Читать книгу THE LIFEBOAT STRATEGY - Mark Nestmann - Страница 33

After Sept. 11, 2001, proposals were advanced for automatic face recognition systems at airports, a national ID card containing an electronic fingerprint imprint, and retinal scans when checking in at the gate. However, biometrics, in combination with the other technologies explored in this book, presents unique dangers to privacy.

Fingerprinting is one of the oldest biometric technologies, and one of the most accurate. Once reserved for suspected criminals, demands for ordinary Americans not implicated in any crime to submit fingerprints are now commonplace. Many banks now require a fingerprint to cash a non-account holder’s check and a few banks even require customers opening new accounts to provide fingerprints.95 Even a routine traffic stop may result in a demand for your fingerprints.96

The proliferation of fingerprinting in both the private and public sector is yet another example of surveillance creep, not accompanied by any debate over the implications of the everyday use of such technology.

However, fingerprinting is not foolproof. In 2004, FBI examiners concluded that a fingerprint linked to a bombing in Spain that left 191 dead came from Portland lawyer Brandon Mayfield. Indeed, the FBI was so sure of their finding that they called it “100% identification.” But Spanish police later discovered that the fingerprint tied to Mayfield actually came from an Algerian man.97

Fingerprint “spoofing” is another possible threat. Consider the possible outcome if a hacker penetrates a database containing digitized fingerprint data. The hacker could use that data to recreate an individual’s fingerprints, and then reproduce them onto a transferable media. This would be very useful to criminals wishing to leave fingerprints connecting someone else to crimes they’ve committed. Researchers have already demonstrated how to trick fingerprint identification systems with gelatin facsimiles.98

DNA profiling. Every human being shares about 99.9% of the same genetic make-up. The remaining 0.1% is what makes each of us unique. The ability to identify patterns within DNA that are unique to each individual (except identical twins) has revolutionized forensic investigation. It has been used to convict murderers, clear those wrongly accused of murder, to identify the victims of war, and settle paternity disputes, among many other applications.99

Governments worldwide are now seeking to establish national DNA databanks in which DNA samples from various segments of the population will be stored.

Most U.S. states collect the DNA of anyone convicted of (and in some cases arrested for) a crime. Failure to submit a DNA sample is a felony in some states. Any person arrested in connection with any federal crime, or immigration violation, must also provide a DNA sample.100

All these DNA samples become part of the FBI’s National DNA Index System, originally set up to track sex offenders. These samples are automatically matched against DNA left at crime scenes to try to identify criminal suspects.101 This national DNA databank, which already contains nearly 7 million profiles, is projected to add about 1.3 million annually from federal arrestees and illegal immigrants alone. 102

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed legislation that authorizes the federal government to oversee the creation of state initiatives to screen the DNA of all babies born in the United States. The official purpose of the law is for genetic research, but critics describe it as the first step towards a national DNA databank.103

But the real question is: for what other purposes will these samples be used? Under the “surveillance creep” principle, your baby’s DNA will eventually become part of the National DNA Index System. When that happens, U.S. law will, in essence, treat babies the same as sex offenders.

Will erosion of the legal concept of “innocent until proven guilty” be reversed on the questionable assertion that the presence of DNA at a crime makes all defenses irrelevant? Will insurance carriers eventually gain access to our DNA “fingerprints?” And most chilling of all, will future totalitarian governments use them to impose their twisted vision of genetic perfection, forcing “non-perfect” humans to undergo genetic “repair” or even euthanasia?

In the meantime, researchers have discovered that DNA identification occasionally leads to inaccurate and occasionally tragic results. In 2004, prosecutors in New Jersey announced they had solved a 36-year-old murder based on DNA evidence. But, two years later, they discovered that their suspect was innocent. The DNA testing lab had mistakenly contaminated evidence from the murder scene with the suspect’s DNA. What’s more, as the sensitivity of DNA analysis improves, the odds of accidental contamination greatly increase.104

Face recognition. CCTV camera networks can be enhanced to recognize faces. This technology permits your face to be compared against a photographic database. As part of the Real ID initiative, many states have digitized driver’s license photos, making it possible for face recognition software to sift through millions of photos in search of a match. The FBI now uses face recognition software to scan state driver’s license records to track down fugitives. Privacy advocates say the practice puts every driver’s license holder in the United States into a virtual police lineup, but you have zero “expectation of privacy” in such searches.105 (We’ll explore the legal concept of expectation of privacy in Chapter 2.)

It’s easy to fool today’s face recognition software with changes in hairstyle or facial hair, aging, weight gain or loss, or simple disguises. The error rate is up to 50% if photographs are taken without proper lighting or even if the subject is smiling.106 This is why you’re no longer permitted to smile for passport or driver’s license photos. Still, face recognition technology is rapidly improving.107

In 2008, the FBI proposed a global network, through which U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies would have direct access to biometric information of all types – fingerprints, DNA samples, etc. – held in foreign databases. The proposal would expand the five-nation UK-USA intelligence sharing agreement (see Chapter 2) between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, into regular law enforcement.108