Biometrics: Worthwhile Technologies or Not?
Jared Diamond said, “Technology causes problems as well as solves problems. Nobody has figured out a way to ensure that, as of tomorrow, technology won't create problems. Technology simply means increased power, which is why we have the global problems we face today.” An example of this kind of technology is biometrics. Biometrics are the characteristics and traits used to identify a person. In the past, biometrics used to simply be finger print archives done with ink; however, in modern times biometric technologies have evolved into iris detection, finger print scanning, voice recognition, and facial recognition. Many people, including the US government, support the use of biometric technology, yet like most new technology there are still many bugs to be worked out. Although many people believe that biometric technologies are a desirable method to ensure security and should be used on a large scale, it is a technology that this too new and has to many flaws that can be abused to breach security. Biometric technologies require an incredible amount of database space, are prime targets to malevolent organizations and hackers, and can be used to invade privacy.
To begin, while many people support biometrics, under the impression that they provide utmost security, they are not fully aware of the many flaws that exists which if abused can lead to severe, negative consequences. In order to function properly biometric technologies require all ideal conditions to be met. If a single condition is not met then biometrics are utterly useless. Relying on a technology where a single error could compromise security completely is hardly practical. In addition, in “The State of the Art in the Abuse of Biometrics” Heana Buhan and Pieter Hartel, both who have lots of experience with data privacy and security management, state that the system of biometrics requires that none of the administrators are “hostile” or malicious, coined “NOEVIL”. Relying on a system that is only as honest and accurate as the person operating it is redundant. Since no one can ever know what the true intentions of an administrator are, biometric technologies will always be vulnerable to abuse. Finally, biometric technologies do not always work properly, resulting in false positives and negatives. For example, biometric systems have many problems with aging and health. As people age some of their characteristics become more pronounced, while others become subtler. The systems do not take this into consideration, resulting in authorizing people who are not supposed to be authorized and denying authorized people. Also, these systems do not consider health as an aspect. Voice recognition may not work if a person has a cold, if person becomes an amputee finger scanners will no longer for them or if a person is suffering from liver problems and has jaundice iris scanners will reject them. As one can see, while biometric systems sound ideal on an elementary level they are rather new technologies that require serious solutions before they can safely be relied on for security.
In addition, biometric systems require massive amounts of data. Biometric systems require that the features being used to identify the person are stored in a large database. This requires databases to have lots of memory. If Biometrics were used today at large it would require colossal servers, which means that billions of dollars would have to spent. A prime example of this is since 2007 in New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg adopted biometric hand scanners to replace paper time cards for its city employees; yet, three years later, after already spending 772 million dollars the system was only one-third complete. Bloomberg called the system a major catastrophe (Jaszi). In today’s times with the American economy in shambles, the United States of America cannot afford to utilize biometrics at large. Furthermore, it would require many people to maintain and correct these databases. In addition, to requiring more money to be spent to pay these people it also adds additional chances of somebody close to the database abusing it, increasing the already numerous risks. Finally, these databases would require the top level of security possible. The level of security required simply does not exist today, even with the use of large encryptions. The databases will always be penetrable to those who are willing to take the time and effort required. If biometrics, a system with its own bugs to already work, requires additional technology that is not yet perfected then biometric systems are pipe dream. Clearly, due to biometrics operating on grand scale databases biometric technologies are hardly sensible.
In addition, the large-scale use of biometrics would attract many evildoers and nefarious hackers. Today, hackers are already being seen hacking into a multiple technologies to do their will. Even cars with computers are not safe from hackers, as there have been accounts of disabling engines, brakes, and other safety features. “Experts [...] warn it's an emerging threat as cars continue to advance and rely a lot more on computers and technology” (Whitely). If hackers already abuse car computers, and biometric technologies are also computer based, then hackers are more than likely to hack biometric systems too. Furthermore, many crime organizations would use and abuse biometrics to get their way. Biometric facial recognition used to identify known terrorist at airports can manipulated to provide false positives allowing the terrorist to go about their way and cause suffering to innocent victims. Clearly, biometrics shouldn’t be relied on to do such sensitive work when they can be circumvented so easily. Lastly, the use of biometrics is infamous for the malevolent acts of thieves and their willingness to do whatever it takes to get what they want. In Malaysia a wealthy accountant was targeted due to his Mercedes-Benz S, which was equipped with a finger scanner start up mechanism. The gang who stole the car ended up chopping off the accountant's index finger with a machete in order to restart the car whenever needed (Kent). The willingness of thieves is not deterred by biometric technology; it only leads them to take more drastic and gruesome actions to get what they want. In short, biometric use at a large scale will only attract more antagonists and heighten the morbidity of their crimes.
