Machine translations by Deepl

Wob proceedings on the Passport Act: what Privacy First has since uncovered


Since September 2009, every Dutch citizen is required to have fingerprints taken when applying for a new passport or identity card. This duty stems from the new Passport Act, which came into force at that time. The development of this law began back in the late 1990s and has been surrounded by mystery to this day. This is despite some WRR studies (by Vincent Böhre and Max Cutter) that brought some light into the darkness at the end of 2010. Following all the fuss around fingerprint storage, a parliamentary hearing on the new Passport Act also took place in April 2011. However, no official record of this hearing exists. An 'unofficial', partial report of it by Privacy First can be found HERE. An excellent article in Vrij Nederland. Yet the shadiness then persisted... What is still under the carpet in the Dutch government? To clear this up Privacy First filed a Wob request earlier this year to the department primarily responsible: the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK). This request related to all government documentation on the introduction of 'biometric features' (including fingerprints) in Dutch travel documents. All in all, then, quite a big job for the 'carpet service' of the BZK

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it

The file requested by Privacy First is huge and goes back at least to 1997. Both the departmental BZK archives and the external BZK archive in Winschoten were (and are) combed through. The same applies to the personal archives of civil servants. To comply with our Wob request, the Interior Ministry even had to hire extra staff, Privacy First heard via via. Consequently, Privacy First received the first of a (long?) series of partial decisions only after two months, in June 2011. Could this have been done faster if the government had put its archives in better order, those archives had already been digitised and their contents had not been wrongly labelled as confidential or 'state secret'? Or have things actually been delayed rather than accelerated by a parallel research commissioned by Minister Donner since this summer? This research is being conducted by Leiden professor (also former top official) Roel Bekker, so reported Automatisering Gids recently.

Anyway, through partial decrees, the Interior Ministry has been throwing periodic "Wob kludges" at Privacy First for several months. So far, this contains no shocking new material. Given the size of the file, it is mostly very little. Some of its content was already known, some of it particularly fits the (future?) street of the Interior Ministry. At this stage, however, the latter aspect makes it precisely interesting... From today onwards, we will therefore publish all documents received in full on our website. The same applies to a number of documents that were recently published extremely sloppily on the website of the Interior Ministry and that have so far escaped the attention of the media. The entire laundry list of documents can be found below. This list will be continuously added to and commented on by us.

For convenience, Privacy First has already marked the most interesting documents with an asterisk *. Occasionally even a double asterisk ** at the now rumoured TNO report by Ruud van Renesse. Further comments on all pieces will follow as said. So keep a close eye on our website. We wish you much 'reading pleasure'!

DOCUMENTS:

Acknowledgement of receipt from the Interior Ministry 4 May 2011

Interim report Interior Ministry 17 May 2011

Sub-decision 1 Interior Ministry 22 June 2011

 Annex 1: List of parliamentary papers on biometrics in passports

*Annex 2: TNO memo on passport photographs (Sept 1998)

*Annex 3: biometrics evaluation study Ernst & Young (March 2001)

*Annex 3a: missing pages Ernst & Young study

 Annex 4: letter Minister Van Boxtel on biometrics in travel documents (May 2001)

 Annex 5: invitations biometrics conference BZK (May 2002)

 Annex 6: additional invitations biometrics conference (May 2002)

*Annex 7: BZK biometrics conference summary (Sept 2002)

 Annex 8: letter BZK (BPR) to Finland (Sept 2002)

*Annex 9: exploratory research biometrics Bureau Veldkamp (Jan 2003)

Partial decision 2 BZK 14 Sept 2011

*Annex 1: report biometrics conference BZK (Aug. 2002)

 Annex 2: official note to minister Van Boxtel regarding interview Volkskrant (April 2001)

 Annex 3: overview of biometrics and electronic identification pilots (April 2001)

**Annex 4: TNO report 'Quick-scan biometrics - all people are unequal' (Oct 1999)

 Annex 5: official memorandum to minister Van Boxtel on the presentation of the Registration Board report (Oct. 1999)

 Annex 6: press release Registration Chamber report 'At face value' (Oct. 1999)

*Annex 7: Registration Chamber report 'At face value' (Sept 1999)

 Annex 8a: Erasmus University graduation thesis biometrics & chip card (Aug 1996) (part 1)

 Annex 8b: Thesis Erasmus University biometrics & chip card (Aug 1996) (part 2)

*Annex 9: Senter Agency report 'Government, citizen and biometrics' (Nov 1998)

BZK decision 18 June 2010 following Wob request Brenno de Winter

*Annex 1: letter Minister De Graaf on biometrics in travel documents (Dec 2003), overview of pilots and BZK research report (June 2003)

*Annex 2: letter Minister Pechtold and BZK research report '2b or not 2b' (Sept 2005)

*Annex 3: Advice request Minister Nicolai to CBP on draft Passport Act, draft MoT and Functional Draft ORRA (Dec 2006) (part 1)

 Annex 4: Functional Design of the Online Consultable Travel Document Administration (ORRA, Dec 2006) (part 2)

 Annex 5: Functional Design of the ORRA (Dec 2006) (part 3) and 'reminder' request for advice from the Interior Ministry (BPR) to CBP (March 2007)

 Annex 6: research protocol security travel documents BZK (Aug. 2007) and research report travel documents BZK (Oct. 2007)

 Annex 7: Letters Agency BPR on sample survey travel documents (Feb. - June 2008).

