Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

digit.so36.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 432 posts

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#301

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

omgomgomgomg wrote: post #184
pessimizer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that hyperbole is possible when you're discussing the necessity of having worldwide biometric "terrorist" lists that countries like Saudi Arabia would participate in. ----- edit: How would you code "terrorism through public demonstrations of driving while female" or "terrorism through being Yemen?" "Terrorism though applying for a marriage license after being mildly critical in the WaPo."

Finance background here. All these PEP, sanction lists, ofac monitoring, financial sanction lists already exist and every company with a worthwile monetary turnover ever facing an audit runs these background checks. The laws are there, they are called the aml directives, the lists are there. And most of the entries there are provided by eitjer uk or us entities, youll usually find foreign military personells data the…

> Btw, these lists are csv files often...some sophistication.

And surely this critically sensitive data is not left on a shared location with loose permissions, or sent around as an email attachment, right? ...right?

I'm worried about the ability of this data to enable authoritarianism and I'm also worried about it being handled by those with the competence of the average government official.

"Never blame on malice what you can blame on stupidity", however the problem is government has both of those in spades.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#302

Post by ubercore »

vinay427 wrote: post #130
InTheArena wrote: post #62

Reading through the slides, it appears that what has been discussed is sharing signature and fingerprints for travel into the USA. There is a lot of weasel words, but it's probably worth nothing that the USA currently collects this information for foreign nationals coming into the USA (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU). This is being done in the context of a DB query as part of the e VISA applicatio…

> (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU) This doesn't seem true unless the US citizen is resident in a Schengen area country or (as a technicality) is also an EU/Schengen area citizen, as the EU seems slightly more in favor of government collection of biometric data for automated immigration purposes. I'm not sure about the reverse, as even the CBP seems to be moving towards facial recognition in place…

I didn't have to provide a fingerprint or signature to travel to Europe, only when I applied for residence in a Schengen country.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#303

Post by str1k3 »

77pt77 wrote: post #300
InTheArena wrote: post #62

Reading through the slides, it appears that what has been discussed is sharing signature and fingerprints for travel into the USA. There is a lot of weasel words, but it's probably worth nothing that the USA currently collects this information for foreign nationals coming into the USA (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU). This is being done in the context of a DB query as part of the e VISA applicatio…

> where US and Saudi systems did not communicate and resulted in known terrorists in Saudi Arabia being able to travel at will into the USA. I'm not even sure how to classify this sentence...

Naive.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#304

Post by survirtual »

lisper wrote: post #195
survirtual wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very correct. However, I would amend your solution: the solution is modern encryption and open source. These two in conjunction allow you to verify trust. ToS is like HR: they both exist to protect only the company.

> These two in conjunction allow you to verify trust. No, they don't. They only allow you to verify that some entity that possessed some private key made some claim about some set of bits. It tells you absolutely nothing about whether any of those claims are actually true, including whether the possessor of the private key is who they claim to be.

I didn’t mention anything about signing?

I said encryption. You can do encryption all kinds of ways. In this case, I am talking about encrypting your own data on a client and not allowing a server to see it. This would just require a secret key derived from a password ran through a password hashing algo.

You only need asynchronous crypto when you involve another party, so it would play a role in a trustless architecture, but I am unsure what your point is.

When I say “verify trust” of a system, I am referring to a product making a claim, such as “your data is private and we don’t sell it” — then backing up the claim by building the product in such a way such that it is impossible to sell it. Encryption + open source is just about all the way to proving that claim, and it can be verified that way.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#305

Post by user3939382 »

pessimizer wrote: post #96
InTheArena wrote: post #62

Reading through the slides, it appears that what has been discussed is sharing signature and fingerprints for travel into the USA. There is a lot of weasel words, but it's probably worth nothing that the USA currently collects this information for foreign nationals coming into the USA (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU). This is being done in the context of a DB query as part of the e VISA applicatio…

I'm not sure that hyperbole is possible when you're discussing the necessity of having worldwide biometric "terrorist" lists that countries like Saudi Arabia would participate in. ----- edit: How would you code "terrorism through public demonstrations of driving while female" or "terrorism through being Yemen?" "Terrorism though applying for a marriage license after being mildly critical in the WaPo."

I wish we lived in a world where our governments had integrity, prioritized the interests of the masses, and could be trusted to use powers like this in pursuit of those interests. Sadly we don’t.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#306

Post by u10 »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #301
omgomgomgomg wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finance background here. All these PEP, sanction lists, ofac monitoring, financial sanction lists already exist and every company with a worthwile monetary turnover ever facing an audit runs these background checks. The laws are there, they are called the aml directives, the lists are there. And most of the entries there are provided by eitjer uk or us entities, youll usually find foreign military personells data the…

> Btw, these lists are csv files often...some sophistication. And surely this critically sensitive data is not left on a shared location with loose permissions, or sent around as an email attachment, right? ...right? I'm worried about the ability of this data to enable authoritarianism and I'm also worried about it being handled by those with the competence of the average government official. "Never blame on malice w…

Critical sensitive data? You can access the lists directly in several different formats, all publically available... Wouldn't be much of a sanctions list if you couldn't

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctio...

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#307

Post by [deleted] »

LarryMullins wrote: post #232
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fork signal, put together a non-profit to run the nodes, start paying $1/mo or somesuch, and stop using the facebookified version.

That's great if you stay on top of the news, see it coming and get your data out of the way before the compromised app is pushed to your phone. Maybe habitual HN users are safe, but I think most Signal users would be compromised like this.

[deleted]

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#308

Post by synkarius »

rnk wrote: post #258
synkarius wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens of other countries have no rights under the US constitution.

It's more complicated than that. They have many rights inside our border. Outside our border I'm not sure. Web search found https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-rig...

That's true about rights inside the US border, but in context, this thread was talking about non-US citizens in their home countries when said countries are being pressured by the US government.

I could have been clearer there. I can see why you replied as such.

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#309

Post by hammock »

InTheArena wrote: post #62

Reading through the slides, it appears that what has been discussed is sharing signature and fingerprints for travel into the USA. There is a lot of weasel words, but it's probably worth nothing that the USA currently collects this information for foreign nationals coming into the USA (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU). This is being done in the context of a DB query as part of the e VISA applicatio…

Considering that 9/11 was in part a Saudi kingdom operation, I’m not convinced having more US-Saudi cooperation would have helped

Edit: what’s with the downvotes?

Re: US Government demands direct police access to European biometric data [pdf]

#310

Post by [deleted] »

survirtual wrote: post #191
devmunchies wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could go to the supreme court, maybe violates the 4th amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" meaning, I got the right to secure my sh*t.

If nothing else, it definitely violates the spirit of the second amendment. My digital self should be as secure and protected as my physical brain under the eyes of law.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN