Fingerprint identification.

Re: Fingerprint identification.

[color=blue]
> how to set up the software to connect de fingerprint reader to the
> database.[/color]

Look at the software or documentation which came with your fingerprint
reader. I've had experience with bar code scanners where the scan
triggered an event which Access responded to. Maybe your fingerprint
reader works the same way.

Good luck.

Re: Fingerprint identification.

Roel,

I second Cliopia's suggestion!

Could you please share the website for your fingerprint reader.

Thanks,

Steve


"Roel Melchers" <MEDiX@KNMG.N L> wrote in message
news:bld421tctu 6nq3fhbnmurl4mt sutsid31g@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> My ACCESS-database contains all members of my association.
>
> When the members attend to a meeting I want to record their presence.
>
> When they enter they identify themselves by putting their finger on a
> fingerprint reader.
> When they leave, they do the same.
>
> But...
> how to set up the software to connect de fingerprint reader to the
> database.
>
> Tx
>
> Roel Melchers (Netherlands)[/color]

Re: Fingerprint identification.

Roel Melchers <MEDiX@KNMG.N L> wrote:
[color=blue]
>When the members attend to a meeting I want to record their presence.
>
>When they enter they identify themselves by putting their finger on a
>fingerprint reader.
>When they leave, they do the same.[/color]

FWIW I would never put my finger on a fingerprint reader unless 1) I use it on my own
systems or 2) compelled to by the police or border police.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

Re: Fingerprint identification.

So much paranioa, so little time to relish it...

<rant>
What exactly is wrong with using a fingerprint recognition system for
managing attendees to a course. I t has an amazing amount of advantages
including fire safety as you know exactly who is in the building.

Don't spout on about "privacy", there is none in this country anyway!
If he keeps your fingerprints on file then what is the problem? Unless
you are a crook, i suppose, and don't want to be spotted by anyone. But
then it is only crooks that need to be invisible.

Personally i like the idea of being able to prove who i am using
biometrics.
</rant>

******
"If it wasn't for you pesky kids, i'd have gotten away with it too..."
******

Re: Fingerprint identification.

dkintheuk wrote:[color=blue]
> Don't spout on about "privacy", there is none in this country anyway!
> If he keeps your fingerprints on file then what is the problem?[/color]
Unless[color=blue]
> you are a crook, i suppose, and don't want to be spotted by anyone.[/color]
But[color=blue]
> then it is only crooks that need to be invisible.[/color]

I disagree. What if billions of fingerprints are on file and somehow
one of the fingerprints at a major crime happens to be pretty close to
one of yours? In the U.S. it's tough to prove your innocence once they
think you might be guilty. Without your fingerprints on file this
nightmare cannot happen. I agree that there are some advantages to
being able to prove who you are.

James A. Fortune

Re: Fingerprint identification.

"dkintheuk" <rmcgregor@fire net.uk.com> wrote
[color=blue]
> What exactly is wrong with using a fingerprint recognition system for
> managing attendees to a course.[/color]

My DNA, my fingerprint, my medical information - all of it - is mine. It is
my property, mine to 'spend' as I see fit. It is valuable - isn't that what
Identity Theft is all about? - and it is precious to me. It is not
something to be taken away cheaply or lightly, when there are so many
acceptable methods of recognition that already exist.
[color=blue]
> I t has an amazing amount of advantages
> including fire safety as you know exactly who is in the building.[/color]

What is so amazing about knowing who is in the building? Won't the fireman
save me anyway? Isn't a head count all the information you really need for
the fireman - does my race, ethnicity, name, age, and SSN matter to the
fireman? Come up with a real example.
[color=blue]
> Don't spout on about "privacy", there is none in this country anyway![/color]

In the countries where freedom was so limited just 20 years ago by the
Soviet secret police, where lack of privacy walked hand-in-hand with lack of
freedom, where would they be today if they spoke so, "Don't spout on about
'freedom', there is none in this country anyway!"
[color=blue]
> If he keeps your fingerprints on file then what is the problem? Unless
> you are a crook, i suppose, and don't want to be spotted by anyone. But
> then it is only crooks that need to be invisible.[/color]

