A couple of days ago I was sent an e-mail asking whether I wanted a briefing, for a story, by a PR agency that was hired for the promulgation of the story. The body of the message was:
In a world where security and surveillance issues create uneasiness on the best of days, a team of innovative security and technology experts have come together to create what is the most secure access control solution available for tracking human as well as physical assets on the same network. Imagine hundreds of people passing through a eportal as powerful long-range, unobtrusive cameras capture facial images that are matched against a data archive at a rate of 60,000 images per second. Secondary identification is made as individuals' RFID credentials are read and matched to biometric records. Any exception to the match-ups triggers a security situation, based on business rules in place, focusing on the specific individuals, while others continue on uninterrupted.
I'm sure that many other journalists received the same message. Not many probably replied as I did, to describe the whole notion as "hideously invasive." What is happening to our society? What makes Big Brother assume that we are all doing something that He thinks we shouldn't be doing?
We face, daily, the authority of the uniform. Have an anti-Bush sticker on your vehicle crossing the Canada/US border and you are going for secondary inspection, buddy. What is now permitted in liquid/gel form on a plane in North America, from the TSA website:
- Travelers may now carry through security checkpoints travel-size toiletries (3 ounces or less) that fit comfortably in ONE, QUART-SIZE, clear plastic, zip-top bag.
- After clearing security, travelers can now bring beverages and other items purchased in the secure boarding area on-board aircraft.
Suppose I have trouble with English, sometimes. Does that 3 ounces or less weight apply to each of my toiletries or the total? Are you going to ship me off for secondary inspection if I put my shampoo in a one pint plastic bag instead of the quart bag? Or you declare that my toothpaste doesn't look "comfortable?" But what a great time to scan your fellow passengers with the content of their little bags. Heck, this could be better than checking out others' supermarket carts!
Does anyone actually check the commercial goods passing through security for sale near the gates? Of course not. Does the huge hunk of metal that is the cart carrying those goods ever have the underside examined with a mirror? Of course not. The whole system is totally vulnerable and any attempts to say otherwise are just self-deception.
The conjunction of fear with technology is an ongoing problem and the misuse and future potential misuses of RFID are really starting to get to me. For a while, I would have been content to just walk up and down the aisles of Wal*Marts across North America fusing all the product RFID sensors; now my feelings are a lot more general. Imagine all those people near you in the security scenario put forward by this group of Orwellian interpreters who want to watch us even closer. Why not blow all their RFID fuses before they get to the sensors. Wouldn't that be a wonderful major "security situation" to watch personnel to have to interpret and deal with?
As for the image checking, I remember being in a nondescript building in a not-too-pleasant part of San José, CA, some years ago, where I was shown a picture identification system which could compare features of a person captured on a camera, with a file image. It was pretty accurate at that time and I'm sure that it has much improved since. My problem with the system was that the vendors had, apparently, been handed the photos of all the inmates in the Washington state corrections system for their testing. When I asked about how appropriate that was, I was not asked to leave but it was made clear that the interview was terminated. If I had known who to go to, to complain, I would have done so.
The truth is that security is only as good as how few people know about it. Secrets are really difficult to hide when the population which shares the information increases -- if it even stays accurate. Sometimes secrets need to be known only by one person with nobody else even knowing that there is a secret.
But I cannot tell you about that -- it's a secret.
