New report advises proportionality and transparency in applying biometric technology
News | 06 Nov 2009 :
The Irish Council for Bioethics (ICB) has launched its report entitled "Biometrics: Enhancing Security or Invading Privacy?" The report advises that these technologies, though powerful, must be used appropriately to avoid resentment and paranoia among users.
Biometric technologies, says the report, such as fingerprint, voice, face and iris recognition, are increasingly becoming part of daily life. Due to the marked rise in security threats and the escalation of identity theft, people are being required to identify themselves in order to travel, complete financial transactions or to have their time and attendance at work or school monitored.
Implemented appropriately and managed correctly, the report advises, biometrics can both improve security and enhance privacy. Nonetheless, it warns, there are fears that an Orwellian "Big Brother" society will be the inevitable consequence of the increased use of biometric technologies. Questions arise regarding what type of information is collected and if the amount of information collected is proportionate to the amount actually required, how information is stored and whether there is any inappropriate sharing of that information.
The ICB recommends that biometric applications be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that those wishing to implement a biometric programme outline the relevance and necessity of such a system, as well as the environment in which it will be used.
The IC says that while it recognises that a balance needs to be struck between individual rights and those of society as a whole (e.g. for security reasons), there are concerns that the common good may be over utilised as a means of justifying compulsory biometric programmes. The ICB recommends that where the common good is to be used as an explanation for using biometrics, then a detailed justification must be provided.
The council also recommends that information collected by biometrics systems should be limited to that necessary for identification and that where people no longer wish to use biometrics or where it is no longer of use the information should be deleted. The ICB encourages the use of personal storage devices (e.g. smart cards) as opposed to the use of large information databases. Additionally, it strongly urges the use of encryption and the separation of biometrics information from other types of personal information (e.g. name, address and dare of birth). Alternative non-biometrics systems should be available for those who do not wish to or cannot participate in biometric programmes to ensure that they will not be disenfranchised or discriminated against.
It is important that people understand the purpose and implications of biometric systems, says the council, and the potential consequences of their decision to participate or not. Therefore, the report recommends that policy makers and the biometric community should discuss the introduction of biometric programmes in an open and transparent way, especially where participation in such programmes will be mandatory. Transparency requires not just education, the provision of information and accountability, but also an open debate with feedback from all stakeholders.
"The ubiquity of biometrics begs the question whether any of us can lead truly private lives anymore," said Dr Siobhán O'Sullivan, managing scientific director, ICB. "Privacy is intrinsically linked to our right to control access to ourselves and to our personal information so it is essential that people are informed about when and how their information will be collected and with whom it will be shared."
"With proper safeguards in place, concerns regarding people being characterised as pieces of information rather than as individuals in their own right can be allayed," concluded Dr O'Sullivan.