Biometrics at the borders—the challenges of a political technology

Abstract

Biometric systems have become the technological centrepieces of the respective policies of both national and supranational policy actors with the aim of constructing a technical security infrastructure on a global scale. The rapid diffusion of biometric recognition technologies in the public sector is a result of the interaction of policy actors, mainly the USA and the European Union, in an international network of post 9/11 activities. The discourse that has accompanied the diffusion process of biometrics was for long dominated by technical experts. The discourse on citizens' rights and data protection has only recently gained in importance. In the political discourse, central issues, such as the far-reaching consequences and a transparent and comprehensible substantiation of the goals being followed by politics were at best marginal. Although the triumphant procession of biometric technologies seems to be irreversible, there is a need for politics in a democratic constitutional state for further information, for a public debate and for responsible and well-informed decisions.

Notes

1 Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB) Biometrie und Ausweisdokumente. Leistungsfähigkeit, politische Rahmenbedingungen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung, Zweiter Sachstandbericht, Arbeitsbericht Nr 93, Berlin, 2003; J Ashbourn The Social Implications of the Wide Scale Implementation of Biometric and Related Technologies, Background paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, DG JRC—Sevilla, European Commission, 2005.

2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Biometric-Based Technologies, Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, Working Party on Information Security and Privacy, 2004, p 9.

3 UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting on 28 September 2001.

4 The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) The Identity Project. An assessment of the U.K. Identity Cards Bill and its implication, Interim Report, London, 2005, p 26.

5 M Harty ‘U.S. visa policy: securing borders and opening doors’, The Washington Quarterly Vol 28, No 2, 2005, pp 23–34.

6 Council of the European Union Council Regulation, No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention.

7 European Communities Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 of February 2002 laying down certain rules to implement Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention Official Journal of the European Communities, L62/1, 5 March 2002. For Eurodac as a means of a ‘politics of control’ see J P Aus Supranational Governance in an “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”: Eurodac and the Politics of Biometric Control, SEI Working Paper No 72, University of Oslo, 2003.

8 Council of the European Union Thessaloniki European Council 19 and 20 June 2003. Presidency Conclusions, 11638/03, Brussels, 1 October 2003, p 3.

9 A Liberatore Balancing Security and Democracy: The Politics of Biometric Identification in the European Union, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS No. 2005/30, European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana, 2005; TAB, op cit, note 1.

10 Council of the European Union Council Regulation, No 2424/2001 of 6 December 2001 on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II).

11 Commission of the European Communities Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Development of the Schengen Information System II, Brussels 18 December 2001, COM(2001)720 final.

12 Council of the European Union Press Release 6228/05, 2624nd Council Meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels, 24 February 2005, p 14.

13 Commission of the European Communities Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas and Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, Brussels, 24 September 2003, COM(2003)558 final.

14 Commission of the European Communities Proposal for a Council Regulation on Standards for Security Features and Biometrics in EU Citizens' Passports, Brussels 18 February 2004, COM(2004)116 final.

15 Council of the European Union Press Release, 2613rd Council Meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Luxembourg, 25 and 26 October 2004, p 11.

16 European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Council regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens' passports (COM(2004)0116—C5-0101/2004—2004/0039(CNS)), 02/12/2004.

17 European Communities Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States Official Journal of the European Communities, L 385, 29 December 2004.

18 Commission of the European Communities Commission Decision of 28 February 2005 Establishing the Technical Specifications on the Standards for Security Features and Biometrics in Passports and Travel Documents Issued by Member States, Brussels, 5 September 2005, COM(2005)409 final.

19 Council of the European Union Draft Conclusions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on common minimum security standards for Member States' national identity cards, 14351/2005, Brussels, 11 November 2005.

20 The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), op cit, note 4, p 22.

21 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Biometric Identification to Provide Enhanced Security and Speedier Border Clearance for Travelling, Public News Release PIO 09/2003, 2003.

22 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Report of the Technical Advisory Group on Machine Readable Travel Documents, 14th Meeting, Montreal, 6–9 May 2003.

23 M Dierkes, U Hoffmann and L Marz Visions of Technology. Social and Institutional Factors Shaping the Development of New Technologies Campus, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1996.

24 Liberatore, op cit, note 9.

25 European Parliament Report on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens' passports (COM(2004)0116—C5-0101/2004—2004/0039(CNS)), 28/10/2004, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Rapporteur: Carlos Coelho, p 17. The Committee adopted this report on 25 October 2004: European Parliament Decision of the Committee responsible, 1st reading/single reading, CNS/2003/0217.

26 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) Biometrics at the Frontiers: Assessing the Impact on Society. For the European Parliament Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), 2005, p 31.

