This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000614 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR CA AND EUR/ERA; DHS FOR BTS, CBP, ICE, AND 
CIS; DOJ FOR CRM; ROME ALSO FOR DHS - ACORSANO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CPAS CVIS CMGT PREL SMIG KCRM KFRD EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: BIOMETRICS: EU TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR PASSPORTS 
AND FINGERPRINTS 
 
REF: (A) STATE 23029 (B) 04 BRUSSELS 4844 
 
¶1. (SBU)  Summary.  The EU is set to approve a decision on 
technical standards related to biometrics in travel documents 
by the end of February.  From that point, EU Member States 
will have 18 months to begin issuing passports that contain 
digitized photographs on contactless chips.  A separate 
decision which will outline the technical standards for 
including digitized fingerprints in passports is still under 
discussion.  The European Commission (EC) envisions limiting 
access to the digitized fingerprints.  However, agreements 
with third countries may be permitted so that foreign 
officials can verify the identity of the passport holder 
through a fingerprint comparison.  National laws will govern 
the usage of digitized fingerprints that are collected as 
part of the passport application but kept in national 
databases.  Some Member States have questioned the EC 
regulation that mandates universal collection of fingerprints 
from passport applicants, noting that fingerprints of 
children under age seven are often unverifiable due to size. 
Although the European Parliament objected to including 
digitized fingerprints in passports, its opinion was ignored 
by the EU Council.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------ 
Technical Standards 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) The European Commission (EC) has finalized its 
proposal for most technical standards related to biometrics 
in passports and has gained approval from the Article 6 
committee.  Within the next few days, the official 
translations of this decision will be sent to national 
capitals, and final approval by the EU Council is expected 
before the end of February.  The decision will cover the EU's 
overall approach to biometrics in passports, as well as 
specific standards related to the incorporation of digitized 
photographs.  Standards such as the scope and limitation of 
biometrics, storage requirements and medium, passport and 
chip layout, data security issues and other technical details 
will be defined in the decision. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Once approved, the 18-month implementation phase for 
the EU Member States begins.  All Member States will need to 
be issuing passports that comply with the ICAO standard by 
the end of August 2006 (a date which would meet the U.S. 
deadline only if Congress agrees to a second one-year 
postponement).  Member States may, however, begin issuing 
passports as soon as they are ready.  Belgium is already 
issuing passports with biometrics, and the EC believes that 
Germany may follow shortly. 
 
------------------------ 
Fingerprints and Access 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) The EC is working on a separate decision that will 
cover technical standards related specifically to passport 
fingerprints.  According to the official at DG Justice, 
Freedom and Security (JFS) drafting the decision, the EC will 
require only two fingerprints:  plain impressions of the left 
and right index fingers stored on the chip as images.  Once 
this regulation is adopted, the 36-month implementation 
period to add digitized fingerprints to national passports 
begins. 
 
¶5. (U) The use of digitized fingerprints, once they are 
incorporated into passports, is limited by Article 4.3 of EC 
Regulation 2252 entitled "standards for security features and 
biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by the 
Member States."  The regulation states that the biometric 
features "shall only be used for verifying: a) the 
authenticity of the document and b) the identity of the 
holder by means of directly available comparable features 
when the passport or other travel documents are required to 
be produced by law." 
 
¶6. (SBU) The EC regulation, however, does not govern the use 
of the fingerprints collected by Member States during the 
passport issuance procedure.  Member States may decide to 
retain these fingerprints in national databases.  National 
laws will govern whether collected fingerprints can be run 
against national criminal databases as part of the passport 
issuance process, or subsequently used for law enforcement or 
other purposes (e.g., identifying victims of the tsunami). 
The EC is not aware of any Member State currently collecting 
fingerprints as part of the passport application process. 
Some Member States, however, do collect fingerprints for 
national identity cards, which are in turn used as primary 
documents for passport issuances. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The EC,s passport fingerprint regulation will also 
cover the issue of access.   According to the drafting 
official at JFS, the EC will probably opt for "extended 
access control" for the part of the passport contactless chip 
that contains the fingerprints.  Unlike the biographic data 
and digitized photograph, which will be protected with "basic 
access control" (i.e., once the passport is swiped the data 
flashes up on the screen), the fingerprints will require an 
access key.  The key on the chip will need to match the key 
that is programmed into the passport reader.  If the two keys 
match, the fingerprint data will also appear on the screen. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The EC decision will require all 25 EU Member States 
to give each other access keys to the fingerprint data in the 
passports.  The regulation might also allow for agreements 
with third countries.  This would enable an EU Member State 
to give the U.S. or other third country the access key for 
their national passports and allow extended access to the 
fingerprints.  There has been no discussion yet about whether 
such access would need to be reciprocal.  Presumably, third 
countries would be limited to use this access only for the 
purposes described in paragraph 5. 
 
