Shahar Kozlovski, a law student in the College of Management's academic track, criticizes those who fear the establishment of a biometric database of the country's citizens
The biometric database law has received harsh criticism, but in my opinion it is not such a sick evil as they pretend to present it.
The law requires citizens of the State of Israel to provide a fingerprint of both index fingers and a photo of the facial features which will be included in the identification documents and in a central biometric database. All this, in order to enable identity verification and identification of Israeli residents. The many advantages of combining these biometric measures were brought up in the explanatory notes to the law, as those that would make it difficult to falsify the documentation and, among other things, to thwart and prevent cases of crime and hostility.
I have not found a more appropriate title to describe the biometric database law. After all, today we identify ourselves by an identity card in which our personal details appear such as our name and family name, our parents' names, foreign and Hebrew date of birth, place of birth, our gender, our photos as well as a unique identity number. The innovation in the proposed identity card is the addition of the print of the two index fingers and a biometric image of the facial features that will be stored in the chip in the identity card. I don't see any difference between being identified by a unique ID number and being identified by a fingerprint. Moreover, the fingerprint will enable fast, reliable and effective identification, unlike identification with an identity card today, which requires identification to a receptionist who often comes to work tired and exhausted. What's more, an electronic identity card will make forgery difficult.
I believe that the proposed law caused such an uproar in light of the apparently negative connotation it evokes. For, fingerprints communicate, almost automatically, with criminal identification.
Beyond that, technology in Israel and in the world is advancing by leaps and bounds and it is fitting that the legislator should also advance along with it. More than once, the change in legislation took place long after the cultural/social/technological change had already taken place in practice. The technology of biometric identification today serves, among other things, many businesses to report the hours of entry and exit of employees, and it is appropriate that the Israeli government also joins and uses the advance for worthy purposes and for the protection of its citizens and one hour earlier.
Regarding forgeries, both fingerprints and facial features are external organs that are exposed anyway. The fingerprints leave traces in any case, so if someone wants to forge them, they can easily do so anyway. The proposed law regulates the form of identity verification, so that even if a person fakes fingerprints, there will still be a biometric image that can reveal that it is not the same person. If so, this claim is not solid and does not provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the shortcomings of the method.
Most of the criticisms towards the law are directed to the biometric database and the violation of privacy that is involved in the establishment of such a database. Opponents of the law maintain that the violation of privacy is serious. However, this argument is not convincing enough, because today there are many means that allow the state authorities to know at any given time the actions of the individual. It is possible that the use of these powers by the authorities is sometimes not done in good faith, but the law alone should not be attributed an excessive violation of privacy, and certainly no more than the current violation of privacy anyway.
The purpose of the Biometric Database Law is first and foremost a concern for the public's well-being. Another goal is to thwart and prevent crimes.
It must be remembered that our daily life as citizens of the State of Israel is a grim routine in the shadow of attacks and terrorism for a long time, the citizens of Israel live under constant threats of terrorism, and the law has the power to help prevent most cases of crime and hostility.
To my great dismay, the law may be accepted among the citizens of the country only after it "proves" its effectiveness, that is, only after despicable criminals are caught thanks to such a database, the view regarding the law's vitality will change.
The main concern of the opponents is the slippery slope and the overflow of the reservoir and its illegal use.
The worst scenario I could think of is described in George Orwell's book "1984" which predicted an extremely pessimistic scenario about a country that controls its citizens and knows every move of the little citizen. In the dystopian world described in the book, the individual has no freedom of thought, the individual is commanded to act as "big brother" wants, in order to please the party. The telescreen is everywhere and the big brother - his eye is always open.
The approach of those who oppose the law stems, in my opinion, from an extreme cultural perception. Over the years, the concept that a person should be jealous of his privacy, and that a person would prefer to remain anonymous, has taken root in society. This is a theory that stems from the concept that Big Brother sees everything, this is a normative cultural concept accepted by most of us. But the extremism of the perception and the desire to make the desire for privacy absolute may turn into paranoia and belief in prophecies of wrath such as the fear of an extreme state of the Big Brother state. One of the diagnostic characteristics of paranoia is a situation in which the individual feels persecuted, even though this has no basis in reality. Contrary to popular opinion, no one is looking to incriminate people, planting fingerprints at crime scenes is the property of Hollywood only.