27 Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS) D3.2: A study on PKI and biometrics, FIDIS Consortium—EC Contract No 507512, 4 July 2005, p 61.

28 During the enrolment phase, the Failure to Enrol Rate (FTR) is the measure of the performance of the biometric system; during the production phase this is the False Acceptance Rate (FAR) or the False Rejection Rate (FRR). The FTR refers to the ability of the system to enrol a biometric characteristic, the FAR to incorrect identification/verification of an unauthorized individual, the FRR to failure of the system to identify/verify an authorized individual.

29 TAB, op cit, note 1, pp 62–63.

30 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Summary of NIST Standards for Biometric Accuracy, Tamper Resistance, and Interoperability, 2002, p 21.

31 International Biometric Group (IBG) White House OSTP Biometric Report Brief. A Visa Issuance/Border Crossing Case Study, 2003, p 8.

32 In the case of UK this would mean that for up to one million citizens an enrolment is difficult or impossible. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), op cit, note 4, p 53.

33 Ibid.

34 The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for example has tested the recognition performance of face recognition and fingerprint recognition processes on the basis of up to 120,000 facial images and 620,000 fingerprints in original data pools. NIST, op cit, note 30, p 5.

35 The lack of such large-scale tests may also be a reason why the policy actors and expert committees tend to place iris recognition in ‘third place’.

36 TAB, op cit, note 1, p 30; see also US General Accounting Office (GAO) Technology Assessment. Using Biometrics for Border Security, 2002, p 20.

37 NIST, op cit, note 31. The ITPS report concludes: ‘face recognition is not yet ready for outdoor use’. IPTS, op cit, note 26, p 48,

38 FIDIS, op cit, note 27, p 92.

39 OECD, op cit, note 2, p 36.

40 Ibid, p 4.

41 G Hornung Die digitale Identität. Rechtsprobleme von Chipkartenausweisen: Digitaler Personalausweis, elektronische Gesundheitskarte, JobCard-Verfahren, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2005.

42 TAB, op cit, note 1, p 72.

43 Ashbourn, op cit, note 1, p 10.

44 Ibid, p 16.

45 OECD, op cit, note 2, p 13.

46 IPTS, op cit, note 26, p 47.

47 Ashbourn, op cit, note 1, p 9; FIDIS, op cit, note 27, p 115.

48 Ashbourn, op cit, note 1, p 20.

49 Liberatore, op cit, note 9, p 17.

50 Ibid, p 17.

51 European Parliament Report on the Commission, op cit, note 25.

52 Commission of the European Communities, op cit, note 14.

53 Article 29—Data Protection Working Party (WP 29) Working document on biometrics, 12168/02/EN, WP 80, adopted on 1 August 2003. The Working Party has been established by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. It is the independent EU Advisory Body on Data Protection and Privacy. Its tasks are laid down in Article 30 of Directive 95/46/EC and in Article 14 of Directive 97/66/EC.

54 Liberatore, op cit, note 9, pp 13 et seqq.

55 Article 29—Data Protection Working Party (WP 29), op cit, note 53, p 7.

56 See, for example, FIDIS, op cit, note 27, pp 101 et seqq.

57 Ibid, p 103.

58 Ibid, p 114.

59 Ibid.

60 GAO, op cit, note 36.

61 Ibid, pp 108 et seqq.

62 T Mansfield (National Physical Laboratory) and M Rejman-Greene (BTexact Technologies) Feasibility Study on the Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme, Middlesex, 2003, p 29.

63 LSE, op cit, note 4, p 15.

64 TAB, op cit, note 1.

65 Ibid, p 81.

66 GAO, op cit, note 36, p 108.

67 European Parliament Report on the Commission, op cit, note 25.

68 TAB, op cit, note 1; Ashbourn, op cit, note 1; IPTS, op cit, note 26; OECD, op cit, note 2, FIDIS, op cit, note 27; P de Hert Biometrics: legal issues and implications, Background paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, DG JRC—Sevilla, European Commission, European Communities, 2005.

69 FIDIS, op cit, note 27, pp 106 et seqq.

70 TAB, op cit, note 1, p 118.

71 FIDIS, op cit, note 27, pp 100, 112, 115, 116.

72 Ibid, p 105.

73 Ashbourn, op cit, note 1, p 19.

74 TAB, op cit, note 1, p 119; see also FIDIS, op cit, note 27, p 115.

75 S Joss and S Bellucci (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives, Centre for the Study of Democracy, London, 2002.

76 Liberatore, op cit, note 9, p 22. The author refers among others to public consultations and extended impact assessments in which citizens and stakeholders play a crucial role. See also WP 29, op cit, note 53, p 7.