TECHNOLOGY AND ITS REPRESENTATION IN THE COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES

The term Biometrics has recently undergone a change. Where once before it used to refer to the collection and analysis of data from a biological community, it has now been broadened to include the study of methods for uniquely recognising other human beings based upon physiological and psychological traits. With this data a being can be catalogued and the information stored on a database for validation or Identification procedures in the future.

The emergence and development of Biometric Identification technologies in recent years has caused mass debate in the communications media on a worldwide scale. The topic is a controversial one, because it involves costly mass production and distribution of scanning and identification technology, a vast amount of personal information requiring collection and assimilation, probabilities of infringements of civil liberties and all under the suspicion of compulsory membership of a ‘non compulsory’ scheme. You won’t have to carry Identity, but it may harm you in the long run if you do not.

The positives however are much more appealing:

The National Identity Scheme (NIS) is intended to secure our borders and tackle illegal immigration, to prevent identity fraud and criminal assumption of multiple identities (which is commonplace), to enhance the safeguards in place during police checks for people working with children and those who are vulnerable and to enhance the level of customer service provided across governmental departments and the wider public sector.

The Home Office. (December 2006) Strategic action plan for the National Identity Scheme. [online] Available: http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/Strategic-Action-Plan.pdf [date accessed: 13 Jan. 08]

The emphasis on identity has arisen, due to the recent political shift, relative to the global paranoia, post September 11th 2001. Since 9/11 governments in both USA and the UK have redoubled their efforts to pass laws that would introduce biometric systems to their countries health, immigration, employment, security and welfare systems to name but a few.

With all these services to cover there are more than enough sources of revenue for the biometrics industry. In 2005 the research and debate group BITE (Biometric Identification Technology Ethics) stated that:

The number of biometric devices in use in Europe has jumped from 8,550 in 1996 to more than 150,000 in 2004 and biometric industries revenues are expected to more than triple in the next two years.

BITE Project. (2005) Promoting Research and Public Debate on Bioethical Implications
of Emerging Biometric Identification Technologies. [online] Available: http://www.biteproject.org/ [date accessed: 13 Jan. 08]

These figures suggest an increase of more than 1750% over 8 years. The devices not only include heavy duty retinal scanners and fingerprint readers for access to secure buildings, but they also include the consumer security market figures too. Miniature portable fingerprint scanners are now available as a USB device for personal computer / laptop security. Some of the latest laptops even come with a scanner built in. You can pick them up on your local high street.

The good intentions of the governing bodies attempting to currently introduce this technology are small in comparison to the fears of what the information could be used for and the possibility that should corporations get hold of the information, a new form of invasive advertising and product pushing might begin.

This is no more evident than in the Stephen Spielberg action thriller Minority Report (an adaptation of the Philip K. Dick short story.)
At one point the male lead is in the centre of a busy shopping district with an example of the un-ethical use of unauthorised retinal scanning to produce “personalised” adverts for their customers. But this man is on the run and seconds later his face is plastered across every screen and hologram within a five block radius. Further on and he has had to receive an eye transplant (bear in mind this is set 45 years in the future) to shake off his previous identity. The police employ a miniature retinal scanner in the hunt for him, but it is fooled by his “new eyes.”

Minority Report [DVD] (2002) Directed by Stephen Spielberg. Cruise / Wagner Productions. 142 mins.

This simple concept now appears to be closer than we think and through this medium of film indicates some of the possible problems it might incur.

It would appear that the British government consider the biometric ID card to be a more secure version of a passport or drivers licence. It is in fact plausible that the drivers licence and maybe even the passport would be scrapped entirely in favour of indicating driving privileges on the Identity Card. In 2002 David Blunkett made a television appearance on Newsnight for the BBC. In a transcript of the conversation he hints at the similarities between the current statistics of passport and drivers licence holders and the expected number of ID card holders, should a voluntary system be implemented:

Well, you have to register if you want to drive a car. You have to register if you want a passport. 38 million people have a driving licence. 44 million, including some youngsters, have their own passport. There's nothing new about registering. All those people do.

Blunkett. D. (2002) Teletext subtitle transcript from Newsnight (Real video of this interview is also available) [online] Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2093573.stm [date accessed: 12 Jan 08]

Mr Blunkett seems to make a good indication that although these technologies may not be mandatory you would require one if you wanted to do anything. This is what is worrying most of the people who will choose to “opt-out” of the system (The House of Lords allowed the bill to pass after five previous attempts on the condition that there was the possibility to opt-out of the system.) However the BBC has gathered this information:

What will happen when I apply for a passport?
You will have to go to your local passport office where you will be photographed and fingerprinted. The new Identity and Passport Service will then carry out a "background check" on you to establish that you are who you say you are. Your details will then be entered in a national database and you will be issued with a passport and an ID card. You will probably be able to use your ID card as a passport within the EU.
Will there be a discount for those who opt-out of having an identity card?
No. Charles Clarke, who steered the measure through Parliament when he was home secretary, said the final charges have yet to be worked out but those who opt out of ID cards will have to pay the same for a passport as those who accept one and their details will be entered into the database in the same way.