Humans are social creatures by nature, who are exposed day by day to others within the framework of social life and social environment. Likewise, and without meaning to, their identity is revealed from time to time, including their fingerprint, and at the same time they have no problem with such exposure. So in practice, there is no difference. It is true that we choose the social environment in which we want to be, but at the same time we should not forget that a great many people, among them those who oppose the law and the mind-benders among them, are looking for some kind of exposure or at the very least are thirsty to invade the other's privacy, this is what I infer from the high percentages of ratings for the latest reality shows that were expected the television channels as well as the social networks including Facebook which has become a social norm.
The author is a law student in the College of Management academic track
57 תגובות
God damn it!!!
"I don't see any difference between being identified by a unique identity number and being identified by a fingerprint" - the difference is that the number is given by the government authority and can be changed as needed, whereas a fingerprint cannot be changed.
A few days ago I received an advertisement in the mail from an unknown company addressed to my 12+ year old son offering him a bar mitzvah service and I ask how this company knew that my son's bar mitzvah day was coming? My son is a "special" child who is not connected to the internet and is not registered in any class , he doesn't really have friends except for those on the school desk and his life is quite "closed", so who has his date of birth? How can I trust the government to protect biometric details?
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3739003,00.html
Fathers:
You are the one who doesn't understand:
: If you think that the action you intend to take in scanning the database is illegal - please point to the law that prohibits it.
In fact, not only is there no such law, but the logic behind the ban on the keeper in the supermarket is completely different.
There are reasons for this law, none of which are caught in a database scan.
One of them you specifically mentioned - it's the delay you caused.
Passing through a computerized database does not do this, as you know and no one is holding you back and in fact no one is involved as long as it does not turn out that your fingerprints are there.
Fathers:
Please don't preach to me about cultural debate. I have already received enough psychological analyzes from you to allow me a little freedom of expression.
Human error could have occurred just as well.
Let's say someone saw Gargamel on the spot and the clerk mistakenly issued an arrest warrant for Gargamel - or another Gargamel - what's the difference?
Michael, that's exactly the problem. You don't understand what the problem is. Say, when the guard at the supermarket asks you for the receipt, do you give it to him? Did you know it's illegal? Is this a delay without authority? But most people don't refuse. What do they care? Today you are ready to give up something "small" and tomorrow, when you have to give up something bigger, you will no longer notice. This is the danger. It seems "petty" sometimes, but you should be careful about "mild to serious" in matters of privacy and rights.
By the way, your form of expression ("let me laugh") does not belong in a serious discussion. You can say "I think the example doesn't belong" or "I think your example is wrong". I suggest you read again to understand why in a situation without a central repository, human error would not have happened in the first place...
Beyond that, this is just an example.
Fathers:
I'm saying this for the last time because I actually have nothing to add and if you don't understand then I won't be able to change it.
As soon as it is discovered that a crime has been committed and there is no data on the operation - all the inhabitants of the planet are suspects.
As more data accumulates, the possibility of carrying out a transfer is ruled out by larger parts of the world and the search continues until the criminal is eventually located.
This is the process and it doesn't matter what name you call it.
You are "offended" by the fact that in checking the data in the database for the purpose of purifying you, they actually explicitly express the fact that you were a suspect, but this explicit expression does not change anything because it was the truth anyway.
Regarding the example - allow me to laugh. This is not related to the database at all.
It's just a matter of human error. If you already link to the database, then it is clear that as the mechanization increases, the possibility of an error in its absence decreases.
Avivit, read my example one more time please, I think you turned my example on its head.
In principle, "reasonable suspicion" is enough and a fingerprint that apparently matches a fingerprint at the scene certainly meets this reasonable suspicion. For a preliminary arrest this is more than enough. Obviously, this is not enough to file an indictment.
I read the article and read the comments and I quite agree with the author, what is the difference to the current situation? Today, people are still arrested based on a certain suspicion and in the example of "Moshe Cohen" of Avim, it seems to me that the idea of the database is precisely that comparing the fingerprints can clear that Moshe Cohen of guilt. Even today, sometimes an innocent person's freedom is denied just because of a certain suspicion and the fingerprint can actually clear him of the guilt. It also seems to me that not arresting based on a fingerprint alone may call for an investigation, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that an arrest is not based solely on a fingerprint, but there also needs to be some connection to the crime (motives, not to have an alibi, etc.). And even if the fingerprint did not exist in the database, the same criminal could even today without the database forge my fingerprint and incriminate me, so I quite agree with the writer that the situation will not really be different, but rather it will help.
exactly the opposite. As soon as you compare a fingerprint sample against a database (taking into account a certain percentage of error resulting from the method of taking the sample, the quality of the scan and the size of the sample) you make a basic assumption that the entire database is suspicious and start filtering out the non-suspicious ones. This is the automatic suspicion.
