Issuu on Google+

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.â€? 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.


Crime and Crime Prevention