Finally and most importantly, biometric technologies provide a method to invade a person’s privacy. To begin, the fourth amendment of the United States constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." However, biometric technologies compromise such securities due to their nature of storing sensitive information, and are therefore unconstitutionally fit. Enough technologies already violate this including smart phones, which allow the government to access call logs, text messages and places visited all without a warrant. Adopting another technology that would violate the American people’s privacy would be a major slap in the face. In addition, biometrics can provide sensitive information to third parties as well, predominately hackers. Since biometrics store all information on databases, a hacker could easily obtain all the information they wanted and use it to their advantage against others. A system that stores and collects sensitive information on the American population should not be used for that very reason- it’s just too risky to the entire population. Finally, many people do not feel comfortable with their features being stored in a database. If a law-abiding person feels obligated to not have their features stored in database, they should not have to. Demanding that everyone must use biometrics and be stored in a database is stripping their right to liberty away, something that our country was founded on. Clearly, not only are biometrics faulty technologies with high risks of abuse, they also invade people’s delicate privacy.
In conclusion, while biometric technologies appear to be a sound and wise way to deal with security, there are simply too many flaws for it to work correctly. Biometric technologies need an unfathomable amount of data requiring excessive expenses, which the United States economy cannot afford in the current recession. Further, the use of biometrics at large would attract skilled hackers, and would make what are now petty thieves into people who commit heinous crimes. Finally, biometric technologies pose an always lurking risk to people’s privacy. In short, despite biometrics being a wonderful idea, like most technologies the idea is not equivalent to the actual technology and its limitations.
Jared Diamond said, “Technology causes problems as well as solves problems. Nobody has figured out a way to ensure that, as of tomorrow, technology won't create problems. Technology simply means increased power, which is why we have the global problems we face today.” An example of this kind of technology is biometrics. Biometrics are the characteristics and traits used to identify a person. In the past, biometrics used to simply be finger print archives done with ink; however, in modern times biometric technologies have evolved into iris detection, finger print scanning, voice recognition, and facial recognition. Many people, including the US government, support the use of biometric technology, yet like most new technology there are still many bugs to be worked out. Although many people believe that biometric technologies are a desirable method to ensure security and should be used on a large scale, it is a technology that this too new and has to many flaws that can be abused to breach security. Biometric technologies require an incredible amount of database space, are prime targets to malevolent organizations and hackers, and can be used to invade privacy.
To begin, while many people support biometrics, under the impression that they provide utmost security, they are not fully aware of the many flaws that exists which if abused can lead to severe, negative consequences. In order to function properly biometric technologies require all ideal conditions to be met. If a single condition is not met then biometrics are utterly useless. Relying on a technology where a single error could compromise security completely is hardly practical. In addition, in “The State of the Art in the Abuse of Biometrics” Heana Buhan and Pieter Hartel, both who have lots of experience with data privacy and security management, state that the system of biometrics requires that none of the administrators are “hostile” or malicious, coined “NOEVIL”. Relying on a system that is only as honest and accurate as the person operating it is redundant. Since no one can ever know what the true intentions of an administrator are, biometric technologies will always be vulnerable to abuse. Finally, biometric technologies do not always work properly, resulting in false positives and negatives. For example, biometric systems have many problems with aging and health. As people age some of their characteristics become more pronounced, while others become subtler. The systems do not take this into consideration, resulting in authorizing people who are not supposed to be authorized and denying authorized people. Also, these systems do not consider health as an aspect. Voice recognition may not work if a person has a cold, if person becomes an amputee finger scanners will no longer for them or if a person is suffering from liver problems and has jaundice iris scanners will reject them. As one can see, while biometric systems sound ideal on an elementary level they are rather new technologies that require serious solutions before they can safely be relied on for security.
In addition, biometric systems require massive amounts of data. Biometric systems require that the features being used to identify the person are stored in a large database. This requires databases to have lots of memory. If Biometrics were used today at large it would require colossal servers, which means that billions of dollars would have to spent. A prime example of this is since 2007 in New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg adopted biometric hand scanners to replace paper time cards for its city employees; yet, three years later, after already spending 772 million dollars the system was only one-third complete. Bloomberg called the system a major catastrophe (Jaszi). In today’s times with the American economy in shambles, the United States of America cannot afford to utilize biometrics at large. Furthermore, it would require many people to maintain and correct these databases. In addition, to requiring more money to be spent to pay these people it also adds additional chances of somebody close to the database abusing it, increasing the already numerous risks. Finally, these databases would require the top level of security possible. The level of security required simply does not exist today, even with the use of large encryptions. The databases will always be penetrable to those who are willing to take the time and effort required. If biometrics, a system with its own bugs to already work, requires additional technology that is not yet perfected then biometric systems are pipe dream. Clearly, due to biometrics operating on grand scale databases biometric technologies are hardly sensible.
In addition, the large-scale use of biometrics would attract many evildoers and nefarious hackers. Today, hackers are already being seen hacking into a multiple technologies to do their will. Even cars with computers are not safe from hackers, as there have been accounts of disabling engines, brakes, and other safety features. “Experts [...] warn it's an emerging threat as cars continue to advance and rely a lot more on computers and technology” (Whitely). If hackers already abuse car computers, and biometric technologies are also computer based, then hackers are more than likely to hack biometric systems too. Furthermore, many crime organizations would use and abuse biometrics to get their way. Biometric facial recognition used to identify known terrorist at airports can manipulated to provide false positives allowing the terrorist to go about their way and cause suffering to innocent victims. Clearly, biometrics shouldn’t be relied on to do such sensitive work when they can be circumvented so easily. Lastly, the use of biometrics is infamous for the malevolent acts of thieves and their willingness to do whatever it takes to get what they want. In Malaysia a wealthy accountant was targeted due to his Mercedes-Benz S, which was equipped with a finger scanner start up mechanism. The gang who stole the car ended up chopping off the accountant's index finger with a machete in order to restart the car whenever needed (Kent). The willingness of thieves is not deterred by biometric technology; it only leads them to take more drastic and gruesome actions to get what they want. In short, biometric use at a large scale will only attract more antagonists and heighten the morbidity of their crimes.
Finally and most importantly, biometric technologies provide a method to invade a person’s privacy. To begin, the fourth amendment of the United States constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." However, biometric technologies compromise such securities due to their nature of storing sensitive information, and are therefore unconstitutionally fit. Enough technologies already violate this including smart phones, which allow the government to access call logs, text messages and places visited all without a warrant. Adopting another technology that would violate the American people’s privacy would be a major slap in the face. In addition, biometrics can provide sensitive information to third parties as well, predominately hackers. Since biometrics store all information on databases, a hacker could easily obtain all the information they wanted and use it to their advantage against others. A system that stores and collects sensitive information on the American population should not be used for that very reason- it’s just too risky to the entire population. Finally, many people do not feel comfortable with their features being stored in a database. If a law-abiding person feels obligated to not have their features stored in database, they should not have to. Demanding that everyone must use biometrics and be stored in a database is stripping their right to liberty away, something that our country was founded on. Clearly, not only are biometrics faulty technologies with high risks of abuse, they also invade people’s delicate privacy.
In conclusion, while biometric technologies appear to be a sound and wise way to deal with security, there are simply too many flaws for it to work correctly. Biometric technologies need an unfathomable amount of data requiring excessive expenses, which the United States economy cannot afford in the current recession. Further, the use of biometrics at large would attract skilled hackers, and would make what are now petty thieves into people who commit heinous crimes. Finally, biometric technologies pose an always lurking risk to people’s privacy. In short, despite biometrics being a wonderful idea, like most technologies the idea is not equivalent to the actual technology and its limitations.