Update 30 March 2012: The documents below are relatively interesting, as they show that in mid-2004 there were important questions in the European Parliament (EP) regarding 1) the proportionality and 2) the cost of the introduction of biometrics as a measure against travel document fraud. The documents show that the Dutch government (c.q. BZK) did not have the relevant figures ready and that it took a lot of time and effort to answer the EP questions (only partially). Moreover, the answers show that the figures on fraud were very low and the cost of introducing biometrics very high. Figures on look-alike fraud with travel documents were missing at the time, by the way, at least at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. The responses mainly mentioned false/falsified documents. This while the reason for introducing biometrics in travel documents was to combat look-alike fraud was; this is a specific, small-scale category within the broader phenomenon of identity fraud. For government statistics on look-alike fraud with Dutch travel documents our recent Wob results from ECID (KMar).

Sub-decision 3 Interior Ministry 8 February 2012

*Annex 1: letter from JHA Committee of the Senate dated 28 May 2004 to minister De Graaf (BZK) following questions by EP rapporteur Sørensen on proportionality and costs of biometrics in travel documents

*Annex 2: official note agency BPR (BZK) dated 10 September 2004 in response to EP rapporteur Sørensen's questions

*Annex 3: BPR official note dated 13 October 2004 in response to EP rapporteur Sørensen's questions

*Annex 4: replies by minister De Graaf dated 25 October 2004 to questions by EP rapporteur Sørensen (figures on false travel documents and costs of biometrics)

 Annex 5: BPR official note dated 15 July 2004 to minister De Graaf on '2b or not 2b' field trial

 Annex 6: Course invitations from project manager biometrics BPR to Dutch municipalities dated 15 July 2004

*Annex 7: BPR official note dated 30 September 2004 following Zembla questions on biometrics and central storage

 Annex 8: BPR official note dated 9 July 2003 following newspaper reports on biometrics proposals European Commission 

Update 15 September 2012: Privacy First recently received some more Wob snippets from the Interior Ministry. The material below concerns, among other things, the awarding of an (additional) technical study on biometrics by the Interior Ministry (BPR) to VKA & TNO in the summer of 2002. This was done at the time to the exclusion of TNO expert Ruud van Renesse, who had previously been deemed "too critical" by BPR. You can read more about this affair in our report of the parliamentary hearing on the new Passport Act and in a Interview with Mr Van Renesse in Vrij Nederland. See further the report Happy Landings.

Sub-decision 4 Interior Ministry 28 August 2012

 Annex 1: official memorandum from the Director of Projects to the Director-General of Public Administration (DGOB, BZK) dated 14 April 1999, regarding cooperation between the BZK and IND in the development of an electronic ID card (e-NIK)   

 Annex 2: letter from the Director-General of Public Administration (BZK), dated 19 April 1999, to the Director of IND, regarding cooperation between the BZK and IND in the development of an electronic ID card (e-NIK) 

 Annex 3: offer letter Director of Projects (DGOB, BZK) dated 13 November 2000 on agreement with third party to carry out study on use of biometrics to reduce look-alike fraud 

 Annex 4: fax from third party to BZK dated 10 October 2000 regarding non-award of 'biometrics project' contract

 Annex 5: letter from the Interior Ministry dated 25 October 2000 in response to the above fax (see annex 4)

 Annex 6: request BZK (BPR) dated 11 April 2002 to five third parties to quote for carrying out laboratory face recognition test 

 Annex 7: official memo BZK (BPR) dated 2 May 2002 on award of contract for laboratory facial recognition test 

 Annex 8: BZK (BPR) offer letter dated 15 May 2002 on agreement with third party to carry out facial recognition laboratory test 

 Annex 9: request BZK (BPR) dated 1 July 2002 for bids to some four third parties for additional technical exploration of biometrics to combat look-alike fraud

 Annex 10: letter from third party to BZK (BPR) dated 12 July 2002 notifying cooperation with other third party as a result of above request BZK for tenders (see annex 9)

 Annex 11: letter of rejection from the Ministry of the Interior (BPR) dated 23 July 2002 to two third parties in response to the above request for tenders from the Ministry of the Interior (see annex 9)

