Archive for the ‘REAL ID’ Category

The article below is an excellent overview of how the calculation of your face is being tied to your ability to travel. Don’t worry, there are currently several pilot projects tying your biometric facial recognition to paying for your purchases as well. So that will be on the plate soon enough.

If you detect a bit of sarcasm and disgust in my tone, you are quite observant. Back in 2008, while we fought against the National Animal Identification System up in Jeff City, we also weighed in on a bill by Rep Jim Guest to halt Real ID and biometric identification in the state. That bill went through and FLATLY prohibited the Department of Revenue from collecting any biometric data.

Then in 2011, it came to light that the agent of the state was violating the law of the state and collecting this information anyway. So a bunch of things happened and a special session was called. The legislature then made inquiries and were given information by many people involved with property rights and freedom. After their inquiry, they fixed the law by allowing the DOR to collect the biometric information in photographs. In other words, giving the Department permission to do what they were doing that was in violation of the law passed in 2008. So that is how our representatives “fix” problems like willful violation of the law when it is done by agents of the state.

Also, despite three years of working on a law to prohibit NAIS by that name or any other name, the legislature wouldn’t agree to “or any other program of similar design”. So, we got a law through that prohibited NAIS, and then the USDA changed the name to Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) and currently they are rolling out RFID (radio frequency identification) with enforcement in some states. No worries, it will soon be required in Missouri, too.

So I am not very impressed by the legislature’s ability to see good, proactive and protective legislation through the processes in Jefferson City.

I cannot even count how many times I heard an elected representative in the State Capitol say, “Well, if the feds want it, we have to do it,” to which I replied, “Then why do we even have any state level government?” It would save a lot of money if we did away with that entire payroll if the only reason the State exists is to be the whipping boy of the federal agencies.

Alright. That is enough of my ranting. Without further adieu, here is a clip of the article that spawned my dissertation. You may click on the title to take you to read the entire article.

DHS Outlines Mandatory Biometric ID at Airports for Foreign Travel

By Nicholas West

What at first seemed like creeping tip-toe incrementalism toward the use of biometric ID for travel is quickly becoming a warp-speed reality.

Over the past couple of months I’ve been covering some disturbing developments at national airports that seem to show an acceleration of the plan to use biometric identification in a variety of ways.

On May 19th I reported on a new program initiated by Delta Airlines at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport to have automated baggage kiosks for “priority customers” that will first scan a traveler’s passport, then their face in order to match identity to checked luggage. It was promoted as a “pilot program” that Delta launched to seek customer feedback in the hope that it could be rolled out more widely in the future.

This announcement was followed by JetBlue who stated they will “test facial- and fingerprint-recognition technology at two U.S. airports to replace boarding passes, building on industry efforts to increase security and ease passage through airports.”

However, these stories were nothing compared to what followed on June 20th when U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that they would integrate government databases with a private company to speed up biometric processing.(Read the rest here)

Real ID- Again and Again…

Posted: March 29, 2017 in REAL ID

It is important to know that Missouri Drivers Licenses are ALREADY Real ID compliant if you have renewed your license since 2013. It worked like this….In 2009, Missouri passed a law against Real ID. In 2012, The DMV offices were removing all their “old” photograph equipment and putting in Hi Def digital photograph equipment. You no longer received your new license while at the DMV Bureau, it then was mailed to you. The DMV Bureaus upload the Hi Def picture to a company called Morphos Trust. Morphos Trust is owned by Safran Int’l headquartered in France. Morpho then sends the pic to Safran, who sends it to the IMF, World Bank and Interpol as well as the FBI and any FBI equivalents in other nations that have contracted with Safran.

The Hi Def digital photo is BIOMETRIC and you are now entered into a facial recognition biometric international database.

To fix the fact that agents of the state were violating state law by doing biometric photographs the legislature amended the law to allow the agents of the state to have permission to break the previous law.

So, again, if you have renewed your license or ID since 2012, you are in this international biometric database.

Now, the General Assembly wants to grant blanket authority for biometric ID to agents of the state and be upfront about what they are already doing with your photograph. Hence, the email from Ron Calzone below…More info will come in subsequent posts proving without a shadow of doubt that the State of Missouri is and has been engaging in supplying non-government agencies with your biometric ID:

March 29, 2017 FLASH! HB 151, the terrible REAL ID Capitulation Act, just needs one more vote to pass the House and go on to the Senate. That vote is planned for this week.

Recall that back in 2009 Missouri office holders with some spine passed a law that forbids the Missouri Department of Revenue from participating in the federal REAL ID national ID card program.

They knew that the card is part of an effort to create a comprehensive federal database on all of us – Big Brother wants your number!

About 24 other states also rejected REAL ID.

Federal bullies have been threatening the states in an effort to get them to stand down from protecting their citizens’ privacy; they say they won’t let us on places like military bases and airports with our non-compliant Missouri driver’s license.

Up until this year, Missouri legislators have been standing strong against these threats. This year seems to be the Year of the Wimp, though.


“Choice” that’s not really Choice

Under the guise of “choice”, HB 151 would allow Missourians to choose either a REAL ID compliant drivers’ license or the same old license. The problem is, like any other government program, what starts out as voluntary will end up mandated for all.

And that will eventually mean RFID chips in all of our drivers’ licenses, and THAT means electronic tracking of your coming and going.

“Representation” that’s not really Representation

Not every office holder has wimped out on us. In fact, up until now there was enough resistance to keep the bill from moving to the House floor for full debate, but Tuesday that seems to have changed.

On Tuesday, Representative Elijah Haahr, the Speaker Pro Tem, sent Republican reps an email with suggestion for their end-of-week Capitol Report. One of the items was the announcement that the REAL ID bill has passed, even though that bill has not yet even been up for debate.

It’s not that Haahr is clairvoyant, it’s just that he’s a member of House Leadership, and leadership calls the shots. Yes, most of what happens in the House of Representatives is orchestrated. The man or woman you elected to represent your interests too often will simply go along with leadership instead of defending your constitutional rights.

Yes, they wimp out.

Misconception or Deception?

Trading liberty for security is never the right thing to do, but with REAL ID capitulation, security isn’t even the issue.

It’s convenience.

Supporters of the capitulation bill claim that people are having trouble getting on military bases with their current Missouri drivers’ license, but that claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The truth is military bases have been fully REAL ID compliant since January 2016, and all you need to get on base is your Missouri drivers’ license and another form of ID, like a copy of your birth certificate.

When the fed’s 2018 deadline for REAL ID compliance comes, the same will probably be true for boarding airplanes – all you will need is your drivers’ license and anther form of ID, like a copy of your birth certificate. Read all about it, HERE.

There’s no time to lose, call and email your Missouri state rep now. Tell them not to wimp out and to vote “NO!” on REAL ID:

House and Senate members with the Real ID Act in their committees. These people have the power to stop the bill in committee, or to amend it to include religious exemptions if it passes. Note: This needs to be a real religious exemption. Right now they take a photo, send it to Morpho Trust for storage and issue a Driver License without it. We need an exemption that has a Non-biometric photo, even if supplied by the citizen. Or better yet, no Morpho Trust involvement at all. PLEASE CALL ALL OF THESE REPS AND SENATORS and voice your opinion. Just Say NO to Real ID.
Representative  Delus Johnson  573-751-3666 
Representative  Mark Matthiesen  573-751-4163 
Representative  Joshua Peters 573-751-7605 
Representative  Donna Baringer  573-751-4220 
Representative Paul Curtman  573-751-3776 
Representative Keith Frederick  573-751-3834 
Representative Bill Kidd  573-751-3674 
Representative Jeff Pogue 573-751-2264 
Representative  Crystal Quade  573-751-3795 
Representative Shawn Rhoads 573-751-1455 
Representative Chrissy Sommer 573-751-1452 
Senator Ed Emery (573) 751-2108
Senator Dave Schatz (573) 751-3678
Senator Bill Eigel (573) 751-1141
Senator Brian Munzlinger (573) 751-7985
Senator John Rizzo (573) 751-3074
Senator Caleb Rowden (573) 751-3931
Senator Scott Sifton (573) 751-0220

The article below shows what can happen when one is wrongly identified via facial recognition. As most of you know, we fought against Real ID and had a law passed in Missouri to prevent it. Then, the State violated the law. To reconcile that problem, the legislature amended the law to allow biometric identification via photographs by the DMV…or succinctly, to allow Real Id.

Here is the article:

How a Facial Recognition Mismatch Can Ruin Your Life

It was just after sundown when a man knocked on Steve Talley’s door in south Denver. The man claimed to have hit Talley’s silver Jeep Cherokee and asked him to assess the damage. So Talley, wearing boxers and a tank top, went outside to take a look.

Seconds later, he was knocked to the pavement outside his house. Flash bang grenades detonated, temporarily blinding and deafening him. Three men dressed in black jackets, goggles, and helmets repeatedly hit him with batons and the butts of their guns. He remembers one of the men telling him, “So you like to fuck with my brothers in blue!” while another stood on his face and cracked two of his teeth. “You’ve got the wrong guy,” he remembers shouting. “You guys are crazy.”

Talley was driven to a Denver detention center, where he was booked for two bank robberies — the first on May 14 and the second on September 5, 2014, 10 days before his arrest — and for assaulting an officer during the second robbery.

Surveillance footage from a robbery that occurred on May 14, 2014, at a U.S. Bank in Denver, Colorado.

After surveillance camera images of the September robbery were publicly distributed, three of Talley’s acquaintances called in with tips to the police hotline, noting similarities between Talley’s appearance and the robber’s. A detective then showed photographs of both the May and September robber to Talley’s estranged ex-wife. “That is Steven,” she told him. “That is my ex-husband.”

The identifications justified Talley’s detention, even though he claimed he had been at work as a financial adviser for Transamerica Capital when the May robbery took place. Talley said he was held for nearly two months in a maximum security pod and was released only after his public defender obtained his employer’s surveillance records. In a time-stamped audio recording from 11:12 a.m. on the day of the May robbery, Talley could be heard at his desk trying to sell mutual funds to a potential client. Nine miles north, a white male wearing a black baseball cap, red athletic jacket, white shorts, and black sneakers entered a U.S. Bank, where he threatened the teller, hid $2,475 in his shirt, wrestled with an off-duty officer, and jumped down a flight of 10 stairs to the parking lot. At the same time as Talley was trying to close a deal, parking lot surveillance tapes show the robber tumbling with the officer, escaping his grip, and jogging away.

Talley was released in November, and the charges were apparently dropped. In the months that followed, a series of medical exams revealed that Talley had sustained several injuries on the night of his arrest, including a broken sternum, several broken teeth, four ruptured disks, blood clots in his right leg, nerve damage in his right ankle, and a possibly fractured penis. “I didn’t even know you could break a penis,” he told me.

But while voice recordings had exculpated Talley, an appeal to other, seemingly objective markers of his identity would soon be used to implicate him again. Nearly a year after his release from jail, Talley was arrested a second time on December 10, 2015, and charged with the aggravated bank robbery that had taken place the morning of September 5, 2014.

This time around, Denver prosecutors obtained what looked like damning forensic evidence of their own. The detective assigned to Talley’s case, Jeffery Hart, had requested that an FBI facial examiner manually compare stills from the banks’ grainy surveillance videos to several pictures of Talley — a tall, broad-shouldered white man with short blond hair, mild blue eyes, and a square jaw.

The FBI analysis concluded that Talley’s face did not match the May robber’s, but that he and the September robber shared multiple corresponding characteristics, including the shape of the head, chin, jaw line, mole marks, and ear features. “The questioned individual depicted” in the September images, the report concluded, “appears to be Talley.”

Except that it wasn’t. Again.



A comparison chart displaying photos of Steve Talley alongside still images from footage of the suspect in the September 2014 robbery.


Photo: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Steve Talley is hardly the first person to be arrested for the errors of a forensic evaluation. More than half of the exonerations analyzed by the Innocence Project have involved cases where forensic experts cited flawed or exaggerated evidence, and in 2009 a landmark paper by the National Academy of Sciences stated what many had long suspected: Apart from DNA testing, no other forensic method could reliably and consistently “demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”

Several grassroots conservative political groups will hold a protest demonstration Saturday January 9 from 10 am to 1 pm at Springfield-Branson National Airport while other groups hold a concurrent demonstration at Kansas City International Airport according to one of the organizers of the event, Mike Slack of the Commonsense Property Rights Coalition.
“The purpose of the event is to educate the public on the federal government’s Real ID Act, how it is in violation of Missouri State Statute, an infringement on privacy and a violation of the right to travel freely” Slack said. “The date and location were chosen because the Department of Homeland Security claims to have the power to cease accepting a Missouri Driver’s License as valid identification as of January 10, forcing Missourians to bring a passport or other ID acceptable to DHS. The situation is the same for Illinois and several other states.”
Groups involved in the demonstration include several property rights groups, several Campaign for Liberty Groups, several Tea Party groups, the Missouri Grassroots Coalition and others concerned with protection of individual rights and restrictions on federal government overreach,” Slack said. “Participants include members of all political parties – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution Party and independents. Our goal is to educate the public, persuade our Congressmen and Senators to take action to either repeal or defund the Real ID Act, and to encourage our state legislators to stand up to the federal government and protect our rights as citizens of Missouri, as they have sworn to do.”
The demonstration will be peaceful and will comply with all applicable laws. Those interested in attending or wishing more information may call 417-264-2435

(Click on title to go to the source)

A shorter version of this post ran as an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News on October 6, 2015.

The ubiquitous blue “Like” or “Share” buttons that you see all over the Internet are hiding an ugly secret. Starting this month, Facebook will use them to track your visit to every Web page that displays the buttons—even if you don’t click on anything. Facebook will use the data it collects to build a detailed dossier of your browsing habits, meticulously logging every site you visit, so it can finally learn those last few details about your life that it doesn’t already know. And there’s nothing you can do about it, short of staying totally logged out of the social media site or tracking down and installing a special browser extension to protect from this kind of sneaky behavior.

And who wants to bother?  Yeah it’s creepy, but maybe you don’t care enough about a faceless corporation’s data mining to go out of your way to protect your privacy, and anyway you don’t have anything to hide. Facebook counts on that shrug of your shoulders; indeed its business model depends on our collective confusion and apathy when it comes to privacy. And that’s wrong, as a matter of business ethics and arguably in a legal sense as well.

Facebook’s response to criticism of the new massive increase in tracking has been to claim that it’s not a problem because the company allows users to opt out of the program. But that excuse—and others like it across the industry—is disingenuous and fundamentally unfair in two important ways. First, when users opt out, Facebook doesn’t actually stop tracking their browsing habits. It merely stops showing the user so called “interest-based” ads. In other words, Facebook doesn’t allow us to opt out of being tracked all over the Internet; it merely allows us to hide that fact from ourselves.

Second and more importantly, the new tracking violates consumers’ expectations. The Federal Trade Commission’s longstanding Fair Information Practice Principles begin with the concepts of notice and choice. Companies are expected to make consumers aware of information collection and give consumers control over how their information is used. When we click a “Like” button, we expect Facebook to take note. But when we visit a website and don’t click the button, we’re given no indication whatsoever that Facebook is still keeping track of that visit, much less given the ability to control what Facebook does with that information.

Of course, Facebook is hardly the only offender. Google and its manufacturing partners have been shipping millions of low-cost notebook computers, known as Chromebooks, to schools around the country for use by students in the classroom and at home. The devices are wonderful—powerful, secure, and easy to use. And they come with “completely free” Google Apps for Education services including classroom tools, email, document collaboration, and calendaring, among others.

Google’s Chromebooks as used in schools also come with “Chrome Sync” enabled by default, a feature that sends the student users’ entire browsing trail to Google, linking the data collected to the students’ accounts which often include their names and dates of birth. Google notes that the tracking behavior can be turned off by the student or even at a district level. But as shipped, students’ Chromebooks are configured to send every student’s entire browsing history back to Google, in near real time. That’s true even despite Google’s signature on the “Student Privacy Pledge” which includes a commitment to “not collect … student personal information beyond that needed for authorized educational/school purposes, or as authorized by the parent/student.”

EFF and other digital privacy groups have been actively engaged with the technology sector in an attempt to convince companies to place meaningful limits on various forms of consumer tracking. Earlier this year, EFF, along with eight other privacy organizations, left a multi-stakeholder process intended to develop a privacy-friendly set of best practices for companies using facial recognition, led by the National Telecommunications Information Administration. We insisted that companies must give regular people the choice of whether to participate in a face recognition database, or, in other words, operate their facial recognition systems on an opt-in basis. Our demand isn’t crazy; it is already the law in Europe. But when the companies made it clear that in this country they were only willing to provide an opt-out for people who proactively put themselves on a do-not-track list, we walked out. There was no point to our continued participation in a process dominated by companies who insist on maintaining a privacy model that depends on consumers not knowing their rights, or even the fact they’re being tracked.

It’s incredibly difficult for even the most concerned consumers to figure out who’s collecting data about them, much less exercise any control over what companies do with that data. It took us at EFF some serious research—and an hour-long conference call with Google engineers, lawyers, and PR reps—to figure out how Google treats student-browsing data. Because the companies make it so difficult for privacy-conscious consumers to figure out when, where, and how they’re being tracked, users are left with only one real choice: apathy, which companies then use as an excuse to further escalate and obscure their tracking behavior.

There is no excuse for making it so difficult to get the answers to questions as simple as “are you tracking our students?” Don’t even try asking the companies what they do with the behavioral data they’re gathering about us: other than using it for behavior advertising, they won’t say. And for those of us who have opted out of behavioral advertising, the companies have given no justification for continuing to collect our data. We have no way of knowing what they’re using our data for, and that’s a problem.

Companies across the tech industry claim that they honor our privacy and endeavor to treat users with respect. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of engineers, designers, and policy makers working in Silicon Valley want to do the right thing. My message to the companies then is this: if a new feature, system, or app will impact users’ privacy, just ask the users for their permission first. Providing an opt-out after the fact demonstrates a total lack of commitment to users and is fundamentally unfair.

If a business model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail.

Citigroup Eye scanning

Posted: October 30, 2015 in Privacy Rights, REAL ID

For those of us opposed to Real ID, things just a rather large step in the wrong direction:

No card reader, no PIN pad, no touch-screen display — how you bank at your ATM could drastically change in the not-so-distant future. Citigroup is testing an automated teller machine made by Canton, Ohio-based Diebold that relies on your smartphone and perhaps an eye scan to dispense your cash.

Diebold’s so-called “Irving” system works like this: Let’s say you want to get $100 from your ATM. Instead of taking your bank card with you, you schedule your withdrawal ahead of time on your phone via your bank’s mobile app. When you walk up to the screenless machine, it identifies you in one of several ways: Near Field Communication (NFC, the same type of technology used in Apple Pay’s mobile payment service), QR Code (for Quick Response Code, a machine-readable bar code that’s been used extensively in Japan) or biometrics (scanning your iris, a technique that’s considered far more fail-safe than fingerprints as a form of ID).The machine then spits out the cash and you go on your merry way.

Diebold said the entire transaction could be completed in less than 10 seconds. The new system is more secure than traditional ATMs, in part because you wouldn’t need a card and wouldn’t have to punch in a PIN, the company said.

Since Irving is only in the testing phase, it’s unclear when — or if — these devices will be rolled out on a broader scale. Citi didn’t immediately return a call for comment.

Diebold also unveiled a second futuristic banking concept on Monday that it calls “Janus.” It’s a dual-sided terminal that can serve two customers at the same time for in-branch customer service.

Related: Beyond the Wallet: Apple Pay ‘Cements the Future’ of Mobile Payments

“Our latest concepts embody a new era of banking and put the user experience at the top of the pyramid to connect consumers with their money when and how they see fit,” Frank Natoli, Diebold executive vice president, self-service technology, said in a press release