The road to disaster in the collection of biometric data is paved with good intentions
The road to disaster in the collection of biometric data is paved with good intentions
The planned collection of biometric data has seen a significant increase in the number of people participating in recent months. Even if you don't seem concerned, you should be.
Indeed, as absurd as it may seem, make an effort to be more concerned about it than appears to be the norm. After all, over the last decade, the collection of biometric data for commercial purposes has progressed to an astonishing degree of standardization and normalization. Apple scanning your fingerprint on a daily basis seemed unfathomable just a few short years ago. It is now the method by which we unlock our banking app and laptop — unless we use our faces to unlock them. It has received a great deal of acceptance.
FaceID, thumbprint scanning, and other similar features were implemented primarily for the sake of convenience. There is no problem if there is no passcode.
The recognition of this by corporations and businesses has resulted in convenience becoming one of the two most important reasons for biometric data collection adoption – the other being public safety, which we will discuss later. The process is said to be expedited and simplified by quick biometric scans, which we have not seen.
In an effort to save time, a number of primary schools across the United Kingdom have recently implemented facial scanning for lunch payment. Following opposition from data privacy experts and concerned parents, a number of schools eventually decided to suspend the program. They asserted that the convenience of having an entire database of young children's faces stored on a server somewhere was not worth the cost of accumulating the data. And they are absolutely correct.
Palm print for your ticket, music for your ears
Amazon One palm-print scanners will be used at Red Rocks Amphitheater as an alternative to printed or mobile concert tickets, according to AXS, a ticketing company based in the United States, which announced its flagship program in September (with plans to expand into additional venues in the coming months). The decision was met with immediate opposition from privacy experts and musicians, and it was far from the first time that the live music industry had been thrown into disarray as a result of the collection of biometric data.
The major concert promoters LiveNation and AEG (which coordinates major festivals such as Coachella) have backed away from plans to invest in and implement facial recognition technology at concerts in 2019. This follows widespread public outcry from fans and artists.
The debate over biometric recognition in live entertainment, on the other hand, is far from being settled. When the coronavirus pandemic forced professional sports executives who rely on sold-out stadiums to rethink their strategies, many of their new plans included widespread facial recognition technology as a key component. Faces would be used in place of tickets, ostensibly to protect everyone from the virus that was spreading.
These executives have a strong sense of self-assurance. After being temporarily halted by data protection regulators, AFC Ajax of the Netherlands is attempting to reintroduce its pilot facial recognition program that was previously suspended. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Henk van Raan, the chief innovation officer of Ajax's home stadium, Amsterdam ArenA, stated that "hopefully, this coronavirus pandemic will force us to rewrite the rules." Van Raan is the chief innovation officer of Ajax's home stadium, Amsterdam ArenA. In comparison to other threats, the coronavirus poses the greatest threat to personal privacy."
We are being misled by this line of reasoning, because the risks to our privacy are not mitigated or diminished in any way by the possibility of contracting a virus.
Shaun Moore, CEO of facial recognition supplier Trueface, described his conversations with professional sports executives as primarily about avoiding touch points by avoiding the handing over of credentials, citing the risk of virus transmission while scanning ticket barcodes as the primary reason for this practice.
To recognize that this is a stretch, one does not need to be an epidemiologist to see it for what it is. With a large crowd screaming and cheering alongside one another, the brief masked interaction that occurs when an agent scans a ticket is probably not something to be concerned about. Likewise, as the safety argument crumbles, the argument for convenience crumbles as well. For the record, replacing a mobile ticket with our palm print does not make our lives exponentially or meaningfully better. Those extra five seconds are completely inconsequential.
It's jarring to hear van Raan speak so openly about how he plans to use the pandemic to get around privacy safeguards and other issues of concern. His logic, on the other hand, is frightening and flawed.
However, despite the fact that the coronavirus is a significant threat, it is not a "enemy." It is not embodied, and it is devoid of any motivating factors. This is the result of a virus. It is completely out of control for humans. "Act of God" is the term used in the insurance industry to describe this type of event. Moreover, it is being used to justify something that is entirely within human control, namely the massive increase in biometric data collection, which is ostensibly for the purposes of public safety or convenience.
Free societies and public safety
In many cases, the expansion of biometric surveillance is justified on the basis of public safety concerns. In August, lawmakers in the United States introduced a mandate requiring automakers to incorporate passive technology into new vehicles in order to prevent drunken drivers from starting them. The mandate is effective immediately. Passive" technology could take the form of anything from eye-scanning devices and breathalyzers to an infrared sensor that measures blood alcohol concentration by scanning the skin's surface infrared radiation.
This appears to be a noble cause with a commendable motivation, and that is true. Approximately 10,000 people die each year in the United States as a result of drunken driving, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the European Commission reports a similar figure for the European Union.
However, where is all of this information being used? What is the location of its storage? Who is purchasing it, and what are their intentions with regard to it? The dangers to one's personal information are far too great.
In many ways, the pandemic has removed barriers to mass biometric data collection, and the consequences for civil liberties will be catastrophic if the situation is allowed to continue as it currently stands. It is increasing at a breakneck pace, allowing governments and for-profit corporations unprecedented access to the most intimate details of our lives and bodies, as well as to our thoughts and feelings.
Even a mobile ticket is sufficient surveillance because it notifies the system that you have entered the venue at a specific time, which is sufficient. Do not attempt to repair something that is not broken! It's also important not to collect biometric data solely for the purpose of purportedly preventing the spread of germs.
Provide as little biometric information as possible, and that's the end of the story. In light of Google's and Amazon's appalling track records when it comes to things like basic human rights and civil liberties, simply refusing to provide your biometric data to those companies is insufficient.
It may appear that a smaller company unaffiliated with a typical technology behemoth poses a lesser threat, but do not be fooled by appearances. When Amazon or Google acquires a business, they automatically acquire the biometric data of the employees and customers who work there. And now we've come full circle back to where we started.
A safe society does not necessitate the use of extensive surveillance. We have been building increasingly safe and healthy societies for centuries without the use of a single video camera. Apart from being dangerous, this level of detailed and individual surveillance heralds the end of a society that places a high value on civil liberties.
Could it possibly be that this is what it all boils down to? This has been arguably one of the central tenets of Western political thought since the Enlightenment: that a free and open society does not come without risks. These risks are far preferable to the risks associated with living in a society that is excessively monitored.
This means that there is no way to avoid being captured by the biometric grid that we are on our way to becoming. The time has come to put a stop to this downward spiral by regulating and prohibiting the collection of unnecessary biometric data, particularly when for-profit corporations are involved.
