Peter Griffin: Biometrics code needed to keep big brother honest

COMMENT

Up until two weeks ago I'd never been fingerprinted in my life. That's because, I'm glad to say I'd never had a scrape with the law. But last week I presented my fingers to the machine.

There were no messy ink pads and bits of paper. My fingers were bathed in red as they were pressed against a pane of glass and a computer scanned them. It took about five seconds per finger.

Before I knew it my thumb print was displayed in minute detail on a screen in front of me. There was a funny kink in the spiralling lines making up my unique finger print pattern. I asked the guy operating the machine what it could be.

"Shaving accident?" He offered unhelpfully.

Thankfully my first of presumably many finger printings was just me participating in a demonstration of some biometric equipment on offer from technology vendor Sagem.

But if you commit a crime or misdemeanour in various states of Australia, you'll find yourself in a police station standing in front of an identical machine.

The New Zealand Police has a plan to roll out up to 50 similar machines in larger police stations here according to Sagem's sale rep.

I hope I never see that red glow again in such a setting. The science of using biological properties such as finger prints, retina and face scans and voice recognition is upon us. As Wellington privacy lawyer John Edwards points out, the introduction of biometrics is inevitable, we now have to scrutinise the implementation of biometric systems to ensure our privacy standards are not undermined by the use of the technology.

The topic of biometrics often launches privacy advocates into debate that taps the very heart of what democracy is all about. Sometime the debate gets a little too emotional for me. Frankly, I'm fine with business and the government taking my biometrics.

That's coming from someone who regularly gets locked out of the building because he's forgotten his swipe card and is refused service at the bank because he has no ID all on the same day.

Maybe the banks will be asking for a retina scan each time we approach an automatic teller machine in the future. Maybe a fingerprint scan with do away with PIN numbers on credit and eftpos cards.

I'm fine with all of that, bring it on. The sooner I can use my fingerprint as my credit card, driver's licence, national identity card, frequent flyer card and building access card, the better.

You can scan my face in a crowded airport and (safely) scan my eyeballs to get me through check-in quicker if you want.

But, and this is a bloody big but, I want to be sure that the information you gather isn't going to sit on a database that any old person can access. I want to know exactly who is going to use my biometrics and for what purpose. I want all of that in the same way that I don't want any old person browsing my IRD file for fun. If a business misuses my information I want them fined or shut down.

"There's huge power for good but there's huge power for misuse and evil", Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said of the new technology at a Biometrics Institute conference held earlier this month in Wellington.

Like it or not, biometrics will become a part of life, possible everyday life, in the next few years. It's for that reason that a biometrics code of practice incorporating the workings of both the private sector and Government has to be drawn up soon.

Australia is already well down the path in putting a code together.

Privacy Commissioner Shroff is less enthusiastic at this stage.

"I'm not going to rush to do this, but I'm watching," adding that drafting a code was "hugely resource intensive for a small office," she said.

The reality is, Shroff is going to have to made the development of a code a priority soon.

As it becomes affordable, companies will start using fingerprint scanners to allow employees access to buildings. Just what can the company do with that biometric information? What minimum standards do they have to meet in storing the data?

Personal use contracts between employer and employee aren't going to be enough soon when it comes to biometrics. Such a code should also recommend an "opting-in" provision.

Obviously, opting out of biometrics is unrealistic when they are used in such fundamental areas as border control or by the police. I could never understand those people who went to court rather than accepting a digital driver's licence.

But increasingly the business world will use biometrics to strip even more cost out of the process of dealing with paying customers. Systems need to be maintained to serve those who for whatever reason, decide not to give up their biometrics.

Most of us use ATMs but we can still stroll into the bank for that personal touch. The use of biometrics will need regulation, the framework for which we should already be developing.

* Email Peter Griffin