Author Topic: Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan, total electronic enslavement  (Read 12348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stangrof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,402
canning prisoners’ irises  is just Step 1. In Afghanistan, local and NATO forces are amassing biometric dossiers on hundreds of thousands of cops, crooks, soldiers, insurgents and ordinary citizens. And now, with NATO’s backing, the Kabul government is putting together a plan to issue biometrically backed identification cards to 1.65 million Afghans by next May.

Read More
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Oscar Wild
twitter :

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Well it worked in China and India, now they have to make sure their "forced" ID plans work, than they will move up to the Mark.

Ye Must Be Born Again!

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan, total electronic enslavement
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2010, 09:33:35 am »
Afghanistan, Israel, UK, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, US, Australia, China....

Seems like this one of the main reasons for war...

To see what technology can be used to enslave and depopulate humanity...

Carbon Credit Ponzi Failed, Cybernetics not ready...SURVEILLANCE ECONOMY EXPOSED

See:  PA Terror List EXPOSED: ADL/Israeli Firm contracted to target peace activists

Working Paper III:



by Neve Gordon*
April 28, 2009

•   Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel, [email protected]

Introduction: Experiencing Horror

“No other advanced technology country has such a large proportion of citizens with real time experience in the army, security and police forces,” reads a glossy government brochure entitled Israel Homeland Security: Opportunities for Industrial Cooperation.1 In the brochure’s chapter called “Learning from Israel’s Experience” one reads that, “Many of these professionals continue to work as international consultants and experts after leaving the Israel Defense Forces, police or other defense and security organizations. Typically, these former officers, who also include scientists and engineers, not only have hands-on experience and know-how of traditional security activities, they are also familiar with the broad range of high-tech technologies and equipment, which are available to enhance safety and make security systems more efficient and effective.”2

The Israeli experience, in other words, is considered to be integral to Israel’s homeland security, one that provides it with a comparative advantage as it competes in the global markets. Indeed, experience is a pervasive trope in the brochures and websites marketing Israeli homeland security products and services.  Nonetheless, the Israeli experience is deployed in an interesting way, a way that is rarely discussed in the “experience economy” literature.3 “Experience economy” routinely refers to the phenomenon of people purchasing experiences from fitness clubs, touring agencies, theaters, concert halls, and the like, where these businesses promise to engender memorable events for their customers.

It is the experience itself as well as the subsequent memory of the experience that are being sold.4 Joseph Pine and James Gilmore mention the Disney World experience as a paradigmatic example, and Martin Jay discusses the fear we feel when watching horror films or the thrill we get from an amusement park ride. “We experience these emotions second hand,” Jay says, “knowing that we are safe even as we scream. In the horror movie, for example, we self-consciously watch a virtual horror and can hide our eyes while we sit in our seats rather than run away.”5 Thus, the “experience economy” tends to denote both real and virtual experiences created by businesses, which people pay to undergo for a certain period of time.

The “experience economy” of the Israeli homeland security industry seems to be quite different since it introduces the process of packaging and selling Israel’s own lived experience to someone else. Israel’s homeland security industry, in other words, sells its products and services by maintaining that Israel has experienced the horror—not virtually, but first hand—and consequently both knows how to deal with such horror and has developed the appropriate instruments to do so. The rationale is, no doubt, similar to the one used when selling expertise, but it is also distinct in that the homeland security expertise is a product of an “Israeli experience” that is, at least ostensibly, the result of political circumstances not governed by those who undergo the experience – not unlike the experience of the protagonist in a horror film who finds him or herself in an unwelcome situation. The expert is a product of controlled training, while the Israeli experience with suicide bombers developed as a result of many years of confrontation with the unpredictable. In the parlance of Israel Livnat, the president of a leading homeland security company called Elta Systems, “Israel has been meeting the challenge of terror for decades before 9/11, and in those years of hands-on, real-time experience in overcoming terror lies our country’s first competitive advantage.”6

In this report, I argue that the “Israeli experience,” in its various manifestations, has played a pivotal role in the formation of Israel’s homeland security industry and helps explain the industry’s subsequent transformation into a global success story. But before examining how the Israeli experience has operated, I begin with a historical overview. In Chapter One, I describe the Israeli homeland security and surveillance industry, and situate it within the Israeli economy. I also briefly contextualize it within the global security industry. In Chapter Two, I discuss the historical processes leading to the emergence of the homeland security sector in Israel, focusing on the Israeli military, the military industry and the high-tech industry.

Finally, in the Third Chapter I explain Israel’s comparative advantage, showing how the success of this industry is intimately tied to different kinds of Israeli experiences that have been created by the security forces and military industry. An analysis of the political economy of Israel’s homeland security industry accordingly reveals that there is an economic motivation to produce and reproduce the so-called security related experiences and to diversify them. By way of conclusion, I claim that the Israeli experience is perceived as extremely valuable and attractive because it manages to connect between a hyper-militaristic existence, a neoliberal economic agenda, and democracy.

Chapter One: Israel as a Homeland Security/Surveillance Capital

In preparation for the 2008 Beijing Olympics several Israeli companies received contracts to help provide security during the games. Nice Systems was selected to upgrade the security network in 20 subway stations in Beijing.  A company press release noted that Nice will connect the subway stations to a security system, which “will be monitored from the station monitoring room and from the central command and control center, giving security personnel the power to identify risk, make optimal decisions, and take action that improves security. Nice’s advanced real-time distributed digital video solution will spot suspicious packages left behind on a crowded subway platform and automatically alert security personnel. The solution will also be utilized to automatically detect unauthorized entry into secured areas. The result is a better control of potential threats and enhanced commuter safety.”7

DDS was awarded the contract to supervise access control in ten Olympic facilities. Since its foundation in 1986, DDS has installed over 45,000 systems in 40 countries. Its clients include major international firms such as Airbus Industries, Lucent, Motorola, Intel, Nokia, City Bank and Oxford University.  In Beijing, DDS installed its one-card-solution managing system (smart cards) in 2000 doors. Among the ten sites it was responsible for is the residential area of the Olympic Village which accommodated 15,000 athletes in 42 buildings. In this site alone there are 700 doors and 190 elevators that need to be supervised as well as a clinic, restaurants, a library, a recreation center and sports facilities. Another site is the Media Center, which will function as the technology support and communication center of the games, and will provide services for an estimated 20,000 journalists, all of whom will use DDS solutions to access 200 doors.8

ClickSoftware Technologies, which has headquarters in Israel and Massachusetts, and offices in Europe and Asia Pacific, was also contracted by the Chinese government; its responsibility was to manage the field activities of hundreds of telecommunication technicians during the Olympics. The company provides mobile workforce management and service optimization software, and has over 100 customers across a variety of industries and geographies. In Beijing, its software was used to optimize the scheduling operations of several hundred technicians responsible for break/fix, installation and maintenance work. The activities of these technicians were centrally managed from the Olympic Games telecommunications control center.9

The fact that Israeli companies were chosen to supply such services is not only a reflection of Israel’s military relations with China but also of the visibility of Israeli security firms in the global arena.10 Already in the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, fifteen Israeli companies were involved in a $200 million project that included venue protection, command and control rooms, maritime and airport security, urban security, crowd control, preparation of law-enforcement units, access control, and communications. The Olympics, moreover, are merely one of many international venues that Israeli homeland security and surveillance companies are routinely involved in.11 Others include professional fairs, financial institutions, airports, nuclear plants and borders. Israeli high-tech companies specialize in site protection, command and control rooms, maritime and airport security, urban security, crowd control, preparation of law-enforcement units, access control, and communications.

They are among the pioneers of biometric technologies for ID verification, radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies, computer security and electro-optical night vision systems. Their customers include governments, police and security agencies, banks and commercial corporations, airlines, oil, energy and utility companies as well as private consumers in well over one hundred countries.12 Nice, for example, currently boasts over 24,000 customers in 100 countries, with 85 of the Fortune 100 companies on its list. American Express, JP Morgan and Federal Express are among its clients, as are an array of Police Departments, the Federal Aviation Authority in the United States and the European Space Agency. In 2007, the company’s revenues reached $519 million, well above the $418 million revenues of 2006.13  All incoming telephone calls to the Los Angeles and New York City police departments are recorded on Nice technology, as are roughly 90 percent of the transactions at brokerage firms worldwide. Israel, in other words, has successfully positioned itself as a global homeland security capital.

It is important to underscore at this point that I conceive homeland security and surveillance not merely and perhaps even primarily as guaranteeing security against terrorism or criminal offences. The exponential global growth of this industry should be considered as a manifestation of the evolvement of surveillance societies, whereby surveillance, in Lyon’s words, “has spilled out of its old nation-state containers to become a feature of everyday life, at work, at home, at play, on the move. So far from the single all-seeing eye of Big Brother, myriad agencies now trace and track mundane activities for a plethora of purposes. Abstract data, now including video, biometric, and genetic as well as computerized administrative files, are manipulated to produce profiles and risk categories in a liquid, networked system. The point is to plan, predict, and
prevent by classifying and assessing those profiles and risks.”14

Two points should be stressed here. First, one should be cautious about concluding that surveillance societies are constituted by the new security industry and its innovations. The notion of surveillance society does not refer to technological improvements, but rather as Lyon argues to the idea that a “certain kind of watching, both literal and (more often) figurative, have become the preferred means of maintaining – indeed creating – social order.”15 Second, although the declared objective of the security industry is to sell safety by taming different kinds of risks, the products and services it offers also fulfill a less obvious (and some might say more pernicious) role. The industry’s overall objective is to help governments and businesses conduct their operations more efficiently and cost-effectively by using new and ever more sophisticated surveillance and authentication technologies in order to advance what Lyon has called “social sorting.”16

Social sorting refers to a variety of surveillance practices that both create various databases and have access to others – public services, police, intelligence, business, consumers – in order to categorize people for different treatment. Codes, usually processed by computers, Lyon explains, “sort out transactions, interactions, visits, calls, and other activities; they are the invisible doors that permit access to or exclude from participation in a multitude of events, experiences and processes.”17 Thus, both homeland security and surveillance are being extensively deployed not only to monitor – an array of activities ranging from terrorist suspects to critical infrastructure sites, gated communities, hospital and schools, and consumer behaviour – but as a prime instrument of social sorting that discriminates between one person and another on the basis of a computer profile or data image.18 So while homeland security and surveillance are deployed (often without the person’s knowledge) to catch criminals and terrorists, the very same technologies are also used, for example, to identify suitable customers for specific products.

The notion of “taming risks,” mentioned above, should accordingly be considered not only in the security sense of the term, but in a much broader sense that includes the financial risks of the corporation and the like.  The point is that the global security industry as well as the Israeli one actually produce the products and provide the services that facilitate social sorting in its broadest sense, but they tend to present themselves merely as a supplier of safety in its circumscribed anti- terrorist/criminal security sense.

Before examining how Israel managed to secure such a prominent place in this global market, it is first important to map out this industry, while paying special attention to its foremost component, surveillance.

1.1   The Size of Israel’s Homeland Security/Surveillance Industry

Israel’s homeland security industry, which is currently featured on the homepage of numerous government websites, is part of what Barrie Stevens defines as the global security industry, an “aggregation of hundreds of thousands of businesses and individuals whose aim is to sell safety from malevolent acts threatening life, property and other assets, and information. The products and services generated range from fire and burglar alarms, locks and safes, through electronic access control and biometrics, electronic article surveillance and security consulting, to armored car services, guard equipment and security fencing.”19 The market for this industry is estimated to have reached $150 billion in 2007, and is predicted to grow substantially over the next decade.20 Its remarkable expansion is firmly tied to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the ensuing war on terror, and, as the above citation from Livnat intimates, the Israeli companies have capitalized on these developments.

But the growth of this industry is also intricately linked to global political, social, economic, and cultural processes. On the one hand, it is tied to the increasing movement of people, goods and services across political borders, and the ongoing attempt of different government agencies and businesses to find ways of decreasing the risk of smuggling, theft, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, illegal entry, disruption to global supply networks, and so on.21 These processes call for the introduction of more sophisticated forms of social management and control, some of which are unrelated to the transnational movement of people and goods. On the other hand, there is a growing perception that governments alone are incapable of adequately addressing the risks, which has led to the rise of private security contractors and to the development of new technologies whose objective is to offer protection.22

Israel’s homeland security industry is characterized by a decentralized and diffused production process. Its major component, as mentioned, is surveillance, by which I mean, following David Lyon, the production of goods, services, technologies and mechanisms that facilitate “the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction.”23  By surveillance industry, I mean an industry that manufactures products, provides services, and carries out R&D directly related to the surveillance of behavior of individual subjects, social trends and classifications, as well as biological, ecological and environmental processes. Here I examine only the surveillance industry which is part of Israel’s homeland security industry, while refraining from touching upon industrial developments relating to medical supervision or environmental monitoring. At least with respect to medical supervision, Israel has made considerable headway as well.

