Biometrics: A Brave New World or A Braver World that Faces Itself

This subject of biometrics was brought to my attention yesterday. I sent off a question to a friend who works with the police on drug and money laundering issues. He said ‘the genie is out of the bottle.’ Indeed it is, but we can create a balanced society through seeing differently. It is not to stop biometrics, it is to deal with it responsibly and solve the underlying problems with other approaches such as Peace Education and pro social education.

According to Wikipedia Biometrics (or biometric authentication)[note 1] consists of methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance.

My first response to this is creating a society that has strong inner values and delivering peace education to encourage people to solve problems and create unified families and societies. Very little thought in the media or public discourse goes into what creates the criminal, what motivates them, the psychological profile and influences and how this can be transformed into pro-social behaviour rather than punishment, another approach which teaches revenge as a form of violence. My understanding from a peace perspective is many come from backgrounds where they learn anti-social behaviour from friends, family or television. On a deeper level it may come from disgruntled attitudes and low self esteem that separate from others rather than a sense of shared community. A child can learn from adults selfishness, disrespect of others, the haves and have nots, violence, bullying, abuse and fall into groups that feel security in asserting power through aggression. They may feel they are worthless or receive no respect unless they have money or prestige and underlying that, is the basic instinct of attracting girls. Thus, the environment is a model for boys. For girls it could appear as self absorption, vanity, superiority/inferiority, abuse, self hatred and learned behaviours where they have no sense of value or self respect. They have to earn it through power based behaviours or attention seeking. Moreover, fuelling this anti-social behaviour is music and images on television of violent themes, characters or perhaps larger than life soldiers with lots of protection and weaponry going out and fighting the evil or bad guys. There are few role models in the same proportion that model responsibility, integrity and love (dare I say it) and ethical/values based behaviour as strength. What seems to happen is that violence or criminal actions occur but there is no reflective or empathetic response which could indicate a lack of empathy, pathological (non feeling) or justifiable reasons for violence or crime without any emotional assessment. Emotional intelligence is about feeling for others, sensing emotional undercurrents and having an innate sense of empathy for others. Men are taught to suppress emotions and this builds frustration when problems arise. Men are not encouraged to cry as it is seen as not strong. This is a fundamental flaw in how we teach men and boys. The human body has tear ducts to release toxins built up through our emotions. The real initiation for boys was to face fear rather than deny their humanness. Today, the challenge is to face emotional pain as it is manifesting in violence. We then turn that pain into images of warriors as channels to express the pain and anger. We make men look like heroes by killing and winning and there is no retrospective examination of the social and psychological impact on families, society and men themselves. In fact what we see is a lack of empathy where the one causing harm has no awareness of the other they have hurt, as they were taught to be tough. War is an example in the extreme where killing often happens remotely or where hand to hand combat occurs, it is justified as killing the enemy for a higher cause, often touted as ‘freedom’. Violence of course is the opposite of freedom. Freedom has free will inherent within the concept. There is no connection to the pain, insecurity and rage of families and communities that are affected directly. Emotionally, many men do not go there as it opens a Pandora’s box. Yet even in the Pandora’s box the one remaining element is hope, that is what awaits us when we have the courage to look inside. It is essential that men go there, this will create the real security in our world.

We have created a culture of fear where when we feel threatened, our first response is protection. If that threat is expanded through the media hype and bias, even if not a direct threat, it heightens perceived fear which often feeds into calls for greater protection and security. When people are afraid they are more open to control and allow their civil liberties to be lessened to ensure safety first. This was clearly evident in Australia over September 11 attacks in the US. Even though Australia was not directly threatened and the Australian Intelligence Agencies evaluated Weapons of Mass Destruction threats (WMD) as a low security threat, Australia responded with increased airport security, the ASIO Act, and resurrection of the 1919 sedition laws (speaking against the government). I interviewed Andrew Wilkie, who formerly worked at the Office of National Assessment as an Intelligence Officer. He had come out publicly as a whistleblower revealing his concerns about this war and Australian involvement in Iraq. He saw it as politically motivated. John Howard, the Prime Minster at the time, increased surveillance of activists and I recall Scott Parkin was picked up by Immigration officials and police and deported to the US. I interviewed him on radio I found out he was a former teacher and had real concerns about globalisation. He was picked up as he had just protested outside Halliburton in Sydney and had been teaching activists how to hold a line of protest. It appears that was not wanted by the Australian or US Governments. Even though we are in a country that asserts freedom of speech, it becomes clear that it depends on what we are speaking about. The issue of real democracy comes under the spotlight and the fact that governments are given legitimate power through elections and the pledge to represent all the people, is central, to how powers are used. Whether those powers are used to protect the public legitimately or to suppress the public if it runs counter to government policy, defines whether the democracy is legitimate. Under the ASIO Act, Scott Parkin, an American citizen, monitored, detained, locked up and was not given a lawyer as is mandatory under Habeas corpus. He was then deported. According to Wikipedia Habeas corpus is “… an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge.” In the case of Scott Parkin his civil right to protest was politically undermined. Halliburton was significant as Dick Cheney was the current Vice President of the US at the time, and he was the former CEO of Halliburton, the company was awarded contracts in Iraq exploiting oil/gas reserves in Iraq. Clearly there were vested interests here that were not sanctioned by the American people, by US law and the US Constitution. In fact, most definitely a conflict of interest in respect of Dick Cheney.

Here is some information about Halliburton and the political/business integration that took place in the name of national security, sourced from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.[20] Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.[21]

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989.[22]

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.[23]

During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation, and other life-cycle management services.[24]

In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H. W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.[25]

2000s

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2001 that a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services called Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. (HPS) opened an office in Tehran. The company, HPS, operated on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. Although HPS was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 1975 and is “non-American”, it shares both the logo and name of Halliburton Energy Services and, according to Dow Jones Newswires, offers services from Halliburton units worldwide through its Tehran office. Such behavior, undertaken while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, may have violated the Trading with the Enemy Act. A Halliburton spokesman, responding to inquiries from Dow Jones, said “This is not breaking any laws. This is a foreign subsidiary and no U.S. person is involved in this. No U.S. person is facilitating any transaction. We are not performing directly in that country.” Later Dave Lesar would book his own flights to the Tehran office through the UK arm of KBR. No legal action has been taken against the company or its officials.[26]

In April 2002, KBR was awarded a $7 million contract to construct steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray.[27] From 1995 to 2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but has spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. This contract was a cost plus 13% contract and BRS employees were trained on how to pass GAO audits to ensure maximum profits were attained. It was also grounds for termination in the Balkans if any BRS employee spoke of Dick Cheney’s being CEO. BRS was awarded and re-awarded contracts termed “noncompetitive” because BRS was the only company capable of pulling off the missions.[citation needed] DynCorp actually won the competitively let second contract, but never received any work orders in the Balkans.[20]

In November 2002, KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney’s position as vice president. Concern was also expressed that the contract could allow KBR to pump and distribute Iraqi oil.[28] Others contend, however, that this was not strictly a no-bid contract, and was invoked under a contract that KBR won “in a competitive bid process.”[29] The contract, referred to as LOGCAP, is a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is essentially a retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was).

In May 2003, Halliburton revealed in SEC filings that its KBR subsidiary had paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million in bribes in order to receive favorable tax treatment.[30][31] , United Arab Emirates In October 2004, Halliburton opened a new 250,000-square-foot (23,000 m2) facility on 35 acres (140,000 m2), replacing an older facility that opened in 1948, in Rock Springs, Wyoming. With over approximately 500 employees, Halliburton is one of the largest private employers in Sweetwater County.[32]

On January 24, 2006, Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build “temporary detention and processing facilities” or internment camps. According to Business Wire, this contract will be executed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Critics point to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as a possible model. According to a press release posted on the Halliburton website, “The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.”[33]

In February 2008, a hard disk and two computers containing classified information were stolen from Petrobras while in Halliburton’s custody. Allegedly, the content inside the stolen material was data on the recently discovered Tupi oil field. Initial police inquiries suggest that it could be a common container theft operation. The container was a ramshackle in complete disorder indicating that thieves were after “valuables and not only laptops,” said an expert consulted by the daily newspaper Folha de S. Paulo.[34]

In 2008, Halliburton agreed to outsource its mission-critical information technology infrastructure to a Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex data center operated by CyrusOne Networks LLC.[35]

On May 14, 2010, President Barack Obama said in an interview with CNN that “you had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else” when referring to the congressional hearings held during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. “The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t.” According to Tim Probert, executive vice president of Halliburton, “Halliburton, as a service provider to the well owner, is contractually bound to comply with the well owner’s instructions”.[36]

It was anticipated that Halliburton’s $2.5 billion “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) contract[37] would pay for itself as well as for reconstruction of the entire country. Plans called for more oil to be exported from Iraq’s northern oil fields than actually occurred. Halliburton’s work on the pipeline crossing the Tigris river at Al Fatah has been called a failure. Critics claim that the oil fields are barely usable and access to international markets is severely limited. As an example, against the advice of its own experts, Halliburton attempted to dig a tunnel through a geological fault zone. The underground terrain was a jumble of boulders, voids, cobblestones, and gravel and not appropriate for the kind of drilling Halliburton planned. “No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead,” said Army geologist Robert Sanders when the military finally sent people to inspect the work.[38]

The stories of corruption at the highest levels go on and on. Hence security becomes inter-meshed with politics and business interests and it is hard to know the real reasons for surveillance and logging of citizens personal data. So the idea of increased biometrics raises concerns as governments are not always acting in the public interest and as we see special interests influencing government. The role of governments to represent the public is obscured as interests are blurred into economic imperatives and profiteering disguised under the justifications of providing jobs or profits that enhance GDP for the benefit of all. The government/business nexus can easily become government as an agent for business, all on the same team, rather than government as a neutral third party creating level playing field conditions for competition. Yet it has been clear when multinationals have undue influence in government ethics and motives for war become confused and this adversely affects the public they say they serve. Moreover, civil liberties is increasingly undermined by the fearful calls for protection masking increasing control and those with genuine concerns are silenced. Yet democracy is touted as inclusive of all voices.

Hence, biometrics, as I see it, is about social control. Other issues that come up for me are identity theft and arresting the wrong person through inadequate intelligence gathering reliant on technology rather than on the ground expertise. Moreover politically motivated targeting of civilians who may have spoken against government may find themselves electronically monitored, hence civil liberties arguments and undermining of democracy (as discussed above). In totalitarian regimes it is more concerning as they don’t have any rights to speak up. So technology is used to detect, suppress and arrest people. I regard peace education as social empowerment and a way of ensuring social responsibility for preventing crime and corruption through educating in pro social behaviours at the local level which expands to the global level.

Clearly when looking at the microcosm, the bullying problem has revealed that it leads children and adults alike, to depression and in the worst cases, suicide. It is a behaviour of ‘power over’ which is modelled from the family, community and international levels demonstrated in power politics and war. The behaviour of bullying is both overt and covert. The aim is to hurt, it is both psychological and physical intimidation and aggression, the former is harder to prove. Yet at the school level educators realise children are learning violence and values from families and society, the pressure to address these behaviours is on schools as evidenced by for example the Columbine High School shootings aftermath in the US. Values and pro-social education has not been the traditional role of schools, it was the role of parents to model values, however they find themselves increasingly in a world losing its ethical values as depicted in the media. However, schools are expected to teach pro-social behaviours, albeit children cannot learn if bullied and sleep deprived. The person bullying is seeking power over others as he or she feels powerless and enjoys the feeling or rush of superiority. They are not taught to recognise or make conscious this powerlessness and attend counselling given it adversely affects others. An approach to deal directly with the behaviour ensures responsibility is taken for feelings and conflicts. I very much like the Restorative Justice Model whereby the family, mediator/counsellor and children come together to discuss the issues, the problem, listen and learn from what happened and as a result learn empathy, social consequences and resolve it and break the cycle. These practices are not typically the way males or females are trained to resolve conflict, it is not modelled in the family, typically they would see aggression, yelling or suppression. Seldom would the underlying needs and concerns be revealed, often anger and abuse masks these insecurities. Boys and youth are are told if they have a problem with someone to be a man and sort it out (violently) – outside mate! (we say in Australia). The better man wins. Yet in truth it is the most violent bullying man wins as his aggression so intimidates the other, they are immediately suppressed of their rights and freedom of speech. This is the model, we as a society, don’t want to look at. So at what point does society take responsibility for violent or criminal behaviour?

I would suggest social change in as far as we develop communities. I did research in Logan City an area south of Brisbane, Australia. This was an area of higher crime. The South East freeway divided the Logan area. There was a high proportion of single parent families, domestic violence, drug issues and youth with nothing to do. What I discovered through focus group research with parents, social workers, police and centre managers (shopping centres) was that the community didn’t know each other and there was little support. In fact, the young people congregated because they had nowhere to go. This gathering alarmed the community as they saw them as potential trouble. It turned out some were turned out of home whilst parents wasted themselves on drugs. So one of the initiatives was to create a community centre that the young people ran. It turned out to be an effective initiative and people started to get to know the kids. Now this could have been handled with a zero tolerance approach or electronic surveillance and identification approaches, to make sure these kids are controlled and monitored, thankfully research was designed to determine the real problem. Hence, it is a question of identifying the problem rather than targeting people. In Conflict Resolution we are trained to communicate to others to solve the problem and not to hate the person. This requires learning communication skills, listening skills and working out options and solutions. Zero tolerance instills fear and modes of control encourage more subterfuge, it is better to bring problems into the open to be examined and for those involved to take responsibility for the situation. Teaching the community to solve problems and gather intelligence to understand issues, gives them the power to solve at the grass roots. More surveillance is intrusive and creates a sense of ‘big brother’. The problem in the cases I looked at were to do with young people not receiving good parenting or social interactions which gives them a sense of responsibility and belonging. Moreover, there were no activities to involve themselves in, hence a form of social stagnation and aimlessness. They hung around with the peer group to receive love and a sense of family, when it was not available at home. People can ride off single parents, but anyone who has tried to raise a child alone will testify to how difficult it is without support or training. If parents are turning to alcohol and/or drugs they are clearly not coping, that requires a compassionate and supportive response rather than a simple one of attacking vulnerable people or calling them ‘losers’. In truth they are lost. It takes a village to raise a child and most children these days are lucky if they have one good parent.

In my view it would be advisable for society through councils, social organisations, social forums and governments to look clearly at the issue of social disintegration and the way we live and work. Indeed 20 years ago people were not working so hard and values were reinforced by society communicating and reinforcing appropriate conduct. Today we have a film industry, violent videos and general media that pushes the limits to what is appropriate for young people. Freedom of speech appears to be fine when corporate profitability occurs, yet the messages communicated often promote selfishness, aggression, criminality and horrific crimes as exciting. These messages are further reinforced by governments engaged in wars where major news broadcasters show images of live violence in wars e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan and biased embedded reporting conveying messages of ‘mission accomplished’ (winners) or statements of ‘with us or against us’ (good guys/bad guy view of the world). The public become desensitized to these images and eventually it blends into the popular culture as socially okay the ‘norm’ when it is highly dysfunctional. We adapt to this but it undermines social values and the social fabric in ways that are subtle and damaging to real peace and harmony. The refusal to look at our emotional problems and social dysfunctions honestly without denial or vested self interests highlights the real insecurity that cannot be controlled. It is essential that problems are faced and that responsibility is taken for attitudes, behaviours and mistakes that are made, this is indeed the pink elephant that is never mentioned on the news. When adults take responsibility they provide role models of what is appropriate behaviour and through their example open opportunities for young people to learn from mistakes, it is a very powerful teaching. It is in the interests of the next generation that we must change what doesn’t work. Certainly it is clear that violence and demonisation of ‘the other’ doesn’t work, it wastes a lot of money which could be used in addressing the social ills in the first place. This is evident in the 15 trillion deficit that is sinking the US economy. They cannot keep investing in fear and violence as power projection without acknowledging the deep fear culture they have instilled, it is irresponsible and not intelligent. I think of Michael Moore’s film ‘Bowling for Columbine’ was an accurate portrayal of the fear beneath the cultural that is driving such consumerism, power lust and unhappiness. The alternative is to engage the world population in peace education, Departments of Conflict Resolution or Departments of Peace to re-balance the power and control issues, it is efficient, effective and will produce wise agreements.

It can appear convenient and easier to bring in technology that monitors, labels, fingerprints and catalogues people in the name of national security and safety rather than tackle real social problems. Biometrics will not, in my view, solve these problems, it can have uses in identification but it is important to know the real intent behind monitoring. This intrusion for profit was raised in news broadcasts about the inquiry into the News of the World phone tapping scandals. Perhaps the intelligence agencies are next. If monitoring is legitimate, it could have beneficial application in certain areas to ensure drug lords, cartels, organised crime is detected. However, it is important to have awareness of technology which ensures safety and law enforcement for the benefit of society contrasted with technology in the service of greed, control and self interest that curtails civil liberties and is used discriminitively. I recall flying into the United States from Dublin, Ireland and not being finger printed. When I flew from Central America transiting in Miami (not entering the country) I was finger printed, all four fingers and a thumb electronically. Had I been asked for my permission I would have said no as I am not entering the United States, and I do not want to be finger printed. I would need to be assured that it is for peaceful purposes and to-date I am not confident that we as citizens are told the truth by governments. I am not confident the technology will be used for the benefit of all people, that is, to keep them safe. That does not make me anti-anything, it makes me a responsible citizen with the right to choose in a democracy, which should in truth be a human right in non democratic countries. I see technology used as invasions of privacy and as tools of control. This was clear when I saw the technology of fingerprinting used on the peoples of Central and South America but not those of the UK. The issue of inequality around the world is another major issue of conflict that has come about through colonisation, power over, greed and images of white people as successful and rich.

I have seen the power of love work. I know when you deny people love and belonging they can become mentally unwell or anti the other. I was shown baby houses in Russia where orphan children are in rows of cribs. If they maintain mental health by 5 years old they go into mainstream orphanages. If not, they go to asylums. These were healthy children. It was impressed clearly on me the importance of healthy family relationships based on small communities where we are all each others keepers and we give children love. Some men (and women) have seen this as soft, but it is extremely important for mental health and it is something men will learn as they become primary carers and nurturers through separated families. They will experience the complexity of human nature and the depth of emotional need. The idea of small communities would move us to decentralisation from large urban areas to small urban/rural areas where we know each other and learn self sufficiency. If we favoured positive media rather than feed the pain body as Eckhart Tolle speaks of, we have an opportunity to turn around the global instability that arises from the family unit and societal influences which play out in theatres of war at the global level. Social control, in my view does not make us safer it builds the seeds of frustration and unmet needs and can ultimately lead to revolution, as we are witnessing in Egypt today. More social forums and democracy will help to surface the pain that is repressed and face issues collectively. Peace Education is a tool of empowerment where responsibility and empathy is central.

In reality the insecurity is escalating as more uncertainty, economic failure, societal disintegration, gender inequality occurs without effective redress and empowered education. These are the real issues that security and control cannot address. Zero tolerance is not the answer, peace education is one of the ways to build a new world society that is no longer caught up in power issues but is living to the highest potential as a civilisation worthy of such a magnificent planet.

I see a choice point – a brave new world (Orwell 1984) or a world that is brave, where together we face the problems that have direct impacts on societal and global harmony. As a society, it is to model behaviour that reflects citizenship and rewards it.

In truth, we cannot control anyone, we can only control ourselves. It is evident over history that many cultures have tried to impose social control and failed, the Chinese comes to mind, Pol Pot, Britain in its colonies, the Israelis, the US in its latest mis-adventure. It is clear that you cannot control people and even attempts to control the hearts and minds fails, because it is not real. You cannot control your family, your children, your neighbours, your government. What you can do is speak your truth, teach and inspire cooperation. You can respect each other’s sovereignty and rights to self determination, that we are each on a path. You can as a community come together and develop values and standards of behaviour that benefit all people. That requires a commitment to peace, in truth. I recall Gandhi in the struggle in South Africa when the Afrikaans  were trying to control the Indian diaspora. They were forced to carry identity cards and if not, brute force and forced entry into homes was used to intimidate them and then they were jailed. Moreover, the Afrikaans saw themselves as superior, which in truth was their greatest weakness. It was Gandhi who said to the Muslims and Hindu’s gathered “they may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me, then they will have my dead body. Not my obedience!” This is a fundamental truth for all humans we are all unique and there is in the DNA an inherent desire for freedom. It cannot be changed by force or feathers, it is who we are as humans. We naturally seek for it.

This has been long but as I explored this I saw the depth in it and am mindful it is the tip of the iceberg. Just some ideas to contemplate, based on my own opinions and life experience. We all will ultimately make a decision to listen to voices of fear (division) or love (unity). I made my choice.

So here is a rundown on Biometrics courtesy of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics

Biometrics (or biometric authentication)[note 1] consists of methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under
surveillance.

Biometric identifiers are the distinctive, measurable characteristics used to identify individuals[1]. The two categories of biometric identifiers include physiological and biological characteristics[2]. Physiological characteristics are related to the shape of the body, and include but are not limited to: fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, palm print, hand geometry, iris recognition (which has largely replaced retina), and odour/scent. Behavioral characteristics are related to the behavior of a person, including but not limited to: typing rhythm, gait, and voice[note 2]. Some researchers have coined the term behaviometrics to describe the latter class of biometrics[3].

More traditional means of access control include token-based identification systems, such as a driver’s license or passport, and knowledge-based identification systems, such as a password or personal identification number [1]. Since biometric identifiers are unique to individuals, they are more reliable in verifying identity than token and knowledge-based methods, however, the collection of biometric identifiers raises privacy concerns about the ultimate use of this information[1][4].

Functionality of Biometrics

Many different aspects of human physiology, chemistry or behavior can be used for biometric authentication. The selection of a particular biometric for use in a specific application involves a weighting of several factors. Jain et al. (1999)[5] identified seven such factors to be used when assessing the suitability of any trait for use in biometric authentication. Universality means that every person using a system should possess the trait. Uniqueness means the trait should be sufficiently different for individuals in the relevant population such that they can be distinguished from one another. Permanence relates to the manner in which a trait varies over time. More specifically, a trait with ‘good’ permanence will be reasonably invariant over time with respect to the specific matching algorithm. Measurability (collectability) relates to the ease of acquisition or measurement of the trait. In addition, acquired data should be in a form that permits subsequent processing and extraction of the relevant feature sets. Performance relates to the accuracy, speed, and robustness of technology used (see performance section for more details). Acceptability relates to how well individuals in the relevant population accept the technology such that they are willing to have their biometric trait captured and assessed. Circumvention relates to the ease with which a trait might be imitated using an artifact or substitute.

No single biometric will meet all the requirements of every possible application.[5]

A biometric system can operate in the following two modes.[2] In verification mode the system performs a one-to-one comparison of a captured biometric with a specific template stored in a biometric database in order to verify the individual is the person they claim to be. This process may use a smart card, username or ID number (e.g. PIN) to indicate which template should be used for comparison.[note 3] ‘Positive recognition’ is a common use of verification mode, “where the aim is to prevent multiple people from using same identity”.[2]

In Identification mode the system performs a one-to-many comparison against a biometric database in attempt to establish the identity of an unknown individual. The system will succeed in identifying the individual if the comparison of the biometric sample to a template in the database falls within a previously set threshold. Identification mode can be used either for ‘positive recognition’ (so that the user does not have to provide any information about the template to be used) or for ‘negative recognition’ of the person “where the system establishes whether the person is who she (implicitly or explicitly) denies to be”.[2] The latter function can only be achieved through biometrics since other methods of personal recognition such as passwords, PINs or keys are ineffective.
The first time an individual uses a biometric system is called enrollment. During the enrollment, biometric information from an individual is captured and stored. In subsequent uses, biometric information is detected and compared with the information stored at the time of enrollment. Note that it is crucial that storage and retrieval of such systems themselves be secure if the biometric system is to be robust. The first block (sensor) is the interface between the real world and the system; it has to acquire all the necessary data. Most of the times it is an image acquisition system, but it can change according to the characteristics desired. The second block performs all the necessary pre-processing: it has to remove artifacts from the sensor, to enhance the input (e.g. removing background noise), to use some kind of normalization, etc. In the third block necessary features are extracted. This step is an important step as the correct features need to be extracted in the optimal way. A vector of numbers or an image with particular properties is used to create a template. A template is a synthesis of the relevant characteristics extracted from the source. Elements of the biometric measurement that are not used in the comparison algorithm are discarded in the template to reduce the filesize and to protect the identity of the enrollee[citation needed].
If enrollment is being performed, the template is simply stored somewhere (on a card or within a database or both). If a matching phase is being performed, the obtained template is passed to a matcher that compares it with other existing templates, estimating the distance between them using any algorithm (e.g. Hamming distance). The matching program will analyze the template with the input. This will then be output for any specified use or purpose (e.g. entrance in a restricted area)[citation needed].

Performance

The following are used as performance metrics for biometric systems:[6]

*false accept rate or false match rate (FAR or FMR): the probability that the system incorrectly matches the input pattern to a non-matching template in the database. It measures the percent of invalid inputs which are incorrectly accepted.

*false reject rate or false non-match rate (FRR or FNMR): the probability that the system fails to detect a match between the input pattern and a matching template in the database. It measures the percent of valid inputs which are incorrectly rejected.

