Fingerprint Errors

Murder, Perjury and Fingerprints

Below is an overview of where two cases where a person was convicted of murder and a police officer convicted of perjury based on fingerprint evidence provided by the Scottish Criminal Records Office – SCRO. The fingerprint evidence given was shown to be so mistaken, that no other expert outside that the SCRO agreed with the findings.

One independent fingerprint expert even stated that the error was so great it could not have been an accident but rather “shameful fabrications”. Despite this the SCRO continued to insist they were correct, and even published a memo to that effect.

This case exposed a huge flaw in the fingerprint system in the UK. This is a case where a DC, with a large amount of resources and experience at her disposal managed to expose the problems, the question of “how many more times this has happened but remained undetected?” remains unanswered.

Despite this the UK Government is continuing to push for more fingerprint systems, from biometric passports to Project Lantern, the mobile fingerprint reading devices now being deployed.

In addition to this the UK has created laws that allow the police to take and retain fingerprints of people who have not been convicted or even charged of any crime.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Hardly

Case Overview

In January 1997 Marion Ross was stabbed to death in her home in Kilmarnock, as she was a rescluse and no sign of forced entry to the house the police had few leads. The police therefore looked for anyone with connections to the victim, and discovered there had been building work at her house in 1996.

Fingerprint Evidence and Conviction

The police located one of the builders, David Asbury, at his family home in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire. David’s house was searched by DC Shirley McKie (then a Strathclyde police detective) who’d been assigned to the case. During this search the she found a tin containing bundles of cash – £1,800 in all. The tin was connected to DAvid Asbury through its location and finger prints (and his later statement that it was his). However the tin contained a print of the murder victim. Therefore linking the suspect to the victim, with a possible motive of theft for the murder, as it was believed the tin and the money were the victims. In addition to this David Asbury’s print was also found on a gift tag at the victims house. Again linking the victim and the suspect. David stated that this print must have been left there when we was working in the house. David Asbury, and his family, insited that both the tin and the money were his.

On this evidence David was convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, the fingerprint evidence did have problems. The Fingerprint of DC Shirly McKie was found at the victim’s house. Dc McKie stated, on oath, that she had never been in the house and this was an error, therefore calling the fingerprint evidence into doubt. The Scottish fingerprint service, part of the Scottish Criminal Records Office – SCRO, refused to admit this, and as such DC McKie was latter arrested and then tried for perjury and found guilty in 1998.

Fingerprint Dispute #1

DC McKie appealed the conviction using independant fingerprint experts from the US. They concluded that the fingerprint identified as being DC McKie was not in fact hers. One of these expert was Pat Wertheim. Pat is a finger print expert with 20 year’s experience, mainly in the US and has served on an FBI fingerprint think-tank. After examining the print allegedly left by DC McKie Pat stated that “It was clear to me that a mistake has been made. This was not an identification“. Because of of this and other experts refuting the SCRO evidence, the jury found Shirely innocent, unanimously in May 1999.

SCRO refuses to admit error

Following this aquittal 5 other indepent experts were asked to look at the print that the SCRO identifed as McKie’s. They, along with Pat Werthein, all agreed independtly that the identity of the fingerprint was wrong. Despite this the SCRO still refused to admit any error.

Fingerprint Dispute #2

Later on, while David Asbury was still in jail, Pat Werthiem along with Allan Bayle (a fingerprint expert at New Scotland Yard, with 24 years’ experience) re-examined the evidence that convicted David. Then both agreed that the print on the tag was Asbury’s (and David Asbury had admitted this earlier). However, both Pat and Allan agreed that the print on the tin was not that of the victim. I.e. the print that convicted David Asbury, was not what the SCRO said it was. While there was similarities between the print on the tin and the victim, it was not the victims. Alan stated “This is incompetent marking up“, referring to the identification of the print.
This meant that the SCRO had now been profoundly wrong for two prints in the same case.

When Pat Wertheim was asked if his findings were accurate he said “They are, and my career is on the line on this. And I’m not putting my career on the line on a gamble, I don’t gamble with that. I am right. My position has been confirmed by other experts from other countries all over the world. The SCRO is wrong. They have no one to support them in this. No one at all except their own internal people who are applying the whitewash to this thing”

Outcome

In May 1999 DC McVie was found innocent perjury, therefore showing that the SCRO was wrong.

In 2000 a report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary also confirmed that fingerprint evidence against DC McKie was wrong (reports are below)

In August 2000 Four fingerprint experts who gave evidence against the DC McKie were suspended.

In March 2002 the following statement by fingerprint expert Wes Sossman was published:

“I know of not a single latent print examiner who has viewed the images of the “identifications” that concurs with the “opinions” offered by the SCRO “experts” in these infamous cases…..our colleagues who are recognized as some of the world’s foremost authorities….have gone on record and clearly exposed these shameful fabrications for what they really are. ”

In August 2002 David Asbury’s conviction was quashed and he was released from jail, having spent 5 years in prison.

Report into SCRO

Second Report into SCRO

BBC Article Fingerprint Experts suspended

BBC Article – Transcript of documentary about cases

BBC Article – Transcript of documentary about Dc McKie

BBC Article – Conviction of David Asbury Quashed

Prum Convention Goes International?

The Prum Convetion is designed to allow the transfer of personal information, fingerprints, DNA, and vehicle dataacross the EU. This exchange of data holds numerous concerns for privacy groups and the ultra liberal House of Lords, who have expressed concern about several parts of the Convention.

Despite this, and the fact that the Prum Convention has yet to start in the UK, the Goverment already appears to be looking to do more of the same and exchange similar data with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canda.

As the exchange of EU passenger information with the US caused numerous legal hurdles, and was questioned by Information Comissioners around Europe, it is not apparent if the UK Goverment has even considered the legal ramifications (let alone the privacy issues) of sharing millions of fingerprints of people with the US. The UK ICO yet to comment on the latest possiblity of data exchange.

As 100,00s of people on the UK fingerprint and DNA database are innocent and have not been convicted or even charged any crime, the exchange of data with the US will cause a great concern. Due to the recent actions of the US, in particular with their use of “renditon” and “extraordinary rendition” the exchange of such data will cause concern not only for privacy and human rights groups but also those who have been arrested on peace demonstrations or the like, who  may fear they could be put on the dubious US “no fly list”, like similar people in the US, or possibly face rendition.

According to the Guardian “Senior British police officials are talking to the FBI about an international database to hunt for major criminals and terrorists. The US-initiated programme, “Server in the Sky”, would take cooperation between the police forces way beyond the current faxing of fingerprints across the Atlantic. Allies in the “war against terror” – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have formed a working group, the International Information Consortium, to plan their strategy. Biometric measurements, irises or palm prints as well as fingerprints, and other personal information are likely to be exchanged across the network. One section will feature the world’s most wanted suspects. The database could hold details of millions of criminals and suspects.

The FBI is keen for the police forces of American allies to sign up to improve international security. The Home Office yesterday confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky, as did the Metropolitan police.

This information was backed up by Austrialia’s spokeswoman for the Federal Home Affairs Minister who said that: “Australia has a strong interest in working with international partners to combat crime and terrorism. We are constantly reviewing our arrangements to ensure we have the tools to fight crime. As a member of the International Information Consortium, Australia supports ongoing information sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Equally the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are also in talks with the US to exchange information and Sgt. Deschênes of the RCMP said: “The RCMP is currently working with the FBI, through the International Information Consortium, on a concept that the FBI has proposed to share information on terrorist files called ‘Server in the Sky ”.

The Canadians are probably more skeptical than the Brits on this plan as one of their citizens was deported to Syria for torture by the FBI following information exchange from the RCMP with FBI.

The Canadian Privacy Comissions, Jennifer Stoddart stated “I am concerned at the speed at which it seems to be going ahead and I’m concerned with our relatively little experience with the use of biometric technology”

The stated aim of this exchange of data is purely for fighting terrorism (in the same way as RIPA was), and perhaps to assure people that the this is the case the FBI has included three catergories for suspects on the database.

  • Internationally recognised terrorists
  • Major Criminals and suspected terrorists
  • Those who are the subject of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links

The last catergory could clearly allow a very high volume of innocent people to be put on the database. Also, as the changes in the UK fingerprint and DNA laws show, once the system has been created both access and content will increase over time.

In fact the US are already stating that the database will include records of all wanted criminals in the US, 600, 000 in total.

Passports and Fingerprints

The biometric passport in the UK has had its ups and downs over the past decade. From the US government essentially insisting on them following 9/11, on an international basis, via the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and the US-VIST programme, through to the UK goverment attempting to push the National ID cards, despite huge opposition, until the recent shelving of plans.

In October 2004 Statewatch reported that “The Council of Justice and Home Ministers is today expected to push for fingerprints to become mandatory, in addition to facial images, for all passports and travel documents issued by EU Member States”

In October 2005 government plan was to “require fingerprints from all those applying for their first passport from [2006], with fingerprinting of those renewing existing passports to be phased in subsequently. First time applicants will have to attend one of 70 new passport offices for interview from next year, and can therefore be fingerprinted at the same time.” Reported by Pinsent Masons Outlaw

In November 2005 the price of the passports started to increase “The price of a standard UK passport is to rise by 21% to help fight fraud and boost security, the Home Office said…..The increase follows a 27% rise in the cost of a passport two years ago…The measures will also include the gradual introduction of biometric “ePassports” from February, which will include a scan of the passport holder’s facial features embedded in a chip.”

In July 2006, additional price hikes were introduced “A standard UK ten-year adult ePassport will cost £66 from 5 October {2006]”; this continued and in 2007 the Guardian reported that “The official cost of the controversial national identity card scheme has soared in the past six months by £840m, according to Home Office figures published yesterday. It means the total cost of the project is now £5.75bn.But the latest six-monthly estimate makes it clear that even this figure is far from likely to be the final bill“.

Throughout this time the UK Government continued to push for biometrics on the ePassport, including fingerprints. Despite the fact that there was no requirement under the ICAO guidelines to collect or maintain fingerprints on the passports. While the EU may be requiring the fingerprints the, there is no requirement for the UK to follow suit as UK retain an opt out from the Schengen.

Despite the soaring costs, the lack of requirement to take fingerprints, and the increased concerns about security of the data (with individuals cracking the passport security, cloning the passports, and even taking the fingerprint information off the e-passport chip), the UK government continued to push for the passports.

In 2008, the government has now  delayed the scheme until 2012, with the costs increasing again, following the publishing of the latest Identity & Passport Service cost report for the ID scheme. The report claims that the costs will reach nearly 1 billion by 2017,


Face and Fingerprints ID taken from Passports

Dutch TV programme Nieuwslicht (Newslight) is claiming that the security of the Dutch biometric passport has already been cracked. As the programme reports here, the passport was read remotely and then the security cracked using flaws built into the system, whereupon all of the biometric data could be read.

The crack is attributed to Delft smartcard security specialist Riscure, which here explains that an attack can be executed from around 10 metres and the security broken, revealing date of birth, facial image and fingerprint, in around two hours. Riscure notes that that the speed of the crack is aided by the Dutch passport numbering scheme being sequential.

Reported in the Register

ePassports and Biometrics

What are ePassports?

E-Passports look like traditional passports with the exception that they contain an RFID chip which contains data about the passport holder, including name, date of birth, address, etc .The chip can be read, at close range by scanners, which collects this information.

E-passports allow the records of who is going in and out of country to be handled more much quickly and efficiently. i.e the customs/immigration officers don’t need to write or type who is coming into the country, but rather just scan the passport. In addition to this chips can be used to contain more data – biometrics. Iris Scans, fingerprints, etc.

Despite the apparent benefits of the ePassports groups of people have complained about them. In 2005, a private individual developed a system to read, and clone the chips – therefore removing any argument of increased security of the passport. Reading and cloning the RFID chip is made possible by the lack of encryption on the data. The lack of security on the ePassport that the RFID chip also posed an issue for groups like the ” Future of Identity in the Information Society” – FIDIS – which is funded by the EU. This was reported by the BBC.

Even though the issues with the first generation security have not been resolved the UK government is pushing on with the 2nd generation epassports.

The “second generation” ePassports contain not only the the personal data that the first generation do, but also biometric information, e.g Iris scans, fingerprints, etc. The UK government gives a variety of reasons for introducing biometrics, most prominently “[To] ensure British Citizens can continue to benefit from visa-free travel to the USA”.

In short the UK’s passports design, security, and data collection, is being dictated by a foreign country.

Purpose of Fingerprinting Aslyum Seekers

Below is the reason given by the Home Office for fingerprinting Asylum seekers

The purpose of fingerprinting asylum claimants is to positively identify them and also to identify and deter multiple asylum claims at national and international level. Fingerprinting is also targeted at deterring asylum shopping’ within Europe by recording fingerprints on, and checking fingerprints against, the Eurodac tabase. The Eurodac system is a Europe wide fingerprint database which was established by community regulation supporting the Dublin II Regulation and therefore forms part of European Community Asylum law. The fingerprints of all applicants from the age of fourteen are recorded on, and checked against, the Eurodac database.

The full home office document in relation to this is available here – fingerprinting-asylum

Fingerprints for Immingrants

14 January 2008
Ten point plan for border protection and immigration reform – first milestone met as fingerprint checks go global

The global rollout of fingerprint checks on all visa applicants is complete three months ahead of schedule, and millions under budget, the Government announced today.

In a wide ranging speech to Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) staff, the Immigration Minister Liam Byrne congratulated agency officials and set out a challenging ‘deal for delivery’ in 2008, to secure the largest shake up to Britain’s border security and immigration system for 40 years.

Anyone applying for a visa from 133 countries covering three quarters of the world’s population now have their fingerprints checked against UK databases. Nearly 500 cases of identity swapping have been spotted already.

Full story on the home office site here

Police with handheld Fingerprint Scanners

Police in the UK are rolling our more and more hand held computers with ability to read fingerprints on the spot.

This technology will allow police to fingerprint members of the public on the street, effectively at random.

The Police Minister Tony McNulty has published a plan to provide 100,000 handheld computers at the cost of £50 million. Uses for the computers will include confirming identity, on-the-spot forms such as stop and search, and scanning fingerprints.

Tony McNulty Police Minister

Tony (pictured inset) voted strongly for ID cards, for the Iraq war, and against an investigation into the Iraq war. He also voted against a transparent parliament.

The technology known as LANTERN is described as:

Lantern is a mobile hand-held fingerprint device which enables police officers to check a person’s identity in an operational environment without having to return the police station. The device works by electronically scanning the subject’s index fingers and sending them wirelessly to national fingerprint database (IDENT1) to be searched. A response is then returned to the officer within two minutes. The result will either confirm that there is no match, (the person is not on IDENT1) or it will return the name and details of the person listed, including crime reference number, date of birth and gender, as well as the level of confidence in the result(high, medium or low).

Fingerprint Children

Date: May 2007

Home Office minister Liam Byrne told ITV1 television’s The Sunday Edition that the Identity and Passport Service wanted to fingerprint all children over the age of 11 and keep their particulars on a database.

The reason, he said, is because it is currently possible get a 10 year passport without biometrics while a child and still be carrying it validly at age 17, the age at which a biometric passport would be issued to someone who applied afresh for their travel permit.

He did not say that it would be necessary to fingerprint children as young as eight, perhaps because an anti-biometric campaign has been building quite steadily against the idea of fingerprinting children below the age of 10.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/05/fingerprint_kids/

Liam Byrne, pictured inset, is the Labour MP for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. In the past he voted for Liam ByrneID cards, for the Iraq war, and against any investigation into the Iraq war.