Israel’s homeland security and surveillance industries are not considered a distinct sector according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics (which is tied to an international coding system), and therefore it is difficult to obtain precise data about these industries. An indication of the size of these industries can be deduced from a website that advertises jobs in Israel. One sector is entitled “Security, Safety, Defense” and lists 334 homeland security companies looking for employees, the vast majority of which are surveillance companies.24 More importantly, the Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute (IEICI), a government funded organization that facilitates trade opportunities, joint ventures, and strategic alliances between international businesses and Israeli companies, divides Israel’s export industries into different categories than those used by the Central Bureau of Statistics and includes homeland security as a sector.

This in itself is interesting since the categories used by IEICI are more flexible and dynamic and reflect existing market trends rather than the all too static categories determined by the different bureaus of statistics around the world. Also interesting to note is that similar trade institutes in Ireland, Taiwan and India – countries that have also enjoyed a high-tech boom similar to Israel’s – do not consider homeland security as a separate sector within the high-tech industry, thus intimating that at least in this sense the Israeli case is unique.25

IEICI offers a glimpse into Israel’s homeland security/surveillance industry, both in terms of the number of companies that deal directly with surveillance and the vast variety of surveillance products and services which these companies offer.  On its website, which can be accessed in Hebrew, English, Arabic and Chinese, Israel’s exports industries are divided into 18 general categories. One category is defined as Security and Safety (subtitled Security and Homeland Security Industry) and includes a total of 18 sub-categories almost all of which are tied to surveillance. They include Access Control, Biometrics, C4I, Consulting Training and Services, Intrusion Detection, Observation and UAVs, Perimeter Security, Sensors Detection and Screening, Tracking and Motion Detection, and Video Surveillance. According to IEICI the Security and Homeland Security (HLS) industry includes over 600 companies employing about 25,000 people, while over 300 of these companies export products and services.26

An IEICI brochure, which provides a general overview of this industrial sector, explains that, The events of September 11, 2001 changed the global perspective on terrorism. Countries around the world are now searching for tools to combat the threat of terrorism, and many of these technologies can be supplied by Israel’s security and HLS industry.  Hundreds of Israeli companies offer sophisticated security solutions ranging from automated speech recognition systems and remote sensors, to video image location and identification,  early warning devices and advanced tactical imaging systems.27

The brochure goes on to note that “Israeli security and HLS companies are successfully partnering with key world players to ensure public safety, protect airports, seaports, government offices, financial institutions, recreational centers, and more.”28 The fact that these companies provide services to financial institutions, recreational centers as well as other civilian facilities underscores that the HLS has gone a long way in undermining the distinction between the military and civilian spheres. Indeed, non-military related exports from Israel’s HLS industry, which include products to schools, banks, shopping malls, and hospitals, amounted to about $3 billion, $1 billion for security products (for civilian use) and another $2 billion for Information Technologies (IT).29 This is one of the ways in which the HLS industry and within it the surveillance industry is very different from the more traditional military industry (more about this below), since the latter continues to cater primarily to military and security institutions.

But the Security and Safety category is not the only one on IEICI’s list that deals with homeland security and surveillance. Another seemingly unrelated category called Automotive and Subcontracting includes the sub-category Innovative Technologies, Driver Assistance and Security Systems. Under this sub category one finds companies like Cellocator that produce automotive vehicle location equipment and E-Drive Technology, which allows “fleet managers to monitor practically all driving activities and serviceability of their vehicles.”30 The list of companies providing similar car surveillance mechanisms goes on and on.

Then there is the Aviation and Aerospace category, which lists companies that manufacture numerous kinds of unmanned aerial surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition products as well as border and coastal surveillance equipment. Israel is one of the leading producers of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are currently used mostly for military surveillance, but which, according to Rand Corporation, could be deployed in the near future to monitor resources such as forest and farm lands, wetlands, dams, reservoirs, wildlife (e.g., in nature reserves) or traffic.31 According to (incomplete) data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), of all UAV systems transferred internationally between 2001 and 2005, 68 percent were Israeli-supplied.

With the US’s Predator and Pioneer models both based on Israeli designs, and IAI and Elbit cornering most of the remainder of the export market, UAV transfers overwhelmingly involve Israeli-designed systems.32 Under the Aviation and Aerospace category one also finds companies that manufacture products such as surveillance pods and aerostat balloons that boast user friendly 360 degree observation coverage, 24-hour unmanned aerial surveillance capability, quick deployment, and low maintenance and operation costs. 33

In addition, the sub category of Airport Equipment and Services lists companies that export perimeter intrusion and detection systems, all of which are part of the surveillance industry.  In a government brochure called “Securing the Skies” one reads that “it is highly unlikely that a 9/11- style attack could be perpetrated against Israel.” This, the brochure explains, is due to Israeli experience in fighting terrorists and the ability to develop strategies and technologies to deal with terrorist threats. Nice Systems, for instance, developed products that broadcast video signals to ground control centers during the flight as well as video recorders installed in airplanes enabling pilots to continually monitor events in the passenger cabin.34

Even before the plane takes off a comprehensive screening of passengers and their baggage has for many years been routine practice in Israel. A government brochure notes that an “important aspect of passenger screening is passenger profiling, so that security staff can devote more time to those travelers who arouse greater suspicions.” The brochure goes on to maintain that the “large numbers of civilian staff working at the airport must be carefully vetted, prior to being hired and monitored on a regular basis. It is especially important to thoroughly scrutinize maintenance, cleaning and catering professionals, who regularly board the aircraft between flights.”35 In terms of passenger baggage, the security staff can then use software developed by A-EYE Advanced Vision Technologies whose applications include more efficient operation of x-ray security scanning systems for detecting concealed weapons and explosives, or the systems developed by SpaceLogic to ensure more efficient and secure baggage handling at airports. Israel has also developed strategies and technologies for securing the airport itself, which include perimeter fencing integrated with comprehensive command and control systems, alarms, and sensors as well as trained manpower to handle any threat.36