------------------------ 
Biometrics and Children 
------------------------ 
 
¶9. (SBU) Two of the Member States that are furthest along in 
incorporating biometrics into passports have raised questions 
over the provision in Article 1 of EC regulation 2252 that 
requires all passports to contain digitized photographs and 
fingerprints, including those issued to children. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The Netherlands sent the EC an interim report based 
on a pilot project undertaken in six municipalities which 
concludes that collecting biometrics from children under age 
7 is unfeasible.  Of the 610 voluntary participants under the 
age of 16, there was a verification failure rate of 100 
percent for fingerprints collected from children ages two and 
under.  The size of the finger (and thus the print) was too 
small for identifying features to be selected for a proper 
comparison.  The mobility of these children also contributed 
to collection flaws.  The study also said that the facial 
images collected for babies resulted in verification failure 
in 25 percent of the cases.  For children ages 3-6, 
fingerprints were unusable in 29 percent of the cases (both 
prints) with only one print useable in and an additional 7 
percent of the cases.  Photograph verification failed in 11 
percent of the cases for this age group.  Based on these 
results and the fact that the Netherlands still allows for 
family passports, Dutch authorities have suggested that the 
EC amend regulation 2252 to exempt children from the 
biometrics requirement. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Germany has also expressed its concern to the EC 
about biometrics for children.  According to the EC, Germany 
does not plan to incorporate biometrics into its special 
passports for children that are issued by over 6000 
municipalities across the country.  This will not violated 
regulation 2252 since Article 1.3 exempts the biometric 
requirement for passports having a validity of 12 months or 
less, an exemption which covers the German child passport. 
 
------------------------ 
Parliament,s Opinion and Future Role 
------------------------ 
 
¶12. (U) On December 1, the European Parliament passed a 
non-binding resolution (471 votes for, 118 against, and 6 
abstentions) regarding the EC,s proposal on biometrics in 
passports.  MEPs agreed on the inclusion of digitized 
photographs, but insisted that digital fingerprints remain 
optional for the Member States.  They also opposed the 
establishment of a central database for EU passport 
information, alleging potential risks to abuse of the data 
and mission creep.  MEPs stated that biometrics should only 
be used to match the traveler with the document and should 
not be used for background checks.  Furthermore, MEPs called 
for the regulation to come into effect only if and when the 
national data protection authorities were given adequate 
investigative powers and resources to ensure data protection. 
 
¶13. (U) Because of the EC governmental structure in place in 
2004, the Council was able to ignore many of the 
Parliament,s concerns when it adopted Regulation 2252 on 
December 13. 
 
¶14. (U) However, on December 15, the Council adopted a 
decision which substantially strengthens the Parliament,s 
role in most decisions related to border management.  As of 
January 1, the Parliament,s role has been elevated to a 
"co-decision making" procedure.  The December 13 decision 
also modifies the procedure within the Council on all border 
matters except legal immigration from unanimity to "qualified 
majority voting".  (Note: The UK, Ireland and Denmark will 
not be affected by many of these decisions because of their 
negotiated opt-outs. End Note.) 
 
------------------------ 
Comment 
------------------------ 
 
¶15. (SBU) While the procedural changes should speed up the 
decision-making process on the Council side of the house, the 
Parliament,s role will likely prove a brake on key USG goals 
such as information sharing and other measures to enhance 
international transportation security.  Issues that the 
Parliament holds dear, like data protection and privacy, will 
need to be addressed more robustly before the EC,s proposals 
can be adopted. 
 
¶16. (SBU) The EC has not applauded Belgium for its early lead 
in rolling out a biometric passport, particularly since it 
did not wait for the technical standards decision to be 
finalized.  One of the primary motives for the EC to exert 
competence in the passport process was to play a coordinating 
role and ensure interoperability.  The EC notes that without 
the readers and other necessary infrastructure in place, the 
Belgian biometric passports are virtually meaningless; 
currently, they cannot even be read at the Brussels airport. 
Nevertheless, the EC understands Belgium,s particular 
interest in spearheading the move to more secure passports 
because of its probationary status in the visa waiver program. 
 
MCKINLEY 
.