Statistically at least, there can be a situation where a person will be suspected through no fault of his own. In reality, it is very easy to make a legal arrest in the State of Israel for much less than that.
A simple example: suppose a murder has been committed. The police found a suspect in the central database and his name is Moshe Cohen (and they sent me all the Moshe Cohens in Israel - this is just an example). The aforementioned Moshe Cohen lives in Tel Aviv, but because the policewoman that day was at the end of her shift, she mistakenly copied the details of another Moshe Cohen who lives in Tel Aviv, and based on this, an arrest warrant is found. The same Moshe Cohen (who is innocent) is brought into custody at night and his fingerprints are taken And he "spends" the night in Abu-Kabir until he is brought before a judge. Since the process of comparing fingerprints takes time (as opposed to "law and order"), the judge extends his detention for 5 days and only after the second day it is discovered that he is not the right man and he is released after two days And half of his freedom was denied and in addition he has to explain the circumstances to those around him (which is unpleasant to say the least) on the assumption that the innocent Moshe Cohen was never arrested because in the current situation, he would not have emerged as a suspect because his fingerprint is not in the database.
And that's exactly the problem.
Fathers:
It's just not true.
This does not make us suspects because as long as the perpetrator is not identified we are suspects anyway.
It only helps to clear most of us of suspicion at record speed and focus the continuation of the normal investigation (without unnecessary subpoenas of people) in a much smaller group.
What does it belong to arrest?
An arrest can only be made if the identification data matches only one person!
Michael,
The phrase "make all citizens suspect" means that when a sample is taken from a crime scene and compared to a central database, it makes you and me potential suspects. Describe to you a situation where you are arrested, even if only for 24 hours, because of poor identification in such a database.
Fathers:
The one who disregards the discussion is the one who simply chooses to ignore the detailed explanation and reasons provided in responses 22, 23 and 24 as proof that the claim regarding the dangers of forgery that you raised in response 21 as well as your entire understanding of the concept of how to use a database of incorrect biometric identification data and instead of addressing the arguments accuses the claimant of exaggeration.
Fathers:
I didn't exaggerate and I actually detailed, reasoned and explained.
Dawn,
Note, in the first case it is about "a member of a known gang of car thieves.". Hence, the existing pool is sufficient.
In the second case, the suspect gave a sample voluntarily. Again, no buffer was needed.
The third case: "The murderer was arrested by the IDF for committing security offenses in October 2002, and during his interrogation, his investigators were surprised to discover that his fingerprints matched the fingerprints found in the police database from the murder of Tzvia Pinchas." Does not fit the discussion - Zviah Pinchas was murdered by a resident of the territories. He is not an Israeli citizen and therefore will not be included in the database (or will he???
Hence, the existing investigative methods are quite good provided that the systems are properly synchronized and the police have sufficient manpower. There is no need for a central repository.
Beyond that, the biometric evidence cannot stand alone (as you probably know better than me, I'm not a lawyer) and additional evidence is needed to establish guilt. It is better, in my opinion, to invest these amounts in strengthening the police. I am bothered by the fact that the police do not have the budget to replace patrol cars, for example.
Michael, the female tone is only because you are dismissive of the discussion. Just because you say an argument isn't true doesn't make you right. Certainly not in this flamboyant style. Detail, explanation, explanation. Believe me, I will be the first to admit a mistake.
Jonathan:
I want to attribute objectivity to you, but in light of your response I find it difficult to do so.
Do you really not know that this is not a system that takes a fingerprint, automatically sends it to a computer that identifies a group of suspects and then sends Schwarzenegger-like robots to interdict them?
The automated identification only performs an initial screening that is later examined by humans, who, beyond their ability to identify fingerprints and/or facial features in a more reliable way, also bring additional considerations into account.
In general - what is this phrase "making all citizens suspects"? Does he provide us with any information? Is the situation better in the current situation when we don't know who did the transfer? After all, in the absence of fingerprints, suspicion falls on more people and the more identifying data there is, the smaller the group. Isn't that obvious?
On re-reading, wouldn't you define this expression as self-incendiary demagoguery?
In my opinion, the possibility of identifying the perpetrators of crimes is an important advantage of the database, but - again - contrary to the opinions expressed here - the many difficulties it creates for identity thieves are also an advantage.
Add to this the possibility of identifying victims of hostilities and murder victims more easily or even the possibility of identifying accident victims whose acquaintance has been lost and it is necessary to know which drugs they are sensitive to.
There really is no end to the positive uses that can be made in the reservoir.
Unfortunately - it can also be used negatively and in the overall account one must weigh these against the others without arguing.
Dawn,
If the only view of the biometric database law is for the prevention and detection of crime, then in such a case there is no need for biometric identity cards. Of course, I hope you are aware of the great inaccuracy that exists in biometric identification and that the measure itself (making all citizens suspects) is disproportionate and offensive to an extent that exceeds what is required, especially considering the danger to privacy.
If the goal is only to detect crimes, then three examples compared to dozens of cases in which people are investigated, arrested and brought to trial unnecessarily, as well as becoming, in practice, victims of identity theft, is not a proportional balance.
If there are other goals, I'd love to hear them.
The objection is indeed very legitimate. But the style of the opposition and the attempt to claim that only those who oppose are learned enough and take into account all the "real" arguments are outrageous. Every person is worried about his privacy to one degree or another, but concern for privacy is only one of the many considerations involved in the issue.
An unconcerned citizen:
Even if a process is clear and cannot be prevented - it is natural that those who think it is bad - will object.
After all, in the meantime, even death cannot be prevented, but most people are willing to do a great deal to postpone it.
It is also possible that the terror of the earth (and maybe even the terror of Islam) is inevitable and I still intend to do what I can to delay it.
The concern of those who worry (and the one you mentioned actually worries less than others) is completely legitimate and there is no justification for the disparaging nickname "privacy worriers".
A biometric database will help a lot to solve crimes committed by "normative" people. It will save a lot of time in solving these crimes and free up additional manpower to fight crime. Biometric identification will go on and be perfected if time goes on and will greatly reduce possible forgeries. Obviously, later in the process, identification will be carried out by combining several measures Biometrics at the same time.
The development and promotion is inevitable and all the "privacy concerns" (from Jonathan and Shahar's language) apparently actually harm a clear process that cannot be prevented.
Hello fathers,
Your question surprises me, because it is clear that even today there is a database of fingerprints and information about criminals in the hands of the police and it is impossible to solve many crimes without these databases. For example, the case of the murder of Anat Amram was solved after suspicious fingerprints were found in the car and an examination of the Tel Aviv Police's databases, as well as the Shin Bet's databases, revealed that it was a young man from Kalkilia, a member of a known gang of car thieves.
At the same time, many crimes are committed by people who are not in the police database and a biometric database will contribute to solving these crimes. For example, in the case of the murder of the lawyer Anat Fliner, a serial rapist (Eitan Farhi) was located who voluntarily gave a biometric sample. Another example is the murder of Tzvia Pinchas. In 2001 - on nationalistic grounds, the killer was arrested by the IDF for committing security offenses in October 2002 and during his interrogation, his investigators were surprised to discover that his fingerprints matched fingerprints found in the police database from the murder of Tzvia Pinchas.
Imagine, they would have been added a long time ago if only they existed in the database...
Dawn
My opinion is that of the writer, from the point of view of the common man (like me for example) I do not understand how it is possible to oppose a system that will overall increase the security of the small citizen, and help, even a little, to maintain our security and restore trust in the system.
Fathers:
Kudos to you for the personal note.
Good thing you didn't advise me to enter the link because I already did as soon as it was first mentioned here.
After all, I didn't just say that your words are not true, but I proved it.
Are you able to handle the arguments or do you have statements that show everything?
Dawn,
The main thing you haven't demonstrated is how a biometric database helps fight crime. I mean, you failed to explain your main argument.
Michael,
How lucky that you are responsible here for what is right and what is wrong….. I recommend others (not you-you already know everything) to enter the link and learn.
Jonathan Shalom,
As part of my studies, I wrote a seminar paper which included a comprehensive study about the biometric database bill, the explanatory notes to the law and opinions opposing the law. Among other things, I was also impressed by the reviews you wrote about the bill. I understand the dangers you describe regarding the establishment of a biometric database, but my personal opinion is still that the establishment of a biometric database will actually lead to a situation in a country like the State of Israel where the benefit outweighs the harm. Of course, from a micro perspective you are right because there are many dangers, but again for me the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I believe that you understand that I cannot refer to all the issues arising from the law, the page is too small to describe this, I published my personal point of view on the bill, a sort of summary and my general impression of the bill.