It is therefore not surprising that following an international meeting on homeland security which convened in Jerusalem, US Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, signed an agreement with Israel to share technology and information on methods to improve homeland security.37  He announced that he would like to adopt some of Ben Gurion airport’s security measures - like behavior detection screening, which is considered the cornerstone of the airport’s security.38 In addition to training “behavioral detection officers,” the US Transportation Security Administration is examining the Israeli pioneered technology produced by MagShoe, which is designed to detect concealed weapons in shoes and around ankles.39 The product has already been sold to “one of the world’s largest commercial cruise lines, which will use MagShoe on its ships to significantly reduce passenger waiting lines while improving security – especially in high-pressure situations like re-boarding from a port of call in time for departure.”40 These examples provide yet another glimpse into the global standing Israeli enjoys when it comes to homeland and surveillance.

Finally, IEICI website includes Software as a category, which has a sub-category of IT security that includes 104 companies of which 24 deal with surveillance and administration, four with digital signatures, four with biometrics, eight with tokens and smart cards, five with workstation security and surveillance, and 33 with enterprise perimeters. Just like the Software category, Electronics and Telecommunications also include companies that develop products and services for surveillance.

Another source of information about Israel’s homeland security and surveillance industries is the Israeli High-tech Knowledge Portal, produced by D&A Visual Insights, a business information company that specializes in creating visualization platforms of data collected from industries. One of its clients is the Israeli government, for which it provides an overview of Israel’s high- tech industry. D&A has a database of 1,967 Israeli high-tech companies that is divided into seven categories, of which Homeland Security is one (see Figure 1). Homeland security includes 416 companies or 21 percent of the high-tech sector and is the second largest group after Telecommunications. Under homeland security one finds numerous sub-categories, such as access (17), authentication (40), command and control (74), commodity (28), emergency services (46), IT security and software (11), perimeter (77), protective solutions (5), service providers (78), system integrators (30), and UAV’S (10). The authentication category includes, in turn, its own sub-categories of biometrics (19), smart cards (7), digital signatures (4) and anti- forgery and forgery detection (10). 41 What becomes clear from reading the list and examining the company profiles is that surveillance is by far the most important component of the HLS industry.

Figure 1: Israel Homeland Security

1.2   The Industry’s Revenues

In this study, I examined 312 companies that were listed in the 2007 IEICI database as those making up Israel’s export oriented homeland security industry. Of these, I found 237 companies (amounting to over 75 percent of the total) that focus on some kind of surveillance (a full list of these companies and their websites is in Appendix 1). Of the surveillance companies, only twelve do not have any high-tech component. These include companies like K-9 Solutions, a company that provides “the most comprehensive and professional canine [dog] security available” and the Mifram Group that builds observation towers.42 The remaining 225 companies either develop and manufacture high-tech surveillance products or provide services that use sophisticated technologies. Twenty-one of them, comprising almost 10 percent, are traded on NASDAQ.

The amount of revenues generated from Israel’s surveillance industry is unclear, and beside the unaccounted for $3 billion round figure provided by IEICI only rough estimates can be produced based on data from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. First, many of the companies making up the surveillance industry are part of what the Central Bureau of Statistics, following internationally recognized definitions, calls Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), which is made up, in turn, of two major components: service industries and manufacturing industries. The service industries include start-up companies, computer and related services and R&D, and telecommunication services. The manufacturing industries include industrial equipment for control and supervision, electronic communication equipment, and electronic components.43

In 2006, Israeli ICT exports comprised 30 percent of all of Israel’s exports (excluding diamonds), 44 amounting to $15.67 billion, with $8.66 billion coming directly from manufacturing and $7.01 from services.45 Although not all ICT services and products are directly related to surveillance technologies, certain sub-sectors that appear under ICT like “equipment for control and supervision,” include systems for security control, equipment for control towers, and a variety of other products and services that are almost all directly related to surveillance. In 2006, exports from this sub-sector amounted to $2.3 billion, 17.8 percent more than in 2005.46

Exports of telecommunications, sounds recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment, many of which are also part of the surveillance industry, amounted to $3.58 billion in 2006.47  These numbers help us gain a sense of the size of Israel’s surveillance industry, and yet it is important to emphasize that the data is vague both because we do not know exactly how much of ICT is actually surveillance related and also because surveillance includes companies that are not part of this sector. We can safely assume, though, that the high esteem that Israel’s surveillance industry enjoys translates directly into economic profit.

In this context it is important to note that the 237 surveillance companies which I examined do not include companies that produce such technologies—like InfiniBand and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing—which serve as the basis for many surveillance solutions (as well as for a variety of other uses).48 Eighteen of these companies are traded on NASDAQ, from a total of 67 Israeli companies and some of them have done particularly well in the past years.49

For example, the 2007 Touche “Fast 500” survey of the fastest-growing firms in the technology, media and telecommunications industries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, ranked three Israeli firms that produce precisely this kind of technology at the very top of the pyramid: Voltaire, Celltick and Runcom. Voltaire develops software and switching network infrastructure products based on grid and InfiniBand technologies for storage and server systems. It recorded a 50,612 percent growth in sales from 2002 to 2006, with sales increasing from $60,000 to $3 billion over a period of five years. Celltick has developed a product called “livescreen media” which allows one to broadcast targeted content and marketing messages to millions of mobile idle screens, while Runcom has introduced new wireless technology that allows for improved digital video broadcasting.50 The growth of these two companies during the same five year period was 29,627 and 27,950 percent, respectively. Of the 45 Israeli companies featured on the “Fast 500” list, only two deal directly with surveillance (Ness and Audiocodes), but many produce technologies that have the capacity to substantially improve surveillance capabilities.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to determine this industry’s precise revenues, it seems tenable to assume that Israel’s homeland Security/Surveillance industry is comparable and has perhaps even surpassed the revenues of Israel’s well-known military industry, whose exports in 2006 amounted to $5 billion and constituted about 10 percent of the global arms sales.51

