Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren’t ‘Personal Data’»

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:51 AM
Original message
Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren’t ‘Personal Data’»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/chertoff-fingerprints/

Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren’t ‘Personal Data’»

Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and served as the Clinton Administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy.


Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has badly stumbled in discussing the Bush administration’s push to create stricter identity systems. Chertoff was recently in Canada discussing, among other topics, the so-called “Server in the Sky” program to share fingerprint databases among the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia.

In a recent briefing with Canadian press (which has yet to be picked up in the U.S.), Chertoff made the startling statement that fingerprints are “not particularly private”:

QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

Many of us should rightfully be surprised that our fingerprints aren’t considered “personal data” by the head of DHS. Even more importantly, DHS itself disagrees. In its definition of “personally identifiable information” — the information that triggers a Privacy Impact Assessment when used by government — the Department specifically lists: “biometric identifiers (e.g., fingerprints).”

Chertoff’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from Jennifer Stoddart, the Canadian official in charge of privacy issues. “Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy,” Stoddart said.

There are compelling reasons to treat fingerprints as “extremely personal information.” The strongest reason is that fingerprints, if not used carefully, will become the biggest source of identity theft. Fingerprints shared in databases all over the world won’t stay secret for long, and identity thieves will take advantage.

A quick web search on “fake fingerprints” turns up cheap and easy methods for do-it-at-home fake fingerprints. As discussed by noted security expert Bruce Schneier, one technique is available for under $10. It was tried “against eleven commercially available fingerprint biometric systems, and was able to reliably fool all of them.” Secretary Chertof either doesn’t know about these clear results or chooses to ignore them. He said in Canada: “It’s very difficult to fake a fingerprint.”

Chertoff’s argument about leaving fingerprints lying around on “glasses and silverware” is also beside the point. Today, we leave our Social Security numbers lying around with every employer and numerous others. Yet the fact that SSNs (or fingerprints) are widely known exposes us to risk.

There have been numerous questions raised about how this Administration is treating our personal information. Secretary Chertoff’s comments show a new reason to worry — they don’t think it’s “personal” at all.

– Peter Swire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. You drop DNA everywhere, too. So that's not personal either?
BTW, fingerprinting is the one "science" of law enforcement that has NEVER been tested ar proven to be reliable. Smoke that, Chertoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leftist Agitator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Indeed...
"...fingerprinting is the one "science" of law enforcement that has NEVER been tested or proven to be reliable."

Yep. I seem to remember a lawyer in Washington state getting blamed for the Madrid bombing in 2004 based on a partial fingerprint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Brilliant logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Chertoff is a fucking idiot.
Who did he blow to get his job, anyway?

The level of incompetence in this administration is mind boggling.

Are any of these assholes qualified for the job that they have been appointed?

Just when I think they cannot stoop to any lower levels of stupidity...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. AWWWK! the security chicken
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Chertoff should publish his fingerprint set first.
I'm sure nothing bad can happen can it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Someone should ask Herr Chertoff what does constitute 'personal'. If the skin on your hands doesn't
and what you choose to do in your own bed doesn't, than what is 'personal'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. "Personal" is e-mails sent by the White House staff
And you're not allowed to see their "personal" conversations and deliberations.

I hope that clears it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. Then why secure Bush's poop? He shits on everything everywhere he goes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
11. By that tortured (!) logic, neither then is DNA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
12. if foot prints aren't personal data, perhaps he wouldn't mind me
placing one on his ass. what a fucking asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC