Concerns Of Privacy Advocates Regarding Biometrics example essay topic

In America today, it is far too easy to conceal our own identity or assume the identity of another for the purpose of doing wrong. An individual can steal an identity by obtaining some easily discovered pieces of information about a person or by stealing a card or token that is used to identify the individual. To protect our identity, which is crucial in protecting our privacy, there must be a form of identification that cannot be learned, stolen or forged. The only effective means of accomplishing this is the use of biometrics.

By using biometrics identifiers such as fingerprints, iris / retina, or facial patterns, a person's identity can be realized. Biometrics identifiers are of course widely used by people to identify each other - one might recognize a friend by the sound of her voice, the color of her eyes, or the shape of her face. Devices using biometrics identifiers attempt to automate this process by comparing the information scanned in real time against an "authentic" sample stored digitally in a database. However, deploying biometrics in a mass market, like credit card authorization or bank ATM access, raises additional concerns beyond the security of the transactions. One such concern is the public's perception of a possible invasion of privacy. In addition to personal information such as name and date of birth, the user is asked to surrender images of body parts, such as fingers, face, and iris.

These images, or other such biometric signals, are stored in digital form in various databases. This raises the concern of possible sharing of data among law enforcement agencies, or commercial enterprises. The public is concerned about the ever-growing body of information that is being collected about individuals in our society. The data collected encompass many applications and include medical records and biometric data. A related concern is the coordination and sharing of data from various databases.

In relation to biometric data, the public is, rightfully or not; worried about data collected by private companies being matched against databases used by law enforcement agencies. Fingerprint images, for example, can be matched against the FBI or INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) databases with ominous consequences. These concerns are aggravated by the fact that a person's biometric data are given and cannot be changed. One of the properties that makes biometrics so attractive for authentication purposes-their invariance over time-is also one of its liabilities. When a credit card number is compromised, the issuing bank can just assign the customer a new credit card number.

When the biometric data are compromised, replacement is not possible. It is somewhat ironic that the greatest strength of biometrics, the fact that the biometrics does not change over time, is at the same time its greatest liability. Once a set of biometric data has been compromised, it is compromised forever. Thus it seems that although the use of biometrics is seen as the of future of security, there are significant privacy and civil liberties issues regarding the use of such devices. From a study conducted by the RAND Biometric Team for the U.S. Army, the following three issues were presented as key concerns of the public with regard to the use of Biometrics. They are information privacy, physical privacy and religious concerns.

Information Privacy - the power to control what others can come to know about you. The most significant informational privacy concerns relate to the threat of function creep and the tracking capabilities of biometrics. Tracking, which may be thought of as a particular type of function creep, refers to the ability to monitor in real time an individual's actions or to search databases that contains information about these actions. For example, if an individual must use a standard biometric for multiple governmental, business, and leisure transactions of everyday life, it becomes possible that each of these records could be linked through the standardized biometric. This link could allow an entity, such as the government, to compile a comprehensive profile of the individual's actions. This Big Brother concern has been expressed by privacy expert Roger Clarke (1994, p. 34): Any high-integrity identifier [like biometrics] represents a threat to civil liberties, because it represents the basis for a ubiquitous identification scheme, and such a scheme provides enormous power over the populace.

All human behavior would become transparent to the state, and the scope for non-conformism and dissent would be muted to the point envisaged by the anti-Utopian novelists. The possibility of clandestine capture of biometric data increases concerns about Big Brother. For example, facial recognition systems can track individuals without the individual's knowledge or permission. This alone raises ethical concerns. Moreover, the information from tracking can be combined with other personal data, acquired through biometrics or other means, to provide even more insight into an individual's private life. Anonymity is seen by some as a benefit to illegal activities but there are many aspects of our affairs that many of us would legitimately prefer to keep to ourselves.

Health problems, marital concerns, parental history or religious beliefs are features of ourselves that we may prefer not to be widely known. Tracking of citizens, surveillance societies and loss of autonomy are often associated in our minds with totalitarian governments but even well meaning regimes may use whatever is in their control when they feel the end justifies the means. As an example, the governments of Canada and the United States felt justified in identifying and incarcerating those of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War. These people were at least, in part, identified through the use of census data (CATI). And so the question posed by privacy advocates is, How much more efficiently could this have been accomplished with today's technologies and the myriad of available government databases? It is this general encroachment, often described as "function creep" that they are most concerned about.

Function Creep is seen as using information for purposes other than the original purpose for which it was collected. However, it should be noted that depending on whom it affects and how it affects them, function creep might be seen as desirable or undesirable. For instance, using Sons to search for a parent who is delinquent with child support payments may be seen as desirable. On the other hand, having a person's digitized state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) photograph sold to a commercial firm to create a national photo ID database might be considered unacceptable. Additional purposes can be useful and valuable to society, but ethical concerns arise when biometrics are used beyond their original purpose, without the informed and voluntary consent of the participants. These concerns include whether participants have the right to reassess their participation given the new purpose for the data, the implications of a decision not to cooperate in providing biometric data, and justification of the new purposes, given the program's original intent (RAND).

The third concern regarding information privacy is the misuse of personal information (data), including the stealing of identities (identity theft). This has become more of a threat as information technology, including electronic commerce, has become ubiquitous. Used in certain ways, biometrics provides greater security because the biometric identifier is much harder to steal or counterfeit. On the other hand, where biometrics are authenticated remotely, that is, by transmission of data from a sensor to a centralized data repository, a hacker might be able to steal, copy, or reverse-engineer the biometric. This misappropriation could also come about through insider misuse-e. g., the rogue employee.

Without proper safeguards, files could be misappropriated and transactions could be performed using other people's identities. The second key concern of biometrics is Physical Privacy. This also raises three issues: the stigma associated with some biometrics, such as fingerprints; the possibility of actual harm to the participants by the technology itself; and the concern that the devices used to obtain or "read" the biometric may be unhygienic. Stigmatization - In the United States, some individuals and segments of society associate fingerprinting with law enforcement, acts of criminal behavior and oppressive government and as such would not be willing to subject to it.

Actual harm that could be caused by biometric technologies is another area of concern for people. Although the technology may be harmless, the perception of harm may cause users to obstruct the implementation of a program or be reluctant to participate in it. For example, a person whose career depends on his or her eyesight might be greatly concerned about a biometrics program that requires him or her to look in close proximity at a device to have their retina scanned. Others may be concerned that a dismembered limb could be stolen and used to breach a system. Hygiene and concerns about the cleanliness of sensors also lead to objections to biometrics. People may feel uncomfortable placing their faces against a machine to have their retinas scanned after many others have done so or touching a hand-geometry scanner during flu and cold season.

At the same time, it must be noted that the degree to which objections based on physical requirements arise depends on the biometric used. The reluctance and concern would also vary depending on whether the sensor is shared by many (as with a hand-geometry reader at an airport) or used individually (as with a desktop computer fingerprint sensor). The third and final key concern raised by privacy and civil liberties advocates regarding biometrics is that of a Religious nature. Religious objections have arisen when identification programs have been implemented. For example, certain Christians interpret biometrics to be a "Mark of the Beast". The objection is based on language found in the Bible in the book of Revelation: [The Beast] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save that he had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name... and his number is six hundred, threescore, and six.

(Revelation, 13: 16-18.) Certain Christians consider the biometric to be the brand discussed in Revelation and biometric readers as the only means of viewing these brands. Similarly, M.G. "Pat" Robertson, host of "The 700 Club" and founder of The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., observes that the "Bible says the time is going to come when you cannot buy or sell except when a mark is placed on your hand or forehead". He expresses doubts about biometrics and notes how the technology is proceeding according to Scripture. In Alabama, groups including the Christian Coalition, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the American Civil Liberties Union, vigorously protested an effort to place a fingerprint biometric on all drivers' licenses. In July 1997, Alabama Governor Fob James, Jr., stopped the proposed program because of these objections. However, five other states-California, Texas, Colorado, Hawaii, and Georgia-require a driver to provide a fingerprint on the driver's license, without significant public opposition.

In West Virginia and the District of Columbia, providing a fingerprint for the license is optional. Although the concerns of privacy advocates regarding biometrics are valid, these concerns can largely be alleviated with the creation of laws, enforcement agencies and monitoring to ensure that the government and corporations do not misuse the data. We do not live in an authoritarian country, but rather a democracy with numerous checks and balances. The key to preventing the loss of our liberty and autonomy is not to prevent the spread of technology, but rather to ensure that it is used properly and in a transparent nature.

The development of biometrics should be treated similarly to the development of genetics. It is for the good of society that we learn how to use these technologies, but it needs to be done with observation from government and private watchdog groups to ensure that the technology is not abused.

Bibliography

Clarke, Roger. (2001) "Biometrics and Privacy" Principal, Xanax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra at web Clarke, Roger.
Human Identification in Information Systems: Management Challenges and Public Policy Issues". Information Technology & People. MCB University Press Ltd. Volume 7 Number 4, 1994 Cooper Advanced Technologies Inc (CATI).
Biometrics - Privacy Concerns" web Rath a N.K., Connell J.H. and Bolle R.M. "Enhancing Security and Privacy in Biometrics-based Authentication Systems", IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40. #3, 2001 RAND Biometric Team.
Army Biometric Applications: Identifying and Addressing Sociocultural Concerns". Arroyo Center. U.S. Army DISC 4 Robertson, Pat. "Biometrics: Chipping Away Your Rights?" Christian Broadcasting Network, October 9, 1995 Stamper, Chris.
Fighting the Fingerprints", CNN. com, July 24, 1997.