Biometrics can be defined as, the biological identification of a person, which includes eyes, voice, hand prints, finger prints, retina patterns, and handwritten signatures (Power, 2002). Irma van der Ploeg (2004) notes that with biometrics tools, a person’s iris can be “read” in the same way that a person’s voice can be printed, fingerprints can be “read” by a computer that is “touch sensitive” and “endowed with hearing and seeing capacities.” In 2002, an iris-scanning device, which is a type of biometric identification scheme, was first tested at London's Heathrow Airport. The scanning device captures a digital image of one's iris, which is then stored in a database. The digital image can be matched against images of individuals, including those entering and leaving public places.
At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium. The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September 11, 2001, it was widely supported.
European Proposals to use of biometric identifiers have also generated controversy. The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries. In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.
There are arguments both for and against the use of biometrics technology.
The arguments for Biometrics:
• Biometrics cannot be blamed for anonymity loss in today's world but larger social and technological forces caused this. Computers and computer networks like the Internet make it incredibly easy to collect and store people’s personal information, and to share this information to a large number of people.
• The Internet provides many resources for identity theft (e.g. search engines, genealogy databases).
• In the physical world, people have access to others' credit reports.
• For a small fee employers can perform checks on their employees through services provided by companies like Informus and Infoseekers.
• There is no need for biometrics in order for government agencies surveillance to take place. There are already satellites which can track a person's movements with extreme detail.
• Video surveillance cameras in department stores, online electronic transactions, and email sniffing are just three means by which others can keep track of one's digital identity.
• Biometrics protects privacy by safeguarding identity and integrity. Biometric authentication systems provide very secure protection against impersonators. Weaknesses in token-based and knowledge-based authentication systems can be exploited and broken into.
• Biometrics is a friend to privacy because it can be used to limit access to information.
• Biometrics is a privacy-enhancing technology. Many current biometric algorithms use biometric characteristics to construct a unique code that can be reconstructed only with the particular biometric identifier or a person's actual physical characteristic.
• Biometric data is electronic code that is separate and distinct from personal information, and provides an effective, secure barrier against unauthorized access to personal information.
The arguments against Biometrics:
• Critics argue that biometric authentication methods present a serious threat to privacy rights. These arguments have been broken down into three categories: anonymity, tracking and surveillance, data matching and profiling.
• Individuals lose their anonymity in any system or digital environment that uses biometric authentication methods. Option of anonymity for electronic purchases and in the political arena as part of people’s expectation of privacy.
• Privacy advocates see biometrics as being able to help in government monitoring of citizens by the State. Biometric measures can be used as universal identifiers for individuals because each biometric measure is unique.
• Isolated identifying and non-identifying information in different databases can be used to create extensive records that profile people's shopping and spending habits.
• The biggest danger of biometrics, according to privacy advocates, is that biometric identifiers can be linked to databases of other information that people do not want to share. The threat to privacy arises from "the ability of third parties to access this data in identifiable form and link it to other information, resulting in secondary uses of the information, without the consent of the data subject." [1]. This would be a violation of the Code of Fair Information Practices, since the individual would no longer have control over the dissemination of his personal information.
• People generally have negative feelings towards biometrics, in particular fingerprints, because of its association with criminal identification, and more recently because of its use in State welfare schemes to prevent recipients from making double claims on their benefits.
• Biometric identifiers are an "example of the state's using technology to reduce individuality." [2]. This type of identification corrupts the relationship between citizen and state because it empowers the State with control over its citizens.
• Religious groups argue that biometric authentication methods are "the mechanism foretold in religious prophecy (e.g. the Mark of the Beast)" [3].
• Further religious objections are based on the premise that individuals must give up themselves, or part of themselves, to a symbol of authority which has no spiritual significance.
• Though there are no documented cases of biometrics technologies causing actual physical harm to users, certain methods are considered as invasive. For example, retina scanning requires the user to place his eye as close as 3" away from the scanner so that it can capture an image of his retina pattern. Fingerprint recognition devices too are deemed as invasive because they require the user to actually touch a pad.
• In terms of privacy protection for users of biometric systems, it suggests only self-regulation for the private sector. This means that there would be no legal way to punish companies for misuse of biometric information.
• There are many companies who do not audit how information is used and disclosed.
• Businesses commonly sell information to each other in order to use data mining algorithms to discover consumer trends, and send them targeted advertising material.
• Sometimes authorities use biometrics technology in public places to catch criminals and suspected terrorists. For example at super bowl XXXV in 2001Some argue that it would be a violation of privacy to do so without appropriate court orders.
My position on this controversial topic:
I personally would like to separate the issues involving biometric technology in two groups. The first issue has to do with unauthorized parties gaining access to one’s personal information including credit card information, medical information, work history, etc. and then sharing this information with third parties for data mining and information matching for the benefit of their business. The second issue has to do with government agencies using biometric technology in public gatherings without public knowing about it or having appropriate court order.
In my opinion, technology can be used for both to benefit us or to cause harm. I would argue that government should have more regulations on biometric technology usage rather than relying on self regulations in private sectors. So that the victim can get legal protection and help and companies think twice before they involve themselves into unauthorized or unethical conducts. I do not personally see any issues with getting my retina scanned or fingerprint taken for identification purposes. For one example, this could make the line in the airport security checkpoints move faster as it helped the Heathrow airport. I however do not want to have my private information that is not public information to be linked to my biometric identification information.
I also do not see any issue and support the law enforcement using the biometric technology to track and catch criminals and potential terrorists. In recent days we have seen lot of security britches in the airports and other institutions which was cause by the lack of information sharing between government agencies. The use of biometric technology can reduce the chance of this kind of incidents from occurring and create better security for the nation and its citizens.
References:
1. "Privacy and Biometrics" http://www.ipc.on.ca/web_site.eng/matters/sum_pap/papers/pri-biom.htm
2. Davies, Simon G. "Touching Big Brother. How biometric technology will fuse flesh and machine." http://www.pclink.com/sarakawa/files/biometric.htm
3. "IBIA Announces Privacy Principles" March 25, 1999. http://www.ibia.org/press3.htm
4. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 7”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment