August 10, 2006
Defense As Well
You fellows may be waking up today to news of a British-disrupted plot, likely by al-Qaeda, to blow up jets with liquid explosives. First and foremost, this is not the first such plot that has been disrupted. This is not a new tactics for our enemies. Given these tactics, we must once again question the wisdom of the Right-Wing assertion that we fight in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here.
It was called the Bojinka plot. A fire in a kitchen in Manila in early 1995 brought attention to a bomb factory full of liquid explosives. A Laptop found at the scene turned out to belong to no one else that Ramzi Yousef, one of the ringleaders of the first WTC attack. The intentions of this attack were to simultaneously detonate dozens of airliners over the pacific, coming from Far East locations.
Could it work? It already had. Yousef had already tested his bomb with a small device on another flight, a bomb which killed an unfortunate Japanese businessman.
This is where the folly of the Bush Administration's military-oriented policy towards counterterrorism shows itself quite clearly. Just one person on a plane with a soda bottle full of liquid explosive could bring the jets down. Where do you send the army to face that threat?
Many on the right wing sneer about having to get permission slips to go after terrorists. But what use is a counterterrorism policy which essentially requires us to take over the world for it to work? What use is a homeland security policy which requires us to fight endless wars that don't prevent plots like those that struck Madrid or London?
What we need is a good, dedicated counterterrorism effort here at home, exactly the kind of thing that the Bush Administration has neglected. We need the 9/11 commission recommendations fully carried out, and better tactics used where the commissions suggestions are lacking. We have to remember that the last successful attack on the United States was not a missile or rocket attack from a foreign nation, an heavy armor invasion from other shores, or a commando raid on our capital, but instead a fairly cheap ($100,000) terrorist attack which was initiated and executed here by just nineteen men.
The Bush Administration is not only behind the times, its behind the curve. Our national security is in danger and we are dealing with a very sophisticated and adaptable enemy. Despite all the constitutional violations and sacrifices, the Bush Administration has done an extremely poor job of rooting out terrorists here at home, despite intelligence about plots like the Mukhtabar plot in the NYC's subways being in action. Al Qaeda is here. It is in action, and the only thing so far that has protected us is that al-Qaeda had been targeting our allies in order to split them off. We are like a man in a sniper's sights who is only unwounded because the sniper chooses not to shoot.
The time has come to recognize that while absolute security is impossible, it is in our interests to make it more and more difficult for our enemies to strike us. We cannot forever linger in a state of high security, which means we need better international relations, better intelligence, better follow-up, and fewer distractions by ideologically driven manipulators of foreign policy. All they have succeed in doing is aggravating the situation, misleading efforts, and remaining in denial about the holes in security their efforts have created.
We need the "soft" power back. We need agile law enforcement agencies to take the lead on fighting terrorism, rather than lumbering armies. We need to minimize unnecessary disruptions in the places where al-Qaeda recruits. We need diplomacy working opening up channels for us to act through; despite what the right-wing thinks, diplomacy is useful for more than just avoiding wars. We need to get Iraq finished and over with, hopefully in one piece so it doesn't become the source of the next threat.
We need more than offense here, we need a good defense as well. Otherwise, all the billions that we spend will only serve to bleed us further of the resources we need to thrive as a nation and to confront our enemies.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 09:20 AMI generally agree with the assessment that we need to create a much more agile intelligence apparatus, however there are two elements that need more emphasis.
Firsr, we need to develop a much stronger human intelligence gathering network. This goes hand in hand with the second element a strong partnership in intelligence gathering with countries that share our interest in eliminating terrorism. It is hard to imagine countries alienated by our current and our allies (Israel’s) military incursions cooperating fully with our intelligence operations. An easily identified example of this is Pakistan’s duplicitousness in dealing with us and Ossama bin Laden. If Pakistan really wanted us to get him they would tell us where he is. Instead they get a de facto approval of their nuclear weapons program-in opposition to our interests and international approbation AND they continue to aid and abet Al Quaeda to satisfy the internal political interests of the Islamists. This is acceptable to us because our military incursion in Iraq requires a quiescent Pakistan. Ultimately, we lose. Our current administration is in over their heads and they don’t even know it. Only a concerted diplomatic push to achieve a truly international security regime where we value having more allies than Israel and Tony Blair will result in a tenable security situation for the West.
Posted by: Bill at August 10, 2006 10:42 AMStephen,
Excellent article as always. You wrote:
Many on the right wing sneer about having to get permission slips to go after terrorists. But what use is a counterterrorism policy which essentially requires us to take over the world for it to work? What use is a homeland security policy which requires us to fight endless wars that don’t prevent plots like those that struck Madrid or London?I would add that even taking over the world would not work.
It is good point about al-Qaeda targeting our allies in order to split them off, but could anyone do a better job of splitting them off than Bush?
Bill,
An interesting analysis including information that I was not aware of. Anything that you can do to expand and substantiate would be a great contribution to the discussion.
Stephen,
Well! At least I didn’t have to read:
“First, it appears that al-Qaeda is no longer intent on attacking us.”
That statement of yours was all the way back in, uh, well, your very last thread. Please don’t force me or others to correct you on this matter again.
Posted by: Ken Strong at August 10, 2006 11:57 AMBill,
“First, we need to develop a much stronger human intelligence gathering network.”
Agreed! Of course we had one in the early 70’s and summarily torched it thinking SatInt and ELInt could do everything we needed. Hopefully we’ll always remember the heinous error of our decision in the late 70’s.
Posted by: Ken Strong at August 10, 2006 12:01 PMI couldn’t agree more with your post. We spend hundred of billions fighting a war against invisible civilian enemies while TSA back home is a joke. Hours are spent waiting by passengers in airports every day while TSA officials check shoes and make people drink breast milk to prove it is not explosive. Meanwhile the back doors go unguarded as hundreds of airport employees who “make a whopping $10-$15/hour and have unfettered access to all vital compartments on a plane get to freely move between terminal and runway. This is one of many examples of a half-assed security system and the governmental priorities that make it so. And yet, voting these idiots who invent this crap out of office equates to a diminishment of national security in many peoples’ eyes. All I can say is: WOW.
Ken Strong-
“First, it APPEARS that al-Qaeda is no longer intent on attacking us.â€
What about that statement, and especially the word “APPEARS” does not make sense to you? New facts always force change. So, aside from semantics, do you have a point to make about Al Quaida’s intentions to attack the US? Maybe about how the Iraq war did nothing to stop it, and likely fueled it?
—-Ken Strong—- Please do not think you need to
speak for others, I for one believe you should
proof read your statements before posting them,
instead of pulling written material from some place
an then try sticking them all together in a hodgepodge
statement!
Stephen:
“What we need is a good, dedicated counterterrorism effort here at home, exactly the kind of thing that the Bush Administration has neglected.”
Indeed — criminally neglected.
Btw, Stephen, have you heard the latest news? It seems that the Bush-created agency CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity) which was originally set up to coordinate policy and oversee the counterintelligence activities for the Pentagon is about to lose it’s mastermind and director David Burtt (who was also deputy assistant secretary of defense for counterintelligence at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks), and Burtt’s deputy director Joseph Hefferon?
Yes, these two have just announced their “retirement” at the end of the month after spending a billion of our taxpayer dollars during the past four years — most of it going to outsourced contractors. A Pentagon spokesman just came out and told us that this is “a personal decision that they both made together.” Isn’t that sweet?
That’s because Burtt and Hefferon and that jailbird Duke Cunningham were using this counterintelligence agency so they could secure contracts for companies like Mitchell Wade’s (you know, the guy who bribed Cunningham) MZM Inc.
Oh, aren’t we all so glad the way Bush administration has spent our money so wisely and carefully, in order to keep us all extra safe from terrorism? And aren’t we all so happy that we’re fighting them over there, so we that we don’t have to worry over here?
Personally, I’m so glad it makes me want to puke. Daily.
Fortunately for us, someone else knows how to connect the dots.
U.S. Homeland Security is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine when when ports and borders are wide open?
We don’t even know who is coming and going?
Wait until terrorists get WMD and put it in one of the huge containers entering one of our ports. And, with wide-open borders, cells could already be here in the U.S., growing and planning.
I understand the concerns many have against biometrics, but secured borders and biometrics could make it damn hard to move about the U.S. undetected, or get on an airplane. Computerization could make it easier to search vast records almost instantaneously. Criminals are running around, but we don’t know who they are, because we can’t compare their finger print, face print, hand or body geometry, or an iris-scan to a database that could contain known terrorists and criminals. This may surprise many, but (provided government doesn’t abuse the information), what’s to be afraid of if you are doing anything wrong? Because, look at what’s going on now? You have to take your shoes off, empty all your pockets, be searched, can no longer carry a coke or pepsi or laptap computer onto an airplane? There are better, more commons sense ways to ensure better security. And, invading Iraq was not one of them, since they didn’t have WMD (a huge blunder based on flawed intelligence, paranoia, and disinformation).
Ken Strong-
Here are my words on this, published in one of my reponses to you in the comments before news of this broke:
As for al-Qaeda’s intent not to attack us, let me let you in on something: that can change, once they’ve weakened our alliances and resources enough. If you like being weakened and cut off by your enemy, by all means, enjoy the show. I’d rather defeat al-Qaeda’s aims.
I wasn’t making the argument that they wouldn’t attack, but instead arguing that the fact they weren’t attacking didn’t mean that they couldn’t, and that my concern was that when they finally got around to doing so, we would be little better at interdicting the plot than we were at dealing with 9/11.
One could argue that this was internationally directed, rather than targeted at us, but I find it difficult to believe that they didn’t think Americans would be victims in all this.
My earlier posts might be dated by the change in the situation. That doesn’t mean they are invalidated, though; in fact, any new rounds of attack will simply prove my point.
They will, conversely, disprove the points of all those people out there who argued that Iraq made us safer. Iraq has had the opposite effect as intended. The time is here to realize it, and do what we have to do to redeem the situation. You can cling to the war, and to the notion that your support for Bush trickles down to the soldiers, but the fact is, neither is doing good for us.
We need leadership in this war that defines support in terms of what gets done right, rather than what’s right in the view of one man, regardless of the evidence.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 04:57 PMStephen,
I could not agree with you more that, before all the faux heroics by Bush in Iraq, we should have focused on our defenses at home.
I have maintained all along that America will never be truly safe until our borders and entry/exit points are secured. We don’t need a fence. We do need defense.
There are more than enough electronic measures available to secure the border without a physical barrier. And, strangely enough, for a fraction of what has been spent on the war in Iraq, we could have secured both our northern and southern borders and initiated an actual inspection plan in our ports. Our airports could have been staffed with well trained, well paid inspectors and security troops. We could have fully funded and coordinated Homeland Security.
Instead, we have no end in sight in Iraq, a group of bumbling lawmakers who can’t find any consensus on any topic of importance, and we are all in much more danger travelling than ever before.
Defense is important. Vote out the bad politicians. Clean the slate.
Kevin23,
So why say “appears” if “appears” holds no weight then? Why say such a statement if you don’t think there’s an iota of reality in favor of it? Why say such a statement when the attacks on the WTC were 8 years apart and the London Bombings were just last year? Indeed, “appears” has nothing to do with terrorism or even security. It “appeared” WWI, WWII, and the Cold War were EACH the last big conflict of the century … . of course the problem is they all occurred in the same century. Alas, after we win the war on Terrorism many years down the road we will yet again say “There are no more wars to fight!” and slash our military, intelligence services, and other security agencies of the nation … only to get our butts hammered the first few years in another conflict in the mid 21st Century.
So is this how democrats will continue to argue security of the nation and reducing funds as things “appear”? … based on “appears” instead of common sense (and, well, claims from the enemy themselves that they were & are still every much our enemy) is a dangerous road devoid of maturity of thought as well as the generally accepted notion that the party in charge of the White House and/or Congress have a sworn duty to protect America.
“Appears” be damned.
Posted by: Ken Strong at August 10, 2006 06:11 PMDAVID,
My words were a direct reply to a statement by Stephen in a very recent thread. So to accuse & convict me of copying the verbage from somewhere else is junior-high-schoolish in nature and summarily deemed preposterous and slanderous.
Have more substantive facts in your corner (just one fact is a nice start) before you accuse and convict someone next time. Thank you.
Posted by: Ken Strong at August 10, 2006 06:17 PMDan-
Oh, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, right? Well, what happens when somebody thinks you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the case? Should you have to prove yourself innocent, or should they have to find good reason to go after you?
There’s a reason the founding fathers gave us the Fourth Amendment. How many Democracies have foundered because the governments were allowed to indulge their whims on who to hold suspect, and who to put above reproach?
Besides, more information is not necessarily a good thing, especially when most of what is processed is not useful. We reduce the overhead on how much information we have to work through, we make it easier to follow good leads. Procedures concerning warrants and whatnot also function to make people more selective and thorough in their investigations. By encouraging deep and specific investigations rather than broad and superficial ones, we both reduce information overhead, and the injustices that come with a system that simply invades people’s privacy on a broad scale. Only Gods can get a surveillance state right.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 06:23 PMStephen,
Okay, I accept that. Their intentions did change as you suggested … in all of about 3 days. I think it will do all of us good to remember how quickly things can change and why we shouldn’t skimp on security, either at the airport or during defense budgeting. The real emphasis behind my recent post is to challenge the very short term memory of America. The threat is real and it continues.
Finally, this part of your post was troubling since it shows great ignorance of my point of view: “You can cling to the war, and to the notion that your support for Bush trickles down to the soldiers, but the fact is, neither is doing good for us.”
Dems and liberals continue to characterize this “war” as if we’re battling masses of Iraqis in all 4 corners of the country. The fact is we are a security and defensive force in Iraq and trying to provide what ever stability we can while the country stands up on its feet. Sure we take action on occasion to respond to threats, but does anyone challenge the notion that if all Iraqis (and Irani and Syrian Insurgents) went home and never fired a shot again … that neither would we? Does anyone really challenge that? Or do extremists exist out there who say we would go on offensives in a peaceful Iraq? Unless you have that wacko opinion you can take pride at least in the noble idea of getting Iraq on 2 feet, and thus support the soldiers making the day-to-day effort in that regard.
So complain away about “we shoulda sent more troops”, “we shoulda let Saddam off the hook after 14 UN resolutions and simply not invaded”, “we shouldn’t have disbanded the Iraqi Army after the quick drive to Baghdad”, “we didn’t have a plan for the peace” … . those are all criticisms I don’t agree with but are still within the realm of acceptable thought in my opinion.
What isn’t acceptabe IMO is to say that I “cling to war”. It’s a false criticism of epic proportions. What I “cling to” is continuing our defensive & security operations, letting the Iraqi forces handling the sectarian strife as much as possible, and doing so for a bit longer until the Iraqi government is self-sustainable.
What’s “a bit longer”? Hopefully it’s only a year, maybe 2, hopefully not 3 but if that what it takes that’s what it takes. Remember, (I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this) we are not at total war with Iraq. If we wanted to just “Dresden” Iraq we would’ve been outta there at least 2 years ago. The mission of re-building Iraq into a sustainable entity is noble. So, argue the detailed tactics to achieve the goal, but I feel Americans do themselves a disfavor and demoralize the troops by claiming the end goal is wrong or frivolous or not noble in any way.
Ken Strong-
Wow there big guy. “Appears” is a word that has meaning. The meaning was a disclaimer that the proceeding thoughts had been based upon a snapshot of things in a context that may very well change or be different than it now seems to be. I have no idea what you tirade was really about, but I can tell you that it made no sense at all.
And if you want to start talking about ACTING on appearances alone (as if I somehow suggested that as a plan of action) I think you should talk to the president and VP and the millions of people who have been buying the crap being shoveled by their leaders. Talk to them about the consequences of making huge assumptions about the appeal of forcefully imposed “democracy”, and arrogantly marching in the army to do this fool’s work without any plan B. It certainly “appeared” to be a good idea to spend your children’s future tax revenue on that lemon eh?
Posted by: Kevin23 at August 10, 2006 06:46 PMKen Strong-
Just curious because there is a substantially large chance, in the opinion of a whole lot of people who know a whole lot more than you and I and who have been on the front lines of this struggle for decades, that Iraq will fall into civil war regardless…that it is merely delaying the innevitable to remain as a “police force.” I do not necessarily agree, but I at least accept it as reasonably possible.
So my question to you: is your 100% commitment to this mission of Iraqi democracy coming from a place of pride that democracy is really sought by all, or fear (by this I mean that failing would be an enormously bad precedent and would invite trouble)?
Now a follow-up: Are these goals worth the money we’re taking away from our own citizens and local governments at home to finance this endless and subjectively premised war? It seems to me to be throwing all the eggs in one basket at the very least. At worst, endangering our very future existance by creating more resentment and hate than they eliminate.
Me? I agree with securing ourselves first.
Physically with secured borders and good air land and sea checkpoints,
Economically through intelligent fiscal management, environmentally by reducing dependence on dangerous, finite or foreign resources, and
Emotionally with meaningful policing of things that really matter to people so people feel like we’re living in an honest and caring society to the extent possible without being wasteful with tax money. It might even help to get a majority out to vote. THEN you can go after the rest of the world with your “noble” yet imperialistic missions to spread democracy for “security” reasons.
Stephen wrote: Dan- Oh, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, right? Well, what happens when somebody thinks you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the case?Non-sequitur. What’s Biometrics got to do with that? False arrest is already a problem, without biometrics.
Stephen wrote: Should you have to prove yourself innocent, or should they have to find good reason to go after you?Again. That’s a separate issue, and a problem that already exists.
Stephen wrote: There’s a reason the founding fathers gave us the Fourth Amendment.Non-sequitur. We already have that problem. How is it worsened by biometrics? BTW, the Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The keyword is “unreasonable”. By your definition, we have already failed, since searches have been taking place at airports for decades?
Stephen wrote: How many Democracies have foundered because the governments were allowed to indulge their whims on who to hold suspect, and who to put above reproach?Non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with biometrics, which is merely a more accurate identification system than an ID card that is very easy to falsify. As for Democracies that have foundered, ours is not foundering merely due to who to hold suspect or put above reproach. That’s a problem, but not related to an identification system. As for putting peoople above reproach, Bill Clinton, I think holds the record for giving pardons to 140 convicted felons (some, who even pled guilty).
Stephen wrote: Besides, more information is not necessarily a good thing, especially when most of what is processed is not useful. We reduce the overhead on how much information we have to work through, we make it easier to follow good leads.Not more information. More reliable information. But, guess what? The government and lots of corporations already know all about you. Biometrics makes it difficult for illegal aliens and criminals to move about.
Stephen wrote: Procedures concerning warrants and whatnot also function to make people more selective and thorough in their investigations.And?
Stephen wrote: By encouraging deep and specific investigations rather than broad and superficial ones …Non-sequitur. Biometrics is not superficial. It’s more thorough.
Stephen wrote: … we both reduce information overhead, and the injustices that come with a system that simply invades people’s privacy on a broad scale.They already have lots of information about you to try to identify you. So, why not make that endeavor more accurate? In fact, it might even reduce the need for more information. How many IDs do we carry around? Drivers’ license, Social Security number, Healthcare card, etc. All of that could be eliminated with Biometrics. Whether you like it or not, it’s coming. Get used to it. It’s already being used more and more. I’ve already worked at places using biometrics. It’s just a matter of time, because ID cards and other IDentifications systems are failures.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Only Gods can get a surveillance state right.Really? Did you ask him? Nonsense. Biometrics is merely a better way to do what we ALREADY do. It would make it very difficult for terrorists and illegal aliens to move about undetected.
Case in point. Identity theft is the nations fastest growing crime. When banks start offering customers biometric IDentification, virtually eliminating identity theft, who is going to say “No thanks, I’d rather be a target for identity theft”.
It’s coming whether you like it or not.
Chi Chi wrote: Defense is important. Vote out the bad politicians. Clean the slate.
I agree. Most of our problems are due to irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians. Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians, and that will solve a WHOLE lot of our problems. Vote out all of the bad ones, and watch, suddenly like majic, problems getting solved, instead of growing in number and severity.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 10, 2006 07:31 PMKen Strong-
You didn’t really read my last entry, did you?
Your view of my writings is pretty superficial in my opinion, because you miss one of my major themes: appearances are often deceiving. My standard response to those who claim that all the years without a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is to point out the eight-year gap during which al-Qaeda didn’t lay a hand on the mainland.
Also, having read Suskind’s book, I can point to the Mukhtabar plot, and the fact that they voluntarily called it off, to indicate that we have been spared only because their strategy has called for attacks to be inflicted elsewhere.
Saying it appeared that al-Qaeda was focusing elsewhere rather than saying that outright acknowledges that a)we could be off entirely, or b)they may have changed their mind on these things and rudely forgot to tell us about it.
You have this standard square peg argument that you’re trying to pound into the round hole of what I actually said.
The book The One Percent Doctrine should give you pause if you are trully concerned about people chasing appearances as opposed to realities, because essentially Cheney’s doctrine, the doctrine of the title, is to treat any trouble that has even a one percent chance of happening as if it were a certainty.
With this doctrine, Cheney has tried to action on appearance the criteria for action. No waiting around, piecing through the evidence trying to find out what reality is hidden behind the items of intelligence, or determining what’s real or not. Just action based on what it looks like is happening.
This has gotten Americans killed in Iraq. Support for the president has been presented as the primary guaged for support for the troops, a trickle-down support system, if I ever saw one.
Never mind that many of us have dissented on issues like armor, manpower, and strategy because we sought to give material support to our soldiers. No, it seems the right wing is more concerned about keeping people from doubting the president’s wisdom and judgment on the matters at hand. Which of course means denying any mistakes are being made. That means, though, that you can’t openly act to fix those things, because that’s a concession of a fact you’ve publically denied.
And so, appearances dominate realities in policymaking.
If I hate Bush, it is for that. Why of all the times in our country’s history do we have to be saddled with deluded, distracted leadership. It’s like finding out in the middle of a flight through a thunderstorm that your pilot only stayed at a Holiday Inn.
I want better leadership than that. I want somebody who can take the learning curve at a steeper rate. I want a reader, a man who isn’t so interested in plausible deniability that his people are shielding him from intelligence he needs to know I want somebody who isn’t perpetually running a political campaign, but who can put down the campaign button and take care of serious issues.
I wish Bush was that kind of man. But he’s not.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 07:46 PMDan-
I’ve visited your site, so I know how enthusiastic you ar about the idea, but forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical.
Let’s try this for starters:
Biometric scanners used for the national identity card scheme could exclude people with visual, facial or other physical disabilities from using the technology, according to a leading expert on Tuesday.Angela Sasse, professor of human-centred technology at University College London, warned that biometric technology is underdeveloped to such an extent that iris scanners are often unable to verify identities of people wearing glasses and contact lenses, for example.
“Users may have problems presenting characteristics,” said Sasse. “If you have arthritis, you could have trouble putting your finger flat on the reader. Many biometric iris readers are unable to scan people with no irises or eye injuries. That’s where we see the percentage of people that can’t use biometrics going up and up.”
So, with Biometrics, the biological nature of the systems can become a hindrance to their proper usage.
Then there’s this guy’s read on things:
Certainly a fingerprint or iris scan can identify an individual. Unfortunately, the means for acquiring biometric records are neither convenient nor inexpensive. Even then, biometrical records will not result in a completely secure system. Obtaining a copy of an individual’s biometrics can be trivial. I have seen two movies where a waitress lifted a fingerprint from a glass in a restaurant for nefarious uses. There are also devices that can capture iris images of a person walking within a few feet of a video camera (often behind a one-way mirror) so that it can be duplicated and used for illegitimate purposes. The real problem with biometrics is that once an individual’s biometrics has been compromised, they are compromised for life and can never be trusted again. However, my most severe objection to biometrics as an authentication method is their reliance on a central database that contains the identifying graphic templates. If such database is compromised, then the biometrics of ALL users in the database are compromised for life.
Voice recognition must be also considered as a potential authentication biometric. Unfortunately, the technology is as yet not sufficiently reliable, is expensive and difficult to implement. It also suffers from all of the disadvantages of having to rely on a central database for storing voiceprint templates.
All technologies have their problems. You start from a principle, a theory, a possibility. Then you have to design something out of real world materials, which behaves according to the rules of the real world (which could mean failing to do what you want, or doing something else you didn’t anticipate, and perhaps don’t want). Then you have to implement it in an existing society full of laws, traditions, idiots, vandals and all sorts of other things. What works in theory and what works in practice are not necessarily the same things.
Technology also poses problems in terms of the rights we expect. What exactly keeps a person from being able to keep track of your movements all day? What’s the oversight? Who’s there when that face you’re looking for shows up, if you can get a positive match? I speak of Gods being the only folks able to run a surveillance society, because even if you can capture the information, how does it reach the right people?
We had a terrorism watchlist on 9/10. We had a database the people working security could plug into to determine whether a person was on the watchlist. But that didn’t do any good because of the human element. That was a case in which things could have been done better, really. Does it improve when the information is biometric? Instead of having a name not show up, it’s a face or a fingerprint I.D.
Biometric ID’s have a place in our society. I actually used one on checks for a while, and thought it was the coolest thing. But it’s no magic bullet. That’s one of the things we must learn about technology. We should not blunder our way into a police state thinking that all this new technology can keep us safe, if we simply give up our claim to the presumption of innocence. If you check the legal opinions on what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure, the answer settled upon is pretty plain: warrants and/or probable cause.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2006 10:10 PMStephen Daughtery wrote: Dan- I’ve visited your site, so I know how enthusiastic you ar about the idea, but forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical.Of course you are. What’s new?
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Let’s try this for starters: Biometric scanners used for the national identity card scheme could exclude people with visual, facial or other physical disabilities from using the technology, according to a leading expert on Tuesday. Angela Sasse, professor of human-centred technology at University College London, warned that biometric technology is underdeveloped to such an extent that iris scanners are often unable to verify identities of people wearing glasses and contact lenses, for example.
It’s only a matter of time before iris scanner issues like that are resolved.
Besides, use three (or more) metrics (e.g. iris scan, fingerprint, hand geometry, facial geometry, eye color, voice pattern, retina, height, vien geometry, Signature, thermogram, DNA, ear geometry, finger geometry, odor, and keystroke dynamics, password). Therefore, it would be damn difficult to steal all of those metrics.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: “Users may have problems presenting characteristics,” said Sasse. “If you have arthritis, you could have trouble putting your finger flat on the reader. Many biometric iris readers are unable to scan people with no irises or eye injuries. That’s where we see the percentage of people that can’t use biometrics going up and up.”
IF, IF, IF … That’s flimsy.
If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass on the ground.
Like I said, don’t rely on one metric.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: So, with Biometrics, the biological nature of the systems can become a hindrance to their proper usage.
Not if they are designed and used properly, and don’t rely on only one metric.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Then there’s this guy’s read on things: Certainly a fingerprint or iris scan can identify an individual. Unfortunately, the means for acquiring biometric records are neither convenient nor inexpensive. Even then, biometrical records will not result in a completely secure system. Obtaining a copy of an individual’s biometrics can be trivial. I have seen two movies where a waitress lifted a fingerprint from a glass in a restaurant for nefarious uses.
Oh! Well, then. Gee … if you saw it in a movie, it must be true.
The cost is falling fast. Another flimsy argument.
Many of these systems are already in use at airports, the workplace, personal use, the CIA, etc., and the cost will continue to fall.
Like I said before, you don’t rely on only one metric. Use three or more of the following:
- [01] iris scan
- [02] fingerprint
- [03] finger geometry
- [04] hand geometry
- [05] facial geometry
- [06] eye color
- [07] voice pattern
- [08] retina
- [09] hand vein geometry
- [10] signature
- [11] facial thermogram
- [12] facial vein geometry
- [13] DNA
- [14] ear geometry
- [15] odor
- [16] keystroke dynamics
- [17] height
- [18] weight
- [19] skin color
- [20] age
Therefore, it would be damn difficult to steal and fake all of those metrics.
But, nobody ever said anything was perfect, but it would be more accurate than an ID card, which is very easy to falsify.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: There are also devices that can capture iris images of a person walking within a few feet of a video camera (often behind a one-way mirror) so that it can be duplicated and used for illegitimate purposes.
Like I said before, you don’t rely on only one metric. Use three or more. There could also be many other metrics on record to fall back on for further verification. It’s going to be damned hard (if not impossible) to falsify all of the numerous different types of metrics (see list above).
Stephen Daughtery wrote: The real problem with biometrics is that once an individual’s biometrics has been compromised, they are compromised for life and can never be trusted again.Not true, because it’s very unlikely the 20+ metrics (above) could all be faked. Unlikely if not impossible. It would be simple to reconcile the true identity.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: However, my most severe objection to biometrics as an authentication method is their reliance on a central database that contains the identifying graphic templates.
Not true. The databases would be replicated (non-central) and securely backed up. And, if ever destroyed, it can be re-established.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: If such database is compromised, then the biometrics of ALL users in the database are compromised for life.
It would not matter. Backups are abundant. Replicated databases also serve as a backup. An entire city could be wiped off the face of the planet, and the system would continue to operate with replicated databases. And, if absolutely necessary, the data can be re-entered from archives, or re-acquired.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Voice recognition must be also considered as a potential authentication biometric. Unfortunately, the technology is as yet not sufficiently reliable, is expensive and difficult to implement.
That’s just one of the many metrics, but it is very promising. I’ve used voice recognition. The computer has to be trained. Afterward, it won’t understand someone else’s voice. This metric is currently not the easiest or cheapest, but will be much cheaper and reliable, eventually.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: It also suffers from all of the disadvantages of having to rely on a central database for storing voiceprint templates.
Non-sequitur. Where do you think the government stores information about you now? In a computer. Along with your mother’s maiden name, your favorite color, and your favorite movie. What’s the difference? That’s a flimsy excuse.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: All technologies have their problems. You start from a principle, a theory, a possibility. Then you have to design something out of real world materials, which behaves according to the rules of the real world (which could mean failing to do what you want, or doing something else you didn’t anticipate, and perhaps don’t want). Then you have to implement it in an existing society full of laws, traditions, idiots, vandals and all sorts of other things. What works in theory and what works in practice are not necessarily the same things.Well, hell … we might as well all stop cutting our toe nails and finger nails since they just keep on growin’ and growin’ .
Why be so defeatist?
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Technology also poses problems in terms of the rights we expect. What exactly keeps a person from being able to keep track of your movements all day? What’s the oversight? Who’s there when that face you’re looking for shows up, if you can get a positive match? I speak of Gods being the only folks able to run a surveillance society, because even if you can capture the information, how does it reach the right people?If you are in a public place, what does it matter? If you are not breaking any law, what does it matter? If, if, if. I answered all your ifs, but I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: We had a terrorism watchlist on 9/10. We had a database the people working security could plug into to determine whether a person was on the watchlist. But that didn’t do any good because of the human element. That was a case in which things could have been done better, really.It was not properly implemented. I have designed and implemented complex systems and networks. It is possible to make the system useful, reliable, and secure. If it were not possible, then hundreds of millions of people would not use online banking.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Does it improve when the information is biometric? Instead of having a name not show up, it’s a face or a fingerprint I.D.Yes, it does improve the information, because it is very difficult to falsify biometric information. And, it may be impossible to falsify all biometrics, since I only listed 20 biometrics above. There are much more potential biometrics. Possibly thousands or millions. So, that just makes it more and more difficult to falsify IDentification.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Biometric ID’s have a place in our society. I actually used one on checks for a while, and thought it was the coolest thing. But it’s no magic bullet.No one said anything was perfect all the time. But, that’s always the lame excuse. Find some flimsy, weak argument, and blow it out of proportion.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: That’s one of the things we must learn about technology. We should not blunder our way into a police state thinking that all this new technology can keep us safe, if we simply give up our claim to the presumption of innocence. If you check the legal opinions on what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure, the answer settled upon is pretty plain: warrants and/or probable cause.I already showed you the 4th Amendment. Reasonable is the key word.
Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No where did I read anything about verifying IDentification as a violation of civil rights. Besides, no one should be forced to participate. If they prefer, they can stand in long, long, long lines where IDentification may take some time by doing it the old, hard, unreliable way.
OK, I answered all your IFs and BUTs with quite plausible and logical responses.
But, it doesn’t matter.
You are just going to have to get used to it.
Biometrics are coming whether you like it or not.
In time, you’ll need it to get in your office at work.
Get into your bank safety deposit box.
Get onto an airplane.
Get into a federal courtroom.
Get into a secure facility.
Banks will use them to positively identify customers.
The CIA is already using them.
Some airports are using Iris scanners.
I’ve already used fingerprint and hand-geometry scans.
They are coming whether you like it or not.
Why? Because it is a better form of IDentification.
That’s all. To mischaracterize biometrics as a violation of civil rights, impossibly accurate, the sign of the devil, big brother, or end of times is nonsense.
Biometrics is merely a better way to do what we ALREADY do.
Identity theft is the nation’s fastest growing crime. When banks start offering customers biometric IDentification, virtually eliminating identity theft, who is going to say “No thanks, I’d rather be a target for identity theft” ?
Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2006 01:33 AMd.a.n - Wow! Close, but no Nobel Prize today. At least not for debate. If you read closely, Stephan had a completely valid view, asked pertainent questions, and was met with a series of stock responses.
I need to discuss V.O.I.D. with you. I’m concerned that there may be a significant third party influence that would tend to discredit your mission.
Posted by: DOC at August 11, 2006 02:09 AMDOC, I read every word of what Stephen wrote, and broke it down carefully. Stephen raised the same issues I hear all the time in opposition to IDentification by biometrics. My answers were not stock answers, since I don’t even know where they store stock answers. But, I believe I addressed each and every issue, thoroughly. Beware. Many of the issues raised are issues that already exist, and are clever mechanisms to cloud the issue and obscure the facts. While Stephen tried to poke holes in any system, each item was addressed with a simple solution. No system will be perfect, but there was an attempt to presume it is supposed to be. Why? Is what we have now perfect? Just because an alternative is not perfect does not mean it is not better. If so, why so much identity theft? And, if government abuse is a concern, we should already be concerned, because government already has lots of information about us. They can listen to our phone calls. They can monitor our communications, financial transactions, etc. The problem with the current system is that the government can NOT verify who is really WHO, or who is drawing funds from your Social Security account, bank, or ATM. This type of fraud is rampant. Identity theft is real and growing … the fastest growing crime in the U.S. When banks and merchants start offering biometric IDentification, do you think people will choose to remain vulnerable with no good form of IDentification?
I need to discuss V.O.I.D. with you. I’m concerned that there may be a significant third party influence that would tend to discredit your mission.OK. if you’d prefer, email me at d.a.n@comcast.net , because I doubt Stephen Daugherty wants any discussion of VOID on his thread. Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2006 03:19 AM
——Ken Strong—- I did not want to embarrass you
earlier, but in your post to me, you used the
verbage, an their is no such word, you can look
it up if you like. Be nice to people an most of
the time they will be nice to you. (”)
Dan-
You say it would be damn difficult to steal all of the metrics. You’re wrong. Just hack into the central computer and get the computer records. Once the information leaves the body, it is no longer safe from compromise. It is little ones and zeros just like all other forms of authentication. And as the guy said, a person whose identity is stolen from a biometric source is compromised for life.
The anatomical problems are critical. Biometrics, by the very etymology of the word, is the measurement of a life form.
You express confidence that all such problems will be dealt with. Well, there’s one problem with that. Do you speak into your computer, or do you type?
Biometric data like voice is very tricky, because computers are poor listeners and processors of the human voice. We’re keyed from the very start to distinguish voice from background noise. We can distinguish phonemes with much more accuracy, a critical problem when the difference between one and the other can be tenths, even hundredths of a second. The ifs in technology are not quibbles, they are the very test of a design.
With a fingerprint scanner, one has to deal with buildups of oil, and yes, fingerprints. I know for a fact that the oils in fingerprints actually can etch into the plastic of a CD or DVD, and are worse for it than a simple scratch
As for stealing the metrics, you can always hack into the mainframe. And doing that, you can compromise many folks biometrics at once. Duplicating them only makes it worse, because now you have to keep two computer secure from hacker attack. It’s not continued operation that’s the issue, it’s the ability of the system to keep the information used for authentication hidden from Identity thieves.
You provided no real counter-argument to the necessities of design. You merely asserted that somehow I was just being defeatist. It’s not being defeatist, though, to look at the battlefield and diagnose the possible problems.
I provided the 9/11 example, and you said it wasn’t properly implemented. Well, that happens in the real world. That happens where people get lazy, are incompetent, make decisions based on narrow office politics, and other stupid decisions. When we design a system to be foolproof, there are plenty of fools around to test it.
As for Reasonable Searches and Seizures? I’ve already told you that it was the basic legal opinion in this country that warrants and probable cause are what support that. Public areas, to a certain extent, can be monitored, but to do so broadly and without limit is problematic. The questions about the Fourth Amendment are reasonable, because the tracking of a person’s movements and a surveillance of their activities is an invasion of privacy, and privacy is a basic legal right.
Don’t get me wrong here. I am not trying to beat up on your pet technology unfairly. It is useful in many ways, and does many things well. I just don’t see it as the second coming of sliced bread. I don’t see it through rose colored glasses. I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design. Trust me when I say that all technology has its limitations.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2006 08:59 AMWhy has no one made the point that, almost 5 years after 9/11, al Qaeda remains capable of planning and almost accomplishing a direct attack on our citizens? Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 has not only landed our brave troops in another quagmire like Vietnam, it has diverted our resources, human, financial and spiritual, from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his partners in crime. This gross miscalcalculation, to put it euphemistically, should be brought to the Republicans’ door over and over again.
As for their slogan of “stay the course,” why has no one replied that this translates to: “now that we are in a hole, let’s continue to dig?”
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- You say it would be damn difficult to steal all of the metrics. You’re wrong. Just hack into the central computer and get the computer records. Once the information leaves the body, it is no longer safe from compromise. It is little ones and zeros just like all other forms of authentication. And as the guy said, a person whose identity is stolen from a biometric source is compromised for life.Then, why have bank accounts and online banking with nothing more than a password? In most cases, what good is stolen metrics going to do a person without the metrics themselves (e.g. fingerprint, iris, etc.) required to get access on a plane?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You express confidence that all such problems will be dealt with. Well, there’s one problem with that. Do you speak into your computer, or do you type?I can do both, as I already said above. I already use voice recognition, and have set it up for customers. A calibration process is required to teach the computer. It only works, thereafter, for that one person. The technology is impressive. You can type a letter with it quite easily. For a voice pattern IDentification system, it would not be nearly as complicated, because you don’t have to teach the system to recognize every speech pattern. Only a few given phrases is all that is required, eliminating the lengthy calibration process (which can 10 to 30 minutes, or more).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Biometric data like voice is very tricky, because computers are poor listeners and processors of the human voice. We’re keyed from the very start to distinguish voice from background noise. We can distinguish phonemes with much more accuracy, a critical problem when the difference between one and the other can be tenths, even hundredths of a second. The ifs in technology are not quibbles, they are the very test of a design.Again, that is only one of many metrics, and technology improvements will eventually resolve the problems. In the mean time, use three (or more) of the many other metrics.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: With a fingerprint scanner, one has to deal with buildups of oil, and yes, fingerprints. I know for a fact that the oils in fingerprints actually can etch into the plastic of a CD or DVD, and are worse for it than a simple scratchClean it. Or make the scanner more durable. Or replace it just the same way you would replace a drivers’ license or replace parts on an ATM machine when they wear out.
Most of your complaints are problems that already exist with existing systems, and they are all dealt with.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for stealing the metrics, you can always hack into the mainframe. And doing that, you can compromise many folks biometrics at once. Duplicating them only makes it worse, because now you have to keep two computer secure from hacker attack. It’s not continued operation that’s the issue, it’s the ability of the system to keep the information used for authentication hidden from Identity thieves.So? What good are biometrics going to do someone else? Like I said, that won’t them much to get onto an airplane? Stolen biometrics are not useful in the way you think, because data and physical biometrics must match. And, database systems ALREADY exist with all sorts of information about everyone, such as your Social Security number, drivers’ license number, name, address, telephone, a password, your mother’s maiden name, etc., etc., etc.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You provided no real counter-argument to the necessities of design.Most certainly did. And, whether you like it or not, Biometrics is coming, and it is merely a better way to do what we ALREADY do, and it is ALREADY in use, and the usage is growing fast. You keep picking on one measely metric, such as voice patterns, even though I keep emphasizing no system should rely on only one metric. You use security issues and unauthorized access to data, but that’s ALREADY an issue with existing systems, and it ignores the fact that another persons’ biometrics are USELESS to another person who does not have the physical biometrics to go along with the data. As a matter of fact, some of the existing security problems could be reduces with better IDentification systems, such as biometrics. That’s the real beauty of the biometrics which you choose to ignore and gloss over. Many have heard and considered all of these weak arguments. So has the CIA, corporations, banks, airports, etc., and they are moving ahead with biometrics. Why? Because it is simply a better form of IDentification.
NOTE: Stolen biometrics can not help a thief that also does not have the physical biometrics to go along with the data. The thief can’t easily get on an airplane with stolen biometric data if their physical biometrics do NOT match the stolen data. At some point in the reconciliation of data and the true owner of the biometrics, only the true owner has the biometrics that can match the data. Also, if the data is comprimised or changed, the real owner will know it immediately. The real data is easy to re-establish, because only the real owner has the real physical biometrics.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You merely asserted that somehow I was just being defeatist. It’s not being defeatist, though, to look at the battlefield and diagnose the possible problems.Yes you are. Defeatism or argumentativeness. Not only with with regard to biometrics, but most everything debated. It’s a pattern.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I provided the 9/11 example, and you said it wasn’t properly implemented. Well, that happens in the real world. That happens where people get lazy, are incompetent, make decisions based on narrow office politics, and other stupid decisions. When we design a system to be foolproof, there are plenty of fools around to test it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for Reasonable Searches and Seizures? I’ve already told you that it was the basic legal opinion in this country that warrants and probable cause are what support that. Public areas, to a certain extent, can be monitored, but to do so broadly and without limit is problematic.It’s already happening and growing. Public areas are fair game. England already does it and has seen significant drops in crime due to vast video surveillance systems. Get used to it. There are very good, common-sense, no-brainer reasons for it, and crime statistics prove it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The questions about the Fourth Amendment are reasonable, because the tracking of a person’s movements and a surveillance of their activities is an invasion of privacy, and privacy is a basic legal right.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Don’t get me wrong here. I am not trying to beat up on your pet technology unfairly.
Yes you are, and to call it MY pet technology proves it, and is as lame and flimsy as your other weak arguments. Talk about fairness?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It is useful in many ways, and does many things well. I just don’t see it as the second coming of sliced bread. I don’t see it through rose colored glasses.
Some call me pessimistic, but you may take the cake. To characterize someone as looking through rose-colored glasses for advocating biometrics is nonsense. Rather than specious conclusions, how about more facts?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
That is one of the MOST ARROGANT statements I’ve ever heard.
You know all about techmology, eh?
Dang, I bow to your supreme and superior intelligence.
Stephen, as an electrical engineer, and 25 years of hardware and software design, implementation, and support, I most likely know more about it than you do, and I would not EVER presume to know but a very tiny percentage of all there is to know. Your comment above, that you are “somebody who knows all about technology”, in itself, reveals an uncommon arrogance I don’t see often, and subsequently, a huge flaw in your credibility. But, even overlooking that absurd statement, your arguments are weak and flimsy.
- It is not a 4th amendment issue, unless the data is misused. That CAN already happen (and may be already happening, with regard to monitored telephone calls and data?).
- Stolen biometrics is not the huge problem you mischaracterize it to be. On the contrary, the beauty of biometrics (not just one, but three or more metrics) is that the stolen data is of little use to someone else, since they can not use it, since they do not have the physical metrics to match the data. They can’t easily get on an airline with the data. They need the matching biometrics.
- Many of your points are non-sequiturs, because they are problems that ALREADY exist. But, in many cases, biometric IDentificaiton would reduce the problems. Most importantly, being able to determine true identity, reduce identity theft, reduce fraud, and make it very difficult of criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens to do certain things (like get on an airline).
- Questioning the reliability and cost of equipment is not a strong argument. The accuracy is increasing fast and the cost is falling fast. Also, the number of different types of metrics is growing fast too, making it harder and harder for criminals. A damn sight harder than making a fake ID or fake driver’s license.
- The central database issue is a red-herring, because no such system would rely on one central database. Modern database systems that provide wide availability are replicated across many networks. The data does not exist in merely one place. Security is an issue that ALREADY exists, but the usefulness of biometrics by thieves is limited, since they can’t have the corresponding physical biometrics.
- The Big Brother argument is a common one. Most of it is paranoia. And, government abuse is truly a separate issue, beacause the government can ALREADY abuse data about us, if they want. In fact, maybe easier, without the ability to determine true identity. It can work both ways.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Trust me when I say that all technology has its limitations.
Sorry, but when someone says “Trust me when I say”, it is usually a red flag.
It usually equates to “OK, my case is flimsy, but never mind that, just believe what I say”.
Famous last words. And, to say “all technology has its limitations” must be the most earth shattering revelation yet. Really?!
Well, most likely, biometrics is coming whether you want it or not. It is already being used more and more. Not just be government, but in the work place, airports, restricted areas, in place of clock-in timecard, CIA, etc.
Anywhere that limited access is required. And the technology is getting much better all the time. And the costs are coming down, which is why it is showing up more and more in the workplace, airports, CIA, etc. Hence, you’re going to be a very unhappy person, as the years go by and biometrics become more and more prevalent.
We’ll have to simply agree to disagree.
Biometrics offers more advantages than disadvantages.
When biometrics finally proves that it is a better form of IDentification, who will say “No thanks, I prefer to be vulnerable to identity theft”?
Dragon-
You don’t have much cause to be worried. There’s been plenty of that point made on the blue column. Heck, that’s part of the underlying theme of the work above.
It just gets boring to repeat the obvious again and again. The point has been well made, so we’re making other points as well.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2006 12:15 PMDragon wrote: As for their slogan of “stay the course,” why has no one replied that this translates to: “now that we are in a hole, let’s continue to dig?”
Well put.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2006 12:34 PMDan-
Let me clear something up for you: Regardless of what part of the body, what visual or audio signal it uses for ID, all that ID is in the end is a bunch of binary numbers in a template on some computer. If the Biometric device reads the proper information from you, it authenticates whatever access, and lets you in.
A thief who can get to that authentication information never has to bring a severed hand or a voice recording, or anything to get into a system. No, all they have to do is hack past the device, and input that information directly into the computer asking for authentification, because that’s all the computer ever sees anyways. Or, they could simply erase your template, and put theirs in place.
Biometric data is still data, and requires protection, not the least of which because it is incredibly difficult to change the authentication information. That is one advantage to those bad old passwords! Compromise one, and you can come up with another. It makes up in redundancy what it lacks in uniqueness to the user.
I provided you with factual information on how Biometrics had already had problems, but you seem intent on pushing this technology as a cure-all for security problems. It’s good for some applications, just not for all.
