DOCSLIB.ORG

A Case Study of Biometrics in the National Identity Scheme in the United Kingdom

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Envisioning Technology through Discourse: A case study of biometrics in the National Identity Scheme in the United Kingdom Aaron K. Martin Information Systems and Innovation Group Department of Management London School of Economics and Political Science Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2011 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Envisioning technology through discourse: A case study of biometrics in the National Identity Scheme in the United Kingdom Abstract Around the globe, governments are pursuing policies that depend on information technology (IT). The United Kingdom’s National Identity Scheme was a government proposal for a national identity system, based on biometrics. These proposals for biometrics provide us with an opportunity to explore the diverse and shifting discourses that accompany the attempted diffusion of a controversial IT innovation. This thesis offers a longitudinal case study of these visionary discourses. I begin with a critical review of the literature on biometrics, drawing attention to the lack of in-depth studies that explore the discursive and organizational dynamics accompanying their implementation on a national scale. I then devise a theoretical framework to study these speculative and future-directed discourses based on concepts and ideas from organizing visions theory, the sociology of expectations, and critical approaches to studying the public’s understanding of technology. A methodological discussion ensues in which I explain my research approach and methods for data collection and analysis, including techniques for critical discourse analysis. After briefly introducing the case study, I proceed to the two-part analysis. First is an analysis of government actors’ discourses on biometrics, revolving around formal policy communications; second is an analysis of media discourses and parliamentary debates around certain critical moments for biometrics in the Scheme. The analysis reveals how the uncertain concept of biometrics provided a strategic rhetorical device whereby government spokespeople were able to offer a flexible yet incomplete vision for the technology. I contend that, despite 3 being distinctive and offering some practical value to the proposals for national identity cards, the government’s discourses on biometrics remained insufficiently intelligible, uninformative, and implausible. The concluding discussion explains the unraveling visions for biometrics in the case, offers a theoretical contribution based on the case analysis, and provides insights about discourses on the ‘publics’ of new technology such as biometrics. 4 Acknowledgements In completing this PhD, I have relied on the support and love of many wonderful people, without whom I would not have been able to see this project through. First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor, Edgar Whitley, for his relentless encouragement and guidance. Thank you for believing in me and being there during times of need and uncertainty. You have been a beacon of assurance the past five years. I hope this is just the beginning of a long and rewarding relationship. Next I want to express my utmost gratitude to Gus Hosein, who has been an amazing teacher, colleague, and friend. You have gone out of your way to help me during this trying period. I cannot thank you enough for your expertise, generosity, and companionship. You truly are an inspiration. I also want to thank my PhD examiners, Professor Martin Bauer and Dr. Neil Pollock, for their extensive feedback on ways to improve the first submission of this document. I owe so much to my family for the moral and emotional support they continue to provide. While great distances often separate us, you are always there for me and I hope one day I can repay all you have done. I could not have made it through this phase of my life without the companionship, support, and encouragement of my extended network of friends in London and abroad: Martin Garthwaite, Ramon Sabes-Figuera, Daniel Bernhard (especially for the proofreading and feedback), Maria-Martina Yalamova, Sofía Goldchluk, Matthew L. Smith, Jeffrey Stottlemyer, Azusa Sato, Katie Johnson, Nikos Gorgolis, Solon Barocas, and many others. You guys rock and I love you like family. And three great friends, in particular, 5 deserve special recognition: Ian Reiley, Natalie Renew, and John Quattrochi. Your friendship is inestimable. I love y’all. To my many friends and colleagues in the Information Systems and Innovation Group at the LSE – you know who you are – thank you for creating such a rich environment in which to study. The International Development Research Centre had the courage to bring me on to work on certain of their research projects, thus providing me with both an opportunity to broaden my research profile and funding that was absolutely critical to completing this PhD project. In particular, I want to thank Heloise Emdon and Chaitali Sinha for these opportunities. I hope we are able to continue this important work in the future. I also want to thank the funders, organizers, and participants of the Everyday Life of Surveillance seminar series, which introduced me to the ideas and debates from surveillance studies that undoubtedly influenced the direction of this dissertation. This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Karen, for instilling in me the values of education and always encouraging my pursuit of knowledge, no matter where it takes me. 6 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 5 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 7 List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 14 1.1 Identity, policy, and technology ............................................................................... 18 1.2 The dawn of a biometric era? .................................................................................. 21 1.3 How to study biometrics? ......................................................................................... 24 1.4 A brief history of identity cards in the UK ............................................................... 26 1.5 Broader research context ......................................................................................... 31 1.6 Overview of the research .......................................................................................... 34 Chapter 2: Critical literature review ........................................................................ 38 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 38 2.2 Techniques and technologies of biometrics .......................................................... 39 2.3 Biometrics in the social science literature .............................................................. 59 2.4 Biometrics in the information systems literature ................................................... 81 2.5 A research opportunity .............................................................................................. 88 Chapter 3: Theoretical framework .......................................................................... 97 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 97 3.2 Frames and framing processes ............................................................................. 104 3.3 Organizing visions in information systems innovations ..................................... 107 3.4 Technology and expectations ................................................................................ 113 3.5 The publics of technological innovation................................................................ 120 3.6 Integrating the framework ....................................................................................... 128 3.7 Research questions ................................................................................................. 131 Chapter 4: Research methods .............................................................................. 133 4.1 Case study research ............................................................................................... 133 4.2 Methods for data collection and analysis ............................................................. 136 4.3 Critical discourse analysis ...................................................................................... 156 4.4 Coding discourses about new technology ........................................................... 162 Chapter 5: Introducing the case study ................................................................
Recommended publications
  • "Big Brother?": Great Britain's National Identification Scheme Before the European Court of Human Rights

    "Big Brother?": Great Britain's National Identification Scheme Before the European Court of Human Rights

    BIG SUCCESS OR "BIG BROTHER?": GREAT BRITAIN'S NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SCHEME BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Jennifer Morris* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 445 A. The UnitedKingdom's Identity Cards Act ................. 445 B. The Security-PrivacyDebate ........................... 446 C. The Privacy Landscape in the United Kingdom ............. 447 D. Overview ........................................... 44 9 II. PRIVACY INTHE UNITED KINGDOM ......................... 450 A. Early Domestic Law .................................. 450 B. Changes in the PrivacyLandscape-The Data ProtectionAct and the Human Rights Act ................. 451 1. The Data ProtectionAct ............................ 451 2. The Human Rights Act .............................. 454 C. Public Opinion ...................................... 455 1. Public Supportfor the Identity Cards Act ............... 455 2. Public Response to Previous National Identification Schemes in the United Kingdom ........... 456 3. Three Objections to the Identity CardsAct .............. 457 4. The Response of Other Governmental Entities ........... 458 III. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ITS PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY ..................... 459 A. The Convention ...................................... 459 B. Article 8 Interferences (Triggers) ........................ 460 C. "In Accordance with the Law"........................ 461 D. Legitimate Aims ..................................... 463 E. "Necessary in a Democratic Society"
  • 2009 No. 2793 IDENTITY CARDS the Identity Cards Act 2006

    2009 No. 2793 IDENTITY CARDS the Identity Cards Act 2006

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2009 No. 2793 IDENTITY CARDS The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent) Regulations 2009 Made - - - - 19th October 2009 Coming into force - - 20th October 2009 The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 17(5)(a), 21(2)(a), (4)(a) and (5), 40(4) and 42(1)(b) of the Identity Cards Act 2006(c), makes the following Regulations. In accordance with sections 17(8) and 21(7) of that Act, a draft of these Regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Citation, commencement and interpretation 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent) Regulations 2009 and shall come into force on the day after the day on which they are made. (2) In these Regulations— “Commissioner” means the National Identity Scheme Commissioner(d); “consular functions” has the meaning given to it in Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations done at Vienna on 24 April 1963;(e); “identity document” has the meaning given to it in section 26 of the 2006 Act; “intelligence service” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (as defined in section 3(3) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994)(f); “officer of Revenue and Customs” means a member of staff appointed by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under section 2(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005(g); “passport” means— (a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971(h)); or (b) a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a United Kingdom passport; (a) Section 17(7) contains a limit on the enabling powers in subsection (5).
  • An Update on the UK Coalition Government's

