Posted on

When Going Cashless Gets Creepy…

Cashless transactions have been a thing for a long time now. It began with the introduction of credit cards and rolled from there, but cash is still available for those who prefer to use it instead of plastic for everyday transactions. People, on the whole, like cash.

The current pandemic though has seen a surge in cashless transactions for even the most basic shopping and many businesses are either encouraging it, or just plain demanding it, along with shoppers opting for cashless because they don’t want to handle actual physical money in case it’s contaminated and they catch the virus from touching it.

Okay, I get that, but that’s where the hand sanitiser comes into it; handle money, cleanse hands. It works.

But if you were someone with a lot of money, a patent on something that will make you heaps more, and an agenda for turning the world’s population on to cryptocurrency, you’d take advantage of the current desire to pay for everything electronically and quietly feed the fear about dealing with, or handling, cold hard cash. And if your patent involves the use of cryptocurrency to your definite advantage, well, you’d promote it for all it was worth, even if it’s not really worth anything except in an online transaction where the other party also uses it. But there’s not a lot of cryptocurrency transactions going on right now, so you would have to devise a way to make virtual currency every bit as desirable as actual currency and that would be a biggie.

Unless you found the world in a situation where cash, as a potential virus carrier, is becoming less popular with the masses. Enter COVID-19.

Back on 20 June 2019, Microsoft Technology Licensing filed an application (Patent Number 060606) for a system called Cryptocurrency System Using Body Active Data, which describes a system where a device can verify whether “the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by a cryptocurrency system” and once verified, the user is awarded cryptocurrency for completing “blocks” of verified tasks and transactions which are then added to a blockchain. On 26 March 2020, the Patent (Publication Number US20200097951) for the above was published by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

So what exactly is a “Cryptocurrency System Using Body Active Data”? Well, it monitors brainwaves, body heat, heartbeat and other personal biometric data emitted from the user whenever the user performs tasks provided by an information service provider, such as viewing advertising or using specific Internet services. Whatever it is they’re doing, the data from the transaction is then placed on the blockchain, which is the verification that the task was completed. By tracking the users’ brainwaves and other body responses, Microsoft hopes to use the data generated in a blockchain system which would then allow for the creation of currency as validated in a cryptocurrency system.

Anyway, in order to access validation data, the human user would require a censor, which is either attached to, or implanted in their body. Microsoft envisages users being rewarded for allowing their body to be monitored in this way by paying them in cryptocurrency for performing specific tasks; a process known as “mining”.

Huh? Is this set to be the next step in creating a whole new workforce and paid employment system? A new global currency system? To be honest, I really hope not, because everything that everyone does will be recorded, from cryptos to voting records to medical data and so on. I do not want my whole life on record in a public blockchain. And I like real money, thank you very much! And my financials and biometric data, private.

But what, exactly, is a blockchain? Blockchain technology was the brainchild of either an individual, or possibly a group, named Satoshi Nakamoto, and is a kind of “diary” or spreadsheet containing information about various transactions which is spread over many computers, at the same time, each of which have a copy of the blockchain. All information on the blockchain is publicly available as it is a decentralised, transparent, immutable system and the information is stored on many computers around the globe. No one controls it. It was originally devised for digital currency, Bitcoin, but it has evolved into something much bigger, as the tech community has discovered other potential uses for it. Basically, as I said, it is a time-stamped series of immutable records of data managed by a cluster of computers not owned by any single entity. It’s supposed to be very safe, as users are not “identified” publicly on the blockchain, but let’s face it, any hacker worth their salt could play serious silly buggers with it if they really wanted to. Anyway, one of its uses is it can store and transfer money and can replace all the current processes and business models that rely on charging fees for transactions. Transactions on the blockchain are free and many things can be fitted with blockchain code. It cuts out the middleman. Blockchain would change the way the financial world operates and has the potential to eliminate almost every financial institution, unless they made some big changes to their operations, like eliminating fees and commissions from their business model. That sounds great, yes? Well, not really. You know what they say; if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.

I don’t know about you, but I am seeing something here that I don’t think I like. Sure, it hasn’t been implemented yet but like most things with a (possible) hidden agenda, should this technology become widely available, it will begin with being an “option” for those who want to use it, make their biometric data available and accumulate cryptocurrency for some future use. And then one day it may no longer be optional. It has the potential to be the way of the not too distant future and if cryptocurrency is set to become the new global currency, none of us may have a choice if we want to earn a living. This may be the only money we can use. But it’s what we would have to agree to and what we’d have to grant access to, in order to earn, that I don’t like.

I don’t like it at all.

 

Posted on

Bureaucrats Target the Vulnerable

They don’t give up, do they?

The Federal Government is determined to stickybeak into the lives of Australian citizens and is hoping to open the door  into their privacy via targeting welfare recipients with controversial face matching technology. The case they are putting forward is that the technology would be “helpful” for people on welfare in times of crisis, such as in the case of natural disaster as well as victims of domestic violence.  But once they have access to those on welfare, it is only a short jump to extending the system to all Australians.

The Department of Human Services has backed the introduction of a national facial recognition database to link government agencies. In a submission to the Federal Government, the Department indicated that it was “particularly interested” in using Facial Verification Services on its “vulnerable customers” for instance, those affected by disasters such as bush fires, homeless people and victims in domestic violence situations who may have lost, or be unable to access, ID documents.

The Department was referring to the “Identity Matching Services Bill 2019” which was introduced to Parliament early this year and recently rejected by a government-controlled intelligence committee, which raised concerns about the technology being used for mass surveillance. And rightly so. Prior to the availability of this technology, the Department was able to offer help to those caught up in situations where they required special assistance, so the claim they need to introduce it now in order to help people just does’t hold up.

In order to collect the facial biometric data, the database would scrape photos from drivers’ licences, from passports and from visa documents. From any document at all that has photo ID. This would then allow various government departments, as well as some private organisations, to compare images. This means those on the target list would have no say on their image being taken and it would not be long before the photos of all citizens with a drivers’ licence, passport or whatever, welfare recipient or not, would be scraped because there are those currently within the government, namely Peter Dutton, who want that back door open to provide access into the lives of all Australians and he/they will employ every lame excuse in the book to try and get this through Parliament, because once they do, they will extend it to encompass the entire population. It is unnecessarily invasive and a disgusting misuse of power.

According to the Home Affairs submission though, face biometric technology “has the potential to replace this manual process” and would also “strengthen the accuracy of identity confirmation against photo identity documents… and therefore reduce the risk of incorrect matching.” Sorry, but I’m not buying that either.

Cassandra Goldie, chief of the Australian Council of Social Services, rightly commented “No one was asked for their permission to do this. When people had their photos taken for drivers’ licences, they had no idea the images might one day be shared with Centrelink.” And that’s the thing. No one was told and whether they would grant permission, or not,  for this to happen has never come up. Dr Goldie also noted “There are serious risks that widespread use of facial recognition… could be used in future to track people’s movements.” And again, no one will be told should it ever come to that.

Seriously though, why would anyone give their permission to allow the government to potentially track their every move? But more importantly, why should the government have that option? It is completely unnecessary to have “eyes” on every person in the country and as far as “national security” goes, the various police departments already have their methods for keeping tabs on criminal suspects and other specific persons of interest. Anything outside of surveillance on those specific elements is just plain fishing, and nothing can justify that.

This technology is not about national security. It is not about helping the “vulnerable”. It is about one man’s desire to invade the lives of ordinary Australians so he can play God. Fortunately, to date, he has failed to get the votes to get it passed through Parliament.

Hopefully, he never will.

 

Posted on

When Governments want to Sticky-beak

You know, whenever a government department uses the words “more convenient”, “safer” and “more secure” in a sentence, you can be sure that it is not trying to do you a favour. These are buzz words designed to make you think they are, but the reality is they want something from you that ordinarily you might baulk at providing, so rather than say so outright, it couches the request in something that sounds like it just wants to make your life easier.

It doesn’t. What it wants is for you to pave the way for it to sticky-beak into your affairs, not because you may be up to no good, but simply because it wants to have that option and if you have handed over access without realising how far that department intends to delve into your life, you will a) never get it out again and b) have no comeback.

Biometric data (voiceprint, facial scans) is one of the worst things you can agree to give, so don’t. Right now you may be being asked by some government department or other to “volunteer” one or both of these as a “safe” and “secure” way of communicating with the department, but down the track the “voluntary” option will be removed. Either supply it or have no access unless you appear on site in person. Many may view this as inconvenient, and that’s because it will be, so many will just hand it over. It has begun here in Australia with those on social benefit payments, and while it is still a voluntary thing at this point, that will change.

People are also being asked to link their government services as well, like their health record (if they haven’t opted out of that) to their government pension or benefit etc, etc, etc. Which will then give the Home Affairs Minister, or any other government department everything they need to take a really good look at you, even though they have no valid reason to do so.

Which is what makes the plan to introduce a Counter Terrorism (temporary exclusion orders) Bill a bad idea, as it is Step 1 in pushing through legislation to allow this particular minister to sticky-beak on us. Any of us. And how would a counter terrorism bill do that? In another attempt to get the controversial Bill passed, the news has just been conveniently released that 40 jihadists have returned to Australia, it just doesn’t say when they returned and for all we know, they could have done so quite a while ago. So while the Bill, technically speaking, means those who did a midnight flit to go and fight with ISIS and the like have to cool their heels overseas while their intentions to return to Australia are assessed (which would take around two years), what, we have to ask, of the ones already here? Personally, I think if they nicked off overseas to commit atrocities under a terrorist flag, they can just stay there, but some have arrived back home and this is where the Bill has big potential to become Step 1, because the Minister is going to claim the government needs to keep tabs on them, so we need the tech that will allow him to do so on home soil and this will open the door to the government (him actually) getting access to anyone he or his department opts to deem a “threat”. Do you see where this is going now?

Other government ministers can see exactly where he’s going with it and have already guessed what he is really up to (because of that Home Security Bill he has tried to get passed) and to date have refused to support it. With luck they won’t be cajoled into voting with this one, which will grant the green light for this guy to get what he really wants; a technological back door into the lives of any one of us. Not because he needs to, but simply because he wants to be able to and once the technology is there…

Well, there will be no going back, and that’s a worry.