You consider me a defeatist because I don’t accept all your claims about it. Well, I’m naturally skeptical about claims regarding technology. I know too much about its limitations, about the quirkiness and human factors drenched world in which technology works.
I know about the way steel fails if you get too much sulfur into it. I know about the complexities and information overload that plagues the huge programs we now write. I know about the way computers do and do not see things like visual images, and why we’re still ahead of computers on so many matters.
I jokingly called it your pet technology because you seem so big on it. I have a pet technology myself: HDTV. I love it. I want to make movies in it, do all kinds of things in it. But you know what? I recognize the problems in its implementation, issues with quality in terms of compression, camera characteristics, and the ability of the displays to bring forth the imagery asked of them. I know why you should get the 16X9 sets rather than the regular screen ones, but why people are going to do that anyways. I know why what we now call a fullscreen DVD is going to become letterbox, and vice versa.
Technology is one of my big subjects. I can tell you that the person who talked about the fire at the WTC not being hot enough to melt the steel was wrong about that being a problem, because metals get more ductile the more they heat up; it didn’t have to melt, it just had to fail to keep from bending under its own weight.
I can tell you that it was a valve that failed in Three Mile Island, and because it never closed precious coolant escaped, and we came damn close to a real China Syndrome.
I can tell you what the difference between an LCD display, a Plasma Screen, and a standard CRT are, and what the heck 720P and 1080i mean .
I can tell you general things about how Microchips are made, about the templates and the resists, and about how changes in band-gap engineering are allowing lasers, chips, optical devices and light emitting diodes to develop as never before. I know what a quantum well is, as well as a quantum dot.
Technology is a big subject for me, and I know all about it. Not everything. That would be arrogant to say. But as I’ve demonstrated, I’ve got pretty broad knowledge of these things.
Data is data. the computer doesn’t care. As long as the right tokens and codes are in place it will accept things.
I admit, and have never denied that such technology is in use. But it’s not perfect. This stuff will never be perfect. I’m sure plenty of people like yourself have trusted in technology, only to find unforseen issue cropping up. EVEN EXPERTS.
I know biometrics are coming. I read the magazines. That’s where I find out about issues and challenges. You’re assuming I’m naive about that. Well, maybe since I’m presenting a mainly negative case, you might get that impression, but the fact is, I know about the promise of such technology. You just seem like a person in need of a good Devil’s Advocate. You’re too trusting of one technology, one approach. That won’t solve everything.
Sure I want biometrics on important security points. I just want us not to get a false sense of security about these things.
Not the least of the reason for this is all I can recall about times when the technology worked well, but the people failed utterly.
That’s why I brought up the terrorism watchlist. There are so many things we could still do amongst with the technology we have to make things work better. Let biometrics have a role, please! But keep in mind that people still have to make decisions, and that no technology works perfectly as intended.
Flaws in the technology and its use will be exploited by our enemies. Is it not unreasonable to debate about the potential flaws of it, and the pitfalls of becoming too dependent or trusting of it?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2006 04:38 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- Let me clear something up for you: Regardless of what part of the body, what visual or audio signal it uses for ID, all that ID is in the end is a bunch of binary numbers in a template on some computer. If the Biometric device reads the proper information from you, it authenticates whatever access, and lets you in.No kiddin’ ? Imagine that. What a revelation.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: A thief who can get to that authentication information never has to bring a severed hand or a voice recording, or anything to get into a system. No, all they have to do is hack past the device, and input that information directly into the computer asking for authentification, because that’s all the computer ever sees anyways. Or, they could simply erase your template, and put theirs in place.
That’s not likely because that would create duplicate signatures in the database, which could be identified. Guess you didn’t think of that eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Biometric data is still data, and requires protection,
You have a real knack for stating the obvious.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That is one advantage to those bad old passwords! Compromise one, and you can come up with another. It makes up in redundancy what it lacks in uniqueness to the user.
Who said passwords were bad? That was the list above. That should be used in conjunction with other metrics (three or more).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I provided you with factual information on how Biometrics had already had problems, but you seem intent on pushing this technology as a cure-all for security problems. It’s good for some applications, just not for all.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You consider me a defeatist because I don’t accept all your claims about it.That’s not why. It’s not just about this subject. How does any one debate any issue with anyone who knows all about it and uses I in every sentence.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, I am naturally skeptical about claims regarding technology. I know too much about its limitations, about the quirkiness and human factors drenched world in which technology works.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know about the way steel fails if you get too much sulfur into it. I know about the complexities and information overload that plagues the huge programs we now write. I know about the way computers do and do not see things like visual images, and why we’re still ahead of computers on so many matters.Of course. You know all about technology.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I jokingly called it your pet technology because you seem so big on it.Hmmmmm. Right. Just kidding. It was just a joke.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have a pet technology myself: HDTV.Are you still just joking, now?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I love it. I want to make movies in it, do all kinds of things in it. But you know what?That’s nice. What’s it got to do with biometrics?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I recognize the problems in its implementation, issues with quality in terms of compression, camera characteristics, and the ability of the displays to bring forth the imagery asked of them.Really? Well, you a wealth of information?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know why you should get the 16X9 sets rather than the regular screen ones, but why people are going to do that anyways.That’s nice.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know why what we now call a fullscreen DVD is going to become letterbox, and vice versa.OK. And?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Technology is one of my big subjects.Right. You told me that already …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can tell you that the person who talked about the fire at the WTC not being hot enough to melt the steel was wrong about that being a problem, because metals get more ductile the more they heat up; it didn’t have to melt, it just had to fail to keep from bending under its own weight.Z z z z z z z z z … .
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can tell you that it was a valve that failed in Three Mile Island, and because it never closed precious coolant escaped, and we came damn close to a real China Syndrome.Uhhhmmmm huhhhh … that’s nice. You are smart feller.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can tell you what the difference between an LCD display, a Plasma Screen, and a standard CRT are, and what the heck 720P and 1080i mean .Wow. No kiddin’ ?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can tell you general things about how Microchips are made, about the templates and the resists, and about how changes in band-gap engineering are allowing lasers, chips, optical devices and light emitting diodes to develop as never before. I know what a quantum well is, as well as a quantum dot.Wow. How impressive. You already told me you know “all about technology”. Are you trying to prove it now?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Technology is a big subject for me, and I know all about it.Yes, you keep saying that.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But as I have demonstrated, I have got a pretty broad knowledge of these things.Yeah, Yeah … repeat after me …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Data is data.You really are smart. Really. I’ve never met anyone else that “knows all about technology”. Tell me more.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The computer doesn’t care.Really? You mean it doesn’t have feelings?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As long as the right tokens and codes are in place it will accept things.Z z z z z z z z …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I admit, and have never denied that such technology is in use. But it’s not perfect. This stuff will never be perfect. I’m sure plenty of people like yourself have trusted in technology, only to find unforseen issue cropping up. EVEN EXPERTS.Well, you should know since you know all about it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know biometrics are coming. I read the magazines. That’s where I find out about issues and challenges. You’re assuming I’m naive about that. Well, maybe since I am presenting a mainly negative case, you might get that impression, but the fact is, I know about the promise of such technology. You just seem like a person in need of a good Devil’s Advocate. You’re too trusting of one technology, one approach. That won’t solve everything.If you say so. What can you say to someone who knows everything and is so enamored with themself ?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Sure I want biometrics on important security points. I just want us not to get a false sense of security about these things.Really? With all its pitfalls that you know all about?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Not the least of the reason for this is all I can recall about times when the technology worked well, but the people failed utterly.Z z z z z z …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s why I brought up the terrorism watchlist. There are so many things we could still do amongst with the technology we have to make things work better. Let biometrics have a role, please! But keep in mind that people still have to make decisions, and that no technology works perfectly as intended.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Flaws in the technology and its use will be exploited by our enemies. Is it not unreasonable to debate about the potential flaws of it, and the pitfalls of becoming too dependent or trusting of it?Of course it’s not unreasonable. When does the debate begin? Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2006 06:58 PM
OMG, D.A.N. told a joke, and I laughed heartily, what is the world coming to, and F*ck biometrics.
Our local grocery store, now owned by Albertsons, tried to sell us all on using our fingerprint to access our debits cards. That went over like a lead balloon.
Dan-
There’s no need to get rude here.
We don’t get to run our ideal technology. If you want to use biometrics now, you have to deal with current processing, current systems integration, current everything. You don’t get to run 2016’s technology. Whatever’s available, flaws and all, that’s what you’ll get.
In Scotland, a state of the art Fingerprint lock system is successfully defeated by prisoners.
Here’s a PC World Article on it.
I mean, come on, Dan! This is not Bullshit I’m talking here. Fact is, all technologies, especially immature ones like biometric IDs are vulnerable to this kind of cheating.
Fact is, I do know quite a bit about digital sampling, which is the basis of most biometrics. My degree is in Telecommunication, which means I learned about Digital Video Cameras, Digital Audio Recording, Digital media and signal processing and quite a few other technologies. As a person interested in the way the mind works, I’ve taken classes and read up on subjects concerning artificial intelligence, neuroscience about how the brain processes voices, faces, and visuals (and how computers have a hard time with them). As a person with a life-long interest in computer science, not to mention current employment in the IT field, I’ve learned a great deal about the processing demands for captured information. So, I’m not talking out of my ass.
And of course, because I’m speaking from personal experience, I use the first person pronoun. If you think I’m obnoxious now, just wait until Stephen Daugherty starts referring to himself in the third person. Stephen would much rather write conversationally, so I use the first person pronoun instead, and avoid writing like I’m Lord Greystoke, King of the Jungle.
