22nd October 2007

Biometrics 2007: Biometrics help security trump privacy

Eleanor Dallaway

New biometric technologies and plans for increased surveillance are jeopardising society’s right to liberty and privacy, argued David Murakami Wood, managing editor of Surveillance & Society, at the Biometrics 2007 conference on Friday 19 October.

Wood used UK identity cards as his first example: “ID cards should be about securing citizens. If they become about securing the state, we need to question security and what it’s there for,” Wood argued.

Biometric technologies are increasingly emerging into society, he said. Initially used only in airports, they are now in schools, bars and elsewhere. Biometric technology is also developing. “Now we’re looking at mobile cameras, micro cameras, chips, and smart dust. How can you regulate this, and where does it stop?” asked Wood. “How are ordinary people going to live in this new society? Biometric professionals are making money, but who else is benefiting?”

“Surveillance is a key aspect of making ‘distant biometrics’ work. And this is reliant on automated technology. Does this de-humanise our society?” asked Wood. “These technologies should enable people,” he argued, not deny them of their fundamental right to privacy. “The idea that people should fit into the technology and behave to suit that technology has emerged. This is wrong. It should be the other way round.”

Wood argued that CCTV does not prevent crime: “It helps with detecting after the crime has been committed, but it doesn’t stop it happening,” he said. “Political figures are way too impressed with the latest technologies. But we need to look into what we really need, and not just jump on the latest ‘new thing’.”

Military ideas are creeping into civilian society, explained Wood, describing “a society where security trumps civilian liberties,” and privacy becomes secondary. “There’s this idea that security means safety – but does this really exist?” he questioned.

“Britain has witnessed the implementation of incompetent surveillance systems, and trust has been lost. How do we regain that trust in the performance of technology?” At the moment, Wood says, “the state sees the right to acquire our data as paramount”. He lists charges and imprisonment for ID card non-compliance as an example. “But it’s our personal data”, he argued. “Shouldn’t the government pay to acquire our data?”

National databases, he argues, are a platform for prejudice. “On the national DNA database, there is preponderance of black men’s DNA. This is no coincidence. Why don’t they just have everyone’s DNA? Where’s the consistency?” asked Wood.

He said people are becoming increasingly willing to share their privacy – this can be seen in the huge increase in popularity of social networking sites. But is offering ourselves up to surveillance a step too far? “We need a reciprocal society,” argued Wood, “where surveillance and accountability are reciprocal. Liberty and privacy should be an integral part of national security, not in opposition to it. Technologies should be fitted to policies, not vice versa.”

“Everything the industry is doing is working towards a ‘type’ of security. It’s not just about individual competitions and technology wars though. Technologists have a responsibility to allow a societal debate, and maybe even start it,” Wood told his predominantly-technologist audience. “Because at the moment, policy is still a long way behind technological development,” he concluded.

Fingerprints fail to tackle football ‘hooligans’ (19 October 2007)

Biometrics move from banking to borders (24 August 2007)

News index