02.08.08
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping - CNN.com
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping - CNN.com
Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI’s Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is “important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in.”
I didn’t realize that the problem with terrorists was that the FBI didn’t have their iris scanned and in a database. I thought the problem was something more mundane; for instance, failing to act on the Phoenix Memo, losing track of a couple suspected terrorists, and the like. Apparently, all we need to do is get all the terrorists to volunteer their palm prints and eye patterns. Waziristan… any takers?
The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect.
I suppose that’s for those cases in which a potential suspect leaves behind an eye or a face for the FBI to match their database against.
Then again, it can’t be any worse in terms of identification than fingerprints, can it?
The funniest/scariest part of the article yet:
Critics say people are being forced to give up too much personal information. But Lawrence Hornak, the co-director of the research center at West Virginia University, said it could actually enhance people’s privacy.
“It allows you to project your identity as being you,” said Hornak. “And it allows people to avoid identity theft, things of that nature.”
I’ve been wracking my brain for a few minutes here trying to figure out how “projecting your identity as being you” enhances one’s privacy. I accept that sometimes I have to show my ID to people who have to confirm my identity. However, I don’t see how that possibly enhances my privacy.
Unfortunately, the privacy advocates are playing the game wrong here. The fact is, people are going to believe that biometric information is useful (and some of it probably is), and they might even accept that allowing the FBI to amass and collate it all aids security. Just fighting the good fight and trying to prevent law enforcement from collecting or sharing the data is pointless. Pushing for laws that rely on agency good intentions is equally pointless. Even when evidence is rendered inadmissible due to breach of laws in its handling, in terms of privacy, it’s too late in the game.
What we should be advocating is this: in order to make certain biometric data on people available to law enforcement agencies, the data should have to be stored/shared in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to access without the appropriate authorization.
For instance, let’s say someone’s DNA information is not supposed to be accessible without some sort of warrant, or at least something that indicates that the data forensics is trying to find a match for (blood residue, etc.) is connected to a crime. Set the system up so that you can’t run that type of query, or you can’t make use of all of the results, without an electronic ticket authorizing it. If it needs a warrant, then an authorization ticket is only granted upon the completion of a warrant, and so on. Mandate higher standards required for access to non-criminal records (for example, those who have their fingerprints entered due to background checks rather than arrests).
I’m sure there’s many other scenarios that other people can think of. The point is, instead of trying to fight against the current on these issues, let’s try to come up with ideas that can accommodate the needs of both law enforcement and private citizens.
I am madcap at sacrilicio.us, and I approve of this message.
