Biometric Information Databases To Use, Or Not To Use? With computers, cloud storage, and wireless communications we are pierced upon the horns of a three-pronged dilemma: privacy, efficiency, and safety. Law enforcement agencies both government and public have begin to share their criminal databases (including biometrics) with each other.[1] Now that companies like Apple have the video quality to make fingerprint passwords biometric information is being gathered and used for more and more things. Countries like India have made the decision to register the biometric information of every citizen. Certain countries in the UK have decided to use encrypted RFID chips containing the owners biometric data as passports. Courts in the USA are currently considering whether forcing someone to divulge a password is forbidden by the fifth amendment. They already ruled that making someone open a biometric lock with a fingerprint or iris scan would not be a violation as that doesn't require you to divulge info, instead only to use the sensor. Biometric data: Data encoding a feature or features used in biometric verification. Is it really a good idea to have everyone's Biometric information be their identity One argument is that we can't have enough, the closer countries get to keeping a being unable to pass as someone else the harder it is for criminals and terrorists. The opposing side takes a more Orwellian mindset, they fear the loss of privacy as the steps toward a totalitarian system that stifles freedom. How much trust do you have for those in power? In conclusion, biometric information systems are; like any ideal, good in theory. However, there are thousands of ways that this idea can go wrong. We have just had an eye opening blockbuster of an awakening when Edward Snowden leaked just how much the NSA can spy on us. Couple that with the fact that the government shut itself down because the legislative body couldn't even agree on a budget, and things start looking alarmingly fragile. This trend towards lack of privacy is alarming. History books are filled with dictators that ruled through fear and the capture, killing, or exiling any who spoke against them. Ask yourself if you feel that creating this infrastructure is a good idea. We might have an acceptable warden for this info now, but what about in fifty years? All of the major countries have collected massive databases of the biometric information of known or suspected criminals and/or terrorists. More and more websites want you to sign in through you social media networks. These networks; in turn, are tracking more and more of your information. There is currently a four way struggle between anonymity, security, privacy, and efficiency. As it stands we are already leaning towards security and efficiency. The continued reliance on these biometrics and database building is a Controversial topic on the surface these technologies make everyone easier to track and (supposedly) harder to impersonate and defraud. That is a great thing if you can trust the authorities and the collectors of the information Others argue that even if whoever owns that information is trustworthy at the time, their successors might not. See Stalin, Hitler, slavery. Quotes: For: “The main advantage of biometric authentication is that it reduces the risk of information (passwords) or tokens (keys or chip cards) being stolen or passed on to unauthorized people.” India, biometrics is a central element of the Unique ID project. In Brazil, it’s widely used to access ATMs. In Hong Kong, the immigration department uses biometrics to secure borders. Against: If proper safeguards are not put in place, the use of some biometrics, like facial-recognition technology, can also be used to conduct intrusive surveillance of individuals or groups of people by governments and private companies. Why put our biometrics, faith and freedom in the hands who those who have done little to gain our trust so far?

Citations Sources Pictures Quotes for: Quotes against: