The reintroduction of hi-tech plans for a national identity card by the UK government this week prompted some research into the topic. Naturally there are plenty of gainsayers, but that seems to be the norm when it comes to any new technology.
Why is it that the human race all at once has the ability to create and develop new technologies as well as have a strong and innate mistrust of them?
Before you dismiss this topic as irrelevant, consider that it may not be too long before you will be compelled to queue at your nearest Department of Home Affairs to have your eyeballs scanned.
Several governments appear to be considering incorporating biometric information into national identity documents, but the plans have hardly been received with open arms in the US, the UK and several European countries toying with the idea.
As security becomes a concern at more levels in most countries around the world, including SA, authorities are increasingly seeking a failsafe solution using biometrics, or measurable physical characteristics that can be used to identify people.
Chief concerns
Objections to the concept of biometric IDs are based on the chief concerns around privacy, cost and technology. Perhaps you should consider your position on these issues, as it may affect your life sooner than you think.
Opponents of biometric IDs argue that biometrics is still an emerging, unproven technology that has yet to achieve acceptable accuracy and global standardisation.
Warwick Ashford, portals managing editor, ITWeb
The biggest privacy concerns relate to the idea of any country creating a single, national database to store personal information along with biometric details such as fingerprints, facial scans and iris scans. Such a database is at the core of the SA Home Affairs National Identity System to be introduced in coming months for South African citizens and visitors.
Why would such a database be any less acceptable than already existing databases? After all these contain names, addresses and other details routinely gleaned from the population each time a national census is conducted. Surely the mere addition of biometric information cannot constitute a threat?
That being said, let`s hope that any such database will have a very big padlock and none of us ever find ourselves accused of some heinous crime with "irrefutable" biometric evidence of our guilt that has been simulated and planted by someone who has accessed our records.
Political parties are among the biggest objectors to biometric ID systems on the grounds of cost. Governments are defending the added cost by highlighting the potential savings to be made by more efficient operations in the fields of fighting terrorism, illegal immigration, fraud and identity theft.
According to Britain`s Prime Minister Tony Blair, identity theft alone costs his country over a billion pounds a year and is linked to various illegal activities.
An emotive issue
An interesting argument against biometric IDs is that unless every transaction requires an ID by law and every point of processing these transactions is able to capture and compare biometric information, ID cards carrying this information will be ineffective. Probably true, but a few changes to legislation could take care of that.
Money and privacy are certainly important emotive issues for both sides to exploit, but for me the most interesting arguments are naturally around technology.
Technology ought to be neutral and the automatic response of many people is likely to be that it is. In reality, however, I would argue that technology could be used emotively to suit the purposes of both sides in any debate.
Opponents of biometric IDs argue that biometrics is still an emerging, unproven technology that has yet to achieve acceptable accuracy and global standardisation. However, supporters say the rapid growth of the biometric access control industry is proof of the technology`s maturity.
Anyone who is undecided is likely to be influenced by how much faith or suspicion they have with regard to technology in general. Consequently, any decision on a technology-related issue is ultimately going to be an emotive one deriving from faith or suspicion.
Scare tactics
These positions have been replicated in the US and Europe, especially France, where government authorities are also preparing to incorporate biometric information into national identity documents and passports within the next two years.
Some countries in the European Union are even reported to be considering biometric visas and residence permits and plans are already in place for a European data sharing system that could be in place as early as 2007.
France, like Britain, has evoked threats of identity theft, illegal immigration and terrorism to support plans for biometric IDs, but opponents have criticised them for using scare tactics.
Unlike Britain, France`s biometric ID system has included support for digital certificates and signatures. Critics of the UK system have pointed out that the proposed UK biometric ID would be unable to provide authentication via a telephone call centre or the Internet.
It`s encouraging that countries are learning from each other. Hopefully, when our own Department of Home Affairs rolls out its biometric ID plans that will affect you and me, it will have managed to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls.
Instead of being worlds away, rumour has it that we might have to make up our minds sooner rather than later about whether the cost of biometric IDs, the risk of unauthorised access to our information, and concerns about the immaturity of the technology are lesser or greater evils than the threat of identity theft, fraud, illegal immigration and terrorism.
While some might say the world needs to get real and save money and effort by staying away from biometric IDs because determined criminals and terrorists will always find a way around any security measures, I suspect arguments in favour of biometric IDs will be propelled to victory by fear and suspicion, while technological considerations will sadly remain irrelevant.
Share