India – Other countries – Biometrics – Constitutional Alliance

The Constitutional Alliance continues to educate people both within and outside the United States about mandatory global biometric enrollment.  We have been contacted by people and groups in over 50 countries about biometrics and the threat mandated biometric enrollment presents to all freedom loving people.  Domestic spying here in the United States is no longer something that “conspiracy theorists” talk about but rather has been proven to be a sad reality.  Another sad reality that is well documented, is our intelligence agencies have exported our domestic surveillance “know how” to other governments. Where we have not directly exported surveillance capabalities, our intelligence agencies have created “front companies” to participate in the global pandemic of domestic spying.  India is the largest “biometric” laboratory in the world.  As perverse as it may sound, the people of India are the guinea pigs for “selling” the need for biometrics to a free people.  More people in India have been enrolled into a global system of identification and financial control than there are people in the United States.  This article will address a couple of points.  1)  The Constitutional Alliance is recognized not just inside the United States as an organization that focuses on exposing the deceit behind biometric enrollment but also outside the United States, the Constitutional Alliance is followed by people who want to remain free. 2)  Urgency, the urgency that must exist if we are to remain free.

On the first point, I want to share an email I received from the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties in India written by Gopal Krishna:

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your message. I have read your writings and on some

occasions cited them as well. Can I use your letter in a press

statement which I wish to issue on the issue of biometric data

collection?

What is your considered view about biometric data based identity cards

which has been proposed by the government in India?

I wish to use your reply in my correspondence with government and in

our campaign.

thanks & regards

Gopal Krishna

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)”

Before I proceed on with my response to Gopal I want to provide a link to one of the best written pieces I have read about biometrics in general and biometrics in India specifically.  I encourage those that have the time to read the article provided with the link even if they do not have the time until some date in the future.  http://ambedkaractions.blogspot.com/2014/06/biometric-npr-makes-indians-…

Now I wish to share a part of my response to Gopal:

“There is no question that biometrics is the linchpin of a surveillance state.  I can watch a person enter a house; that does not mean it is necessarily the owner of the house.  I can use ALPR (Automatic License Plate Reader) to know who owns a car; that does not mean it is the owner of the car, driving the car.  Law enforcement can “track” a person's phone but that does not mean the owner of the phone is the person using the phone (in 2014, the FBI's NGI (Next Generation Identification) is focusing on voice recognition and facial recognition) .  The bottom line is RBI (Remote Biometric Identification) is a threat to the right of all people to exercise free speech, associate with people they choose, right to seek redress, the right to peacefully assemble, our right to religious freedom, and the right of people not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.  

With regard to the “bigger picture”, every lawmaker who supports a representative form of government, regardless of what country the lawmaker is a citizen of, must not discount the “Chilling Effect” the creation of a surveillance state has on citizens.  

Two subjects or issues that concern me greatly are the requirement for law enforcement to have a “reasonable suspicion” before asking a person for identification and secondly the idea that privacy is defined by “reasonable expectation.”

1)  Reasonable suspicion before the advancements we have seen in technology was based on “observation.”  If a law enforcement officer observed a person doing something thought to be illegal, the officer simply needed to be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion the officer had, to justify the officer confronting the individual and asking for identification.  Today, an officer can use facial recognition and by accessing databases, can determine all personal information about the individual to establish “reasonable suspicion.”  Moving from “observation” to “big data” brings into play all the personal biases an officer has, once the officer accesses the individuals PII (Personal Identifiable Information).  Perhaps the officer does not approve of a person's religion or the political party a person belongs to. “Big data” creates an environment for profiling that previously has never been experienced.  

2)  Reasonable expectation of privacy is a fool's errand.  By definition, as technology advances, the expectation of people to enjoy privacy is reduced.  Given all the intrusive technologies that law enforcement or government in general has at its disposal today, nobody would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  It would not matter if a person is in their home or in public; technology has advanced to the point where what we are doing, who we are with doing whatever it is we are doing, where we are at doing what we are doing, how we got to the place where whatever it is we are doing is being done, and even the reason why we are doing what we are doing, can all be “determined” with various degrees of accuracy by the invasive surveillance technologies that exist today. Privacy must be defined in such a way, that the definition is not dependent on the capabilities of technology but rather the right of people against unreasonable search and seizure.  

There is a third issue that causes me great concern and that is the use of predictive analytics.  The idea that law enforcement or government can determine what a person will do is absurd.  While I may not necessarily disagree with the concept that a person who has committed “crimes” in the past is more likely than the “general public” to commit crimes, predictive analytics as being applied today, means discarding the right of all people to be presumed innocent.  The byproduct of predictive analytics means even people that have never committed a crime are subject to scrutiny that previously did not take place.  It does not matter what country a person lives in, the right to be presumed innocent should be and actually must be, the foundation of any criminal justice system.  The burden must always be on the “State” to prove a person is guilty, rather than the burden being on the individual to prove their innocence.”

It would take a book, a very long book, to share all the communications the Constitutional Alliance has had with people and groups in other countries.  One point I pray that everyone gets including our elected leaders in the United States is, if you want to export the concept of freedom, you must first ensure that the rights of the citizens in the United States are being protected.  We are not exporting freedom or the concept of freedom by attacking every country in our line of sight.  Our actions, our government's actions more specifically, speak louder then its words.  Regardless of how any person feels about the documents Edward Snowden released, the undenibale fact is those documents prove not only is our government spying on each of us, but also to the extent that spying is taking place.  Our emails are being retrieved and stored, our phone meta data being collected and stored, our financial transactions being monitored, our text messages being collected and read, our posts on social networking sites being analyzed, and much more is all taking place.

Now I will address the seocnd issue:  The urgency that must take place to end mandatory biometric enrollment

In India, the government has enrolled nearly 1/2 of their 1.2 billion people into a global biometric identity scheme that directly links a person's body using biometrics, to their ability to buy and sell.  Keep in mind; the standards for biometric enrollment in India are the same as they are in the United States or any other country.  These standards originate with the International Organization for Standardization. We should not forget the words of Julian Ashbourn, who as Chairman of the International Biometrics Foundation said “We need a global agency, with global power.”  

In the United States, Department of Homeland Security's Mr. Robert Moony stated in 2007, “We're starting the process of biometrifying [sic] a good proportion of the world population.”  Robert Mocny also stated that “information sharing is appropriate around the world”, and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.”  I have emphasized the word “corporations” because many, if not most people do not realize the tools our government has at its disposal to acquire information from corporations without a warrant.  

Fast forward to 2014 and how many U.S. citizens to you believe have been enrolled into this global biometric identity scheme?  The answer is nearly every one of us and most of the time without our knowledge or consent which explains why facial recognition is the “biometric of choice.”  You may ask how this can be.  Have you got a driver's license or state issued valid with photo ID for those that do not drive?  Are you in the military, work at our ports, have a passport, or have some type of state issued welfare benefit card?  If you answered “Yes” to any of the questions, you are in the “global system.” Even if you answered “No” to all the questions, you will be in the “system” once Comprehensive Immigration Reform is codified (see article on our web-site titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” http://constitutionalalliance.org/articles/comprehensive-immigration-reform

I have written the following previously but it is worth repeating.  The fact is in every state, the digital facial image that is being collected for driver's licenses is facial recognition compatible.  This was not always the case.  Previously most states were using analog photographs.  Low resolution photos are not facial recognition compatible. The error rate with analog photos is substantially higher, thus the move to a high resolution digital facial image. 

If you take your fingertip and dip it in ink, and then press your fingertip on a piece of paper, the result is a fingerprint.  A high resolution digital facial image is no different than a fingerprint.  Nobody argues that a fingerprint is a biometric.  Ask yourself is a baseball a baseball only when the baseball is hit with a baseball bat? The answer is, a baseball is a baseball, whether it ever gets hit with a baseball bat or not.  Your digital facial image is a biometric whether it is used with facial recognition software or not.  If that is not the case, then ask yourself why states are not still using analog photographs.  The analog photograph on old driver's licenses was just as human recognizable as the high resolution digital facial image on new driver's licenses.  

There are three elements or steps necessary for the use of any computerized/automated biometric process.  First, there needs to be a “biometric sample” (e.g. fingerprint, digital facial image, iris scan, DNA, voice recording).  The second step is converting the biometric sample to biometric data.  The final step is to create a biometric template.  Anyone who would argue that the high resolution digital facial image is not a biometric is either not knowledgeable or is trying to deceive people about the true purpose of collecting the high resolution digital facial image, which is to use facial recognition software.  Facial recognition software is what allows for the Remote Biometric Identification I discussed earlier.  

One last point about biometrics and identity or identification.  Facial recognition allows for an image collected by a camera (CCTV, smart phone, drone, or spy satellite) to be “matched” to an image in a database.  For instance if you are walking down the street and a CCTV camera, a law enforcement officer with a smart phone, a drone, or even spy satellite “captures” your facial image, the facial image captured is then matched against our facial images in Department of Motor Vehicle's databases and other databases. Once a “match” occurs, then the other information about you (i.e. birth certificate) in the database is what establishes your identity.  One real problem is facial recognition technology is far from accurate when one image is compared against many images, in what is called a “one to many” application. 

Currently the federal government does not have every citizen's high resolution digital facial image.  We are not all going to get out of the global system of identification and financial control but many of us can get out of this “system.”  I would argue, if we are to slow down this attack on our freedom down we must resist whenever possible to allow for the time necessary to have laws enacted that would prohibit the use of facial recognition without a warrant.  At this time, many people are of the belief that there is no federal law that prohibits the use of facial recognition software on innocent people. Regardless of how that legal battle plays out, the reality is state lawmakers can enact laws that would prohibit the sharing of photos in state controlled databases, including Department of Motor Vehicles databases without a warrant.  The clock is ticking people and thus the need for the urgency I articulate.  

Mark Lerner

God Bless these United States of America