 Annex 12: offer letter BZK (BPR) dated 5 August 2002 on agreement with third party to implement additional technical exploration biometrics to combat look-alike fraud

 Annex 13: official memo BZK (BPR) dated 18 July 2002 on award of contract additional technical exploration biometrics to combat look-alike fraud

Update 7 December 2012:
recently, Privacy First again received some Wob crumbs from the Interior Ministry, including a plan of action by Verdonck, Klooster & Associates (VKA, commissioned by BPR) for follow-up research on the use of biometrics from 2002. Particularly striking in this document is the following passage on p. 39: "Limited information is available on the nature and extent of look-alike fraud with Dutch travel documents. (...) In the absence of a somewhat realistic picture of the extent to which look-alike fraud with Dutch travel documents occurs, it will be impossible to make quantitative statements about the societal benefit that can be realised with the application of biometrics. This need not be a problem if it is sufficient to work with the assumption that biometrics will reduce look-alike fraud." (!) The relevant document can be found below as Annex 3:

Sub-decision 5 Interior Ministry 13 November 2012

 Annex 1: letter BZK (BPR) dated 15 January 2001 on amendment of agreement with third party to implement research on use of biometrics to reduce look-alike fraud 

 Annex 2: BZK internal civil service note (BPR) dated 24 October 2001 to minister Van Boxtel on 'Action plan to combat terrorism and security biometrics' 

*Annex 3: VKA plan of action dated 26 February 2002 on follow-up study on application of biometrics 

 Annex 4: internal official memorandum BZK (BPR) dated 20 March 2002 on 'position paper biometrics and travel documents' 

 Annex 5: internal BZK official memo (BPR) dated 25 September 2001 to minister Van Boxtel on the notification in the JHA Council of Dutch intentions regarding biometrics in travel documents
                                                                            
Update 5 April 2013: this week, Privacy First received some documents from the Interior Ministry relating to an earlier survey on public support for biometrics in travel documents (Bureau Veldkamp, 2003) and the now infamous biometrics practical trial '2b or not 2b' (BZK, 2005). However, the material does not contain much news. On the positive side, the Interior Ministry now publishes the whole thing on its own website; click HERE For Home Affairs sub-decision 6 dated 28 March 2013. 

Update 8 August 2013: This week, Privacy First received some old documents from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations again. These documents show, among other things, the Netherlands' European pioneering role in the field of biometrics in travel documents around 2001/2002. They also show that the Ministry of Security and Justice had different views on biometrics on (and next to...) travel documents. And here and there, there is even mention of DNA... However, it is not clear exactly what the different visions meant; many passages have been deleted. Thus, 12 years after the fact, this dossier unfortunately still remains a black box... Click HERE For Home Affairs sub-decision 7 dated 30 July 2013. What is still under the carpet at the Interior and Justice Ministry? 

Update 19 December 2014: today, Privacy First received some old Wob chunks from the Interior Ministry again. These are mostly meaningless, largely black-labelled documents from the years 2001-2002, when the Netherlands initiated the (later) inclusion of fingerprints in all European passports at the European level. Click HERE For Home Affairs sub-decision 8 dated 17 December 2014. Of particular interest is the following passage in a letter from minister Van Boxtel dated 20 February 2002 to his European colleagues: "Some months ago (...) I informed you about the intentions in the Netherlands to include biometric features in travel documents (the passport and identity card). The purpose of this is primarily to introduce so-called look-alike prevent fraud. Secondarily, the use of biometrics offers the possibility of automated border control. (...) Indeed, my intention is to jointly determine in the coming months whether a basis for joint agreements exists and, if so, what could be the best way to achieve their formulation." This eventually resulted in the December 2014 European Passport Regulation. 

A subsequent, hopefully more informative sub-decision from the Interior Ministry is unlikely to follow until spring 2015.

Update 1 September 2017: today, BZK partial decision no 9 has finally been published online, see HERE. Again, this material contains little new. However, interesting are the figures on look-alike fraud involving Dutch travel documents at Schiphol Airport in the period 2001-2002, see this letter and this follow-up letter From the Royal Military Police to the Interior Ministry (pdf). Further comments by Privacy First on e.g. may follow.

Update 30 August 2019: The above hyperlinks to the Wob sub-decisions on the website of the Interior Ministry appear to be partly outdated and no longer work. However, all already disclosed documents are digitally in Privacy First's possession and can be requested from us by anyone. Privacy First will also request BZK to update the relevant hyperlinks and republish the same. Incidentally, Privacy First heard from a reliable source that a tenth (also final) partial decision will soon be taken and published by the Interior Ministry.

Update 25 March 2020: Today, the 10th and final Home Affairs sub-decision was finally published, see HERE. Despite the relatively large amount of documents, this again contains little news. Any comments by Privacy First on e.g. may follow.

                                                       ***