Slashdot Mirror
Australia Plans Biometric Border Control (bbc.com)
The Australian government is planning to allow 90% of travellers to pass through passport control without human help by 2020. From a report: With a $100m budget, it has begun the search for technology companies that could provide biometric systems, such as facial, iris and fingerprint recognition. Head of border security John Coyne said it could be a "world first." But critics have questioned the privacy implications of such a system. "Biometrics are now going in leaps and bounds, and our ability to harness the power of big data is increasing exponentially," Mr Coyne told the Sydney Morning Herald. The department of border security hopes to pilot the "Seamless Traveller" project in Canberra this summer, with rollout to larger airports scheduled to be completed by spring 2019.
I went to Australia two years ago and passport control was pretty much all automated. A machine scans your passport and takes your picture, you answer some questions on the machine, and you are printed a little receipt with your picture. Pretty much your only human interaction is handing that printout to an agent on the way out to collect your luggage. They still had plenty of human border patrol agents. And my last from the US to UK and back had a lot of passport control automation to it as well. Smile! You are on facial recognition TV.
Besides the Orwellian aspect of the whole thing what I miss most is having my passport stamped.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Australia should build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants!
There will be some controversy about which country will pay. For example, who pays for the wall along the Australia-Canada border?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I'm guessing the main concern among the listed methods is fingerprints. Unlike some other biometric identifiers, fingerprints linger, and they get picked up at places like crime scenes. Given the questionable standards of forensic analysis in criminal cases in recent years, the potential fishing expeditions when fingerprints are found in connection with serious crimes, and the scary potential consequences if you're involved in a case of mistaken identity, I can entirely understand why some people would be hesitant about giving any government their fingerprints (or a DNA sample, for the same reasons and more).
Something like an iris scan seems significantly less problematic from that point of view. It's still a useful identifier for practical purposes, but it lacks the persistence of fingerprints or DNA, it lacks the ability to identify covertly at a long distance like a voiceprint, facial recognition or gait analysis, and crucially, it will probably continue to lack those risks for a considerable time, because physics.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.