    An Update on the UK Coalition Government's

    Statewatch Analysis Six months on: An update on the UK coalition government’s commitment to civil liberties Max Rowlands Contents Part I Introduction Part II The proposed measures 1. The Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill 2. Identity cards, the National Identity Register and the ContactPoint database 3. Fingerprinting in schools 4. The Freedom of Information Act 5. The DNA database 6. The right to trial by jury 7. The right to protest 8. Libel laws 9. The misuse of anti-terrorism legislation 10. The regulation of CCTV 11. The retention of communications data 12. The proliferation of unnecessary criminal offences 13. The Human Rights Act Part III What other reforms are needed? 14. The “database state” 15. The Digital Economy Act 16. Anti-social behaviour legislation 17. Anti-terrorism legislation Part IV Conclusion 1 Part I: Introduction Within weeks of its formation in May 2010, the coalition government announced with much fanfare its intention “to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power.” An easy victory over Labour’s politically bankrupt National Identity Scheme followed, but since then the government’s approach has been characterised by caution and pragmatism rather than an unerring commitment to liberty. This is largely because there are splits within government on many of the key civil liberties issues that fundamentally define the relationship between citizen and state: how long and under what conditions can the government detain us, to what extent should the state surveil us, and what data on us should it hold? These internal divisions have been compounded by significant pressure from the civil service and security agencies to retain Labour policies that served to empower them.
  • Bloomsbury Professional

    Bloomsbury Professional

    Immigration Asylum 24_2 cover.qxp:Layout 1 16/6/10 09:42 Page 1 Related Titles from Bloomsbury Professional JOURNAL of Immigration Law and Practice, 4th edition 24 Number 2 2010 Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law Volume IMMIGRATION By David Jackson, George Warr, Julia Onslow-Cole & Joseph Middleton Reverting to hardback format, the fourth edition of this clear and practical book has been thoroughly updated by a team of specialist practitioners. It deals comprehensively with ASYLUM AND immigration law procedure and practice, covering European and human rights law, deportation, asylum and onward appeals. In this continually evolving area of law, this fourth edition takes into account all recent NATIONALITY major legislation changes and developments, relevant case law and policies since the last edition. ISBN: 978 1 84592 318 1 Price: £120 Format: Hardback LAW Pub date: Dec 2008 Asylum Law and Practice, 2nd edition Volume 24 Number 2 2010 Pages 113–224 By Mark Symes and Peter Jorro Written by two of the leading authorities on the law relating to asylum, Asylum Law and EDITORIAL Practice, 2nd edition is a detailed exposition of the law relating to asylum and NEWS international protection. ARTICLES Bringing together in one volume, all relevant aspects of asylum law and practice in the The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 United Kingdom, this book is comprehensive enough to serve as a reliable source of Alison Harvey information and analysis to all asylum practitioners. Its depth, thoroughness, and clarity make it a must have for all practitioners. Victims of Human Trafficking in Ireland – Caught in a Legal Quagmire The book is focused on the position in the UK, but with reference to refugee law cases in Hilkka Becker other jurisdictions; such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
  • Identity Documents Bill

    Identity Documents Bill

    Identity Documents Bill EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, are published separately as Bill 1—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Secretary Theresa May has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Identity Documents Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. Bill 1 55/1 Identity Documents Bill CONTENTS Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006 1 Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006 2 Cancellation of ID cards etc 3 Destruction of information recorded in National Identity Register False identity documents etc 4 Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention 5 Apparatus designed or adapted for the making of false identity documents etc 6 Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse 7 Meaning of “identity document” 8 Meaning of “personal information” 9 Other definitions Verification of information 10 Verifying information provided with passport applications etc General 11 Orders 12 Consequential amendments 13 Transitional provision 14 Commencement, extent and short title Schedule — Consequential amendments Bill 1 55/1 Identity Documents Bill 1 A BILL TO Make provision for and in connection with the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006. E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006 1 Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006 (1) The Identity Cards Act 2006 is repealed.
  • A Surveillance Society?

    A Surveillance Society?