All sampling technology has to reduce its biometric yield to data. How it does that determines what kind of physical cheats can be used to fake an ID, or copy it. All sampling technology draws the line at a certain resolution. I read accounts in my search of multiple people being able to access a biometric ID because the resolution was so low on the pattern. Low resolution, of course, makes it more likely the pattern will resemble others. Of course, if you set it too high, with certain fingerprint ID’s, even the rotation of your finger might create a false negative.
As for my list of facts, yes I was trying to demonstrate that I had broad factual knowledge of these things. But of course, you’ve chosen to be rather rude about all this. Was it a mistake for me to let that crybaby graphic slide? Did I give you the impression that I tolerate such baiting well?
I can provide you with multiple examples of biometric failures and problems. Does this mean the technology is doomed? No. It means we should be cautious in its use, and not declare it, even with multiple signatures, to be foolproof. I’m sure you could provide counterexamples of newer models doing better, but still my point would hold: for this technology to be useful, it has to be matured to the point where it can work in the messy real world. Some technology has matured to that level. A great deal has not. Folks will not bet their security on biometrics until their reliability gets to a certain point. Those who do choose to bet on it now risk a great deal.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2006 11:38 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t get to run our ideal technology. If you want to use biometrics now, you have to deal with current processing, current systems integration, current everything. You don’t get to run 2016’s technology. Whatever’s available, flaws and all, that’s what you’ll get.We can’t we use 2016 technology?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Scotland, a state of the art Fingerprint lock system is successfully defeated by prisoners.Prisoners should not have access to such things in the first place.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Boston’s Logan Airport, where many of the terrorists boarded, a Facial Recognition system flunks its test.That metric is fairly new and is not the only metric that could be used. Also, more than one metric (three or more) should be used.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, come on, Dan! This is not Bullshit I‘m talking here.Sounds pretty deep to me. Where are my boots?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Fact is, all technologies, especially immature ones like biometric IDs are vulnerable to this kind of cheating.So is what we have now, which is why identity theft is the fastest growing crime. No one ever said it was perfect, but better than what we have now. Just because a thing is not perfect is not a reason to equate it to a failure. That’s like not cutting you toenails just because they keep growing.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Fact is, I do know quite a bit about digital sampling, which is the basis of most biometrics.Yeah, yeah, … Z z z z z z … here we go again …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: My degree is in Telecommunication, which means I learned about Digital Video Cameras, Digital Audio Recording, Digital media and signal processing and quite a few other technologies.Yeah, yeah, … you keep telling us how much you know … strange …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As a person interested in the way the mind works, I‘ve taken classes and read up on subjects concerning artificial intelligence, neuroscience about how the brain processes voices, faces, and visuals (and how computers have a hard time with them). As a person with a life-long interest in computer science, not to mention current employment in the IT field, I‘ve learned a great deal about the processing demands for captured information.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, I‘m not talking out of my ass.HHHHhhhmmmmmm, maybe not all the time. Why are you trying so hard to convince us? Why doth protest so much? Are you trying to wow someone with a Bachelor’s of Science in Electrical Engineering, minor in Math, and decades of experience designing, building, and implementing, networks, realtime data acquisition, and various hardware and software systems (for 25 years)? But forgive me, because my degrees and 25 years of experience must seem miniscule in comparison, and freely admit not to be “somebody who knows everthing about technology”, as some claim to.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And of course, because I‘m speaking from personal experience, I use the first person pronoun. If you think I‘m obnoxious now,You said it, not me.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … just wait until Stephen Daugherty starts referring to himself in the third person. Stephen would much rather write conversationally, so I use the first person pronoun instead, and avoid writing like I‘m Lord Greystoke, King of the Jungle.You’re not getting it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: All sampling technology has to reduce its biometric yield to data. How it does that determines what kind of physical cheats can be used to fake an ID, or copy it. All sampling technology draws the line at a certain resolution. I read accounts in my search of multiple people being able to access a biometric ID because the resolution was so low on the pattern.That’s human error, bad configuration, or cheap equipment. In the real world, IDentificaiton stations would have backup equipment and spare parts that can quickly be replaced. All of your arguments have simple solutions.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for my list of facts, yes I was trying to demonstrate that I had broad factual knowledge of these things.Yes, we know. As you said before, you “know all about technology”.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But of course, you’ve chosen to be rather rude about all this. Was it a mistake for me to let that crybaby graphic slide?You didn’t let it slide. You deleted it, which is quite revealing in itself. I doubt most writers here would not have deleted it. As for the rudeness you accuse me of, you may want to take a look in the mirror.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Was it a mistake for me to let that crybaby graphic slide?Are you threatening to ban me?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Did I give you the impression that I tolerate such baiting well?Baiting? You need to carefully review everything that has been written. Much of it are questions only. Much of it is mild, benign humor. None of it was any worse than you do all the time. Perhaps what is really getting your goat is the truth? Posted by: d.a.n at August 12, 2006 01:03 AM
—— d.a.n—- Seems like a good debate has turned into a heated an angry disagreement. Would it not
be wiser to let cooler heads prevail for awhile?
OMG, d.a.n., that was funny, and certainly makes me wary of relying too much on the subjective form of the first person pronoun. No offense, Stephen; your articles are generally thoughtful, but his nitpicking was inspired and hilarious.
Posted by: Trent at August 12, 2006 09:45 AMDan-
Where’s your argument?
I show you that prisoners are getting out of their cells and wandering a prison because they’ve defeated a fingerprint security system, and what’s your response? They shouldn’t be there. That’s obvious. Regardless, the reason they’re getting access they shouldn’t have is the failure of the system.
I talk about a facial recognitions system, and you say, oh, it’s new. And of course more than one metric should be used. Well, what other metric?
If we’re trying to identify terrorists in a public space, this system, putatively, could do that. But can it? There’s a real question about how good these systems can actually be. The essential issue is the quality of the match. Video, even digital video, can be very confusing for a program to seek patterns in. Just look at any compressed video, and you’ll see tons of artifacts from the codec failing to duplicate the complex visual patterns that make up an image.
Now tell that computer to scan multiple frames of video, even at a low frame rate, and look for matches for faces admidst a see of candidates, each one in constant motion, each one more like oblique to the lens rather than looking straight at it. Now ask it to do it accurately in close enough to near time that the person’s not gone before you have the chance to sic big men with guns and tasers after it.
Ten years ago, even thinking of doing this would have been foolhardy. Even now, it’s a technical challenge, and one the system apparently fail.
Facial recognition would be a crucial technology for identifying suspects in a public area, because most other biometric IDs would require more close examination. Even with Iris detection you would still be vulnerable to countermeasures involving contacts. There’s not much point in deploying these security measures if terrorists can easily defeat them. The expense in installing, maintaining and purchasing such systems would be better used on more reliable techniques and technology.
I offered you my credentials, as they relate to understanding the technology, and you got rude about it. I may not have a degree in all these things, but at least I’m keeping up with issues on it. Your awareness of these issues has not been indicated by what you’ve written. These issues, for the purpose of a political discussion about the means used for security, are not inconsequential. They are at the heart of both of my lates posts: that is, what means of investigation and interdiction actually work best. This is the difference between waste and usefulness in security.
You say they should configure these things better, or they should do this or that. Well what if putting a device at a fingerprint scanner at a higher resolution means it gets so finicky it’s keeping your secrets even from yourself? What if the system is so high maintenance that it represents a bothersome drain on resources and man-hours. Such systems often cause problems when people just stop trying, either ceasing to use them, or becoming lax about them. Human factors are not a footnote to these matters, they are crucial field of interaction which can mean the difference between security, and a false sense of security.
As for the deletion of the graphic, I am well within my rights to do so. I am a contributing editor, and one of the policies I uphold is the one that headlines every column, and which you seem all to willing to dispense with: Critique the message, not the messenger. That graphic was insulting, and deliberately so.
But I’m not a dictator. That’s perhaps my first deletion in months. Months. I usually leave it to the other editors to police things. But you know something? You made it personal. My response? I cut it out, and that was that.
My question to you is whether you want to continue such behavior. I’d just as soon we bury the hatchet and debate the facts and issues, not each other’s character. I feel such arguments are a losing proposition on both sides, and if I let you get into it, I will get drawn into it inevitably.
I’ve maintained, and enjoy maintaining the standards of “critique the message”. Things actually get discussed, rather than merely fought over on these columns. People make grudging concessions in both directions. I love that there is this mix, this interaction amidst it. I have no desire to stifle it with heavy-handed use of my privileges.
I’m not the one you have to fear. I’d prefer just to discuss things. I have very little interest in banning you.
If, though, the moderators come around and see either of our posts failing the policy, whoever fails the policy stands at risk of that banning. I have maintained over two years of activity on this sight with few such warnings. The question is, can you be reasonable enough to restrain your behavior?
I’d rather we settle things. But that is your decision. For my part, I will try and keep my cool. If you decide to continue though, appropriate measures will be taken by me, or by others. The worse I’m inclined to do with you at this point is delete insults and personal attacks. The moderators, though, can and will ban you if you violate the guiding principle of the forum of critiquing the message, not the messentger.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2006 11:38 AMStephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- Where’s your argument?Hmmmmmmmm. The tone of the question strikes me as a bit rude?
Oh well. All, please forgive me for repeating myself, but the question has been posed, so here we go again … Don’t use only one metric. Use multiple metrics. Use the best types. Not the ones still in development. Nothing works without a bit of common-sense. Human error is not necessarily a failure of a system. The problem is usually a matter of negligence, discipline, insufficient training, or laziness.
