Suicide Bomber in Khost Targets Biometric Screening Checkpoint?

The HIIDE biometric data unit in use in Afghanistan. (ISAFMedia photo)

A suicide bombing in Khost, Afghanistan has caused multiple casualties today. Accounts of the bombing by Reuters and the New York Times have substantial differences in pertinent details, but the Reuters account stands out because it suggests that the attack was against NATO forces using biometric scanners to screen Afghan citizens at a checkpoint:

A suicide bomber struck a security checkpoint in Afghanistan’s city of Khost on Wednesday, killing at least 16 people and wounding 30, police said, the latest attack to raise questions about stability in the volatile eastern region bordering Pakistan.

/snip/

A witness said that NATO and Afghan troops were using biometric data to screen residents of the provincial capital when the bomber struck.

The photo above is from ISAFMedia’s Flicker feed and demonstrates the equipment used by NATO in collecting biometric data. The caption provided by ISAFMedia reads:

 A soldier from 2nd Platoon, A Company, 1-503rd Infantry Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team enters a member of a private Afghan security company into the Biometrics Automated Toolset (BAT) Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment (HIIDE) System near the village of Heyderk Hel, Wardak Province, Afghanistan, Feb.18, 2010. The BAT HIIDE System assists soldiers in community mapping. U.S. Army photo by Sgt Russell Gilchrest. (Released)

The handset used for collection of the biometric data is quite powerful:

With a high-capacity storage of up to 22,000 full biometric portfolios (two iris templates, ten fingerprints, a facial image, and biographic data), L-1’s HIIDE Series 4, or Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, is receiving praise for its functionality and appeal to Afghanis wishing to have proper identification that would distinguish them from suspected terrorist in question.

The product description on L-1’s Web site reads:

The HIIDE is the world’s first hand-held tri-biometric system that allows users to enroll and match via any of the three primary biometrics: iris, finger and face. The intuitive user interface makes it easy to enter biographic data to create a comprehensive database on the enrolled subject. The HIIDE provides complete functionality while connected to a host PC or when operating in the field un-tethered.

The featured biometric technology is presently being used in a ring of security checkpoints around Kandahar City in Afghanistan, where Canadian operated bases are also being equipped with it. The enrollment procedure is voluntary and takes approximately six minutes to complete. All the biometric information is sent securely to the database of ISAF, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.

From the description by Reuters, it appears that the bomber attacked a screening point in Khost that was using the biometric scanner to screen civilians in the area. The biometric screening program is touted by NATO as a key tool in re-integration of former insurgents:

 Demobilization involves the insurgents becoming lawful members of Afghan society that includes: a vetting process to ensure the applicant is a bona fide insurgent, personal registration that includes biometric data collection, registration of personal rifles and the turning over of heavy weapons and improvised explosive material.

Targeting of the screening of civilians with the biometric scanners would be an interesting new tactic by insurgents. However, the description of what appears to be the same bombing in the New York Times is very different from the account by Reuters and does not mention biometric screening.

More details from the Reuters story:

Sardar Mohammad Zazai, police chief of Khost province, said the bomber, riding a motorbike, detonated his explosives at the checkpoint manned by local and foreign security forces.

The attack took place near a mosque in a crowded part of the city, which lies near the border with Pakistan. Women and children were among the wounded, local officials said.

The New York Times, however, places the bomber on foot and says that his target was a passing convoy of NATO vehicles, not a stationary checkpoint, even though the same local official was quoted:

The attack was carried out by a suicide bomber on foot near the Spin Jomat bazaar in the crowded downtown area of Khost, capital of the eastern province of the same name, said Sardar Mohammad Zazai, the Khost Province Police Chief. He said the bomber detonated an explosive vest as the convoy was passing through about noon.

However, the size of the blast and the number of casualties was unusually large for a lone bomber, and the authorities were still investigating the circumstances.

It is not immediately clear which of the two reports is later than the other, but somehow Zazai’s account of the bomber changed between speaking to the two media outlets. If a biometric screening checkpoint was the target, this would be a very interesting strategy for the insurgents because it would be targeting civilians who presumably have already signed up for the program and been cleared as locals who pose no threat. Also, disrupting such a screening site temporarily might allow an insurgent known to be listed in the database to pass by a key checkpoint for carrying out a later mission.

Update: The Times has updated their story to match the account from Reuters:

At least 21 people, apparently including three American soldiers, were killed on Wednesday by a suicide bomber who attacked an American and Afghan military checkpoint in this provincial capital, Afghan officials said.
Most of the victims were Afghan civilians, including some children, who died when the attacker, believed to have been wearing a suicide vest, attacked a crowd at a checkpoint where American and Afghan soldiers were conducting biometric surveys of local residents.

Heh. And it looks like the editing is still a bit sloppy, as this paragraph has bits of the mutally exclusive versions of the story:

The attack was carried out by a suicide bomber on foot near the Spin Jomat bazaar in the crowded downtown area of Khost, capital of the eastern province of the same name, said Sardar Mohammad Zazai, the Khost Province Police Chief. He said the bomber detonated an explosive vest as the convoy was passing through about noon.

image_print
15 replies
  1. eCAHNomics says:

    Why would an insurgent not sign up for ASF? He gets ‘training,’ weapons, uniform, good-as-gold ID so he can go anywhere & blow up anything.

  2. justbetty says:

    Has anyone mentioned lately that it is time to just get out of there and let these people sort out their own affairs? Dan Froomkin (Huffington Post) has posted a great list of questions that no one in authority seems to be asking. Why not?

  3. frandor55 says:

    Having a Biometric ID dispenses with the need for “showing of papers”. Domestic use and related programs of these devices by DHS and police agencies at protests and demonstration by citizens raises interesting issues.

  4. Jim White says:

    Okay, now I can see a 7:29 am time stamp on the New York Times story and an 8:09 time stamp on the Reuters story, so it appears that the account of the bomber on a motorbike and hitting a stationary checkpoint came from the Khost police chief later than his account of a bomber on foot hitting a moving convoy.

    Edit: that time stamp was looking at the Times’ World page and it had fragments of the old version of the story. The story now is updated in its body to match the account from Reuters. I’ll add an update to the main post.

  5. jerryy says:

    @frandor55: “Having a Biometric ID dispenses with the need for “showing of papers”.”

    It creates a cottage industry designed towards necessary updates on a very regular basis. The biometric data being collected is not really good at identifying people over time periods longer than three or four months. Your eyes change as you age rendering iris scans unusable, ditto for voice scans. Facial images are not good at all. Fingerprints are statisical tools — in a roomful of people your fingerprints are probably unique, but in a large metro area you will likely match several other people, in a database from a country — bet on it.

    DNA testing is better (over time) but not foolproof, and since the CIA has ruined medical programs liike those aimed towards eradicating polio, getting DNA results will be difficult.

  6. pdaly says:

    How does obtaining biometric information confirm for the Afghan government that the person is no longer an insurgent?, (or will not become an insurgent, in the case of obtaining biometric information on noncombatant civilians?)

    Have the troops installed facial/iris recognition cameras throughout the areas to map out former insurgents’ social connections?

  7. Jim White says:

    @pdaly: I think the idea is that most of the time, data is collected for citizens who are “cleared” through some process (which I haven’t seen described in full, but which I believe includes a lot of social link mapping) which states they are not a threat. Others, like in the last story I linked, are the ones who are “reformed” insurgents. The article I linked that had the specs on the device had an interesting paragraph on inherent risks to a system of this sort:

    Using biometric devices in Afghanistan offers many benefits to coalition forces and to the Afghani themselves in making it easier to separate the good guys from the bad; some worry, however, that this can backfire — as was the case in Rwanda in 1994: identification cards which included photos and tribal affiliations of either Tutsis and Hutus made it easier for Hutu militias to identify the Tutsi and murder them.

    Since the data in this case appear to reside in the hand-held unit and not on a physical ID card, that’s why I think the screening point where pre-cleared citizens are moving through a checkpoint makes it such a choice target for the insurgents. A number of incidents like this will have citizens reluctant to be cleared and to pass through checkpoints where only cleared citizens are allowed.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “Screening point”. Sounds innocuous, as if its purpose were peaceful, non-abusive, non-discriminatory, non-partisan public safety. Troops from occupying foreign armies rarely engage in such behavior. They are there to protect the interests of the foreign occupier, not the natives.

    Such wholesale collection of unique, biological personal data is a greater long-term intrusion than the presence of foreign troops and mercenaries. The bio-data is a permanent. It is a lifetime marker more likely to be used in discriminatory ways than for peaceful enforcement of the rule of law. It is inherently predatory. Rare is the technology developed for maintaining empire not adopted at home for the same purposes.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    @pdaly: It confirms whether an individual is in the database, to which local, foreign and international bodies would have access. It tracks some of the patterns in that persons movements. It can be used to crosscheck an individual’s other files in such databases, kept for whatever purposes the governments that establish and maintain those databases choose.

    It would require a credulity too far to believe that those purposes would be restricted to peaceful, non-partisan law enforcement.

  10. JDJacks says:

    @jerryy: @frandor55. You need to go back to school before you start spouting off on blogs about the veracity of biometrics. You said “The biometric data being collected is not really good at identifying people over time periods longer than three or four months. (That is a load of you know what) Your eyes change as you age rendering iris scans unusable, ditto for voice scans.(once again you fail to understand the underlying science and just assume from your ignorance that what you say is true) Facial images are not good at all. Fingerprints are statisical tools — in a roomful of people your fingerprints are probably unique, but in a large metro area you will likely match several other people, in a database from a country — bet on it.(Also a completely false statement. Where did you ever pick up all these myths?) I would recommend you study for the IEEE Certified Biometric Professional exam. Like my grandad used to tell me “You are the smartest man in any room until you open your mouth and prove otherwise.

  11. JDJacks says:

    @Jim White: The checkpoints arent so much to clear “pre cleared individuals” rather it is to search for the individuals whose prints have been placed on the watchlist of known or suspected terrorits because there prints have shown up on IEDs or their previous biometric collection has been flagged because of associated intel on their activities. Makes the perfect target because it is hindering the ananomous free movement of insurgents. Denying anonnymity in the local populace to insurgents is the fastest way to break an insurgency.

  12. jerryy says:

    @Jim White: (I replied, but must of entered the name in incorrectly or something, it did not seem to post.) Since you asked :^)

    http://www.cse.msu.edu/biometrics/Presentations/AnilJain_UniquenessOfFingerprints_NAS05.pdf

    http://www.voicemedicine.com/aging.htm
    (this is why folks that use voice controlled computer input have to retrain their systems regularly — which is usually stated straight up in the documentation.)

    http://www.makuladegeneration.org/EN/maculardegeneration_smoking.php

    http://drkisling.com/tag/caffeine-side-effects/
    http://www.agingeye.net/glaucoma/glaucomadrugtreatment.php

Comments are closed.