
EU votes to create gigantic biometrics database - donohoe
https://www.zdnet.com/article/eu-votes-to-create-gigantic-biometrics-database/
======
johnnycab
In the section for 'Schengen Border Checks', under the image of the Russian
passport, there is a picture of a scowling Gérard Depardieu[1], which is a
thinly veiled attempt at a display of mirth and disdain in equal parts, by the
Directorate General of EU Commission - Migration and Home Affairs.

Although, his body of work and extracurricular activities could provide a
further source of fodder for ridicule. However, it reveals the general message
from EU after this vote i.e. we don't care if you object and irrespective of
your views, this _project_ is going ahead [2].

[1] [https://www.securityresearch-
cou.eu/sites/default/files/02.R...](https://www.securityresearch-
cou.eu/sites/default/files/02.Rinkens.Secure%20safe%20societies_EU%20interoperability_4-3_v1.0.pdf)

[2] [https://www.gemalto.com/govt/coesys/eborder/entry-exit-
syste...](https://www.gemalto.com/govt/coesys/eborder/entry-exit-system)

~~~
christudor
"We don't care if you object and irrespective of your views, this project is
going ahead."

The EU seems to have done this for at least twenty-five years, the prime
example being their stubborn insistence on monetary union despite the
mountains of expert opinion saying that monetary union made no sense
economically.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
This misses the point.

You could also say that monetary union between the US states makes no sense
economically. The point is that the people decided to have a political union
and to belong to the same country, the USA. Monetary union follows.

The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to
monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full
well that it requires it in order to work.

It's crucial to have the economics work but economics does not control culture
and politics, it's the other way round.

~~~
franch
> The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to
> monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full
> well that it requires it in order to work.

Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a
federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared
debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on
states that currently have stronger economies in the EU:
[https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-
say...](https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-says-no-to-
euro-bonds-idUSB4N1E900N)

Actually, to be fair, every time there was a popular referendum even the EU
Constitution has been rejected by the population (it only passed later by the
parliament):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitution_referendum)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum)

~~~
winter_blue
> every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been
> rejected by the population

That it was _" rejected by the population"_ is a dishonest characterization.
Referendums in Luxembourg and Spain were successful. Elected representatives
_in 16 other EU countries_ voted in favor of the Constitution. Yes, it was
rejected by voters France and the Netherlands, and that killed the treaty,
because establishing a Constitution requires unanimous support.

So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be
inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that
requires unanimous approval, failed because of that.

This Wikipedia page shows the full picture:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#Ratification)

[1] Anytime there's a characterization in the form of "the people" (or "the
American people") it's dishonest and inaccurate, because the "people" of any
large enough group hold diverse-enough opinions that you simply cannot
characterize them with a broad brush. (Unless of course, you conduct
referendum in which the question is affirmed unanimously by everyone in the
group with a 100% quorum. Which gets quickly almost-impossible as the group's
size increases.)

~~~
franch
> So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be
> inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that
> requires unanimous approval, failed because of that.

Uhm sorry no. Read the links. It was rejected by the majority of the voters
both in France and the Netherlands.

What happened afterwards in France was to change it slightly and make it pass
by parliamentary vote instead.

About the accuracy of the term "the population", I simply mean it "by the
local rules for a nation wide referendum".

~~~
winter_blue
I meant a minority of the European people/countries. Whether you count by
population, or by the number of countries.

(a) By number of states: 18 approved it, 2 rejected it, and the rest
canceled/dropped efforts as it was effectively a failure (at that point).

(b) By population: Let's add together the populations of the 18 countries that
approved of it, and the 2 that rejected it. I'm confident the total population
of the 18 europhiles exceeds that of the 2 naysayers.

We don't know how things would have fared in the rest of the EU (that
dropped/canceled referendums or legislative votes on this), but of those 20
countries, a _majority of both people and countries_ were for the EU
Constitution.

------
ptidhomme
Yet another step to make things more straightforwardly hackable for interested
actors.

Sorry for the cynicism, but I can't help thinking that all this digitalization
and automation is just plain blessing for foreign intel agencies, if not the
main goal.

~~~
eega
I doubt that it is a goal to make it easier for foreign intel agencies to get
this data. But I also strongly doubt that they are capable of preventing it
...

~~~
garmaine
No one said it's a goal. Just reality.

~~~
lucideer
@sibling commenters

I believe the gp meant it's the goal _of foreign intel agencies_ to encourage
worldwide digitization/automation of everything (not the goal of the EU).

------
thefounder
I wonder how is this different than the US's system where even as a tourist I
have to give them my biometrics so they can store it in their big database.

~~~
rglullis
If you are foreign to the US and want to get in you need to accept their
conditions that they deem needed for your entry. Even though is a questionable
practice, you are doing something (provide biometrics) in order to get
something else (access to a foreign country)

The point here is that you are a CITIZEN of the EU, you need to subject to
conditions that give you no benefit when traveling abroad.

~~~
Someone1234
If you're a US Citizen you also need to submit in order to get re-admitted
into your country of birth, or just to gain a US Passport (after 2007).

So I'm not defending the EU, but the US is already doing exactly this.

~~~
xfitm3
I have never had to provide biometrics at the US border.

~~~
Someone1234
You haven't flown internationally since 2007?

~~~
voxic11
Not the same person, but I traveled to China in 2009 and the only biometric I
had to give was a photo for my passport.

------
lanevorockz
Wouldn't be surprised if they soon move to track everyone's DNA and we will be
living in a "Brave new World" future.

~~~
pmlnr
1984\. "Brave New World" doesn't need things like that, it's a much more
terrifying future, when everyone is happy in their little golden cage.

~~~
rusk
Is it though? My reading of Brave New World was that it was at least
consensual. I’m after reading Seveneves and I see some parrallels between
these societies. In context it really doesnt seem so much sinister as a way
for humanity to survive. 1984 was despotic.

~~~
rglullis
Today you are one of the lucky 10000:
[https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-
webc...](https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webcomic-2/)

~~~
GoblinSlayer
I don't think there was much of a difference. Effectively BNW=1984+drugs, but
because there are no such drugs, 1984 is the only implementable option,
pseudo-BNW is unsustainable, doesn't solve their problems and so is just a
detour, because they couldn't go 1984 directly due to technical problems.

~~~
jfk13
> because there are no such drugs

ISTM the advertising, entertainment and social-media industries are aiming to
fulfil much of the role of BNW's drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies can
probably cover most of the gaps.

------
zaarn
Merging existing databases into one big one might be more accurate but that's
modern journalism.

~~~
raxxorrax
Not quite. There is no database in some countries. I am not going to give the
EU biometrical data, even if that means skipping some "services".

Edit: I would also guess it is incompatible with recently introduced
legislation.

~~~
vixen99
Good luck with that! For instance "New EU regulations for transaction
authentication which go into effect next year are expected by Mastercard to
significantly increase the use of biometrics for purchases". You can be sure
that eventually no one will have a choice if they want to lead any kind of
normal life. Obligatory capturing of biometric data at many airports is just
getting going.

For the ex-USSR - the Soviet Republic, this vision of the future would have
been a dream come true.

~~~
vangelis
More like the future advertising companies want.

------
sho
Basically every first world country has this now, or is well on the way to
having it.

Just today, for a JetBlue flight in the US:
[https://twitter.com/TallGlassofStyL/status/11199746416054599...](https://twitter.com/TallGlassofStyL/status/1119974641605459972)

The question is not whether Governments should have this information - that
horse has left the barn. The question now is what they should be allowed to do
with it.

~~~
oaiey
That is exactly what the gdpr also wants to make sure: make it clear what
happens to your data. I just hope they stick to the same rules :)

------
fyoving
Yet further proof that their online legislations are not about privacy but
attacks on US companies.

~~~
pergadad
How is that even linked to US corporations?

------
rezeroed
This is too dystopian for me. I'm increasingly thinking of moving somewhere
less technological. Let the fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

------
LeonM
I see a lot of concerns here about the obvious security and privacy issues
that a database like this would create.

I share those concerns, but there is one other issue that I don't see
mentioned here.

These sorts of government IT projects are always plagued with delays and
tremendous budget overruns. It wouldn't surprise me if this takes at least 10
years and a billion euro to complete, if it isn't cancelled before that.

------
baq
NSA didn't need the vote, so I guess we're even now

------
docdeek
Why would it be limited to 350 million people - isn’t the EU around 500
million or more? Are children excluded?

~~~
AdamGibbins
> The European Parliament voted last week to interconnect a series of border-
> control, migration, and law enforcement systems into a gigantic, biometrics-
> tracking, searchable database of EU and non-EU citizens.

It is only people already known to the EU.

~~~
docdeek
Understood - but most EU states would have a national ID card which would make
them ‘known’ to their own government. Not sure if all include biometrics (I
know that the ID cards here in France are not all like that, though passports
today are) but national ID cards cover all adults and children. Just seems
weird that they would not include a couple of hundred million people that they
definitely know something about by virtue of their citizenship of an EU
country.

~~~
bkor
In Netherlands they make a copy of your fingerprint for your ID card (EU-wide)
or passport. The copy of that fingerprint is deleted after it's stored
electronically on your ID card or passport.

There's no need to store a copy of e.g. the fingerprint anywhere else. Just
sign the electronic data on the ID card/passport.

Everyone here seems to assume that having biometric data on the passport means
that there's a database somewhere, while that isn't needed.

~~~
jacquesm
> The copy of that fingerprint is deleted after it's stored electronically on
> your ID card or passport.

Do you have hard proof for that deletion step?

------
drinkcrudeoil
In CIR "S" stands for Security

------
cptviridian
Where do I opt out? As a EU citizen my rights are protected by GDPR yes?

~~~
undreren
Sort of. But there is no penalty for governments if they break the regulation.

Only companies are fined for breaking the regulation.

~~~
mimsee
Couldn’t you still get compensated for it? Assuming it went to trial and you
won.

------
return1
this is a necessary step forward if we want to create a borderless union where
you can't trust your neighbours.

~~~
raxxorrax
Underrated criticism. The EU currently isn't going in the direction of a
borderless union. 15 years ago, I would have thought that a sad development.
Currently not so sure anymore. Legislation from EU bodies has been abysmal the
last 10 years, not only relating digital spaces.

~~~
Mirioron
More than 10 years. Don't forget the Data Retention Act that required ISPs to
keep logs of every single IP you visit and collect it in a database.

~~~
raxxorrax
How could I forget. People start asking for VPN, even non-techies. I still
believe it to be illegal. But many rules were already broken...

~~~
Mirioron
It was found to be illegal. The ECJ struck it down in 2014:
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-
area-o...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-
justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-data-retention-directive)

It doesn't mean that there can't be national legislation that does something
similar "for fighting crime" though.

------
modzu
borders are legitimized racism

it's fine if my country has certain policies that are different than your
country.

BUT LET INDIVIDUALS DECIDE WHICH SIDE THEY WANT TO BE ON. NOBODY CHOSE WHERE
TO BE BORN

~~~
oaiey
I would formalize it differently. Borders are established by a society of
people who live in it. Historically, often based on racial, linguisitic or
cultural differences.

There is no right to any outsider to declare himself member of a society (just
think of your book reading club). It is the right of the society to define the
rationale for its membership.

Is it unfair to many people to live in worse conditions: yes. Does it change
anything of the above: no. Does it change the right of the society to deny
entry: no. And for the hard individual cases, there is the Human rights
declaration which for example the EU has put into law.

~~~
modzu
well first of all i think you are equating society and territory, but even so,
a society/territory is not akin to a book club. if there is only one club,
that you are born into, does that analogy still make sense?

if "outsiders" have no right to declare themselves members of a society -- by
what principle does the society earn this right?

it seems that this principle is merely the georgraphy beneath your feet when
you were born. i can think of many alternative "rationales for membership"
that are much less trivial. remember modern states were born out of
"patriotism". i think that is still what defends them. the insider/outsider
distinction is precisely the problem.

~~~
oaiey
You are right about the territory. I had a paragraph about it but deleted it
:). Territory is a tricky aspect. Over time, territory changes its value. The
Inka territory/society in Middle America were once the peak of evolution. Now
the territory/society is not that interesting anymore. Same story for the
territories we nowadays know as Egypt, Iraq or Syria. After the Oil you can
count Saudi Arabia to it. The UK was much more interesting 100 years ago.

Territory is indeed a factor. But one which is volatile as an aspect how well
a society develops on it.

And regards being born in a society: There is nothing stronger than the bound
of a family. Why we are surprised that the societies select this as a primary
membership rule. And this is universal like that in every spot of the world.

------
mothsonasloth
Cookie law, Article 13, now this.

Who are driving these motions?

~~~
r3bl
Where's the malice in the cookie law?

It's an absurd law that's a prime example of how incompetence at a regulative
level leads to a negative outcome in a specific sector. I 100% agree with
that, but I fail to see how it can be compared to your other two examples.
Cookie law doesn't affect your privacy in any way (and certainly not for the
worse), it just gives you annoyances you have to deal with.

~~~
nicky0
There is no malice in any of them.