1.3   The Industry’s Structure

Optisec, one of Israel’s smaller biometric companies (it employs seven people), provides a glimpse into the makeup and structure of Israel’s surveillance industry. One reads on its website that “one of the major problems facing management today is stolen work hours.” The website explains that in the time and attendance market this phenomenon is known as “buddy punching” where one employee swipes two smart cards; first his own card, then the card of a friend who is not at work or late returning to work. According to the American Payroll Association, buddy punching has become an accepted practice and is costing companies 2-7 percent of the payroll, while Business Solution Magazine states that “Employee time theft costs resulting from buddy punching, early or late arrivals are estimated to be $98 billion a year in the United States alone.” Optisec concludes that there is only one technology that is capable of eliminating the high cost of buddy punching: Biometrics.52

Optisec is a software company that is using biometric know-how mainly for work-force management. Its most important product is software that processes the data from a hand- geometry reader, which uses an infrared light source, much the same as the light used in a typical television remote control, along with a camera chip. People place their hand on the hand-key’s reflective surface and when the hand is positioned correctly, the camera records an image which both enables one to enter or exit a facility and  records the time and date of entry. Optisec’s innovation is its hand-geometry software, which can process a three-dimensional view of the hand in order to determine the geometry and metrics of the finger length, width and other details (Figure 2). The software is an add-on which measures up to ninety different parameters and processes the information via a propriety algorithm. According to the website there are currently an estimated 80,000 hand-key readers being used daily by millions of people clocking in or out of work or accessing facilities and countries.53

Figure 2: Three-Dimensional Hand-Key Reader
Source: Optisec Systems

Another Israeli company that gives a sense of this industry is Agent Video Intelligence, which was established in 2003 and in 2007 had 20 employees. The company opens its website with the provocative question: “What is Freedom?” After two seconds the answer appears on the screen: “From one camera, to hundreds of cameras.” This slogan reflects the assumptions of many Israeli surveillance companies, which not only conceive surveillance as facilitating and augmenting freedom but also consider the computer as having an emancipatory potential. This particular company has developed software which processes raw images that have been captured by numerous cameras in the field and enables the transmission of images into the network as ultralow bandwidth data packets (usually less than 20Kbps; see Figure 3).

Other software is then used to analyze the data, providing “pre-configured detection missions in real time” that generate “meaningful events based on rules defined by the user.” Currently this software is used in over 25 countries in retail stores, educational institutions, financial institutions, critical infrastructure sites such as utility, airports, and railway stations, and government offices. The important point in the context of our discussion is that Agent Video Intelligence developed technology that “seamlessly integrates with existing video equipment and IT infrastructure, making video analytics feasible, affordable and scalable.” In other words, it is an “add-on” software that aims to improve surveillance capabilities.54

The software developed by these and numerous other Israeli companies helps accomplish the specific goals set out by the companies (like the reduction of “buddy punching”) but also advances the more general project of social sorting, since such software facilitates both the identification of the subject and the categorization according of social criteria like man, muslim, black, immigrant or woman, student, citizen.

Companies like Optisec and Agent Video Intelligence characterize the majority of firms within Israel’s homeland security and surveillance industry, and are very different from the companies that make up the military industry.  Indeed, almost all of the arms produced in Israel (over 95 percent) are manufactured by six companies. Four of these companies are state owned (ELTA, IAI, IMI and RAFAEL) and are responsible for about 75 percent of the arms sales, while the two private companies (Elbit systems and Elisra) make up the rest of the sales.55 The size of the workforce in the military industry (approximately 35,000) is still greater than the size of the workforce in the homeland security/surveillance industry (an estimated 25,000). This indicates that the structure of the military industry is very different from the homeland security and surveillance industry: whereas companies in the military industry employ thousands of workers, most of the companies in the surveillance industry have less than a hundred employees, and many employ between five and thirty people.

Government regulations pertaining to companies that want to be part of the military industry dictate that during processes of privatization ownership must remain Israeli. Although more research about these regulations is needed, it is obvious from comparing the number of companies in each sector that such regulations do not affect the surveillance industry.  Otherwise we would expect to see fewer companies in the surveillance industry as well as less foreign investment. Moreover, some surveillance companies were bought over the years by foreign companies, while others were transformed by their owners into US companies (primarily for tax and sales purposes).

Figure 3: Agent Video Intelligence
Source: Agent Video Intelligence

Another factor that helps shape the difference between the two industries has to do with the products they produce. The production of arms, which is a major component of the military industry and includes ammunition for aircraft and helicopters, artillery rockets, tanks and missiles boats are not products that can be manufactured by companies that employ twenty people. Along similar lines, the production of UAVs and satellites require vast amount of resources, not least in R&D, that companies in Israel’s surveillance industry tend not to have. In certain fields the state-owned military industry bears the brunt of paying for R&D and thus subsidizes the so-called private sector. Thus, the high-cost surveillance products tend to be manufactured by Israel’s military industry, while the large majority of surveillance companies produce “add-ons” to already existing platforms, offer integration solutions for a variety of existing products, or provide services and training.

1.4   Post-Fordist Mode of Production

The different structure of these two industries not only suggests that the Israeli homeland security/surveillance industry is more diversified than the military industry, but that they are actually based on different modes of production.  Whereas the military industry emerged and developed during the Fordist-era (even though it has over the years adopted numerous post- Fordist traits), the homeland security/surveillance industry was from the very beginning structured along post-Fordist lines. The surveillance industry, in other words, can be characterized as a sector informed by flexible specialization; that is, a flexible production process which is dependent on flexible systems and equipment as well as a more skilled and more flexible workforce. Its crucial hardware is microelectronics-based information, electro-optics and communications technologies.

Furthermore, the post-Fordist industries are also different from the Fordist ones in that they aim to meet the growing demand of increasingly differentiated and segmented markets rather than long runs of standardized commodities for stable mass markets.  Theirs is a demand rather than supply driven industry.56 The diversification and flexibility of this industry along with a few other factors that will be discussed in the next chapter, such as the movement of employees and R&D from the military to the surveillance industry, provides insight into the latter’s exponential growth and successful penetration into the expanding post-9/11 surveillance markets.

