By silicon.com, 31 October 2006 14:50
The use of fingerprint or iris recognition has been something of a controversial subject in recent years, especially in instances where their use is a requirement rather than an option.
However, the ardent opposition of yesteryear to these biometrics appears to be fading, perhaps predictably, as individuals realise there could be something in it for them.
Take the fulsome praise you will hear for the iris recognition offered as an option to regular travellers through London's Heathrow airport. By simply having your iris scanned it is possible to pass through passport control in a breeze.
Want to know more?
Read silicon.com's A to Z of biometrics.
A tangible benefit from the use of biometrics has swayed a lot of people in the same way many euro-sceptics returned from their first holiday in the euro-zone thinking 'perhaps the pound isn't all that special after all'.
That's not to say opposition is based on ignorance but realising there are real personal benefits can be opinion changing.
Take the story about biometrics being used for door security at pubs in Yeovil. We expected an outcry but when presented with the idea that this may keep troublemakers out of pubs a large number of readers realised this could be a scheme they would support.
And the fact of the matter is everybody will have their 'price' a tipping point at which they realise they'd rather support the use of biometrics than not.
There may be some whose threshold is never reached but by that stage the vast majority will have given their backing to schemes across the country and around the world.
It's understandable that in this day and age it turns on the question 'what's in it for me?', and as the government plans the rollout of biometric passports and ID cards that is the question they must answer. At the moment we only know what it will cost us and how problematic the process is likely to be.
Comments
There are 9 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard Sarson
Gosh. A Road to Damascus moment for silicon.com. Indeed, strong ID is useful for the citizen as well as for the Government, as I have been saying for years.
2. Karen Challinor
no we don't ALL want to use biometrics
3. Sebastian Phillips
Biometrics are fine if the data is self-contained within the environment for its indended use then destroyed when the use is no longer required. It's when the data goes beyond a single purpose, is shared with others or retained indefintely it becomes a problem.
All these ID capturing ideas invariably suffer from mission creep and through ignorance we are slowly being controlled and manipulated in to living in a police state.
4. Roger Huffadine
I understand how the technology works and I DONT want to use it. There is also a gulf of difference between presenting a part of my anatomy to a person who wishes to verify that I am who I am and presenting a card containing a record of a part of my anatomy which is checked against a database to verify that the card matches the uncorrupted database. The person or system that is trying to verify me as a 'real' human being then has to look at a photo of me to check that I look like the photo. Brilliant, the next stage is even better, the European Assembly passes a Law that requires anyone wishing to verify me as a real human being to prove to me that they are who they are pretending to be - so I get to verify a part of their anatomy. Eventually we all disappear either up a part of our own anatomy or that of someone else. This whole subject area is about people making money out of IGNORANT politicians.
5. anonymous
Sebastian Phillips has hit the nail on the head - mission creep is the problem & unless it's stopped now, we'll wake up one morning to discover the police on our doorsteps ready to escort us to our mandatory Citizen Chip Implantation Appointment. Paranoid? Maybe. Realistic? Yes
6. John H
It's not the biometrics, it's the database.
The problem with ID cards is not that they'll include biometrics, but that:
(1) they will radically alter the relationship between the individual and the state ("Your papers, please! Ah! I see you have not registered your recent change of address. That will be a £1,000 fine, please."); and
(2) they will be a central part of the "database state", in which the government has a single overarching database containing comprehensive information on every person in the country, accessible in practice by a wide range of public sector (and private sector) organisations, with massive ramifications for personal privacy.
And it's not the inclusion of fingerprints and iris scans on the ID card that's the issue. It's frogmarching every citizen of this country to have their fingerprints taken and their retinas scanned, at their own expense, that's the issue.
7. Richard Sarson
How many EU states have ID Cards? 20.
How many EU states are police states. 0.
How many silicon.com commentators are not paranoid. 1. Moi.
8. Karen Challinor
Mr Sarson
how many eu member states have id cards backed by a massive government controlled database containing the biometric identification data, life history and day to day financial and travel history of it's citizens, and give the government the ability to destroy someones life by the accidental push of a key - 0
how many eu member states keep secrets from their own government as the labour party is attempting to do by supressing release of the first two of the four gateway reviews done so far on the id card project to parliament. apparently this is in case parliament forms the opinion on reading them that the project is going any other way than swimmingly forwards - 1 (this one)
still don't see any problem ?
if it were just a card I could care less about this issue, but it's not it's the government secrecy and outright refusal to answer questions, it's the massive database containing everyones life history which the government will have to keep secure and we know how good they are at that, it's the reversal of "innocent until proven guilty", after all the police won't knock on your door unless they know you did it now, will they ? and the computer system can't make a mistake can it ? and the people running the system are incorruptible and infallible aren't they ?
"other countries have id cards" sheesh! not with the capabilities of this one they don't.
9. Radical Meldrew
Brilliant. Presenting biometrics as a public saviour that will save us all from the normally *ponderous/*pathetic approach to security. (*delete variable where applicable)
What I think they really mean: "accept biometrics and we will rely on background automation and relax manual security".
Less impressed now? I for one don't buy government spin and don't like being bullied.