This is stated so much like the clichéd, "only criminals would want guns",
that I almost suspect it's a joke. Do you trust your government completely?
Do you not understand that governments are composed of people, and that no
Congressman, no police chief, no CIA operative, no FBI agent, nor even to
the best of my knowledge, any bureaucrat, has ever been declared a saint by
the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Who is it that you trust with all you
knowledge - your father? Your mother? How about me? It could be me, you
know, who has access to all your information.
[color=blue]
> Personally i like the idea of being able to prove who i am using
> biometrics.[/color]

This must be a joke. You didn't even sign this newsgroup posting! Such a
brave and open man (woman?)!

Now, if you had just signed into your computer and therefore the Internet
with your fingerprint ...


--
Darryl Kerkeslager


Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Knowledge is power.
See www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

Re: Fingerprint identification.

"dkintheuk" <rmcgregor@fire net.uk.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>So much paranioa, so little time to relish it...[/color]

<smile> Yup, I'm quite paranoid.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

Re: Fingerprint identification.

It's funny. I'd have thought that it would have been obvious that i'm
known as DK as my post is headed as being written by DKINTHEUK - also
hinting that i'm in the UK.

Listen - i was being a bit superfluous but the point about identify
theft is a bit wierd. If you do a fingerprint check, you just have to
check for a pulse. The point the chap in the first post was getting at
was all to do with ease of people management at a conference facility.

The fire saftey aspect is a real one. I am a volunteer fire safety
officer in the building i work in and it would be of enourmous use to
know who is still in the building when there is a fire. I for one would
not want to be ignored because a rough head count proved to be
insufficient to know that there was someone missing.

So i guess that your method for proving who you are is going be the
fact that you know your name, have a passport with your name and can
sign your name... am i missing something here, such as the enourmous
amount of identify fraud that relies on knowing those very things. I've
worked in Fraud Control in telecoms for something like 14 years and i
can tell you for a fact that identity fraud needs very simple
information to be successful. If you can think of a better way of
proving identity then you'll be a rich man.

We now just got full Chip and PIN services at our shops in the UK -
better security but someone can still know my PIN number, better still,
something that they can't steal like my fingerprint - or even better
iris print and fingerprint together...

Call me an idiot if you like but criminals are really the only ones
with something to hide... and yes I live in a country where for the
most part only criminals would want guns... so i guess i'm just lucky.

Oh by the way, the next part is my signature...

Rob McGregor

******
"If it wasn't for you pesky kids, i'd have gotten away with it too..."
******

Re: Fingerprint identification.

"dkintheuk" <rmcgregor@fire net.uk.com> wrote[color=blue]
> The fire saftey aspect is a real one. I am a volunteer fire safety
> officer in the building i work in and it would be of enourmous use to
> know who is still in the building when there is a fire. I for one would
> not want to be ignored because a rough head count proved to be
> insufficient to know that there was someone missing.[/color]

An exact head count, with ID card check, still does not require fingerprint
identification. My identifiers are my property. My fingerprints are my
property. There is no conference that I would want to go to that would be
worth that. You talk of selling you identification as if it was a bowl of
soup.
[color=blue]
> So i guess that your method for proving who you are is going be the
> fact that you know your name, have a passport with your name and can
> sign your name... am i missing something here, such as the enourmous
> amount of identify fraud that relies on knowing those very things.[/color]

I have never had a problem proving who I am. I am in scant danger of having
my physical identification stolen - I'd put it at exactly the same chance
that I have of being robbed and my wallet taken. The danger to me comes
from the thefts at ChoicePoint, or any other theft that may take place at
AOL (well, I'm actually at no risk there), or Equifax, or Experian, or my
bank, or my credit card company, etc. My one little identity, though
invaluable to me, is petty cash to theives. Placing my data in with a
million others makes it as attractive a target as a bank is to conventional
bank robbers.
[color=blue]
> I've
> worked in Fraud Control in telecoms for something like 14 years and i
> can tell you for a fact that identity fraud needs very simple
> information to be successful. If you can think of a better way of
> proving identity then you'll be a rich man.[/color]

Better than fingerprints? Oh sure, take my DNA. A swab of DNA takes just a
few seconds, and with a few more scientists and some extra funding, all of
our DNA could be categorized. Now that would be better, wouldn't it?
[color=blue]
> We now just got full Chip and PIN services at our shops in the UK -
> better security but someone can still know my PIN number, better still,
> something that they can't steal like my fingerprint - or even better
> iris print and fingerprint together...[/color]

Ugh! Sure, your point is a great and valid point that we now have the
technology to biometrically ID any and everyone. But don't you see any
potential for abuse? Any?
[color=blue]
> Call me an idiot if you like but criminals are really the only ones
> with something to hide... and yes I live in a country where for the
> most part only criminals would want guns... so i guess i'm just lucky.[/color]

And only criminals will be foxhunters, too. You see, your country has just
created a whole new criminal class, and now has a 'legitimate' purpose in
tracking the criminals, registering their prints, and entering them into the
national database.

This is the most worrisome argument. The trend here in the States is
towards criminalizing more and more offenses. Thus, more and more people
become 'petty criminals'. So every year, the government has a 'compelling
national interest' in tracking more and more people - be they DUI offenders,
fox hunters, or gays who tried to illegally marry. Remember, government
defines what a crime is, not the behavior.
[color=blue]
> Call me an idiot if you like but criminals are really the only ones
> with something to hide[/color]

I won't call you an idiot - but it seems that you failed to consider my
earlier point: governments are made up of people, and people routinely abuse
power - over their children, their spouses, their employees, and certainly
over the regular citizens who must be controlled by the bureaucracy. If you
are so willing to give up your information to a government, then you are in
fact willing to give it up to the thousands of civil servants who sill have
access to your every move, and that of your wife, and your children.


--
Darryl Kerkeslager


Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Knowledge is power.
See www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

Re: Fingerprint identification.

fair play I do admit that you have valid points however think that
there is a use for this technology and I do admit to having serious
misgivings about governments especially in the UK - anyway - enjoy
life and take care

Re: Fingerprint identification.

Just been thinking about this again...

<quote>[color=blue][color=green]
>> We now just got full Chip and PIN services at our shops in the UK -
>> better security but someone can still know my PIN number, better[/color][/color]
still,[color=blue][color=green]
>> something that they can't steal like my fingerprint - or even better[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> iris print and fingerprint together...[/color]
>
>
>Ugh! Sure, your point is a great and valid point that we now have the[/color]
[color=blue]
>technology to biometrically ID any and everyone. But don't you see[/color]
any[color=blue]
>potential for abuse? Any?[/color]
</quote>

What abuse did you have in mind... i'm interested to hear what sort of
risk you see occuring because of the misuse here. Do you mean abuse by
authorities or abuse by criminals? Just wondered.

Thanks,

Rob.

Re: Fingerprint identification.



"dkintheuk" <rmcgregor@fire net.uk.com> wrote[color=blue][color=green]
>>Ugh! Sure, your point is a great and valid point that we now have the
>>technology to biometrically ID any and everyone. But don't you see[/color]
> any[color=green]
>>potential for abuse? Any?[/color]
> </quote>
>
> What abuse did you have in mind... i'm interested to hear what sort of
> risk you see occuring because of the misuse here. Do you mean abuse by
> authorities or abuse by criminals? Just wondered.[/color]



1. It is an abuse of privacy to mandate disclosure of private information
for purposes outside the scope of the service being offered.

In the US, the Social Security Number was originated as a unique identifier
to the Social Security (paper) database.

This http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/f...r/ssnumber.htm
federal web site advises:

"Giving your number is voluntary even when you are asked for the number
directly. If requested, you should ask:
Why your number is needed;
How your number will be used;
What happens if you refuse; and
What law requires you to give your number."

Yet, it is routine for every level of government agency and any number of
private businesses, to request the number, or they will deny their service.
The reasons are legion, but often the true purposes resolve to:

1. We want a unique identifier for our database
2. If you pass a bad check, we want to be able to tell the police your
identifier
3. Experian, or Equifax, or what have you, wants it.

None of these are legitimate reasons for me to give up my private SSN, not
according to me or to the feds. Yet, in order to obtain routine services
that we all expect, I must.

You would take my fingerprint for fire safety. Unrelated and unnecessary.

My child's softball association now wants my fingerprint to check FBI
records to make sure I'm not a sex offender, despite the fact that FBI
records are routinely searched by name, race, sex, dob - all information
that is routinely public.

Nearly every store where I shop now "offers" a discount card if you fill out
a form tied to the card, with name, dob, address, etc. While one item is not
too invasive, they want it all. And while refusal seems like an easy
option, using the card saves me around $15 off a $100 grocery bill. Its
hard to pass up. Overall, of course, the groceries are no cheaper then they
were 5 years ago, its just that the businesses have found a way to coerce my
private information from me, to put to their advertising, promotional,
marketing, or demographic use.

Software companies, and web sites, are among the worst offenders. They
require you to register, ostensibly to better help you - yet I have been
required to provide in exchange for services such unnecessary details as my
race, sex, dob, address, phone number, etc. To provide me with product
recall information? Yeah, sure.

I think I could add many more examples, but then you would ask, but what's
so bad about other people getting our private information? What's so wrong
about them putting it to their own uses (aside from my luddite concepts of
private property)?



2. It is an abuse of privacy to use or disclose private information for
unauthorized purposes, even if the information was legitimately obtained.

The toll booths near me are run by a private company that builds and
operates toll roads. Some years ago, they initiated electronic passes that
allowed you to bypass the coin collection and speed through much faster. In
exchange, you pre-paid, and filed an application with personal information.
Sometime during the past year it came to light that ordinary people were
able to call the company, and sometimes obtain information on when and where
a spouse, or perhaps an employee, had gone through the toll. This was
certainly outside the knowledge or authorization for the user.

Referring to the websites and software vendors that request email addresses
for "product updates", how many of those have been sold, in bulk, to
spammers?

Is it legitimate to use my credit history, which I have voluntarily
contributed to to get a loan, for purposes such as determining employment or
insurability? Here's one description of the issue from


"Insurers use a credit score, based on information contained in your credit
repost, to assess the likelihood that you will file an insurance claim in
the future.
Auto insurance companies use this information in part to establish rates.
It may not seem fair, but insurers base several assumptions on your past
repayment history. Because these are not factual assumption (whether or not
you paid your Visa last month isn't going to make you crash next week)
insurers instead use a scoring model to determine the likelihood of a claim.
Under such a scoring model, based on historical data or all drivers,
insurance companies try to guess whether or not someone who didn't pay their
Visa will in fact crash next week. Apparently it works for them."

State legislators here are trying to prohibit this practice - because it is
an abuse of privacy.

Haven't you ever received mail from an organization, business, or person,
whom you had never dealt with, and wondered how they got your address? Did
it irritate you?

In an effort to stop unwanted telephone solicitations, I paid extra for a
non-publicized number (think about that - I have to pay to keep my
information private!). Despite this, I was deluged by solicitations - from
MCI., AT&T, and my own phone company.

Governments are not above abusing privacy in this manner, as was the case
with Florida voters denied the right to vote based on information in
unrelated (and inaccurate) databases.




3. It is an abuse of privacy to allow, through negligence, private
information to be released.

Choicepoint. AOL. There are more and more examples that I could find by
doing a little web searching, but suffice it to say that there are many,
many examples of private information being mishandled, to the detriment of
the individuals.


4. It is an abuse of privacy to aggregate private data into databases for
commercial purposes.

Here's an excerpt from this story:


"Many of these companies, such as info giants Acxiom Corp. and Equifax,
began by keeping track of such things as bankruptcies for credit-card
vendors. But many of them are now able to provide lists of people who take
Prozac for depression, believe in the Bible, gamble online, or buy sex toys.
Another outfit maintains a 700,000-name list called "the Gay America
Megafile." And ChoicePoint, has more than 250 terabytes of data on 220
million people."

Imagine your suspicion - and anger - if you found that one of your "harmless
but nosey" neighbors had been using every non-illegal means necessary to
compile information on you and your other neighbors - from birthdays and
license plate numbers to children's names and store preferences - for the
purposes of selling the data to marketers.

=============== =============== =======

I think there is more here, but I've been at this for awhile now, and I'm
Bushed. I know that there are differences in the UK on privacy, but I'm not
specific on what they are.
[color=blue]
> Do you mean abuse by
> authorities or abuse by criminals?[/color]

Yes. Because whether they act alone, or in a criminal conspiracy, or in a
corporation, or a government, they are all people. Not one abuse of
privacy, at any level, has not occurred without the willful or negligent act
of a human being, alone or in concert with other human beings.

This is a database forum - I dare say that there are more than a few in this
NG who have been asked to collect more data than was warranted by business
needs.


--
Darryl Kerkeslager

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Knowledge is power.
See www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

Re: Fingerprint identification.

Darryl,

I'll be honest I never expected such a well informed and comprehensive
arguement from you. I do understand all your complaint and worries. It
seems to me that they are mostly borne out of one particular groups
desire to use (abuse) personal information and that is the Marketeer.

I must admit that i was posting originally with an 'ideal' scenario in
mind where people followed the rules and did not disclose information
without properly authority and even then only in extremely rare
circumstances that might only include crime prevention.

In the UK we have the Data Protection Act (and I know there is a
similar law in the US) that is supposed to protect information. In fact
it is abused by nearly every company I have ever worked with. There is
always the post room boy who knows how to get customer details out of
the system and pass them to a friend. Indeed, the IRA, to name one
group, have used insiders to obtain phone records, car details and
similar information to be able to target their enemies.

So here is a good question to carry this on (if you want)...

What is the solution to prevent abuse? There are going to be useful
data collection regimes but many none essential ones. Such as your
example of the highly personal details to get a discount card for your
local grocery store.

Do we have to have rules with teeth? Policing that is more geared to
detecting misuse of personal data? Enforced registration of data
collection with high penalties (including prison sentences)?

Or do we stop developing these collection mechanisms and outlaw them? I
don't think that's a good (or even possible) idea.

This group is a good place to obtain input from database developers as
to the way they would like controls implemented that are supportive
without being destructive to good business and also provide protection
to the consumer without making it impossible to make any transaction
happen...

Any other thoughts out there?

Rob.

P.S. I'm considering having my fingerprints lasered off and then have
someone make up cartoon images to put on the tips of my fingers
instead!!! (I do know that this won't work by thte way)

Re: Fingerprint identification.

"dkintheuk" <rmcgregor@fire net.uk.com> wrote[color=blue]
> I'll be honest I never expected such a well informed and comprehensive
> arguement from you.[/color]

I hope that this was an accidental slight ... "from you"?
[color=blue]
> seems to me that they are mostly borne out of one particular groups
> desire to use (abuse) personal information and that is the Marketeer.[/color]

No. No. No. The problem is people, not the particulr role that they are
in. That same person may within a year be marketer, beuracrat, husband,
criminal, politician, employee, employer, ...
Each and every time privacy is abused, it is the results of decisions by
people.
[color=blue]
> I must admit that i was posting originally with an 'ideal' scenario in
> mind where people followed the rules and did not disclose information
> without properly authority and even then only in extremely rare
> circumstances that might only include crime prevention.[/color]

You cannot prevent crime by committing crimes.
[color=blue]
> In the UK we have the Data Protection Act (and I know there is a
> similar law in the US) that is supposed to protect information. In fact
> it is abused by nearly every company I have ever worked with. There is
> always the post room boy who knows how to get customer details out of
> the system and pass them to a friend. Indeed, the IRA, to name one
> group, have used insiders to obtain phone records, car details and
> similar information to be able to target their enemies.[/color]

So experience in fact tells you that the problem is not policies, not
procedures, but people. When you give people access to too much power, they
will be too tempted to abuse it.
[color=blue]
> What is the solution to prevent abuse?[/color]

As you are no doubt well aware, the temptation to collect, maintain, and put
data to productive use is immense - in fact, it commendable, and it would be
unconscionable not to - to not maintain databases that can track diseases,
track down child molesters, pinpoint terrorists (okay, that one's a laugh),
solve crimes, control illegal drugs. Even cheaper groceries, although its
all a clever shell game, still would be hard to argue against. As a
database programmer (tiny little one), I create benefits for the entire
organization, and as an end-user of my own product, I reap the benefits. I
shudder to think of the possibilities of work without my database, and I
would suffer just as much as everyone else without the huge databases
maintained by credit card companies, banks, and the government.

There is, of course, no way to prevent abuse. However, I would propose that
there are four principles that could help to ensure privacy:


1. Database transparency, or privacy goes both ways.

A. Any database that I appear in as a member should allow me to see my
record free of charge, at any time, with only the narrowest of exceptions
for national defense, ongoing criminal investigations, or endangerment to
the lives of others. The typical cry about 'trade secrets' would not apply,
since we are only talking about records on people, not other data. Some
agencies, such as credit reporting agencies, have been forced to adhere to
this to a small extent, but that's about it.

B. Any database that I appear in should provide means for me to correct
errors. Again, credit card agencies here have been ordered to be somewhat
responsive to this, but I know of no other agencies who have the same
charge.

C. The structure of every database, including fields, should be
discoverable, to prevent data hiding. This will "go over like a lead
balloon", but so what. Nobody complained much when Microsoft had to reveal
its OS code.


2. The Right of Privacy must be recognized by law.

In this country, the US Constitution is supreme. Being American, I know
nothing of other people's laws (that's a joke), but here, if we want a
freedom really protected, we put it in the Constitution. Until Privacy is
defined and enshrined in the Constitution, Privacy is a second-class right,
which can be suspended every time a city councilman wants.


3. Private data must be given the same standing as corporate trade secrets.

A. Certain data about me is public. Most is not. This essential
distinction must be recognized. My mother's maiden name, a key to many
credit card databases, is NOT public data, even though it is publicly
obtainable (with effort). Thankfully, most (all?) US States recognize that
license plate numbers are not "public record."

B. My private data is mine to own, and control, and should have the same
legal standing as my photograph

This interesting excerpt is from an explanation of photography rights:

"The basic presumption underlining right to privacy laws is the protection
of an individual from the disclosure of private facts. The general
principles are that one who publicizes a matter concerning the private life
of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if the matter
publicized is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. The right of
publicity provides that an individual has the right to control the
commercial use of their name, likeness or identity. While the right of
privacy protects an individual from the disclosure of embarrassing facts,
the right of publicity protects the individual from financial loss from an
unauthorized commercial use of their name or likeness. As a general rule the
right of privacy will only apply to a living person while the right of
publicity may also apply to a deceased person."

Now, the thrust of this is publication, but I would contented that the same
information is private, whether it is published or stored. This sentence,
"The right of publicity provides that an individual has the right to control
the commercial use of their name, likeness or identity.", indicates some
legal foundation for control of my own data in commercial uses.


C. Aggregating data can change it from public to private.

The FBI maintains a criminal records database. The information entered into
this database was publicly obtainable from court documents. Aggregating
those records into one record on an individual creates an electronic
database that is not public record, *because of its potential for abuse*.
So, while individual fields may be public, the aggregation is not. This is
established federal law, but does not yet apply to data maintained by
private sources.



Darryl Kerkeslager

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Knowledge is power.
See www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927