*receiver operating characteristic or relative operating characteristic (ROC): The ROC plot is a visual characterization of the trade-off between the FAR and the FRR. In general, the matching algorithm performs a decision based on a threshold which determines how close to a template the input needs to be for it to be considered a match. If the threshold is reduced, there will be less false non-matches but more false accepts. Correspondingly, a higher threshold will reduce the FAR but increase the FRR. A common variation is the Detection error trade-off (DET), which is obtained using normal deviate scales on both axes. This more linear graph illuminates the differences for higher performances (rarer errors).

*equal error rate or crossover error rate (EER or CER): the rate at which both accept and reject errors are equal. The value of the EER can be easily obtained from the ROC curve. The EER is a quick way to compare the accuracy of devices with different ROC curves. In general, the device with the lowest EER is most accurate.

*failure to enroll rate (FTE or FER): the rate at which attempts to create a template from an input is unsuccessful. This is most commonly caused by low quality inputs.

*failure to capture rate (FTC): Within automatic systems, the probability that the system fails to detect a biometric input when presented correctly.

*template capacity: the maximum number of sets of data which can be stored in the system.

History of Biometrics

People may think that biometrics is a recent advancement, but biometrics has been around since 29,000 BC when cavemen would sign their drawings with handprints. In 500 BC Babylonian business transactions were signed in clay tablets with fingerprints. The earliest cataloging of fingerprints dates back to 1881 when Juan Vucetich started a collection of fingerprints of criminals in Argentina.

Current, emerging and future applications of biometrics

Proposal calls for biometric authentication to access certain public networks

John Michael (Mike) McConnell, a former vice admiral in the United States Navy, a former Director of US National Intelligence, and Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton promoted the development of a future capability to require biometric authentication to access certain public networks in his Keynote Speech[7] at the 2009 Biometric Consortium Conference.

A basic premise in the above proposal is that the person that has uniquely authenticated themselves using biometrics with the computer is in fact also the agent performing potentially malicious actions from that computer. However, if control of the computer has been subverted, for example in which the computer is part of a botnet controlled by a hacker, then knowledge of the identity of the user at the terminal does not materially improve network security or aid law enforcement activities [8].

Recently, another approach to biometric security was developed, this method scans the entire body of prospects to guarantee a better identification of this prospect. This method is not globally accepted because it is very complex and prospects are concerned about their privacy. Very few technologists apply it globally.

Issues and concerns

Privacy and discrimination

It is possible that data obtained during biometric enrollment may be used in ways for which the enrolled individual has not consented. For example, biometric security that utilizes an employee’s DNA profile could also be used to screen for various genetic diseases or other ‘undesirable’ traits.[according to whom?]

Danger to owners of secured items

When thieves cannot get access to secure properties, there is a chance that the thieves will stalk and assault the property owner to gain access. If the item is secured with a biometric device, the damage to the owner could be irreversible, and potentially cost more than the secured property. For example, in 2005, Malaysian car thieves cut off the finger of a Mercedes-Benz S-Class owner when attempting to steal the car.[9]

Cancelable biometrics

One advantage of passwords over biometrics is that they can be re-issued. If a token or a password is lost or stolen, it can be cancelled and replaced by a newer version. This is not naturally available in biometrics. If someone’s face is compromised from a database, they cannot cancel or reissue it. Cancelable biometrics is a way in which to incorporate protection and the replacement features into biometrics. It was first proposed by Ratha et al.[10]
Several methods for generating cancelable biometrics have been proposed. The first fingerprint based cancelable biometric system was designed and developed by Tulyakov et al.[11] Essentially, cancelable biometrics perform a distortion of the biometric image or features before matching. The variability in the distortion parameters provides the cancelable nature of the scheme. Some of the proposed techniques operate using their own recognition engines, such as Teoh et al.[12] and Savvides et al.,[13] whereas other methods, such as Dabbah et al.,[14] take the advantage of the advancement of the well-established biometric research for their recognition front-end to conduct recognition. Although this increases the restrictions on the protection system, it makes the cancellable templates more accessible for available biometric technologies.

Soft biometrics

Soft biometrics because of their inner nature are privacy preserving. They allow to describe a subject starting from his/her physical attributes. Those attributes have a low discriminating power, thus not capable of identification performance, additionally they are fully available to everyone (e.g. height, weight, gender) which makes them privacy-safe.

International sharing of biometric data

Many countries, including the United States, are planning to share biometric data with other nations.
In testimony before the US House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security on “biometric identification” in 2009, Kathleen Kraninger and Robert A Mocny [15] commented on international cooperation and collaboration with respect to biometric data, as follows:

“To ensure we can shut down terrorist networks before they ever get to the United States, we must also take the lead in driving international biometric standards. By developing compatible systems, we will be able to securely share terrorist information internationally to bolster our defenses. Just as we are improving the way we collaborate within the U.S. Government to identify and weed out terrorists and other dangerous people, we have the same obligation to work with our partners abroad to prevent terrorists from making any move undetected. Biometrics provide a new way to bring terrorists’ true identities to light, stripping them of their greatest advantage—remaining unknown.”

According to an article written in 2009 by S. Magnuson in the National Defense Magazine entitled “Defense Department Under Pressure to Share Biometric Data” the United States has bi-lateral agreements with other nations aimed at sharing biometric data.[16] To quote that article:

“Miller [a consultant to the Office of Homeland Defense and America’s security affairs] said the United States has bi-lateral agreements to share biometric data with about 25 countries. Every time a foreign leader has visited Washington during the last few years, the State Department has made sure they sign such an agreement.”