I respect your opinion very much and I was glad that you commented on the article because that way the discussion can become more fruitful.
Dawn
Jonathan:
There are all kinds of dangers on the subject (and maybe you intend to point them out to Shahar in a private conversation) but you didn't mention any of them in your response.
If - as you say - the means of identification becomes an identity in itself - this only increases the need to perfect the means of identification in biometric ways in order to avoid the sad situation that prevails today - a situation in which your means of identification (which becomes an identity in itself) is very easy to fake.
Fathers:
I didn't need that link.
All in all I was responding to what you said and what you said was not true.
This does not mean that there are no valid arguments. I know of them and have introduced at least one of them.
gift:
The scenario you describe is only relevant to attempted crime. A criminal who just doesn't want to get caught doesn't need your fingerprints.
Those who want to incriminate you have no problem obtaining your fingerprints even today and do not need any assistance from an outside party for this.
It is easier for the criminal to hide his crimes if he does not involve an outside party in their commission.
Avi,
Originally the comment was approved and appeared, it was removed after a few hours.
Not bad.
It is not clear why the response was not approved, could there be some keyword in it that WordPress identifies as spam?
Anyway, following your comment, I looked for this previous comment and confirmed it.
my father
Michael,
Just about two weeks ago we read about a man who discovered one day that someone had taken out a loan in his name, and even issued a license and an identity card in his name!
Right now fingerprints are a decisive measure to prove that a person is in a certain place, once my fingerprint is hacked by everyone (and this database will be hacked like most of our government's databases) any person will be able to fake the fingerprint much more easily than today.
As was said above - "First it is proven that they have improved and then we will talk about establishing a database." - If the state wants to be so enlightened and innovative that it will first take care of our security and only then its totalitarianism over information.
Is there a reason my comment was deleted?
[I would appreciate a response to my email as well]
Michael,
Here are some links to clarify the points:
http://no2bio.org/home/links.html
Let's be clear: I am in favor of improving the security of the very easy to forge identity cards. Same as the passports, but I don't see how such a database can fight crime because bypassing it is a matter of motivation and money. Two things that criminals have.
gift:
You raise the fear of data theft and I ask why it bothers you.
Beyond the fact that the data will certainly be saved - I ask you what can someone who stole it do with it?
A password that puts privacy at the top of the priority scale is not related to the question of the database thief.
It does relate to what I said in my first response about McCarthyism and that is why I wrote what I wrote in this response.
Eliram:
I just noticed your comment.
Part of the answer is found in what I answered Avim and another part is found in what I said earlier: Why do you think the bank will stop taking the precautions it is taking today?!
These means will continue to be available to him and he will be able to use them or not - as he sees fit (which is exactly the case today).
And another point for the thought of fathers and the thought of others.
A biometric ID without a database is simply worthless.
In a certain sense - today's identity card is also biometric.
A photo is officially on it and the owner's fingerprints are on it anyway.
It does not help identification because there is nothing to compare.
If I take an identification card today in which I will write down all the usual details of fathers and paste my photo on it and put my fingerprints on it, no one at the bank will be able to know that I am not a father.
And by the way, fathers:
Identity theft will not be more or less revolutionary than today.
How can we "become" an identity thief today?
By showing facial features? – This is only possible if the authorities already have your facial features.
By showing a fingerprint? Again - only if the authorities have your fingerprint.
If the authorities do not have the data they cannot use it to recover your stolen identity.
Cool no?
Fathers:
Your claim about identity theft holds no water.
As I said - even today it is possible to forge an identity card and this will be more difficult with a biometric database.
You say that the certificate will be considered reliable and explain why it is not reliable. So why would others think she is trustworthy?
The truth is that it will really be more reliable than the current one and will not have absolute reliability and people will treat it - rightly - in exactly that way.
The truth is also that there is no reason for the identity card to contain the biometric data - the thought that they would be part of the card misses the whole idea - after all, the biometric data is part of the body of the holder of the card - that's the whole idea! The idea is that increasing the reliability of the identification will result from comparing the physical data of the identity claimant with the database data and this physical data is much more difficult to fake.
Therefore - as I said - identity theft will be much more difficult to do.
For Michael and the rest of those who wonder:
There is no problem in saving biometric data on a smart ID card. It is logical and correct. This will help against forgery of identity cards and allow greater confidence in the authenticity of the certificates. All of this is true as long as there is no central database of this data - in a hypothetical situation, if Michael's data were leaked (and it is a matter of time - the state failed to maintain the voter database), it would be easy to take his identity and use it, for example, to open a bank account. After all, the identity card will be considered reliable. And Michael will not be able to prove that it is not him. Beyond that, it is very easy to fake fingerprints and "work" on the finger readers on the market. There are other techniques to work on biometric means if we have a copy of the original. And the source will be the repository.
If there is no database, the biometric ID will be a reliable means of identification.
As for those who claim that there is a law, there is a law. Do not pretend to be someone else. The problem is that whoever does this is a criminal anyway. Those who want to forge a biometric identity card have to invest time and money. He is motivated.
Therefore the database will not solve anything but will create new problems such as irreversible identity theft.
And again, is anyone willing to explain how such a database will serve the law enforcement agencies in the fight against crime? Examples please.
Michael, the problem is that almost everyone thinks like you. "It is very easy to forge an identity today."
But it's not common, as you mentioned. And not because the people are all good. This is because it is not at all easy today to fake an identity.
Try going to the bank and withdrawing money from someone else's account. Above a certain amount, the verification will not be based solely on the signature. There is a reasonable chance that the clerk will check at the bank's branch, find out if it corresponds to other movements in the account and other checking measures that result from the fact that... it is easy to forge a signature.
But a fingerprint is just as easy to fake. In fact, the hardest part of forging a fingerprint is not buying the home printer, but getting the fingerprint. You have to follow the person whose identity you want to steal / incriminate. You should try to put your hand on a glass that he was holding or another object and remove the fingerprint from there by chemical means.
Sections, the whole difficult section does not need to be performed at all once there is a biometric database.
By the way, another problem with the law is the loss of the ability of dual passport holders to identify themselves as non-Israelis.
And to those who say "security needs to be improved", I say - first it is proven that they have improved, and then we will talk about establishing a database. The population registry - hacked. The State Comptroller is shocked by the level of trading in confidential data to anyone who wants it. Once the biological database is distributed, it will no longer be possible to put the genie back in the bottle .
Joseph:
I would not generalize, but there is really a fear that at least some of the elements of the government will want to misuse the information.
This is why I spoke in my first comment about the possibility of Libermanism.
Who said that we shouldn't be afraid of our privacy being violated by the authorities. Do you really trust their purity of morals? After all, their interest is as little democracy as possible within the "democratic" framework?
Michael, I think you are right and so is the student who wrote the article.
In my opinion, we should focus on another thing, which is the accessibility of public companies to the personal information of the individual.
Unfortunately, today every company (firm) in Israel has a database of personal data about people who work for them or random customers who come to buy products/services from the company, so that if a hostile foreign party gets access to these details, they can falsify our identity and even more. So, in my opinion, a law should also be issued in Israel, like in the USA, that prohibits the civilian market (that is, any citizen, firm, organization, association or any other individual), apart from government bodies, from storing any information about citizens in the country. By the way, identity theft is very common and occurs mainly through illegal repositories from around the world (there are quite a few illegal repositories in Israel as well), so a fairly large portion of American citizens are harmed in one way or another (such as opening a bank account with a fake identity ) from identity theft, in Israel the danger is much greater, we have many illegal immigrants, crime that is constantly increasing and the Palestinian terrorist organizations and the hand is still bent. So even though it hasn't become a common thing, it doesn't mean that the danger isn't hovering over our heads.
Michael I think you are missing the point we are making here.
There is no problem with improving security by adding biometric identifiers - there is a problem with the security of the database that the government wants to establish - due to the hacking of the databases that exist today.
For example, I have no problem with the fingerprint that the army took from me when I enlisted at the time. I trust that the army will protect its database and that the information there will not be misused, the government - no!
Take for example the Communications Data Act (http://www.haaretz.co.il/captain/spages/935489.html) (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3674345,00.html- The possibility of tracking cell phones (and other things related to cell phones) with the approval of a police officer (without a warrant). It is true that this is an important thing, which makes it possible to catch criminals and even save lives! But since then we have already heard of several cases in which
The police bypassed their authority and demanded the data against the law!
