this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
68 points (98.6% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

privacy

Ultimately, there are too many databases with people's fingerprints out there, and my expectation is that they're gonna leak at some point.

So that means two things:

  • First, don't use biometrics to check identity unless you're in a position where a person forging them can actually be checked for forged biometrics and get in trouble if caught. Like, customs at an airport, where you could see if someone has fake caps on their fingers or something. Biometrics cannot normally be invalidated. If it leaks and you're using the fingerprints to authenticate yourself to, say, your laptop or your bank or something, you can never invalidate those credentials, and people will always be able to get into your bank account. Specifically in the case of fingerprints, it's often not even that hard to get ahold of a specific individual's biometrics -- you leave a record of them on any smooth surface that you touch.

  • Second, if you're in a position where you don't want to leave behind a signature, you might want to wear something that masks biometrics. If you have widely-leaked biometrics databases floating around that anyone can get access to, and you, say, put your hand on something, you've just left a signature that anyone can map to identity. Maybe bring back gloves, say. I don't think that we're at a point where there are systems that can do iris scans at a distance without someone knowing. Facial recognition is definitely doable at a distance, and that happens today. People at political protests who are worried about being identified, some military people, stuff like that, will mask their face. Maybe it makes sense to roll back anti-mask laws if facial databases are gonna be floating around. I dunno about gait recognition, whether that's sufficiently-unique to distinguish among a large number of people at a distance.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A "database of fingerprints" would only contain checksums. They can be used to verify the result of a reading but not to get the whole print.

Most of the time they don't even contain that. The primary checksum is stored only on the ID, which outputs a secondary one, which is matched against a verification checksum produced independently by a reader.

The national database doesn't need any of those, it holds the person ID numbers and their civil status and stuff like that not how they are verified.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A β€œdatabase of fingerprints” would only contain checksums

that's the case for fingerprint readers in phones/laptops

But does that also apply to prints collected for government ID cards?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But does that also apply to prints collected for government ID cards?

Most probably, for several reasons:

  1. If the government or a goverment organization wants to fake the fact you've presented your fingerprints somewhere they can just fake the results of the checkup itself. And if they're up to this level of fuckery it's probably a short distance to where they just imprison or kill you, so having your prints faked is the least of your problems.
  2. If the goverment is well-meaning they don't want to store fingerprints because they're not needed and they'd just be storing highly sensitive personal information that, if ever breached, could be used for all kinds of shenanigans. The best way to protect data is to not have it in the first place.
  3. The goal of these systems is to log and attest the checks, not the fingerprints. They document the fact that at a certain time and location the checksums for a set of biometrics did or did not match some reference checksums. They don't care what those biometrics mean, or what the result of the check being passed or failed means, or what the actual biometrics are (we're talking about fingerprints here but there's lots of biometrics that can be used).
  4. Storing actual biometrics would take a lot more space and add complexity. The checksums are much smaller and simpler.
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Good to mention that (in the Netherlands) when you've provided fingerprints for a new identification card, the fingerprints are wiped from any system after you've received the card, remaining only on the card itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't know that, but that's nice.

Now how do I dispose of the card once it's expired? πŸ€”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Over here you hand it over when you pick up the new one and it gets physically marked (a corner gets cut, typically) to prevent it being used as a duplicate.

Or you can shred it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a corner gets cut, typically

That doesn't get rid of the markings on it, which could still be used.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It doesn't. But it's a personal ID card, You can also lie about having lost it and get a replacement.

All security is mitigation. There aren't a ton of uses for a second expired ID of yourself in any case. It's not like an old timey passport where you'd see someone in the movies physically changing the photo and expiration date. This thing is printed right on the plastic with hard to reproduce security measures similar to paper money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Probably this is an EU-wide law, because my east-leaning country says this too

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Same in Germany. But I wouldn't be surpised at all if wiretapping agencies like the NSA manages to get most of the data anyway. Then again, the same can be said for phones which are supposed to only keep the data on the device.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Last time I used my mandatory ID for a public transaction I actually had to use a webcam and held the card up to it and then my face so a human could check them.

Turns out, in a country where these have been in use for decades some people have put some thought into it. Go figure.

Of course now we have real time deepfakes and that is again obsolete, so we'll see where we go from here. I hope I don't have to bring my meatsuit to an actual office for routine tax transactions again, because that sucked and this is better.