An Extra Layer of Identification

I can hear the theme playing in the background… dun DUN, dun DUN… as the hero steps up to a robotic interface, which scans his eyes, turns the light green, a heavy iron door slides open as and he enters the inner sanctum. Repeat theme: dun DUN, dun DUN. The “old” hero had to use fingerprint ID scanners, but we’ve seen so many movies where they peel the tips of fingers off of prematurely dead government agents to fake entry. Dun DUN, dun DUN. Okay, okay, enough with the theme. But biometric and iris scans have been with us for a while, most famously used in Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos to recognized professional gamblers who have been banned from sneaking in using in disguise. Computers scan the distance between eyes, the side of the skull and other obvious facial topography. Retinal scans are said to be as different and unique as fingerprints. Combine all of the above, and you have an interesting police tool that can ID miscreants from a distance.

Why haven’t law enforcement agencies adopted these techniques en masse? Why aren’t these routine in an era of global and highly mobile terrorism? Well the City of New York, reeling from some recent embarrassing cases where criminals – scheduled to be arraigned on serious charges convinced officers that they were supposed to be there for only minor offenses – were inadvertently released... is trying the new technology. With a system now being used only in one borough (Manhattan) but about to be used in all five boroughs by next month, a suspect has an iris photo taken on arrest with a hand-held scanner used later to verify his/her identity later when presented for court. Civil libertarians were up in arms, fearing mix ups with a system that has yet to be completely proven effective. Could innocent people accidentally have the same iri s patterns? Is there a large enough database to be even remotely sure?

“‘It’s really distressing that the Police Department is once again undertaking a new regime of personal data collection without any public discourse,’ said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, ‘and we don’t know the reason for it, whether this is a necessary program, whether it’s effective to address the concerns that it’s designed to address, and whether in this day and age it’s even cost effective, not to mention whether there are any protections in place against the misuse of the data that’s collected.’… Steven Banks, attorney-in-chief of the Legal Aid Society, said his office learned about the program on Friday, in a phone call from the mayor’s criminal justice coordinator.

“‘This is an unnecessary process,’ Mr. Banks said. ‘It’s unauthorized by the statutes, and of questionable legality at best. The statutes specifically authorize collecting fingerprints. There has been great legislative debate about the extent to which DNA evidence can be collected, and it is limited to certain types of cases. So the idea that the Police Department can forge ahead and use a totally new technology without any statutory authorization is certainly suspect.’” New York Times (Nov. 15^th). Still in this era where threats are coming from unexpected places , shouldn’t we be forging ahead with more studies to ensure that innocents do not get swept up into net of unjustified suspicion? What if iris scans are as unique as fingerprints? What if they are accurate and can have the potential of saving lives?

And you know the FBI and the Department of Defense are all over this technology, since they have lots of trouble tracking insurgents on the ground, much less being able to stop and analyze fingerprints. “The iris database has other implications as well, potentially providing the department with a tool in the fight against terrorism. The military has been using similar biometric technology in Iraq and Afghanistan to develop a database of potential insurgents, though [Paul J. Browne, the NYPD’s chief spokesman] said the Pol ice Department’s data was not intended for that use and that there had been no coordination with the Defense Department or the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the program.” Time. Yet, anyway. Time to take some timid steps into this new world… and if privacy and innocence concerns can be allayed… why not?

I’m Peter Dekom, always looking for that common sense balance thang.