Shuki said something very true "The right to privacy is like the right to breathe, as long as it exists and there is no problem with it, then you don't feel how important it is. Only when it is violated do you feel how important it is, but probably too late."
Tell me - am I hallucinating?
Do people think that biometric identification will actually increase the danger of identity theft?
Where is logic?
Today you are identified through an ID card and/or a signature.
Here and there you also have a password on your computer.
that's it.
These can be faked relatively easily and this is what needs to be done to steal your current identity.
And despite that - how many cases of identity theft have you come across?
To all of these will now be added a few more things that are much, much, much, much more difficult to fake, and there are those who think that an attack on identity theft will begin right now?
It seems sick to me.
Those who are not well acquainted with the technology and the possibilities of its misuse can think that it is the same lady with a change of dress code. This is not the case, and indeed the main problem is the establishment of one large database that will contain biometric information of all the citizens of the country that allows identification. The existence of a database as it is defined today in the bill and in the explanatory notes is a weapon for mass harassment.
There may be many scenarios, in which as part of external, economic, military or political support there will be a requirement, of course not publicized, to share the data or part of it with other countries, such as the USA as part of the effort to fight terrorism.
The more likely scenario is the falsification of biometric information of innocent citizens or the information being passed on to criminal elements, despite all the legislation and protective measures that will be taken. And in this case, as soon as it is misused, you will commit identity theft based on biometric data and there is no cure for this.
Today, in extreme cases it is possible to create a new identity for a person (name, identity number, etc.) as is customary in witness protection, but if biometric data goes out of control there is no possibility of correction.
Privacy is not just something that criminals and terrorists are looking for. The right to privacy is like the right to breathe, as long as it exists and there is no problem with it, then you don't feel how important it is. Only when she is hurt do you feel how important she is, but probably too late.
And for those who believe that a finger-sized concession to privacy will bring them more security, Benjamin Franklin said:
"Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
The question is not whether it is good or bad.
As soon as a biometric identification database is established, attempts to hack it will begin.
It is already very easy to forge a fingerprint.
Go to the above link and see how easy it is to fake a fingerprint:
http://www.makortech.co.il/?CategoryID=240&ArticleID=447
As my predecessors mentioned, the concern is not with biometric means of identification on which the identification details are stored, but with the demand for the establishment of a central database.
The ease of forging biometric markers and relying on a central database will lead to an unbearable ease of identity forgery that will be very difficult to reverse. In addition, the repository will be accessible to too many people. Already today, it is difficult for the state to keep the existing data that will not leak.
The crime fighting argument is childish. Whoever wants to and invests resources will overcome the problems and whoever will suffer from problems is precisely the honest and law-abiding citizen. In addition, no one really explained how exactly such a tool would help fight crime. It seems to me that the response is precisely to the US government that demanded such a stockpile following the "war on terror". The candy that will be given in return is a visa exemption for Israeli citizens (meaning, the stockpile will flow to the US?).
The slope is too slippery. It's a shame that the author ignores, as Jonathan pointed out, the constitutional problems concerning a person's basic rights.
The main concern of the opponents of the biometric identification law is not from harming privacy as the author describes. In my opinion, the main concern is, as Shay wrote above, identity theft.
True, identifying people by biometric fingerprint will be much more reliable, but, if the central biometric database falls into the wrong hands (because no such online database can be 100% secure), what will we do then? And beyond that, Today, identity theft is mainly carried out by stealing an identity card. Do we really want criminals trying to steal our fingerprints? And in general, what will it require of them? After all, the "easy" way to do it would be to simply remove the finger...
Dawn,
Indeed, as you wrote: "Regarding forgeries, both fingerprints and facial features are external organs that are exposed anyway. The fingerprints leave traces in any case, so if someone wants to forge them, they can easily do so anyway. The proposed law regulates the form of identity verification, so that even if a person fakes fingerprints, there will still be a biometric image that can reveal that it is not the same person."
I suggest that you check if there are computerized systems that can recognize facial features, and see thatIn Japan the use of fake certificates Face recognition is not really intimidating.
In any case, I would be happy to talk with you personally and explain the dangers, the dismissal of the "privacy concerns" as paranoids is no small matter, and a law student's lack of regard for the real constitutional questions here (not only privacy but forced registration, even for Muslim women, for example) And also a lack of regard for the fact that the means of identification becomes an identity in itself, is a lack of seriousness.
I believe that the main problem with the law is not the introduction of biometric identification means for identity cards (and the like), but the establishment of the database itself. As written above - even today the databases of our government are hacked and anyone interested in information on any person can simply go to one of the sharing networks and find there the census and other databases on all citizens of the State of Israel, who lives where and when, phone numbers and relatives.
It doesn't take much to steal an identity today - but everything is still based on what the person tells the clerk. As soon as there is a database that also contains biometric information (information that is more difficult to falsify, but still possible) it will be possible to add the personal information in addition to the biometric (something that is not so easy to do by 'finding the fingerprint on the street') and the criminal will take a loan with your fingerprint (including, of course, the personal details from the database) - and go prove that you don't have a sister!
My opinion is the writer's opinion. Even today, personal data on almost any person can be found in a relatively easy way and together with this it is very easy to forge an identity and "steal" personal details. The desire to promote biometric identification in the world is necessary and required both for the very convenience of identification, modernization, difficulty in forging the identity. There is absolutely no point in the claim that the creation of a database will put the individual at risk that does not already exist today. The desire to prevent the law is rooted in prejudices and negative connotations.
It is evident that the author is a law student who has not delved properly into the technological possibilities that exist today.
There is and she is misled by the tiresome phrase "to move forward with progress", in other parts of the article she confuses an *electronic* identity card with a *biometric* identity card (the electronic one does not have to contain biometric details and still be equally difficult to forge) and finally does not refer to the fact that a database Biometrics of citizens does not currently exist in any western country (it does exist in Yemen and Indonesia for example).
And finally, the part of the last article in which the author concludes that man naturally strives to invade the privacy of others, practically drops the foundation for her own argument that a slippery slope is a dystopia that has no foundation.
For a more in-depth understanding, which includes quotations from human studies on the subject and examples of similar cases occurring in the world today and not in dystopia books such as 1984, you can browse to http://no2bio.org (And don't pester us about the design, it's meant to be flashy just to catch the eye <-:)
The use of a fingerprint is indeed acceptable, but for use in a biometric database for the purpose of identifying the citizens of a country like any other in the Western world. In the USA, a similar database is used for the purpose of identifying tourists only and for good reason.
The use of a fingerprint is accepted in other countries, for example in the identity card of Brazilian citizens. It is currently being used to identify the victims of the Air France plane crash.
It is evident that the author is a law student who has not delved properly into the technological possibilities that exist today.
There is and she is misled by the tiresome phrase "to move forward with progress", in other parts of the article she confuses an *electronic* identity card with a *biometric* identity card (the electronic one does not have to contain biometric details and still be equally difficult to forge) and finally does not refer to the fact that a database Biometrics of citizens does not currently exist in any western country (it does exist in Yemen and Indonesia for example).
And finally, the part of the last article in which the author concludes that man naturally strives to invade the privacy of the other, practically drops the foundation for her own argument that a slippery slope is a dystopia that has no foundation.
I am a loyal reader of the science website and am disgusted by the publication of such a simplified article that lacks real, well-founded arguments.
For a more in-depth understanding, which includes quotations from human studies on the subject and examples of similar cases occurring in the world today and not in dystopia books such as 1984, you can browse to http://no2bio.org (And don't pester us about the design, it's meant to be flashy just to catch the eye <-:)
Biometric identification has already been proven several times, just search a bit on YouTube
And look at how easy it is to trick him - is this the technology on which we want to build the security of the country?
What's more, the proposal is to give a private company the tender for the maintenance of the information - which should also be included together
With the biometric identity card also very personal information such as your income tax and national insurance - would you like this information to be public?
With God's help, libertarianism will soon arrive in our day
In the overall account - my opinion is the author's opinion.
I'm willing to give up a little privacy to gain a lot more personal security.
However - I am not sure that the author is fully aware of all the dangers of combining such a biometric database with the technology that is developing more and more.
The Big Brother script seems completely exaggerated if you think that Big Brother is a human being, but what if Big Brother is a computer program that knows how to recognize facial features from images produced by cameras standing on street corners?
Such a system can simultaneously track an unlimited number of people, see who they meet with and maybe in the future even read lip movements and know what they are saying to each other.
We also know that the government is not always innocent - we are already adults and we have seen from them McCarthyism, Nazism and the government in the communist countries, so it is clear that information can be misused (imagine, for example, how McCarthy would have celebrated with such a system).
And yet - in our tiny country - I tend to believe that the gain will be greater than the loss (but mind you! Libermanism does not sound like a completely illusory possibility to me)