Ethical Biometric Use: February 23, 2020 Table Of Contents

ethical Biometric Use23 Feb 2020 Table of Contents

Analyze the ethical considerations related to the use of biometric data by public safety agencies, including the types of biometrics used, techniques for gathering data, ethical and unethical applications, relevant rules and legislation, and potential future regulations. Discuss both benefits and risks associated with biometric technology in law enforcement, healthcare, and security contexts, emphasizing the importance of ethical policies and data protection.

Paper For Above instruction

The rapid integration of biometric technology into public safety and security operations has revolutionized law enforcement, border control, healthcare, and other critical sectors, offering profound benefits for efficiency and safety. However, this technological advancement also raises significant ethical concerns that necessitate careful analysis and responsible application. This paper explores the types of biometric data used by public safety agencies, the techniques for their collection, their ethical and unethical applications, pertinent rules and legislation, and the future landscape of biometric regulation, emphasizing the importance of balancing technological benefits with safeguards for individual rights.

Biometric identification is an umbrella term encompassing various techniques that analyze physiological or behavioral traits to verify or identify individuals. Law enforcement agencies notably utilize facial recognition, iris scans, fingerprint analysis, and DNA testing to identify suspects swiftly and accurately. For example, Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) have become invaluable in criminal investigations by matching fingerprints against vast databases. Facial recognition is increasingly employed in public areas and airports, allowing rapid matching of live images against watchlists or criminal databases. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses iris and fingerprint scans to verify passengers, significantly enhancing security and streamlining travel processes (Purshouse & Campbell, 2019; Zhang, 2019). These techniques exemplify the technological capabilities that facilitate real-time identification, detection, and verification processes crucial to maintaining public safety.

The methods for collecting biometric data are diverse, ranging from DNA analysis and fingerprinting to less traditional techniques such as odor recognition, gait analysis, voice recognition, and signature verification. DNA testing remains a gold standard for forensic analysis, providing conclusive identification by analyzing unique genetic markers. Fingerprint analysis leverages the ridges and valleys on fingertips, considered highly distinctive. Facial thermography, vein patterns, ear geometry, voice attribution, and gait analysis are additional biometric modalities that expand the arsenal of identification tools available to agencies (Minutiae, 2019). The collection techniques must be performed with careful consideration of privacy rights and procedural guidelines to prevent misuse or unauthorized access to sensitive data.

Biometric data collection occurs in two primary modes: verification and identification. Verification is a one-to-one process used to confirm an individual's claimed identity, typically through comparing a biometric template with a pre-existing record. Identification involves one-to-many comparisons, where a biometric sample is matched against entire databases to establish identity. While these processes are highly effective, they are vulnerable to errors such as false acceptance or rejection, which could lead to wrongful suspicion or failure to identify a culprit (Huston, 2013). The technological sophistication and accuracy of these systems continue to improve, but ethical considerations regarding their deployment remain paramount.

The ethical application of biometric data extends beyond technical capabilities, encompassing benefits such as enhanced public safety, crime prevention, and improved healthcare security. For example, biometric identification has proven invaluable in locating missing persons, combating human trafficking, and detecting terrorists (West, 2019). In healthcare, biometrics can secure patient records, ensuring only authorized personnel access sensitive information, thereby reducing data breaches and identity theft (Huston, 2013). Airport security benefits significantly from biometric verification, reducing reliance on false IDs and expediting passenger processing while aiding law enforcement in tracking suspects or persons of interest (TSA, 2019). These applications demonstrate the potential societal gains of responsible biometric use in safeguarding citizens and rights.

However, the ethical landscape is fraught with concerns about confidentiality, privacy, and potential misuse. The storage and handling of biometric data pose significant risks, especially given the vulnerability of digital systems to hacking and unauthorized access (Kaspersky, 2020). Systems that compile biometric profiles for surveillance, although useful for security, risk infringing on personal freedoms and privacy if misused or if data is exploited by malicious actors. Instances where CCTV and facial recognition technology are used indiscriminately raise concerns about mass surveillance and the collection of innocent individuals’ data without their explicit consent (Hayes, 2019). The potential for data to be sold, leaked, or used beyond its original purpose underscores the importance of strict data governance policies and ethical standards in biometric use.

The legal framework governing biometric data collection varies across jurisdictions, with the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Illinois standing as a pioneering regulation that emphasizes informed consent, prohibitions against profiting from biometric data, and mandates data protection and retention guidelines (Claypoole & Stoll, 2016). BIPA grants individuals a private right of action in cases of violations, establishing accountability for misuse. Currently, there is no comprehensive federal legislation in the United States; however, legislation has been proposed to regulate facial recognition technology and biometric data collection nationally. Notably, the Supreme Court ruling in Illinois regarding the collection of minors’ biometric data in the context of youth season passes signals a potential shift in legal standards and raises awareness of the need for robust protections (Claypoole & Stoll, 2016). Future regulations may impose stricter consent requirements, transparency obligations, and limitations on use cases.

As the legal landscape evolves, several considerations will shape the future of biometric regulation. Federal laws are being proposed to establish uniform standards for biometric data collection and privacy, aligning with efforts to prevent misuse and protect civil liberties (Zhang, 2019). Companies such as Facebook and Snapchat are already subject to state laws like BIPA, which could influence national policies. The increasing use of biometric surveillance in public spaces and its association with mass data collection heighten the urgency for comprehensive legislation that balances security interests with individual rights (De Hert, 2007). Ongoing court rulings and legislative initiatives aim to set boundaries on biometric data use, especially concerning minors, commercial applications, and government surveillance practices.

In conclusion, biometric technologies offer remarkable capabilities that enhance safety, security, and efficiency across multiple domains. Nonetheless, the ethical challenges they pose concerning privacy, consent, confidentiality, and potential misuse demand vigilant regulation and responsible implementation. Policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and technology providers must collaborate to develop ethical policies and legal standards that protect individual rights without compromising security objectives. Developing transparent, accountable, and user-centric approaches to biometric data management will be vital in harnessing these technologies ethically and effectively in the future.

References

  • Biometrics Institute. (2020). Types of Biometrics. Retrieved February 21, 2020, from https://www.biometricsinstitute.org/
  • Buciu, I., & Gacsadi, A. (2016). Biometrics Systems and Technologies: A survey. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, 11(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2016.3.2556
  • Claypoole, T., & Stoll, C. (2016). Developing Laws Addressing Flourishing Commercial Use of Biometric Information. Business Law Today, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2845447
  • Cooper, I., & Yon, J. (2019). Ethical Issues in Biometrics. Science Insights, 30(2), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.15354/si.19.re095
  • De Hert, P. (2007). Ethical Practice In The Use of Biometric Identifiers Within the EU. Law, Science and Policy, 3, 27-42.
  • Hayes, N. (2019, May 18). Ethics and biometric identity. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/
  • Huston, C. (2013). The Impact of Emerging Technology on Nursing Care: Warp Speed Ahead. Nursing Outlook, 61(2), 89-94.
  • Kaspersky. (2020). What is Biometrics? Retrieved from https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/biometrics
  • Purshouse, J., & Campbell, L. (2019). Privacy, Crime Control and Police Use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology. Criminal Law Review, 2019(3), 379-396.
  • Zhang, Z. (2019). Technologies Raise the Effectiveness of Airport Security Control. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Civil Aviation Safety and Information Technology (ICCASIT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Related Assignments