the UK is a step beyond reason, to me.

The facts are as the actual defence committee notes. What I have said on the previous page is true.

The opinion which talks about a follow up to Astrea is a view on something that has not happened, not a view on the current activities.

The Northrop Grumman thing refers to a US company in America. Not the UK and is again interpreted by a journalist ( I assume, as there's no link).

UAVs are just aircraft without people in them. That means that they don't get tired, or hungry and can stay up there a long time. They will save money and pilots lives in the future I feel. They are not in themselves a means of surveillance or anything sinister.

People could put whatever sensors or payloads on manned aircraft, or on UAVs. The existence of UAVs, the work to regulate and make safe their flying is NOT anything at all to do with ID cards, removing freedoms etc.

I'm with you on the loss of civil liberties, but UAVs have nothing to do with this.

If plod or anyone else wants to snoop from the skies they don't need UAVs to do it. So for me, relating some poorly written report that makes some logical leaps to civil liberties is not commensurate with the actual facts. That's the point I'm trying to get across - new technology does not mean there is some sinister industrial motive for developing the things.

I know where the activity lies, what the aims are, and they are not what you claim they are from reading a few bits on the internet and in the paper. None of it has anything to do with spying on the civilian population of the UK. None of it is about testing "toys" in Iraq or Afghanistan to later use to spy on us.

[AshVilla]

if we get national ID cards does that mean Passports will no longer be required? id get one if thats the case much easier to carry around imo but if you need a passport as well its kind of a joke, just another way of the government taking money from the hard working public?

[snowychap]

The bit you wrote about Afghanistan

...is wrong on several counts.

Pete, that wasn't me that was Gringo.

The opinion which talks about a follow up to Astrea is a view on something that has not happened, not a view on the current activities.

The Northrop Grumman thing refers to a US company in America. Not the UK and is again interpreted by a journalist ( I assume, as there's no link).

The Northrop Grumman bit was also an extract from the Defence Committee report (as were all three of my quotes - which I probably didn't make clear, sorry).

They were asked to supply a memo to the Defence Committee in order to give their answers to some specific areas of enquiry and also to give their knowledge as 'experts in the field'?

Their memo (again from the same defence committee report as linked in my previous post) ended:

Northrop Grumman continues to invest significantly in the UK market in providing facilities and

technology to support UK Forces. We have considerable ISTAR domain expertise that we wish to bring

into the UK market and can contribute by providing systems integration and interoperability expertise.

32. We are committed to bringing advanced technology into the UK defence market to accelerate the

fielding of next-generation military capability and are able and willing to participate fully in helping to meet

the UK’s requirements in the ISTAR domain and to working with the MoD and the UK supply chain to

achieve these objectives.

On the rest of your post and the following, especially,

new technology does not mean there is some sinister industrial motive for developing the things.

I understand what you are saying and you are right (but in my view only to an extent).

Where I suppose we might differ (apart from my natural extreme cynicism :winkold:) is that recent history points me in the direction that function creep of anything with, initially, reasonable objectives leads down a path susceptible to those with sinister motives.

[PB]

My take on this is very simple

I am a free citizen in a democracy.

therefore, the State is employed by me, as is the Police Force, the Army and indeed all the other various bits and bobs that go along with it

Therefore, the police, army and other paraphanelia of government may be required, should I, or indeed any citizen so request, to prove who they are . However, I am under no obligation to prove to anyone that I am anyone, as I am a free citizen, until such time as it can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that i am a criminal.

therefore, should I be required to carry an ID card then, in all seriousness, I would set fire to the thing. it runs directly contrary to my basic right to privacy. Who I am matters not, I am a private free citizen, who is not convicted of any crime - that is all you need to know. If you wish to prove I am other than that, then go ahead, prove it.

[bickster]

Here's a question, sort of related / sort of not

I got an email in work yesterday asking all staff to bring in either their passport or birth certificate which we were told was to do with proving that the company doesn't employ illegal immigrants

Is this new legislation? Some legislation that our firm has somehow overlooked until now? Or simply bollocks?