Biometrics and User's Rights?

cornjones asks: "Does anybody know anything about biometrics and user rights? I am supposed to give a handscan to my building for gym access. I don't really have a problem w/ this persay but I want some sort of assurance as to what the scans will be used for (and that they will be deleted fully when I leave). It may be a bit paranoid right now but these scans don't change over your life and the trend is towards these scans being used for more and more applications. I talked to the VP and he said he would sign a privacy doc if I could find one. I did a little searching and I haven't found anything good. Does anybody know of any groups or papers on protecting the use of biometric identifying information?"

Comments

User rights to biometric data

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I worked for a time in the security industry with hand scanners, retinal scanners, fingerprint scanners and mantraps that weighed the occupant. To my knowledge, you have no property rights to your biometric data. Here in California, we're forced to provide a fingerprint to get a license. No negotiation, no substitutions - no fingerprint, no license. I think the reasoning goes like this: We know your hair color, we know your eye color, we can ask your weight, what's the difference if we take an image of the swirls on your fingertip. Unless you can make the argument that the biometric data is somehow health related and falls under the rather draconian privacy laws of such, you're probably out of luck.

Re:User rights to biometric data

[JimBobJoe]

We know your hair color, we know your eye color, we can ask your weight, what's the difference if we take an image of the swirls on your fingertip.

I agree that this is the reasoning...and it was established by the US Supreme Court sometime in late 1960's--that fingerprints were just another thing to be measured on the body. That was used in the basis of the California Supreme Court decision in the mid 1980's that protested the California driver's license fingerprint requirement (mandatory 1982, optional 1977. One of the great things discovered in that decision is that while the fingerprinting was optional from 1977 to 1982, the DMV nevertheless lifted fingerprints from the applications signed by those drivers who declined to be fingerprinted. That to me indicates just an unimagineable level of dishonesty and poor ethics.)

At any rate, the odd thing was that the Californa Supreme Court decision was based on the concept that the fingerprints were needed to protect the integrity of the photo driver's license document. Indeed, the court specifically cited that in 1982 2000 fraudulent licenses were issued by the DMV. However, 100,000 fraudulent licenses were issued by the DMV in 2000--and the DMV never really explained how fingerprinting was meant to stop fraudulent license issuance. Nor did the DMV ever get to explaining what to do with individuals whose fingerprints were unreadable (which I think offers a great way of introducing an equal protection situation, since a person could go through the complex process of becoming fingerprintless.) Finally, California is the only state I know of which has made the California DL/state ID card "officially recognized identification" which is just one step below mandatory identification, and fingerprints are required for either.

Some day, I hope to put that alltogether and have a lot of fun at the DMV's expense. :-)

Re:Holy Shit

[shdragon]

I hope this isn't a troll as I'll respond as though it's not.

IMO, brushing off those whom are trying to warn you of the dangers of freely giving up your privacy is a slippery slope. Sure, YOU may not care that ABC Company has individually identifiable information on you. This, however, is not to say that someone else does not. Now let us say that ABC Company gets bought out by XYZ Company. Each has seperate data on you. After the acquisition, Now *1* company has twice as much data. Who is to say that THEY will be as responsible with your information?

Increasingly a disturbing trend (IMO) among corporations is to guide (force) their customers to do things they way THEY want, not the way the market wants. A recent notable example of this include grocery stores and the "Plus Customer" cards. At first, it was only one store. So I exercised my freedom to shop elsewhere. Now, EVERY grocery store (in my area at least) has such a system in place. Now by default, I must submit to their will. Yes, I realize that it is entirely possible to give false information, but I find the entire situation that I have to LIE to a grocery store to buy goods or pay ENORMOUSLY (sometimes 2x as much) inflated prices frightful.

I value my privacy very much. Having worked at a bank for many years, I can tell you the amount of "trivial" data life-altering (mortgages, loans, close your acct, etc) decisions are made off of, you should concerned to.

So before spouting off about everyone not being out to get you, please consider hard what you are giving up as you can NEVER reclaim it.