By silicon.com, 7 February 2007 13:05
It's always interesting to see where technologies are embraced by the mass market - and where they inspire fear and dread.
Often even the same technology - biometrics, say - is accepted in one application and not in another.
Airport security, for instance, is shaping up to be one area where biometrics are welcomed.
This should be no real surprise for anyone who's been through airport security in the past five years. Long queues, extensive searches of your person and your bags, confiscation of your water bottle - this is what we all experience today.
So the idea that we could offer up our irises or fingertips for a quick scan and be on our way - or even something close to that - sounds pretty appealing.
Our globetrotting blogger Peter Cochrane has long called for technology to speed up and improve the quality of airport security.
And new research shows the general public in the UK and the US are in favour of the use of biometrics - not just in airports but also by banks, credit card companies, healthcare providers and the government.
The key here is that biometrics at airports promise to make our lives easier and presumably safer - by making the security process more consistent and smarter. It's not just about reducing hassle. It's about weighing up how worthwhile any hassle is.
So biometric airport security appears to be getting the thumbs-up - it's already been rolled out at airports in Birmingham, London and Manchester. And across the pond, the US has been scanning the irises of visitors to the country for some time.
Yet talk about biometrics being used to evaluate candidates in a job interview or on an ID card and many - even some who support their use in airports - will object.
That's because as we all should know by now acceptance of technology is about what it can do for us - or at least what we perceive it can do for us - in relation to the perceived and real risks.
There is no such thing as technology that is objectively 'good' or 'bad'.
The next time someone asks "how do you feel about biometrics?", we bet the only sensible answer is "that depends... ".
On a related note, we're still seeking a few more people to fill out our Business Traveller survey. The results will be used for editorial purposes - for stories and developing new parts of silicon.com. Please click here to complete the survey.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Yes, 'new research' by a company that produces biometric systems shows that the public support the use of biometrics. A slightly suspect result if I may say so. Why doesn't silicon.com do a survey of it's readers on this? The one about using biometrics in pubs didn't exactly get a positive result.
2. Andrew Meredith
I am deeply suspicious of the use of biometrics and not just for the usual Big Brother reasons. My biometrics are unique to me, so they cvan be used to uniquely identify me. That's the whole point of them.
They do however, have two far more dangerous characteristics, 1) They cannot change and 2) They cannot be separated from me without either forgery or permanent disfigurement.
Therefore when someone lifts my fingerprints with some vapourised superglue and digital scanner and produces gell caps for them, I can't just go in and get them revoked and replaced. Oh and there is a far simpler method involving a machete and a beer cooler.
I don't even want to get started on iris scans !
Look on the news about people shot dead for a hand full of paper money and then tell me this would not happen and remember those of you in positions of power and wealth; the bigger the reward, the bigger the risks they might take to get them.
The current situation may not be ideal, but I appeal to the movers and shakers; don't just do "Something". Do something that is actually balanced and well thought out.
3. www.scottwebb.co.uk
Biometrics is the road to slavery :)