more on Biometrics "isn't for security--it's for convenience"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Lee Tien <tien () well com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:31:41 -0800
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: <[IP]> more on Biometrics "isn't for security--it's for
convenience"

The GAO report isn't bad -- EFF felt that it wasn't critical enough
because the focus was on the technologies.

The problems transcend the biometric technologies themselves --
Congress, dazzled by the "gee-whiz" factor, is not thinking straight.

EFF commented on a draft of the GAO report.  One of EFF's main bullet
points:

    No system restricted to authorized ports of entry can protect
total border of 100,000 miles ("why spend billions of dollars at
border checkpoints when any intelligent, well-funded terrorist group
would cross the border at other places?")

    If the goal is to keep terrorists out, biometrics is largely
irrelevant because biometrics can only be applied at border
checkpoints.  One must expect that terrorists would seek to enter at
other points.

    The crucial point is that authorized points of entry cover a
tiny fraction of our 100,000-mile border.  Illegal immigrants
routinely cross the 1959-mile U.S. border with Mexico.  <[cite]> ("up
to 60 percent of the 275,000 new illegal immigrants a year do not
present themselves at a port of entry").  These illegal entrants are
relatively low-capability adversaries whose primary motive is to find
jobs.  If we can't stop them from illegally entering the country
"between the borders," why should we think that we can stop
well-funded, organized, and disciplined terrorists?


Lee Tien
Senior staff attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/