Chapter Two: The Emergence of Israel’s Homeland Security Industry

Obviously, the success of Israel’s homeland security and surveillance industry is firmly linked to the shift in demands following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror as well as the political, economic, social and cultural global processes briefly mentioned in the previous chapter. But the industry’s impressive achievements are also due to numerous internal factors. In this chapter, I analyze the impact of Israel’s military and military industry on the growth of the country’s homeland security/surveillance industry. Following numerous scholars, I maintain that Israel’s military and military industry were instrumental in the creation of both a successful high- tech sector and helped shape its orientation so that relatively large segment focuses on homeland security/surveillance (Figure 4).

Such internal factors explain the difference between Israel and the high-tech industries in Ireland, Taiwan and India – countries that have also enjoyed a high-tech boom similar to Israel’s – but do not have a homeland security sector worth noting. I also accept the widespread claim that the entrepreneurial spirit, the problem-solving attitude and the system-oriented approach characterizing most of the successful high-tech firms in Israel originated in Israel’s military and the military industry.57 I go on to argue that the influence of Israel’s two governmental security institutions (military and military industry) helps explain the economic success of Israel’s homeland security/surveillance industry as well as why Israel is currently being branded as a global homeland security capital.

2.1   The Military Industry

The foundation of the military industry can be traced back to the pre-state Zionist struggle. The production of weapons and ammunition had already begun in the 1920s, and in 1933 TAAS, which was later renamed the Israeli Military Industries (IMI), was officially established in order to manufacture rifles, mortars, hand grenades and ammunition in underground workshops. The Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI originally called Bedek Aviation Company) was founded in 1953 and is currently Israel’s largest military exporter, boasting a record high of $2.8 billion in sales during 2006. In addition, some privately owned firms were established in the 1950s, including Soltam, which manufactures artillery, and Tadiran, which has become the largest military communications equipment manufacturer in Israel. Currently, Israel is considered the sixth largest military exporter.58

The success of Israel’s military industries is intricately tied to its large investment in R&D. A few years following Israel’s creation in 1948, the Ministry of Defense established a research and development division as part of the state-owned military industry, which was subsequently called RAFAEL (Armament Development Authority). RAFAEL was organized like an academic institution and only in 1990 was transformed into a commercial enterprise that also produces and sells weapons.59 In the mid-1950s the Israeli military initiated its own computing program within RAFAEL and in 1959, RAFAEL, the military intelligence agency, the air force, and the military’s logistics department all joined forces to call for the acquisition of a large-scale mainframe computer.60 At about the same time, the military, which worked closely with RAFAEL, opened a computer school that facilitated the diffusion of computer skills in Israel.

Despite relatively large investments in R&D, until the mid-1960s the military industry employed about 15,000 workers, or roughly 2 percent of Israel’s fulltime workforce. On the eve of the June 1967 War, Charles de Gaulle declared a military embargo on Israel due to France’s decision to ally itself with the Arab countries. France had been Israel’s major supplier of weaponry, including nuclear technology, and De Gaulle’s decision put Israel in a bind, since it desperately needed to acquire critical weapons. Following the war, the Israeli government decided to shift vast amounts of resources to Israel’s military industry in order to reduce the country’s dependency on other states for military equipment. Accordingly, the Israeli government designated the military industry a national priority sector and channeled large sums of money both directly to the industry and to the military, which then purchased products from the industry.61 By 1975, the number of people employed in the military industry had tripled, reaching approximately 45,000 or 5.5 percent of the fulltime workforce.62

As a way of maintaining strategic superiority over the country’s Arab neighbors, Israel’s military industry focused on high-tech development, concentrating on computer and electronic technologies, electro-optics, aeronautics, mechanical design and metal works, as well as chemical and software engineering. The Israeli government was always heavily involved in the military industry, both as owner of a large segment of this industry and the industry’s main customer (through the military). The government also controls military export via a special division in the Ministry of Defense called “Sibat,” which is in charge of authorizing export of classified products.63 For security reasons, however, the military discouraged the commercialization of the new technologies developed in the industry, and worker movement from the state-owned industry to the emerging private sector was negligible. For about a decade the size of the industry’s workforce remained relatively static, but in the mid-1980s it was downsized. The downsizing was originally precipitated by an economic crisis in Israel and later by the end of the Cold War.64

The internal economic crisis led to a structural adjustment program that included a massive reduction in public expenditure and downsizing of the public sector, which helps explain, in Moshe Justman’s opinion, Israel’s “high-tech revolution.”65 According to Justman, the structural adjustment program precipitated a shift of economic resources from a technologically advanced but commercially unprofitable defense sector to a civilian industry based on similar technologies.

As seen in Figure 5, a “deliberate reduction in domestic defense procurement after 1985 released tens of thousands of skilled workers into the labor market, providing an abundant supply of skilled labor for an emerging high-tech sector and allowing more efficient exploitation of the commercial potential of Israeli R&D.”66  While Justman underscores several important processes that led to the emergence of a robust high-tech sector in Israel, he fails to acknowledge a variety of significant factors that led to the so-called “high-tech revolution.” One of these factors is the global crisis in the weaponry industry, which was caused by the end of the Cold War and the demise of the former Soviet Union. World military spending in 1997 amounted to $740 billion, the lowest level since 1966 and 40 percent below its 1987 peak.

The Stockholm International Research Institute (SIPRI) estimate of arms sales for the 10-year period 1988–1997 worldwide shows a decline of slightly more than one-third in real terms, corresponding to an average annual decrease of 4.5 percent. In 1986, armament industries worldwide employed 17.5 million people; by 1995, the figure had dropped to 11.1 million.67 Thus, the downsizing of Israel’s military industry reflects and is intricately tied to global trends and is not merely a reflection of internal structural adjustments. For instance, Israel Military Industries, which makes the Uzi submachine gun and Merkava tank, had shrunk from 14,000 employees in 1990 to 5,000 employees in 1995. RAFAEL, the military’s top-secret weapons development authority, ended the 1995 year with 3,000 employees, down from 8,000 in the 1980s.68 As we will see many of these workers, particularly those with technological skills, helped spur Israel’s high-tech industry.

Figure 5: Israeli State-Owned Military Industries—Employees and Exports

Sources: Sharon Sadeh, “Israel’s Defense Industry in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities,”  Strategic Assessment, Vol. 7. No. 1, 2004. IAI, IMI, and Rafael corporate reports; State Comptroller, Ministry of Finance, and Government Companies Authority reports. Figures include subsidiaries, but exclude former employees on companies’ payroll.  As the sales line in Figure 5 reveals, the military industry was able to expand its markets at a period of global economic decline and personnel downsizing. If in the 1970s exports amounted to between $40-70 million annually, thirty years later exports were eighty times higher and currently amount to over $5 billion.69 This remarkable shift has to do with the fact that in the 1970s certain corporations (most prominently IAI) decided to shift their research and production interests from major platforms to technologically advanced systems and components. To support the industry’s shift and to promote technological innovation, R&D grants were allocated to the military industry from the Chief Scientist’s Office within the Ministry of Trade and Industry as well as from other government organs. Indeed, military R&D during the early 1980s amounted to more than half of the total government funded R&D (which also includes both civilian R&D in the business sector and civilian R&D in universities and government laboratories). If in the seventies the military industry’s share in total national R&D was about 40 percent, by 1981 it
had risen to 65 percent.

Two other issues should also be mentioned. First, the military industry’s success in developing cutting edge technology was not only a result of investment in national R&D funding, although that is indeed a key factor, but is also due to the relationship the industry established with US, German and French industries with which it shared technological knowledge.70 The military industry’s cooperation with the U.S. has been particularly instrumental in this regard. Filling the vacuum that France created in the midst of the 1967 War, the US has provided Israel with substantial funds, advanced technologies and military hardware.71 The industry’s decision to begin focusing not only on military markets but also on civilian ones also contributed to its economic growth.72 By 1999, for example, IAI reported that 39 percent of its revenues came from the civilian sector.73 Along similar lines, Elbit, which originally specialized in UAV’s as well as in aircraft retrofit and modernization of aircraft and helicopters (comprising 38 percent of its sales), currently designs, develops, manufactures, markets and provides services for advanced electronic and imaging systems and products for medical (45 percent), industrial and commercial applications (17 percent).74

We now know that the strategic decision to concentrate on military R&D with an emphasis on technologically advanced systems proved advantageous, since it ultimately served to facilitate the foundation of a solid technology-orientated economic base for Israel. While I discuss this issue at greater length below, I can already say here that many engineers, scientists, and managers who were initially employed in the state-owned military industries eventually moved into the private sector where they applied the knowledge and training they had acquired to new projects.

2.2   The Military

The effect of the military industry on Israel’s high-tech industry, and by extension homeland security and surveillance industry, will become clearer in a moment. First, though, it is important to highlight the influence of the Israeli military, which has also provided a fertile breeding ground for future generations of high-tech workers and entrepreneurs. In order to understand the impact of Israel’s military on its high-tech industry and, more specifically, its homeland security and surveillance industries, it is vital to briefly examine the military’s role in Israel’s computing history. In 1960, a newly established military unit called MAMRAM (Hebrew acronym for the Center of Computers and Automated Recording) was set up and the Philco Transac 2000 mainframe – one of the earliest computers available outside the defense establishments in the US, USSR and UK – was purchased.75 “With this platform, modern record keeping became part of military management for personnel and logistics.” 76 Thus, nine years before the first computer science programs were introduced in Israeli universities and before the official birth of the Israel’s software industry in 1969, the Israeli military was already developing software.

In the late 1960s, MAMRAM replaced the Philco with an IBM mainframe, and, as Dan Breznitz points out, it became the largest and most sophisticated computing center in the country While MAMRAM’s primacy has eroded over the years, it continues to maintain a key position within the Israeli computing scene simply because it is the largest information technology user and producer in Israel as well as one of the primary customers of software products and main trainers of information technology professionals.77

An integral part of MAMRAM is an internal training unit, the first such unit to be created in Israel. This unit became independent in the second half of the 1990s and is now known as the School of Computer-Related Professions; it is, Breznitz explains, the main programming, software engineering and computer users training unit in the military. The School for Computer- Related Professions trains about 300 programmers each year, and they end up serving a minimum of 5-6 years in the military. These programmers receive extensive advanced training throughout their service, including professional courses on specific platforms, systems, and languages (e.g. Oracle, Sun, Linux), basic and advanced software design courses, systems analysis courses as well as infrastructure courses. By the age of 21, the average MAMRAM programmer has extensive experience and has worked on multiple projects, where he or she has served as a team leader.

Indeed, approximately one in four programmers acquires extended (i.e. 1–2 years) experience as a manager of a full-scale programming team and 1 in 10 becomes section head who is responsible for a specialized subunit with long-term project management and control. As one school official, who has been working in the private industry for a few decades, observed: “These 21 year old kids have already worked on multiple projects, sometimes even in different units; they are efficient and experienced programmers by that stage.”78

The School for Computer-Related Professions also trains about 500 application instructors per year, who then train users throughout the military. It trains systems managers for both small and large systems and provides systems analysis courses to military commanders so that they, in turn, can define requirements to systems analysts and programmers in their own units.79 Breznitz adds that “because the military has tended to define its programming needs for many years in terms of specific software products, and because the computer units have always been defined as service providers, a high level of attention has been given to training these programmers to understand and define their customers’ needs.

Accordingly, a MAMRAM programmer leaving the army already has several years of experience in analyzing and defining the needs of the ‘market’ she operates in and in developing products to meet those needs.”80 It is therefore not surprising that Israelis who work in the high-tech industry and carry out their reserve duty in the School for Computer-Related Professions often screen and recruit young soldiers from the unit even before these soldiers are officially released from their active duty – these young computer programmers are, after all, a desirable commodity.81

The marketable skills acquired in MAMRAM are apparent also to the heads of this military unit. One of its former commanders put it this way in an interview:  I saw my role as the commander of MAMRAM in the national perspective. In addition to the primary and pure military aims of MAMRAM, another goal is to take part in the building of the human capital of Israel. This is a role that is highly important due to the fact that the universities do not train people in the practical side of software programming  in the same way that MAMRAM does. I did not always have the support for that from other parts of the military, but we did it all the same.

What we mainly did was (1) push the use of new technologies, (2) establish standard setting and methods using decisions that diffused throughout the industry, and; (3) build infrastructure  technologies and pass them on to the whole industry. We stuffed the School for Computer-Related Professions consciously with the best manpower available and used a lot of reserve personnel, which was good for both sides, the industry and us, and created a lot of information flows… the School for Computer-Related Professions has always been seen as the main way to fulfill our national duty—the building of human infrastructure.82

In addition to MAMRAM, the air-force, 8200 (i.e., the electronic warfare unit) and other military intelligence agencies have their own computer training programs, which are not as big as MAMRAM, but train, nonetheless, hundreds of young Israelis each year. Indeed, many of the new surveillance entrepreneurs are graduates of these two schools. In 1979, the military also developed a program called Talpiot, which accepts 50 of the most promising high-school students in science and submits them to three years of grueling study in physics, computers and other sciences followed by another six years of military service where they are charged with helping to improve the armed forces through technological innovation. Studies show that most of Talpiot’s graduates do not remain in the military and many of them move on to work in Israel’s vibrant high-tech industry.83
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan, total electronic enslavement
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2010, 08:46:53 pm »

A pic is worth 1000 words.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan, total electronic enslavement
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2010, 09:32:59 pm »

A pic is worth 1000 words.

Talk about shock and awe!

I need to puke. This is dehumanization, this is the attack on humanity iteslf.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Tsul777

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,236

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan, total electronic enslavement
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2010, 02:11:14 am »

Iris Scanners are also being launched domestically.

This was a press release from just this past week:
Sarnoff Corporation and Unisys to Demonstrate Advanced Iris-Scanning Airport Security System at Biometric Consortium Conference
Friday, September 17, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ – September 17, 2010 – Sarnoff Corporation today announced a joint live airport security demonstration with Unisys using iris scanning and mobile phones during the Biometric Consortium Conference (BCC) at the Tampa Convention Center from September 21-24.

Sarnoff’s fast and secure biometric identification solution for high-throughput access control, IOM PassPort™, will be used as part of the demonstration taking place at Sarnoff’s booth #304 and Unisys’ booth #524 during normal show hours.

Participants are asked to register at Unisys’ booth, where they will receive a mock “boarding pass” sent directly to their mobile phone or PDA. They will then have their mobile boarding pass and iris scanned at Sarnoff’s booth, where their identity will be quickly verified.

Sarnoff’s patented Iris on the Move® (IOM) biometric identification solution quickly and accurately captures the iris image of subjects as they walk through the system at a standard pace, verifying identities at speeds of up to thirty people per minute. Other iris scanning technologies require users to stop in order to be recognized.

“Unlike other biometric ID systems, Sarnoff’s IOM solutions allow users to move quickly and unobtrusively through access control lines, without pausing,” said Mark Clifton, Sarnoff’s Acting President and Chief Executive Officer. “We’re excited to work with Unisys at this year’s BCC to highlight how our proven biometric technology is ideally suited to airport security and other access control applications where it’s imperative to keep lines moving rapidly.”

IOM is currently deployed in several secure government facilities, private
corporations, seaports and airports. The technology is ideal for a wide variety
of uses including airport security, banking ID verification, border
initiatives, event security, payment systems, and employee access.



Total NWO enslavement type s**t.

US Patent: 7634114
Read the Iris on the Move patent (PDF file):

A method and apparatus for designing an iris biometrics system that operates in minimally constrained settings. The image acquisition system has fewer constraints on subjects than traditional methods by extending standoff distance and capture volume. The method receives design parameters and...
Inventor: Thomas M. Zappia
Assignee: Sarnoff Corporation
Primary Examiner: Wesley Tucker
Attorney: Lowenstein Sandler PC

Anti_Illuminati would get a kick out of this... One of the board members of Sarnoff worked for BoozAllenHamilton

This article is 3 years old, but relevant because it was around the same time the "Iris on the Move" US Patent was submitted:

Carnegie Mellon Researchers to Collaborate With National Biometric Security Project

March 20, 2007

Carnegie Mellon University and the National Biometric Security Project (NBSP) have announced a memorandum of agreement to collaborate on developing advanced biometric technologies like the use of fingerprints, iris recognition and hand geometry to help deter terrorist and criminal activity.

The new collaboration will focus on identifying and resolving new biometric challenges, as well as joint participation in industry symposia, developing and distributing reports about biometric-related topics, and conducting technology testing and evaluation at the NBSP's West Virginia-based laboratories.

The NBSP is a non-profit biometrics testing, training, and research and analysis organization created to improve the security of the U.S. national infrastructure and enhance identity assurance through biometrics. The organization is also a leading advocate of using biometrics to defend the critical U.S. civil infrastructure against terrorist attacks.

"Because of Carnegie Mellon's reputation for excellence in engineering technology, it is an ideal complement to the NBSP's efforts to accelerate the growth, acceptance and use of biometric technologies," said Michael Yura, NBSP senior vice president. "We look forward to working with them to conduct studies on biometric technology, usage, biometric curricula development, and the legal, social and policy issues that may arise from large-scale deployment of biometrics."

Pradeep Khosla, dean of Carnegie Mellon's College of Engineering and co-founder of Carnegie Mellon CyLab, said biometrics is one of the leading security technologies of this century. "Our university research in many new areas of information technology and cybersecurity during the past two decades makes this an excellent research match."

Since 2005, more than 100 researchers at Carnegie Mellon CyLab have been working to develop new technologies for trustworthy, sustainable computing and communication systems.

"We are also developing advanced, state-of-the art biometrics systems to augment face and iris recognition," said Marios Savvides, a research scientist in Carnegie Mellon's Electrical and Computer Engineering Department and director of the BIOmetrics SECurity Research, Engineering and Training (BIOSECRET) Lab at Carnegie Mellon.

University researchers working on the development of advanced face and iris matching are also studying techniques about biometric encryption. By using biometric encryption, instead of storing a sample of one's fingerprint or iris in a database in raw form, you can use your fingerprint or iris to encrypt or code some other information like a PIN number, account number or another biometric.

Carnegie Mellon CyLab also works closely with the CERT Coordination Center (CERT/CC), a leading, internationally recognized center of Internet security expertise. Through its connection with CERT/CC, Carnegie Mellon CyLab also works closely with US-CERT, a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Division and the private sector that aims to protect the national information infrastructure.