Governments are unlikely to disclose full capabilities of biometric deployments

Certain members of the civilian community are worried about how biometric data is used. Unfortunately, full disclosure may not be forthcoming to the civilian community[17].

Countries applying biometrics

Australia

Visitors intending to visit Australia may soon have to submit to biometric authentication as part of the Smartgate system, linking individuals to their visas and passports. Biometric data are already collected from some visa applicants by Immigration. Australia is the first country to introduce a Biometrics Privacy Code, which is established and administered by the Biometrics Institute. The Biometrics Institute Privacy Code Biometrics Institute forms part of Australian privacy legislation. The Code includes privacy standards that are at least equivalent to the Australian National Privacy Principles (NPPs) in the Privacy Act and also incorporates higher standards of privacy protection in relation to certain acts and practices. Only members of the Biometrics Institute are eligible to subscribe to this Code. Biometrics Institute membership, and thus subscription to this Code, is voluntary.[18]

Brazil

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)
Since the beginning of the 20th century, Brazilian citizens have had user ID cards. The decision by the Brazilian government to adopt fingerprint-based biometrics was spearheaded by Dr. Felix Pacheco at Rio de Janeiro, at that time capital of the Federative Republic. Dr. Pacheco was a friend of Dr. Juan Vucetich, who invented one of the most complete tenprint classification systems in existence. The Vucetich system was adopted not only in Brazil, but also by most of the other South American countries. The oldest and most traditional ID Institute in Brazil (Instituto de Identificação Félix Pacheco) was integrated at DETRAN[19] (Brazilian equivalent to DMV) into the civil and criminal AFIS system in 1999.

Each state in Brazil is allowed to print its own ID card, but the layout and data are the same for all of them. The ID cards printed in Rio de Janeiro are fully digitized using a 2D bar code with information which can be matched against its owner off-line. The 2D bar code encodes a color photo, a signature, two fingerprints, and other citizen data. This technology was developed in 2000 in order to enhance the safety of the Brazilian ID cards.[citation needed]

By the end of 2005, the Brazilian government started the development of its new passport. The new documents started to be released by the beginning of 2007, in Brasilia. The new passport included several security features, like Laser perforation, UV hidden symbols, security layer over variable data and etc. Brazilian citizens will have their signature, photo, and 10 rolled fingerprints collected during passport requests. All of the data is planned to be stored in ICAO E-passport standard. This allows for contactless electronic reading of the passport content and Citizens ID verification since fingerprint templates and token facial images will be available for automatic recognition.[citation needed]

Canada

Canada has begun research into the use of biometric technology in the area of border security and immigration (Center for Security Sciences, Public Security Technical Program, Biometrics Community of Practice). At least one program, the NEXUS program operated jointly by the Canada Border Services Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is already operational. It is a functioning example of biometric technology, specifically “iris recognition biometric technology”[20] used for border control and security for air travellers. Canada is also the home for the world’s biggest biometric access control company called Bioscrypt Inc..

Gambia

The Gambia Biometric Identification System (GAMBIS) allowed for the issuance of Gambia’s first biometric identity documents in July 2009. An individual’s data, including their biometric information (thumbprints) is captured in the database. A National Identification Number (NIN), unique to each applicant applying for a card, is issued to the applicant. Biometric documents issued for Gambia include national identity cards, residential permits, non-Gambian ID cards and driver licenses.

Germany

The biometrics market in Germany will experience enormous growth until the year 2009. “The market size will increase from approximately 120 million € (2004) to 377 million €” (2009). “The federal government will be a major contributor to this development”.[21] In particular, the biometric procedures of fingerprint and facial recognition can profit from the government project.[21] In May 2005 the German Upper House of Parliament approved the implementation of the ePass, a passport issued to all German citizens which contain biometric technology. The ePass has been in circulation since November 2005, and contains a chip that holds a digital photograph and one fingerprint from each hand, usually of the index fingers, though others may be used if these fingers are missing or have extremely distorted prints. “A third biometric identifier – iris scans – could be added at a later stage”.[22] An increase in the prevalence of biometric technology in Germany is an effort to not only keep citizens safe within German borders but also to comply with the current US deadline for visa-waiver countries to introduce biometric passports.[22] In addition to producing biometric passports for German citizens, the German government has put in place new requirements for visitors to apply for visas within the country. “Only applicants for long-term visas, which allow more than three months’ residence, will be affected by the planned biometric registration program. The new work visas will also include fingerprinting, iris scanning, and digital photos”.[23]

Germany is also one of the first countries to implement biometric technology at the Olympic Games to protect German athletes. “The Olympic Games is always a diplomatically tense affair and previous events have been rocked by terrorist attacks—most notably when Germany last held the Games in Munich in 1972 and 11 Israeli athletes were killed”.[24]

Biometric technology was first used at the Olympic Summer Games in Athens, Greece in 2004. “On registering with the scheme, accredited visitors will receive an ID card containing their fingerprint biometrics data that will enable them to access the ‘German House’. Accredited visitors will include athletes, coaching staff, team management and members of the media”.[24]

