Massive Biometric Database a Bad Idea
The FBI would like to spend about a billion dollars — that’s $1,000,000,000, one thousand million dollars — “to create a massive computer database of people’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.” They admit that among other things, the efficacy and cost “will depend on how quickly technology is perfected.”
By way of disclaimer, I do not mind the fact that my fingerprints had to be sent to the FBI to obtain a professional license. That is a legitimate protection to the public. But — according to everything I have read — once I was cleared as Not A Criminal, the FBI destroyed their copy. Have no fear, Gil Grissom can still get a copy from the State of Nevada should something awful happen to me.
Nevertheless, the FBI does not need a huge database of fingerprints, palm prints, eye scans, and tattoos. The idea that terrorists would be caught using such data is unproven if not outright spurious. The last “terrorist” we caught using biometric data turned out not to have even been in the same country as the bomb he allegedly planted.
Furthermore, they admit up front that the technology to make it all work does not yet exist. Keep in mind that fingerprint scanners are only about 98-99% accurate. That’s fine when you’re scanning a dozen people who might have been near a crime scene, but not nearly good enough when you have millions of samples from random people across the country. For reference, fingerprints are the most accurate to scan biometric data widely available.
As if that were not enough, there are too many issues related to privacy, the 4th and 5th Amendments, and civil liberties. This is even more true when one considers that “The Bush administration has failed to nominate any candidates to a newly empowered privacy and civil-liberties commission. This leaves the board without any members….”
So we’re talking about spending a billion dollars on a huge database, using technology that is not yet accurate enough to do the job, with very likely no oversight whatsoever. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Massive Biometric Database a Bad Idea”
Shouldn't we be working on ways to prevent terrorists attacks, such as securing our nuclear materials, protect our water supplies, etc?
Oh, I forgot, this is the Bush Administration which ignored pre-9/11 warnings and then invaded a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the terrorists attacks.
But yeah, the presumption of innocence is big in the US. With that database the government is saying, “We don't trust you and we're watching!”
StockBoySF,
The biometrics is part of securing nuclear materials, water supplies, chemical plants, biological research facilities. The government has been on a steady increase in the demand to fingerprint and do criminal background checks of people who work in or who visit those facilities and need escorted access.
The first part of securing a facility is ensuring that the people who work in those places can be trusted and the government has determined that criminal background checks using fingerprints and other biometrics is the best way to do it.
Maybe you could describe who the Obama administration would secure nuclear materials without background checks?
Of course, what is lacking in such biometric checks is a true comprehensive risk analysis to determine if workers can be trusted to do their entire jobs instead of just the part with nuclear materials, chemical agents precursors, biological samples, etc.
But this concept can't work at time.
A smaller system didn't work with technology that could work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
The “open ended contract” monster…
SD: I understand that background checks on certain people are necessary, but that is no reason to require all this data on everyone. Certainly people with criminal histories would have their info (and I think fingerprints are enough to identify but I am willing to have other biometrics recorded on criminals).
I work in the financial services and have had background checks done on me. It's no big deal to me since I understand I'm in a sensitive position. That I support.
But again a database on everyone is an invasion privacy.
If you're a criminal, you're info will be in the system. If you're applying for a sensitive position, then they'll take your info and you'll be in the system. No others should be in the system.
BTW: my comment on securing nuclear material was meant that we should use that $1bn on ways that could actually obtain results to secure nuclear materials, etc. The terrorists could strike at any time and it doesn't make sense spending $1bn now on projects which don't work. If there was a sufficient effort to secure what is now needed and then put additional funds into research that's another story. But I'd still be against a wide spread invasion of privacy.
Let's fund necessary work now.
If the institutions perverted by the Bush administration continue as they are, we can all look forward to being criminals someday, so we will all end up in the database. Problem solved.
I am in favor of any systems that identify and track anyone with violent or predatory tendencies. I also support intense civilian review and accountability, as well as a court to fast track the resolution of any mistakes or errors.
PS – The technology doesn't exist, at the most universities should be funded to develop the technology.
Please explain a “criminal or terrorist walk or skip”.