Biometrics (catch all)

[SJPONeill]

Gone are the days of conventional uniforms, symbols, and equipment that make the enemy easily identifiable. Now identifying a threat is as difficult as ever. In the digital age, photo IDs, identification cards, and other official documents are becoming less effective. Biometrics has emerged as a growing capability that addresses this issue.

I'm just wondering how those who are apparently writing off biometrics as just another technology toy would propose that we do track adversaries in an environment where the otherguys aren't wearing uniforms, wearing distinctive markings or badges, or doing anything else that make them stand out from the greater 'the people' mass? Adversaries proven quite comfortable and able in taking the fight from the conventional battlefield to the home front...

Biometrics may not add measurably to our ability to predict and interdict attacks but they certainly do not reduce our ability to track attackers after an event...nature of the beast in this operating environment is that prediction has ceded in a large part to responsiveness...and those think think that such technologies are not here and in use domestically jujst need to come through the international arrivals terminal at LAX...

To improve the operational use of biometrics...strive towards a common standard for biometric measurements; work towards linked and interoperable biometric databases; get the kit on the streets and start using it.

The times are a-changing but then they always have been - things have never been static and we don't live now, for better AND worse, than we did ten years ago, twenty years ago, fifty or one hundred years ago...

[Presley Cannady]

I'm just wondering how those who are apparently writing off biometrics as just another technology toy would propose that we do track adversaries in an environment where the otherguys aren't wearing uniforms, wearing distinctive markings or badges, or doing anything else that make them stand out from the greater 'the people' mass? Adversaries proven quite comfortable and able in taking the fight from the conventional battlefield to the home front...

The challenge posed by fighting dirty has little bearing on whether biometrics holds promise or none, or encompasses risks in and of itself. Personally, I'm doubtful of technology that left unattended can be defeated by tape recorder, hostage, appropriated body parts or some combination thereof.

[motorfirebox]

I'm just wondering how those who are apparently writing off biometrics as just another technology toy would propose that we do track adversaries in an environment where the otherguys aren't wearing uniforms, wearing distinctive markings or badges, or doing anything else that make them stand out from the greater 'the people' mass? Adversaries proven quite comfortable and able in taking the fight from the conventional battlefield to the home front...

I'm not sure I see how biometrics would help differentiate between a Taliban fighter and a villager. Or between a villager and that same villager after he signs up with (or gets shanghaid into) the Taliban.

[OfTheTroops]

Biometrics are a key enabler in the panopticon if you can not conceal your identity then you would be deterred from the dark side it is truly a game changer as it continues to evolve it would allow for greater social control

[motorfirebox]

It would help, yeah, but such a system would have to collect, verify, and cross-index biometric data very quickly and very accurately in huge volumes, and remain extremely secure. Those limitations seem pretty daunting to me, though I'm not an expert.

And if we did manage to create a system with that sort of capability, I'd fight it with guns, bombs, knives, fists, and teeth. Those who give up liberty for security etcetera etcetera.

[SJPONeill]

And if we did manage to create a system with that sort of capability, I'd fight it with guns, bombs, knives, fists, and teeth. Those who give up liberty for security etcetera etcetera.

If...?

Don't get a passport then...or join any of the services - not just for the US but any of the 5 eyes nations...and certainly don't 'them' record your photo for your drivers' license...

This technology not only exists but it is here and in daily use...

[motorfirebox]

There's a little bit of a difference between my driver's license--or my expired military ID card, for that matter--and the complete lack of anonymity that was described in the post I was responding to.

[davidbfpo]

One of the issues surrounding biometrics is that there are competing systems on offer, particularly around what is collected for rapid, on point identification. There are those in Europe who argue that retina / iris scans are not suffiecent and that photo / image processing is subverted by women in particular with hair colour changes. Instead we are told that traditional fingerprints are the best method for identification and new IT enables a hand to be swipped across a reader.

In the UK the use at border of retina scanning, appropriately called IRIS, is being withdrawn by stealth - for example by not maintaining the machinery or by design, not installing at new airport terminals - even when use has been going up.

It is almost like the competing video systems of yesteryear, BetaMax and VHS. VHS won and was then overtaken by the DVD.

There are immense problems in the EU with resolving multiple, legal identities; notably around names used and date(s) of birth.

What does intrigue me is that well known gaps in identity document creation and delivery are not being addressed systematically. It is well known there are problems with passport delivery in certain areas for example.

As SWC has a mainly US readership, replace passport with driving licence.

I remain unconvinced that in 'small wars', invariably in less-developed places and Iraq managed to go in reverse, that biometrics and associated IT offer that much - for general population control. For access control and personnel records yes they can be useful.

My 'litmus test' is will it help defeat the LRA (and the like)?