As a protest against the increasing use of biometric data, the influential hacker group Chaos Computer Club published a fingerprint of German Minister of the Interior Wolfgang Schäuble in the March 2008 edition of its magazine Datenschleuder. The magazine also included the fingerprint on a film that readers could use to fool fingerprint readers.[25]

India

India is undertaking an ambitious mega project to provide a unique identification number to each of its 1.25 billion people. The Identification number will be stored in central databases. consisting the biometric information of the individual. If implemented, this would be the biggest implementation of the Biometrics in the world. India’s Home Minister, P Chidambaram, described the process as “the biggest exercise… since humankind came into existence”. The government will then use the information to issue identity cards. Officials in India will spend one year classifying India’s population according to demographics indicators. The physical count began on February 2011.[26] See Unique Identification Authority of India for more information.

Iraq

Biometrics are being used extensively in Iraq to catalogue as many Iraqis as possible providing Iraqis with a verifiable identification card, immune to forgery. During account creation, the collected biometrics information is logged into a central database which then allows a user profile to be created. Even if an Iraqi has lost their ID card, their identification can be found and verified by using their unique biometric information. Additional information can also be added to each account record, such as individual personal history.[citation needed]

Israel

Main article: Biometric Database Law (Israel)
The Israeli government has passed a bill calling for the creation of a biometric database of all Israeli residents; the database will contain their fingerprints and facial contours. Upon enrolling, a resident would be issued a new form of an identification card containing these biometrics. The law is currently in its trial period, during which enrollment is optional; pending on successful trial, enrollment would be mandatory for all residents.[27]
Opponents of the proposed law, including prominent Israeli scientists and security experts, warned that the existence of such a database could damage both civil liberties and state security, because any leaks could be used by criminals or hostile individuals against Israeli residents.[28][29]

Italy

Italy has standardized protocols in use to police forces. Specialist and University Faculty *Enrico Manfredi d’Angrogna Luserna v. Staufen Rome University Tor Vergata – Siena University[30]

Netherlands

Starting 21 September 2009, all new Dutch passports and ID cards must include the holder’s fingerprints. Since 26 August 2006, Dutch passports have included an electronic chip containing the personal details of the holder and a digitised passport photograph.[31] The chip holds following data: your name (first name(s) and surname); the document number; your nationality, date of birth and sex; the expiry date; the country of issue; and your personal ID number (Dutch tax and social security (SoFi) number).[32]

Recent requirements for passport photographs

Since 28 August 2006, under EU regulation ‘2252/2004’ all EU member states have been obliged to include a digital image of the holder’s passport photograph.[33][34]

New Zealand

SmartGate was launched by the New Zealand government at Auckland International Airport on Thursday 3 December 2009.[35] The program is available at Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch international airports for arriving travellers, and also for travellers departing from Auckland (with plans to extend the program for departures from Wellington and Christchurch by mid-2011).[36]

The kiosk and gate system will allow all New Zealand and Australian electronic passport holders over 18 to clear passport control without needing to have their identity checked by a Customs officer. The system uses “advanced facial software” which “compares your face with the digital copy of your photo in your ePassport chip”.[37]
Deputy comptroller of customs John Secker said SmartGate represented probably the biggest single development in border processing in New Zealand in the past two decades. People will have a choice whether they want to use the system or go through normal passport control.[38]

United Kingdom

Fingerprint scanners used in some schools to facilitate the subtraction of funds from an account financed by parents for the payment of school dinners. By using such a system nutritional reports can be produced for parents to surveil a child’s intake. This has raised questions from liberty groups as taking away the liberty of choice from the youth of society. Other concerns arise from the possibility of data leaking from the providers of school meals to interest groups that provide health services such as the NHS and insurance groups that may end up having a detrimental effect on the ability of individuals to enjoy equality of access to services.[citation needed]
United States

Starting in 2005, US passports with facial (image-based) biometric data were scheduled to be produced. Privacy activists in many countries have criticized the technology’s use for the potential harm to civil liberties, privacy, and the risk of identity theft. Currently, there is some apprehension in the United States (and the European Union) that the information can be “skimmed” and identify people’s citizenship remotely for criminal intent, such as kidnapping.[citation needed]

The US Department of Defense (DoD) Common Access Card, is an ID card issued to all US Service personnel and contractors on US Military sites. This card contains biometric data and digitized photographs. It also has laser-etched photographs and holograms to add security and reduce the risk of falsification. There have been over 10 million of these cards issued.[citation needed]

According to Jim Wayman, director of the National Biometric Test Center at San Jose State University, Walt Disney World is the nation’s largest single commercial application of biometrics.[39] However, the US-VISIT program will very soon surpass Walt Disney World for biometrics deployment.

The United States (US) and European Union (EU) are proposing new methods for border crossing procedures utilizing biometrics. Employing biometrically enabled travel documents will increase security and expedite travel for legitimate travelers.[citation needed]

NEXUS is a joint Canada-United States program operated by the Canada Border Services Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is designed to expedite travel cross the US-Canada border and makes use of biometric authentication technology, specifically “iris recognition biometric technology”.[20] It permits pre-approved members of the program to use self-serve kiosks at airports, reserved lanes at land crossings, or by phoning border officials when entering by water.