BBC News (09 Jan 2008) Q&A: Identity card plans [online] Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127696.stm [date accessed 10 Jan 2008]

So although you might have decided to opt out of the ID card scheme this implies that the government will try to get you on their system in as many ways as possible. There would be no way of obtaining a passport without being entered into the biometric database.

The technologies themselves are not necessarily the root cause of the problem, but it is in the way it could be used for profiling that scares many people. The use of one method under biometrics, finger prints for instance, have been used for over a hundred years in the solving of crimes, because every one is unique.
It is a tried and tested system and the faults are known (for instance being at the scene of a crime hours before whilst totally innocent you might be arrested or just asked to provide a statement) as is the fact that someone intending to do crime would be smarter than to expose their fingers to anything.

Finger prints are also in this way one of the best security identifiers, hence why they have been used for years as right of access. They have replaced passwords for many people as a password is often forgotten or is easy to crack because many people use personal information such as date of birth and children’s names etc.

There is another form of risk when it comes to biometric passwords. There are no lengths to which some people will go to steal your identity, for instance the removal of a finger of a business man to start his Mercedes Benz.

Of course one can see why this might give biometrics a bad reputation.

In late 2007 it appeared in the news that the government had “misplaced” copies of 25 million Briton’s social security information, information that could be used in identity theft. What is to say that in the future this won’t happen again with countless numbers of British citizens biometric data? This information would not only have to be scrapped from the records for fear of mass identity fraud, but it would also be irreplaceable as the fields measured would be permanent factors of the person’s identity. The government’s answer to this is:

As described in Chapter 2, the information
in each person’s NIR entry will be in several
parts, with each part being held on a separate
set of technologies:
-biometric details will be held on the
biometric system;
-a biographical part of the entry will be held
on the Customer Information System (CIS)
technology; and
-Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) related
information will be held on the PKI
technology already being used for issuing
passports.

The Home Office. (December 2006) Strategic action plan for the National Identity Scheme. [online] Available: http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/Strategic-Action-Plan.pdf [date accessed: 13 Jan. 08]

Essentially only those in the highest positions would ever be able to view our biometric NIR (National Identity Register) in full and each separate identifier would be stored in separate locations and on different formats.

From what I can discern from the communications media articles there are two distinct sides to this argument.
On the one side are the majority of the Labour party and a percentage of the population of the United Kingdom who are prepared to pilot the biometric National Identity Scheme. And on the other are the Conservatives and Liberals whom are united with a larger percentage of the population.

It would seem that the government’s main representation in the media is through gruelling television or radio interviews where they have attempted to defend the reasons for gathering so much data about the citizenry and their public information on the home office and passport office websites.

Whereas most of the opposition to the scheme has been highly distributed via a similar range of sources including TV, radio, newspaper and the internet, but they are receiving more focus for their protestations, because their arguments are entirely plausible as many have roots in current issues that, although it is claimed the ID cards will solve them, it is already too easy to see the flaws with the system. What is in place to stop someone who has access to the biometric information from passing that information on? It is argued that once the information has been gathered it will be sold to third party companies which may very well breach one’s privacy.
Is it necessary to record the facial structure of every person in the UK over a certain age? Would this not lead to extra surveillance on the population and the possibility of mistakes? Facial appearance is often subject to change depending on the health, weight and age of the person. There is also the possibility that plastic surgery will become more popular amongst the unlawful so as to assume one’s identity further.

The government is attempting to communicate the fact that the biometric scheme will improve civil security, whereas the general public consensus that has been forwarded directly by the communications media is the idea that security levels would not change in lieu of the current systems in place, but it will in fact only lead to a loss of the civil liberties that we take for granted.

The main premise here is that many more people are willing to watch a television debate or read a newspaper, than they would be to listen directly to the government ministers, but through these sources they are biased by the opinions of those who send out the messages.

Essentially we only receive the information we have been allowed to see by people of higher authority in the media and will only truly know the extent of success or failure by testing the system for ourselves.

In 2006 the National Identity act was passed with a view to start voluntary application this year (2008). This year passports will also be changing to include more biometric data. So it is already here, despite all of the public opposition.