eye.gif (6332 bytes)                     eye.gif (6332 bytes)

$Multi billion surveillance infrastructure being built


                                                              closed circuit television cameras

From the April 2002 Idaho Observer:

By Vic Bernstein

Government justification for fixed-position cameras at the nation's intersections has been to increase the efficiency of traffic control and the ticketing of traffic law violations. However, the fixed position cameras are being replaced with cameras that have pan and tilt capabilities. These cameras represent the transition from traffic control to open video surveillance on the public.

I have been in the electronic security business for over 20 years. To be competitive in that rapidly changing industry one must stay current with the latest in technological advances. The camera capabilities mentioned above are just the beginning of my observations of equipment that is in place at this time all over the northwest and, probably, all over the country.

Pictured at left is a lightpost with pan/tilt cameras. Notice also that beside each camera is a cylindrical device. I suspect that these are laser devices that can be used to monitor conversations that are taking place inside vehicles. I have called the various authorities and suppliers to question them about these devices. To a person, all deny that equipment being installed is for surveillance purposes. But they are lying. I took a photo of a box that I presumed to be connected to tag readers attached to an overpass on I-90 east of Spokane. The box had a model number and a manufacturer name “Sinclair Technologies (pictured at right). Sinclair honored my request for information on that particular product by sending me the most shocking admission of the surveillance state to date. The device is a 500-watt antenna. Tag readers and radar devices used to monitor speeders use 1/2-watt antennas. Microwave ovens operate at 600 watts. There are only two reasons for a 500-watt antenna: They are in place to either cook something or see through it. Not one public official will discuss the subject of surveillance with me.

Though it may seem paranoid to claim that traffic control has given way to surveillance, it is not. The Spokane Police Department admitted publicly on the Clear and Corker talk radio show on KGA a few years ago that the department owns a device that can look through walls to “see what's going on.”

As we begin our investigations we find more questions that government officials and their surveillance device vendors refuse to answer. There is little doubt that the surveillance infrastructure is being built. Who is paying for it? Who is monitoring the data and where are the data-monitoring facilities? The investigation continues...

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307


Nevada High Court Says Police Can Hide Monitoring Devices on Cars Without Warrant

Published: Apr 25, 2002

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can hide electronic monitoring devices on peoples' cars without a warrant for as long as they want.

The 5-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Deborah Agosti, said attaching the device to the bumper of a Las Vegas man's car to track his movements did not constitute unreasonable search or seizure under Nevada's Constitution.

Frederick Osburn pleaded guilty to open or gross lewdness, possession of burglary tools and four counts of possession of child pornography and was sentenced in 2000 to up to 10 years in prison.

He appealed, arguing some evidence should be barred because it was based partly on information police gathered from the electronic monitoring.

Osburn said federal law may permit warrantless monitoring, but asked for a finding that the Nevada Constitution provides greater protection.

The majority cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it involves the exterior of a car. In Osburn's case, the car was parked on a public street.

Justices Bob Rose dissented, writing that the ruling gives too much authority to police.

"There will be no requirement that the monitor be used only when probable cause - or even a reasonable suspicion - is shown, and there will be no time limit on how long the monitor will remain," Rose said.

In some cases, he added, such devices "will be used to continually monitor individuals only because law enforcement considers them 'dirty.'"



Super Bowl crowd scanned for suspects

Associated Press
Feb. 01, 2001

TAMPA - Police apparently videotaped everyone passing through stadium turnstiles at the Super Bowl and used computers to analyze the images in a check for terrorists and other criminals, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

No arrests were made as a result of the face-matching surveillance system - apparently used for the first time at a major sports event.

Each facial image of the 100,000 fans and workers entering through the turnstiles at Raymond James Stadium on Sunday was digitized and checked electronically against the computer files of the Tampa police, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies, the St. Petersburg Times reported.

Had the system found a match, officers could have detained the person.

Images caught by the system are not stored permanently, but they could have been used on game day had any crimes been committed at the stadium.

"I find it disturbing. It smacks of Big Brother societies that keep watch over people," said Christine L. Borgman, a professor of information studies at UCLA.

"If these surveillance systems spread, there may be a considerable margin of error in determining the identity of people who get snagged. And that is a big price to pay for your civil rights."

Security officials said the system is no more intrusive than videotape cameras used at malls and convenience stores.

The FaceTrac system runs on software by Viisage Technology of Littleton, Mass.



FTC Begins Investigation Of Secret Online Profiling

December 10, 1999

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently begun examining “online profiling,” the practice of surreptitiously collecting data about individual Internet users in order to target them with advertising.

Online profiling is the practice of planting tracking files (called “cookies”) on to users' computers when they access certain web sites, planting trackable code numbers in online music and software, and getting users to fill out site registration forms. The information is then used to develop a market profile of individual computer users. The FTC is concerned about profiling because it can involve secretly tracing users' steps in cyberspace. FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky recently said he is disturbed by online profiling because users generally do not know their private Internet use is being tracked.

One example of the kind of profiling being investigated by the FTC is RealNetwork's practice of assigning unique identification numbers to its popular music listening software (RealJukebox). The company implanted the numbers in order to profile the 12 million people who downloaded the software. RealNetwork has since pledged to better inform consumers about the tracking and the use it makes of any information it obtains.

RealNetwork has also been sued by Jeffrey Wilens, a California resident who filed a $500 million class-action suit under California's unfair business practices law, alleging that RealNetwork failed to inform him of the invasive nature of its software.

The FTC investigation has already prodded at least two Internet advertising companies, DoubleClick and AdKnowledge, to amend their policies and begin informing consumers about what information is being collected. They also agreed to tell users how to stop the information from being used for profiling. DoubleClick asserts that the company does not collect personally identifiable information on consumers, but that is not the whole truth: many members of its advertising network are e-commerce sites that gather sensitive details from consumers.

Consumer advocates have been lobbying for new laws to protect the privacy of all computer users. Unfortunately, there is no groundswell of support in Washington for such laws. Neither Congress, the President, nor the FTC is likely to take action anytime soon. For the time being, individual consumers must fend for themselves. The best protection is to read the privacy policies of any web site you access, and avoid sites that fail to maintain fair policies and practices.

Steven Barker



Daily News
Profiling Worse Than Subliminal
By David McGuire, Newsbytes.
December 10, 1999

The controversial practice of online "profiling" is patently unfair and should be banned by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Junkbusters Corp. President Jason Catlett said today.

Online profiling - a practice whereby online advertisers observe and record the browsing practices of Internet users who either view or click on their banners - has come under fire of late, prompting advertising industry leaders to launch a self-regulatory regime aimed at curbing the practice.

That response is not enough for some privacy advocates.

"This vast surreptitious data collection and the possibilities for manipulation arising from it are far more offensive than anything subliminal advertising ever achieved," Catlett said, pointing out that the FTC years ago banned subliminal ads.

While online profiling is in its infancy, it could become far more insidious than subliminal advertising - a practice that was never really proven to work, Catlett said. "If advertisers took a graphic of your newly born daughter and started using it to sell you baby clothes," that would be far worse than inserting hidden ad messages between movie frames, Catlett contended.

Since the FTC is charged with enforcing against unfair advertising practices, an online profiling ban should be well within its purview, Catlett said.

But while Catlett and other privacy proponents have railed against online profiling and other monitoring practices, online advertisers hold that the practice is necessary and non-intrusive.

To allay consumer concerns and forestall anti-profiling legislation, a bevy of Internet advertising firms including AdKnowledge, DoubleClick Inc., and Flycast, last month launched the Network Advertising Initiative, under which participating companies will disclose their data collection practices, provide information about how the personal data they collect is used and offer consumers the opportunity to "opt out" of some data collection activities.

US Commerce Secretary William Daley has warned that if industry doesn't solve the problem, the government will be forced to intercede.

Under the National Advertising Initiative - which has yet to go live - consumers could opt out of having personal data collected, but companies could still collect "non-identifiable" data about the users who view their ads. Such data would include information about the type of browser used to view the ad and other technology specific information.

Racial Profiling in America

FBI: School threat report not meant for student profiling

US Census Bureau State Profiles

                    coming_soon.gif (11847 bytes)

Roadside DNA Tests On Citizens Planned



It's amazing how much information remains even after you think you've
deleted that computer file. Sometimes it's enough to help send someone to prison for a long stretch, local law enforcement officers are discovering.

Sonoma County sheriff's detectives are learning just how valuable a good software program can be with a new forensic computer purchased with federal grant money.

Since it arrived a few weeks ago, Detective Mark Essick has been kicking the tires of the 850-megahertz, 512-megabyte RAM, double-monitor machine to see what it can do.

Detectives have copied the hard drives from suspects' computers in two
recent cases, a narcotics arrest and a check fraud and identity theft case, and since then Essick has been scouring the data looking for additional evidence of criminal activity.

A software program called EnCase allows detectives to retrieve deleted
files, decode encrypted data and perform in-depth searches to uncover a
suspect's trail -- without destroying evidence as they wade through it.

"It allows us to take a snapshot of the hard drive without changing the
access dates, which can be important down the road," Essick said.

If a homicide suspect, for example, says he wasn't home when his wife was killed, but a file on his computer shows it was modified around the time the crime was committed, his alibi won't hold water.

In other cases, photographic evidence has been the suspect's downfall.

In August, Kelly Medlock, a 53-year-old Santa Rosa man, was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for molesting three girls. The case against him was bolstered by erased evidence resurrected from his home computer, Detective Dave Knecht of the Santa Rosa Police Department said.

"There were some graphic digital pictures (of his victims), which he thought were deleted. It turns out the incriminating photos were still on the disks we seized," Knecht said.

Santa Rosa police have been using their crime-fighting computer for about two years.

Detectives from both departments, as well as prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and even criminals are learning as the field of high-tech crime emerges.

"Until now, we've been limited on how much we could get out of a computer," Essick said.

"It's a whole new part of police work," Santa Rosa Police Cmdr. Scott
Swanson said. "The tool of choice for the criminal in the future is going to be the computer, because that's where the money is."

Although so far in Sonoma County, computer evidence has been discovered mainly in sex-crimes cases, all manner of crimes can leave a cybertrail.

Sheriff's Lt. Bruce Rochester said his department will use the computer to track down data on chemicals used in environmental crimes; on violent crimes in which someone has possibly written a "hate list" or sent threatening e-mail; in property crimes such as fraud, identity theft or embezzlement; and for narcotics cases in which suspects keep financial records.

Computers also have yielded critical evidence locally and nationally in
cases of hacking, terrorism, militia activities and espionage, as in the
case of Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear code developer at Los Alamos labs who copied nuclear secrets and was suspected of leaking them to China.

In one current Sheriff's Department case, Essick is putting together
evidence against a woman arrested for check fraud. She is suspected of
creating fake checks, fake IDs and a driver's license in another woman's name on her computer.

The case started with a simple report of mail theft. The victim lost about
$6,000 in the ordeal.

As part of a different grant, the Sonoma County district attorney is
participating in the North Bay High Technology Crimes Task Force with Marin, Solano, Napa and Contra Costa county offices. District attorney's investigator Ed Hudson will work at least part time helping prepare computer data cases for prosecution.

Detectives have had to be careful in documenting whether there is probable cause for a detective to be snooping around in someone's personal information.

"It's like looking through a diary," Essick said. "It is personal, but
that's why the courts and case law has required a second search warrant for computers" in addition to a warrant for the residence.

Santa Rosa defense attorney Chris Andrian said he has been impressed with the information-gathering capabilities of the computer systems, and of the investigators.

"If the technology is there, it should be made available to people, but it
should only be used when warranted, and not without a court order," he said. "We're all in process of learning about this."

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 521-5205 or e-mail

joe 6pk

Smile, You're On Scan Camera
by Julia Scheeres

2:00 a.m. Mar. 14, 2001 PST

When football fans learned that their faces were scanned and compared to mugshots of common criminals at this year's Super Bowl, many were outraged. But they shouldn't have been surprised.

In the United States, face scans are used by casinos to look for cheats; law enforcement to digitalize mug shots; welfare departments to look for double-dippers; drivers' license bureaus to reduce I.D. forgers; and ATMs to separate clients from crooks.

Overseas, Israel's Ministry of Defense uses facial scanning to monitor movement along the Gaza Strip. A scruffy district in London uses them to remotely patrol the streets. Mexico and Uganda use them to register voters.,1294,42317,00.html

Human Identification at a Distance (HID)

  The Department of Defense is once
  again funding university research for the program, with
  the goal of identifying people 500 feet from a sensor in
  a variety of lighting and background situations.

  The HumanID program will "move biometric technology to
  its next logical step -- the recognition of non-cooperative
  subjects with high accuracy," according to the DoD's

  Project manager Jonathon Phillips said the project's goal
  was to protect U.S. personnel and facilities overseas.
  He refused to say if the government planned to post signs
  or otherwise alert the public that the technology was in

Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM
Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.
             "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
           Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:


EyeTicket Jacqueline Lopez, office manager of EyeTicket, demonstrates how a person looks into the camera. (James A. Parcell - The Washington Post)

ID in the Blink of an Eye
McLean's EyeTicket Sees Airport Services Opening Up

by Cynthia L. Webb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 9, 2001; Page E01

It can identify people by looking into the colors of their eyes.

Two years ago, a small McLean-based firm, Spring Technologies Inc., nabbed an exclusive license for the James Bond-like technology from Marlton, N.J.-based Iridian Technologies Inc.. The license allowed the company -- now called EyeTicket Corp. -- to be the first to use the technology in a promising application, helping airlines speed up check-in and boarding.

Two airports are using the systems, but business has not been as brisk as expected. EyeTicket executives contend it has a lot to do with a major computer company's unwelcome entrance into the field.

But EyeTicket now has an opportunity to take the technology beyond the realm of spies. A U.S. district judge in January issued a preliminary injunction stopping Unisys Corp. from using the technology for certain airport applications. Unisys has appealed.

"It's fair to say that the Unisys activities impeded our progress for some time. Now fortunately the court has put a stop to that and we are very pleased with our situation," said Evan Smith, EyeTicket senior vice president. EyeTicket, which provides hardware and software for transportation industries, is not profitable yet but is bringing in undisclosed revenue.

The hold that iris recognition has in the growing field of biometrics technology -- identifying someone by physical characteristics -- is small compared with other methods such as facial scanning, fingerprinting and voice authentication. But its potential is enormous. Iris scanning could be used to identify customers at ATMs, for example.

To start the process, users have a picture of their irises taken. A camera connected to a computer takes a picture of the eye and turns it into a digital image to generate a 512-byte code that represents the unique patterns of a person's iris. A linked camera can then recognize a particular iris and connect it to a user's code in a few seconds and, at an airport, link it to a person's flight itinerary and their frequent-flier information.

Charles Kolodgy, research manager for Internet security issues at research firm IDC Inc., said iris recognition has clear benefitsfor the airline industry. But privacy concerns and reluctance to try new technologies may be slowing its acceptance in other fields.

"The technologies have been there for biometrics for a number of years. They keep improving them," Kolodgy said. "But really going out and spending money and deploying it -- some of the need doesn't appear to be there yet."

Still, biometrics is a booming industry. According to IDC, biometrics usage related to information technology, such as computer access, reached $166.6 million in 1999. It is expected to mushroom to $1.8 billion in 2004. The entire biometric market, including techniques such as iris recognition, was estimated to be $500 million in 1999.

Proponents say iris recognition is the best choice for identifying multiple users on the same system because other biometric technology, such as fingerprinting, can spread germs as people use the same touchpad device. Its popularity is increasing as costs for the systems components, including the iris-capturing cameras, drop.

"I think [iris recognition] could take off in the industry and could be used for a large number of identification needs," said Jerry Orr, aviation director at Charlotte's airport.

The airport started testing the system last spring after EyeTicket approached officials to try it out, Orr said. US Airways flight crews are using the technology to get into secure areas.

"There's really no [reason] your eye can't take the place of the ticket; it's a lot easier to keep up with your eye than your ticket," Orr said.

The airport in Frankfurt, Germany, is paying to use the system for employee access.

The 20-person EyeTicket filed a patent-infringement suit against Blue Bell, Pa.-based Unisys in December, alleging that the company pitched an idea for passenger-related biometrics services at trade shows and with prospective clients when EyeTicket had exclusive rights to it. "EyeTicket must have convinced the judge that they had a chance on winning on merits," said Joseph V. Colaianni, a lawyer in charge of Patton Boggs's intellectual-property group in Washington and a former federal claims judge.

Dick Badler, Unisys's vice president of corporate communications, said the company disputes the decision, though it won't comment on specific allegations of the lawsuit. "Our position has merit and we are defending it vigorously," Badler said.

The district court ruling keeps Unisys at bay, but doesn't necessarily stop other competitors. EyeTicket's exclusive license with Iridian expired Dec. 31, meaning Iridian can license the technology to other companies for use in passenger services at airports.


Colo. to 'map' faces of drivers

Denver Post Capitol Bureau

Wednesday, July 04, 2001 - First it was the photo-radar vans snapping pictures of Denver-area speeders.

Now, some fear Big Brother's roving eye soon will be watching all of Colorado with the arrival of a new European import called "face recognition."

The Department of Motor Vehicles, in an effort to prevent identity theft and driver's license fraud, is buying cameras that will map every driver's facial characteristics like a three-dimensional land chart.

The danger, critics say, is that the technology could eventually be expanded to monitor the comings and goings of ordinary Coloradans.

This week, Tampa, Fla., became the first city in the United States to install similar high-tech security cameras on public streets to scan crowds in the city's nightlife district. Images will be compared against a database of mug shots of people with active warrants.

"There is a danger," said Rep. Matt Smith, a Grand Junction lawmaker and attorney who serves on a statewide task force studying the issue of privacy. "The intended purpose of facial recognition is to help the state prevent the theft of identity. Now the question is, "What will its future use be?'

"There has to be a point where the government doesn't have its nose over every shoulder," he said.

Mug shots compared

Old driver's license photos will be scanned into a computer database using the new technology. Then, starting next July, new mugs will be compared with those on file to make sure people are who they say they are when they go to get, or renew, a Colorado driver's license.

It doesn't matter if you gain 200 pounds and go bald between photographs. Short of plastic surgery, the camera will recognize you.

"Facial recognition deals with spatial details, where a nose is compared with the eyes," said Dorothy Dalquist, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Revenue. "Baldness doesn't count, and weight doesn't either. It's the basic facial structure."

The state legislature authorized the technology during the last session. State officials won't disclose the cost of the system until they meet later this month with officials from Polaroid, one of the companies involved in making the system.

In the beginning, face recognition will be used to try to prevent criminals from obtaining multiple driver licenses under others' names, Dalquist said.

"We know of cases where individuals steal personal information from other people, forge documents and go to six or seven driver license offices getting licenses with their pictures and other people's identities. In theory, they have a legitimate license, but in actuality, they're not who they say they are," Dalquist said. "Now, we will be able to say after the first one, "No, you can't have another one.'"

Or the police could be called in.

"My guess is if we saw something that is an egregious misuse of the system, we might alert law enforcement to that," she said.

The cameras can't prevent the types of fraud that now occur when people make their own driver's licenses using home computers and the Internet. However, as part of the new program, invisible markers will be added to each new license so stores or banks can scan the card to see if it's genuine.

Privacy concerns

The technology has raised concerns about privacy, ethics and government intrusion. Privacy advocates are concerned that a database of photographs could itself spill into the Orwellian realm.

"We all want to catch as many criminals as we possibly can, but we also have to be concerned about the privacy issues," said Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, a member of a state task force set up to craft legislation aimed at protecting privacy. "Information obtained for one purpose is sometimes used for reasons that were not contemplated by people who set up the system to begin with."

Gordon said Colorado already sells driver records to insurance companies for $5 million a year.

"If we're going to create a database of photographs of every driver in Colorado, will it be used only to protect against criminals?" Gordon asked. "Or will it be used for commercial purposes or marketing or to produce books of people's photos. We have to be careful."

Colorado's new system could pave the way for expanded use, say for instance tapping into a criminal database and finding out if someone getting a driver license is a fugitive.

"I'm sure law enforcement would appreciate it sometime in the future," Dalquist said. "Right now, we're not hooking into their data process. We're trying to protect citizens against identity fraud, and businesses, too."

But some say this latest technology could continue to grow into a Tampa-like monitoring system.

Last month, Denver police used low-tech, hand-held video cameras to catch rowdy partygoers celebrating the Colorado Avalanche's Stanley Cup victory.

"We haven't discussed it," said Denver police Sgt. Tony Lombard, "not at this point.",1002,11%7E57823,00.html 


DNA Databases Go Too Far,1283,19338,00.html

The Government Has Our Numbers,1283,13441,00.html

Fingerprint May Soon Be Needed to Buy Groceries

"Radar flashlight" lets cops spot people through walls

Microsoft is scheming to take over the world

Government has its eye on your money !

It's Time to Circle The Wagons

While the sheep are sleeping, the predators move in.


The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation


NY TIMES: Saying Income Tax Is Illegal

IRS ~ Tax Info


The truth about the United Nations!

The United Nations plans to CONFISCATE your profit and ---.

Documents Show FBI Web Surveillance

A Quick Overview of Biometrics in the Use of
Credit/Debit Card Transactions


A Quick Overview of Biometrics in the Use of
Credit/Debit Card Transactions

In today's marketplace there is a critical need for an inexpensive system that allows for fast, secure and reliable commerce when using credit/debit card transactions. Everyone in society is acutely aware of the widespread and costly problems related to the theft, forgery and fraudulent use of credit/debit cards.
Criminals currently enjoy a system and environment that affords them various benefits, making this type of criminal behaviour appealing to them. It is easy to duplicate or forge cards, steal them, misrepresent the true cardholder, break PIN # codes, etc. Criminals use cards to steal the line of credit or assets of the card but also to commit other criminal acts.

Other criminal acts may include using the card(s) to forge identification, commit acts of vandalism against or discredit the card holder, steal the cardholder's identity, collect additional private information about the card holder, use the card to secure further assets such as videotapes from movie rental outlets or cars from car rental agencies, etc. All these problems are further worsened by a low rate of conviction and minimal penalties.

Most credit/debit card holders will tell you they have some unsettling anxiety about these issues and that many will not even think about using their cards for Internet transactions. This must change and will change due to new biometric based technology applied to credit/debit cards.

Biometric technology has long been anticipated as the answer to these problems. This technology is used to accurately identify or verify identification of an individual by comparing various unique biological markers of that individual to a pre-existing database. Examples may include finger or palm print analysis, eye scans, DNA sampling, facial scans, voice verification and signature/handwriting/ideogram technology.

All of these systems work well for some applications but most have handicaps that render them unsuitable for use by the general public for secure credit/debit card transactions.

Finger or Palm Print

Finger or palm prints can be lifted, scanned or stolen from various surfaces and then duplicated.

Finger or palm prints are a static biometric marker and are thus easier to forge. Finger or palm prints can be duplicated with a mold.

A criminal who steals a credit/debit card knows they must also take the victim's finger or hand as well! Not too many members of the public would be comfortable with that prospect! It also raises questions about liability to the card supplier.
Some people with disabilities do not have fingers or hands.

This method is too intrusive. It makes people think they are being treated as criminals.

The size of the required database may be too large to be stored within the card. This invites problems with storing information on a remote database. Problems may include the information being stolen, changed or compromised by hackers, database employees or eavesdroppers. Also, the public is generally not comfortable with important information being stored remotely.

Eye Scans

Eye scans can be duplicated fairly easily because they are a static type of biometric marker.

A criminal who steals a credit/debit card knows they must also take the victim's eye with them! After a couple of these incidences, the public relations would be a nightmare.

Some people with handicaps do not have eyes to scan.

These systems may be too costly.

This method is not user friendly. Who wants to submit to an eye scan in a fancy restaurant!?

The size of the required database may be too large to be stored within the card. This invites problems with storing information on a remote database. Problems may include the information being stolen, changed or compromised by hackers, database employees or eavesdroppers. Also, the public is generally not comfortable with important information being stored remotely.


Far too costly.

Far too intrusive.

Extremely low public acceptance.

The size of the required database may be too large to be stored within the card. This invites problems with storing information on a remote database. Problems may include the information being stolen, changed or compromised by hackers, database employees or eavesdroppers. Also, the public is generally not comfortable with important information being stored remotely.

Facial Scan

Face structure can be easily duplicated (even from just photographs) because it is a static biometric marker.

Swelling, injury, weight changes, surgery, etc. can alter facial structure.

This method is not user friendly. Who wants to submit to an facial scan in a fancy restaurant!?

Low public acceptance. Many people do not like having their image taken.
The size of the required database may be too large to be stored within the card. This invites problems with storing information on a remote database. Problems may include the information being stolen, changed or compromised by hackers, database employees or eavesdroppers. Also, the public is generally not comfortable with important information being stored remotely.

Voice Recognition

Due to colds, flues, laryngitis, overuse, etc. a person's voice can change or become mute.

Some people with handicaps are mute.

Voices are very easy to record, simulate or duplicate.

Voice recognition may create a situation whereby passwords, etc. become audible to potential criminals.

Too costly.

The size of the required database may be too large to be stored within the card. This invites problems with storing information on a remote database. Problems may include the information being stolen, changed or compromised by hackers, database employees or eavesdroppers. Also, the public is generally not comfortable with important information being stored remotely.

Signature/Handwriting/Ideogram Technology

Signatures are widely accepted as a means of identity verification
4D signature/handwriting/ideogram technology is considered foolproof and impossible to forge, partially because it is a dynamic type of biometric marker, not static.

A customers 4D signature/handwriting/ideogram sample can not be artificially reproduced (molded, copied, recorded, etc.)

Low cost.


Biometric data can be stored within the card without the use of an external database, therefore the “key” always remains with the cardholder.

Signature can be a drawing or ideogram. This accommodates those who can not spell their name.

The system can consistently upgrade the signature to compensate for changes over time of an individual's signature.

Existing hardware systems can be easily upgraded to accommodate this technology.

Signature can be produced using a mouthpiece, etc. to accommodate most handicapped individuals.

This system can easily be combined with other security features.

If some way in the future someone, somewhere, somehow figures a way around the security features of this type of technology it would still be too expensive to make it worthwhile to use for criminal acts.

There are also many other positive features of signature/handwriting/ideogram technology that makes this type of system the only possible option for secure credit/debit card transactions.

APFN/Ken Vardon

6630 West Cactus Road #B107-760
Glendale, Arizona 85304

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

American Patriot Friends Network

"... a network of net workers..."

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page


Hit Counter

Last updated 12/28/2011