Stephen Daugherty wrote:I show you that prisoners are getting out of their cells and wandering a prison because they’ve defeated a fingerprint security system,That was already addressed (above). Such a system should not be available to prisoners for purposes of security.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … and what’s your response? They shouldn’t be there. That’s obvious. Regardless, the reason they’re getting access they shouldn’t have is the failure of the system.Oh, so you actually read it … No, it is not a failure of the system. It is a misuse of the system.
To blame it on the system is like blaming food for making people fat.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I talk about a facial recognitions system, and you say, oh, it’s new. And of course more than one metric should be used. Well, what other metric?That article you provided is over four years old (July 2002). Things are improving, getting more affordable, and there are numerous other metrics.
Also, the PC World Article was also four years old (Aug 2002). Technology changes fast, so quoting 4 year old articles is not very convincing.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we’re trying to identify terrorists in a public space, this system, putatively, could do that. But can it? There’s a real question about how good these systems can actually be. The essential issue is the quality of the match. Video, even digital video, can be very confusing for a program to seek patterns in. Just look at any compressed video, and you’ll see tons of artifacts from the codec failing to duplicate the complex visual patterns that make up an image.One metric should not be relied up. If there’s a problem, repeat the measurement, or take extra steps, or use a backup device or procedure. There are lots of ways to make systems reliable and affordable. Misuse of technology does not equate to a failed technology. To assert otherwise is like saying:
- guns kill people
- pencils miss spel wordz
- cars make people drive drunk
- spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now tell that computer to scan multiple frames of video, even at a low frame rate, and look for matches for faces admidst a see of candidates, each one in constant motion, each one more like oblique to the lens rather than looking straight at it. Now ask it to do it accurately in close enough to near time that the person’s not gone before you have the chance to sic big men with guns and tasers after it.Having worked on robotic vision recognition systems, it is clear that it can be done, reliably. Thermography and vein geometry may be more promising metrics. The number of potential metrics is large.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Ten years ago, even thinking of doing this would have been foolhardy. Even now, it’s a technical challenge, and one the system apparently fail.It’s getting there fast. It’s coming, and for many good reasons. IDentification is important, and people will want it when it makes them more secure. Supply and demand.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facial recognition would be a crucial technology for identifying suspects in a public area, because most other biometric IDs would require more close examination. Even with Iris detection you would still be vulnerable to countermeasures involving contacts. There’s not much point in deploying these security measures if terrorists can easily defeat them. The expense in installing, maintaining and purchasing such systems would be better used on more reliable techniques and technology.Again, those are not the only metrics available. And, momentarily removing contact lenses before boarding an airliner is not much of an inconvenience compared to other measures of today. Such flaws and problems are being resolved every day, becoming more reliable and affordable. Again, no system is perfect, and cherry-picking a few disadvantages does not equate to failure or inferior. Billions of private funding are being spent in this industry, and people will want it if it makes them and their assets safer. Before much longer, it is likely to show up as a service provided by financial institutions.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I offered you my credentials, as they relate to understanding the technology, and you got rude about it. I may not have a degree in all these things, but at least I’m keeping up with issues on it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your awareness of these issues has not been indicated by what you’ve written.Nonsense. Who is being rude now? Why is there a web-page on my web-site dedicated to biometrics? So the “awareness of these issues” in your statement above is not only rude, but inaccurate too. Especially in view of my experience with some of these devices and robotic vision recognition systems.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You say they should configure these things better, or they should do this or that. Well what if putting a device at a fingerprint scanner at a higher resolution means it gets so finicky it’s keeping your secrets even from yourself?Non-sequitur. Any station should have backup equipment and procedures.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: What if the system is so high maintenance that it represents a bothersome drain on resources and man-hours.Then, it is not appropriate. Use a better method or improve the system. Giving up and never trying wont’ ever solve anything.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Such systems often cause problems when people just stop trying, either ceasing to use them, or becoming lax about them.That’s a separate issue. That is a training and/or discipline problem, and can exist with any system, no matter how well designed or reliable.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Human factors are not a footnote to these matters, they are crucial field of interaction which can mean the difference between security, and a false sense of security.Again, that’s a separate issue. Even the most costly, idiot-proof system can’t fix everything.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for the deletion of the graphic, I am well within my rights to do so.Power corrupts.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I am a contributing editor, and one of the policies I uphold is the one that headlines every column, and which you seem all to willing to dispense with: Critique the message, not the messenger. That graphic was insulting, and deliberately so.To you maybe. Don’t you have a sense of humor? (NOTE: That is a question).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But I‘m not a dictator.Doth protest too much.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s perhaps my first deletion in months. Months. I usually leave it to the other editors to police things. But you know something? You made it personal. My response? I cut it out, and that was that.Good for you. How revealing.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: My question to you is whether you want to continue such behavior.I’m not doing anything wrong. Certainly, not anything to get so upset about.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘d just as soon we bury the hatchet and debate the facts and issues, not each other’s character.Not necessary. I’m not upset, and never was. Just having a friendly debate. If you took offense, you should perhaps closely examine what it was and why you took offense. Where was there anything that was so egregious? Look carefully. Many things are merely questions, and did not even address you directly.
I feel such arguments are a losing proposition on both sides, and if I let you get into it, I will get drawn into it inevitably.
Well, don’t get drawn into it. Ignore it. Especially since it is fairly benign and harmless.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve maintained, and enjoy maintaining the standards of “critique the messageâ€. Things actually get discussed, rather than merely fought over on these columns. People make grudging concessions in both directions. I love that there is this mix, this interaction amidst it. I have no desire to stifle it with heavy-handed use of my privileges.Hmmmmmmm. Deleting a cry-baby image is not heavy handed?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘m not the one you have to fear. I‘d prefer just to discuss things. I have very little interest in banning you.Hmmmmmmm. Are you sure?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: If, though, the moderators come around and see either of our posts failing the policy, whoever fails the policy stands at risk of that banning. I have maintained over two years of activity on this sight with few such warnings. The question is, can you be reasonable enough to restrain your behavior?Can you? You have just called me rude, and dedicated many paragraphs to do so, and subtly threatened to have me banned. Perhaps, someone should look at their own behavior?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘d rather we settle things. But that is your decision.No, it is mostly your decision.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: For my part, I will try and keep my cool.Good. Wise advice.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you decide to continue though, appropriate measures will be taken by me, or by others.Continue what? What was so egregious? There is someone else here that often sprinkles mild insults at others throughout their comments. Interesting now, to get upset at a little of their own medicine? (NOTE: that’s a question).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The worse I‘m inclined to do with you at this point is delete insults and personal attacks. The moderators, though, can and will ban you if you violate the guiding principle of the forum of critiquing the message, not the messentger.Good. That rule should apply to everyone. So, what’s really upsetting you? (NOTE: That is merely a question) Posted by: d.a.n at August 12, 2006 01:39 PM
On this issue, I feel like a Luddite. I refuse to use banks that make me thumbprint my checks, I refuse to use those bio-scan thumbprint debit dealies at the grocery store, I hate the fact my purchases can be tracked so I often use cash, I really detest the idea that surveillance cameras track much of my movements. I WANT to move about the United States undetected.
Posted by: Trent at August 12, 2006 01:48 PMAt this point, someone needs to just walk away. This fight isn’t worth it.
Posted by: Trent at August 12, 2006 01:58 PMTrent,
I’m not upset. It’s not really that serious.
There has been nothing egregious.
Just a few minor barbs, a little sarcasm, and a bit of humor and satire.
Nobody lost their temper or control.
I have seen much, much, much worse.
Stephen’s a fair writer, even if we don’t agree on some things, and will be happy to debate the pros and cons of biometrics, or other subjects with Stephen anytime, now or in the future.
Stephen Daugherty,
Just a bit of friendly, constructive criticism to make your writing better.
Writers should try to avoid the excessive use of the pronoun, “I” so much.
It appears egotistical.
Every time it is used, a writer should think of a way to reword the sentence without it. There is almost always a way to word it more effectively without “I” within the sentence.
BTW. You’re a smart guy. Really. Someone as bright as you does not have to try so hard to convince others of it.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 12, 2006 02:46 PMKevin23,
Thanks Sport. (That’s my common reply when people call me “Big Guy”.) But no, really, thank you. You re-emphasized the fact that the word “appears” has its own definition, a definition which has no real place in determining our actions against terrorism. As I said above, the threat is real and it continues.
While Stephen may steadfastly watch the threat no matter what appears or doesn’t appear, I find most liberals eager to either dismiss the threat or to just trivialize it. Instead, their big “call to arms” are law suits against and subpoenas for certain Republicans to include the President … which is far from the #1 threat to the USA right now. I just don’t see a Republican blowing up a school bus with C4 … but I do imagine terrorists doing that, and much worse.
So even if for those who still think “Bush lied” (even though the rest of the world agreed at least with the WMD threat if not the invasion itself), “Bush is Hitler”, “Cheney is evil”, etc. ….. why don’t you let that simmer and get the alligator closest to the boat: Islamic Facist Terrorism. THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON … and that’s all I’m trying to say.
Posted by: Ken Strong at August 12, 2006 05:14 PMStephen,
I don’t feel you responded to my last post directly, instead just saying that I didn’t read your last post. Anyway, I’ll accept your apology for saying I “cling to war” at the moment you offer it.
The 1% doctrine is a bad doctrine indeed, but if all you have is bits and pieces (which is pretty common when going after terror cells that could literally be anywhere in the world), then all you have is 1%. In other words, IMO it’s better than doing nothing.
It’s like any war. Let’s take WWII for instance which, although at the time had many dissenters, is now deemed unanimously as a just war. (Kin