Israeli government’s call for mandatory biometric ID system met with backlash | Hacker News Reader

Israeli government’s call for mandatory biometric ID system met with backlash

biometricupdate.com

51 pointskhuranagam15 comments

Unfortunately, despite wide consensus within the academic and professional communities, there's no real public backlash against the biometrics database.

It's hard to explain to a common Israeli why a database is dangerous. The security argument is blinding, and it seems like we are going towards making this huge mistake.

There's currently an effort to stop this and a crowd-funding campaign launched this week aiming to finance a plea to the supreme court is so far successful (https://www.headstart.co.il/project.aspx?id=19914)

I would have thought a country where some parliamentarians still have their Auchwitz numbers tatooed on their arms would understand, but I guess everyone assumes that the database will be used against some other ethnic group instead.

It is the same in India, and I guess same everywhere. Because of people being illiterate and with the attitude of "this can never happen to me", we have a unique ID system forced down the throat of the citizens.

> It's hard to explain to a common Israeli why a database is dangerous.

If true, that's a huge educational failure. After all, Israel exists because the Nazis were a bit too good at using paper-based databases, with "unique biometric IDs" on people's arms. It's astonishing that Israeli citizens, of all people, should have forgotten where this sort of approach inevitably leads.

This is demagoguery, there are many reason why not to have a biometric database and this isn't one of them.

The biometric db will not track ethnicity, Israel has already a national identity registry and a mandatory national identity card law like many other nations.

For the nonsensical scenario you propose it effectively has already everything in place.

Israel also issues biometric passports and smart identity cards the difference is that the biometric info is only stored on the smart card embedded in those and it's also not stored in a raw form but as a set of fuzzy hashes which are created from the biometric information collected from the card or passport holder.

The controversy here is the proposal of a central db which will hold raw biometric data.

Please bare in mind that Israel has also a national bone marrow databas which covers about 80% of the population, as well as an opt-in by default organ donor program if you take out a drivers license.

And anyone who went through military service also has their DNA and fingerprints on file.

The DB here is basically a proposal to unify all of these, centralize them and make it available to law enforcement which is in gross violation of the laws that preceded it and also a pretty huge security liability.

But the question is: if all these databases are already in place, what is your objection to simply taking it one step further? Previous laws don't matter - laws get changed all the time, that's the whole point of government. A security liability? Maybe, but then all these databases already are.

So why, exactly, are you opposed to this? It's the logical extension of everything else that preceded it.

You will likely find that the answer is a discomfort with a scenario like the one I mentioned, which becomes a bit too trivial to achieve once this step is made. (Note that this has nothing to do with ethnicity, btw.)

It's not my objections I don't live there, the issue is that while databases exist each of them only serves a very specific role and the information stored is limited.

Many people do not want a central database because it's going to end up being a prime target for criminals and even nation states, and that the use of previously collected information for law enforcement and potential future use for private organizations (e.g. insurance providers) is a gross violation of both privacy and common sense.

There is a good reason why for example the IDF biometric database is not accessible to law enforcement or any other entity even within the IDF, as it's sole purpose is for casualty identification anything else would be considered a misuse of power especially considering that Israel has compulsory military service.

The bonemarrow database does not contain any biometric information that can be used for legal means, and the organ donor database doesn't contain it either.

The national registry contains your birth, nationality and family information (parents, dependants and children) again no biometric information, and this database has been leaked constantly over the years as it was made available to certain private organizations and commercial software which contained copies of that database was fairly quickly pirated.

The amount of information there was enough to create a shitstorm, it tended to be out of data but it had your full name, your national identity number which is unique and not reused and your last registered address.

And while the latter tended to be grossly outdated by the time it was leaked as misfortune happens the people who are the most vulnerable to fraud; the elderly and recent immigrants tended to have the most correct information as they tended to be freshly registered and or less mobile.

And as mentioned before the biometric identity documents follow the globally accepted standard where the information is stored and checked against the data stored on the embedded smartcard rather than in a central database.

The new database is basically a unification of all of this where you'll end up storing raw and unrestricted biometric info including fingerprints, retinal scans and likely in the future DNA which will be accessible for direct queries by any entity with access to it, this is something people do not want to accept and I can hardly blame them for it.

I never understood the ideas that are prevalent in the US where effectively making a database of people is nearly unconstitutional, where there are effectively no mandatory national (federal) ID laws and where any ID law is opposed being the first sign of fascism.

But there is a huge difference between storing information that we already know now can be abused and we can't even imagine how a malicious entity could abuse it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

And as the expiration date for biometrics is literally your lifetime, I would personally air on the side of caution and say there since there is no need for a central DB there is no need to create one especially since we haven't even began to understand the risk profile that this information in the wrong hands can project.

I wonder if Aryeh Deri has picked up a directorship at DNA Bioscience. This is what David Blunkett did in the UK while he was pressing hard for a biometric identity card and national database for the UK.

Checking his wikipedia page, it seems there's no need to give him a directorship. He'll accept cash:

""" After Deri was convicted of taking $155,000 in bribes while serving as Interior Minister, and was given a three-year jail sentence in 2000. He was replaced by Eli Yishai.[1][2] Due to good behavior, Deri was released from Maasiyahu Prison in 2002 after serving 22 months.[3] """

It's curious how politicians, all around the world, almost never fulfill their sentences. At least that's how it looks.

In the United States it's not all that curious, because most prisoners do not serve their full sentence. The expected time served for a new prisoner is something like 87% of their sentence.

If a Federal prisoner serving a sentence that is more than one year and not a life sentence "has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations" for a year gets credit for 54 days on his sentence. (18 U.S. Code § 3624).

If you are in a maximum security prison, it might be hard to avoid getting into trouble because there is heavy gang activity at maximum security prisons and you may have to align with a gang to survive. I'd expect most politicians in prison, though, to be in low security prisons, and there is very little gang presence in low security prisons. Thus, I'd expect politicians (and other white collar prisoners in general) to usually be model prisoners.

I'd expect that it is somewhat similar in most justice systems that have a time off for good behavior reward.

Most prisoners in Israel and in many other countries don't serve the full length of their sentences.

You end up serving 1/3rd to 1/2 of your sentence by default, "Good Behaviour" usually means that you haven't started any riots or shanked a guard.

I know that in most western countries happens, in Spain it's similar , but it's difficult to find a politician who has served all of it and most of them don't give back what they have taken and usually end again in working in the public "service". What i think it's bad, they should be banned for life of all public work.

That's often because prisons everywhere are full to the brink. The increase in criminalization of all sorts of common behaviours (from drugs to copyright infringement) naturally leads to overcrowding, which in turns leads to continuous amnesties and sentence discounts.

Not really, many countries have a early release after 1/4-1/2 of the time have been served depending on the severity of the crime.

You also get vacation days from prison, free education and many other "benefits", including being able to own small appliances (TV, radio, microwave.. no not kidding) even in high security prisons.

You don't have to go as far as Norway to find prisons which are not like US ones.

I know for a fact both UK and Italian prisons are overcrowded, with legislation introduced explicitly to address this by shortening sentences. I expect most EU systems are similarly positioned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com