Date post: | 20-Feb-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | laura-lake |
View: | 257 times |
Download: | 5 times |
Crime and crime prevention
These days, although we have better
protection for our computers and we may
feel that our computer is fully guarded but
as these new defenses are being made so
are new ways to hack into computers.
Personal & social
Biometric ID systems are being used more and more every day. Some people
believe it will make everyone safer, but others think it is a waste of time and
money.
The most persuasive argument in favour of
biometric systems is that they can work, and help
identify suspects who have already been identified
as criminals or members of criminal or terrorist
networks. Scientific data can reduce inevitably
biased human observation, arguably, fingerprinting
everyone who comes through U.S. borders, or
otherwise applying the same biometric standards to
everyone, is fairer than relying on people, who use
profiles that encourage racial and ethnic
stereotyping. Also Biometric identification may
enhance privacy, because it helps safeguard our
personal information. At least one researcher,
Jennifer Carlisle, has made the case that
impersonation and identity theft will be protected if
we have a database system we can trust: "our privacy can be better protected
though the creation of a universal biometric identification database and that our
privacy is far more likely to be compromised by the current plethora of poorly
managed, decentralized identity databases." However some people believe that
biometric ID systems should not be brought in because Biometric devices violate
privacy. The argument can be made that the government does not have the right
to the information that our bodies reveal about us, and that their databases are
permeable. Moreover, once in government hands, the information can be used
for a wide variety of purposes and even be used by the private sector. Biometric
identification is not 100% foolproof, Tools malfunction as eye patterns can
change. And the implications matters. According to one analysis of biometric ID
at airports: “A false negative rate of even 1 percent could allow at least one bad
guy to board virtually any full commercial jet flight, and four or more on a jumbo
jet ….Conversely, an equally tiny 1 percent false positive rate could result in at
least one innocent person on every flight being falsely matched to someone in a
database of suspicious people.” Also biometric Id systems work by physiological
such as fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, hand and palm geometry, iris, which
has largely replaced retina, and odour/scent and behavioural such as typing
rhythm, gait, and voice.
All of these Biometric characteristics can change, especially for children. As
children grown up changes take place to both their bodies and the voices.
Fingerprints do not change however unless you are a manual worker where
fingerprints can be rubbed off, but this does not make this more safe for us.
When thieves cannot get access to secure properties, there is a chance that the
thieves will stalk and assault the property owner to gain access. If the item is
secured with a biometric device, the damage to the owner could be irreversible,
and potentially cost more than the secured property. For example, in 2005,
Malaysian car thieves cut off the finger of a Mercedes-Benz S-Class owner when
attempting to steal the car. This proves we are not making it safer for us, we are
only making it more difficult for criminals and making them take more serious
chances and more drastic measures to get what they want/need.
There was only little opposition to this idea, from few People, that said, that the
ID cards have been everywhere else, but in the UK and that the ID cards were an
“excellent Idea”. The users are scared, that the ID card takes away their freedom
and they have the ‘Big Brother effect’.
In 2008 the ‘Computer Active’ brought out an article in their Magazine, of ‘Peter
Salter’ who is still opposing to the idea that the ID card in England is a good idea.
He says in the article, that around 700 people have been falsely accused of
having a criminal record, whilst it was actually only a mistake of the database of
the Government. In his opinion every movement of the keepers of ID cards will
be recorded, like ‘starting a campaign against a mobile mast close to a school
and you will find your movements tracked and recorded’.
As can be seen in this article, the opinion in England has not changed very much
on this Subject. To make sure, that this is not a unique result I carried out
Research on this, by asking teachers from my school, that used to live in
England and do have an opinion on this, as they still go there recently. People
have very different views on Biometric ID systems. Some of our teachers from
school were asked their opinions. We asked our Chemistry teacher Maureen
Williams and her husband John Williams who also works in our school as a
maintenance worker for their opinions on the biometric ID systems. John said “I
have had one for some time and I feel that they are usual in some aspect for
identification. However, I also feel pressured into not doing anything suspicious
as the government agencies are constantly looking over us. Also we can never
be sure that our information hasn’t gone missing or that the information is being
used ethically.”
His wife, Maureen said “I am not afraid to have one, I have nothing to hide about
my life and with the amount of credit and debit cards people have already, what
is the matter with having one extra card to carry?”
We can see that they both have very different opinions about the systems, and
they both have a very strong point of view.
Another concern with Biometric systems is that it is all computerised. All
computers have glitches
Professional Lives
On the 6th November, 2001 BBC had written an article showing how much
security is lacking on wireless networks used in London's financial centre. BBC
drove from the eastern end of The Strand and continued along towards Cannon
Street with two ethical hackers and within the space of one kilometre they found
the existence of 12 networks and only four of these had turned on the encryption
system built into the wifi protocol. The other eight were wide open and could
easily be hacked. Any maliciously minded hacker could easily join the networks
and steal documents without anybody being aware that they were being hacked.
On top of that, none of the wireless networks they had found, used anything but
in-built security systems to protect against hack attacks. When you hear the word
hacker, you vision someone sitting in a dark room,
underground, with computers surrounding them, but
hacking has become so simple that people can do it while
walking or driving down a street. The two hackers that the
BBC witnessed being able to hack while driving and
picking up signals said "From an attackers point of view
you want back roads because there is less road traffic,"
said Codex, "and you might be able to park when you find
a network." Although this article talks about advanced
hacking, there are still ways for even teenagers to hack. I
have seen on YouTube, videos made about hacking. It is
so simple anybody can follow. My friend’s brother, who
has just turned 14, is able to hack onto people’s accounts
on a computer game he plays. This can show how easy it is to learn to hack and
how much security we really have over the internet. Shane Kelly, is the world’s
youngest ethical hacker at the age of 16 years. Shane started hacking at the age
of 11, and has been hacking for about five years BCS say. Although the course
says the hackers should be at least 21 years old, Shane was able to his
problems at school by turning to the computer. Shane hacks into business firms
and lets them know it to see where their weak spots are. This is the upside to
hacking as businesses can use hackers to make their security tighter.