    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007–08 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 20 May 2008 HC 58-II [Incorporating HC 508-i–iv, Session 2006–07] Published on 8 June 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.50 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Rt Hon John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton Itchen) Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Mr Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
  • Trusted Digital Identity Provision: GOV.UK Verify's Federated Approach

    Trusted Digital Identity Provision: GOV.UK Verify's Federated Approach

    Edgar A. Whitley Trusted digital identity provision: GOV.UK Verify’s federated approach Report Original citation: Whitley, Edgar A. (2018) Trusted digital identity provision: GOV.UK Verify’s federated approach. CGD policy paper, 131. Center for Global Development, Washington, USA. Originally available from the Center for Global Development This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90577/ Available in LSE Research Online: November 2018 © 2018 CGD CC BY-NC 4.0 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. Trusted Digital Identity Provision: GOV.UK Verify’s Federated Approach Edgar A. Whitley Abstract The UK’s recently launched GOV.UK Verify service relies on a novel federated approach for digital identity verification. Accredited private companies are tasked with verifying the identities of individuals to enable them to access various government services and portals. The private identity providers can draw on a number of public and private databases to validate users’ identities to a given level of identity assurance. The paper provides an overview of the GOV.UK Verify approach to identity verification.
  • Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence

    Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence

    THE GOVERNMENT REPLY TO THE SIXTH REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE SESSION 2005-06 HC 1032 Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty October 2006 Cm 6942 £9.00 THE GOVERNMENT REPLY TO THE SIXTH REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE SESSION 2005-06 HC 1032 Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty October 2006 Cm 6942 £9.00 © Crown Copyright 2006 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St. Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 72300 or e-mail: [email protected] HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE: “IDENTITY CARD TECHNOLOGIES: SCIENTIFIC ADVICE, RISK AND EVIDENCE” (SIXTH REPORT OF SESSION 2005-06) The Government’s response Terminology At the end of March 2006 the Identity Cards Bill received Royal Assent and became the Identity Cards Act 2006 (“the Act”). On the 1st April the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) was formed from the Home Office Identity Cards Programme and the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS).
  • Foi Hq 15110

    Foi Hq 15110

    HEADQUARTERS Communications Branch Calton House 5 Redheughs Rigg EDINBURGH EH12 9HW FOI HQ15110 01 September 2015 Dear Ms McPherson, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request, which was received on 5 August 2015. This gives a statutory deadline for responding of 2 September 2015 under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. You asked the following, and for ease of reference I have copied your original questions as follows. Our response is provided immediately following each question 1. Can you provide the number of foreign nationals in Scottish Prisons for the past 3 years inclusive i.e 2012 – 2015 2. Can you please breakdown by year? 3. Can you please advise which countries they were from? 2012 2013 2014 2015 Afghanistan X X X x Albanian 10 12 9 11 Algerian X X X X American X X Angolan X X X X Australian X X X X Bahamian X Bangladeshi X X X X Belgian X Brazilian X Bulgarian X X X X Chinese 33 13 13 X Congolese X X Czech X X X X Dominican X X Dutch X X X X Ecuadorian X X X Egyptian X Eritrean X Estonian X X X Fijian X X French X X X Gambian 6 8 X X German X X Ghanaian X X X X Greek X Grenadian X Guinean X X X Hungarian X X X Indian X 9 12 7 Iranian X X X Iraqi X X X 7 Irish 14 11 9 14 Italian X X X 7 Jamaican 9 7 6 X Kenyan X X X Korean X X X Kuwati X X X Latvian 7 7 11 6 Lebanese X Libyan X X X X Lithuanian 20 27 13 23 Macedonian X Malawian X X Maltese X X X Mexican X X X Morroccan X X New Zealander X X X Nigerian 8 8 11 12 Other African X Other Asian X Other X Commonwealth
  • Section 1 Right of Abode 1. Introduction

    Section 1 Right of Abode 1. Introduction

    CHAPTER 1 – SECTION 1 RIGHT OF ABODE CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. RESTRICTIONS ON EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ABODE 3. ON ENTRY 3.1. Further guidance 3.2. Procedure 3.3. Refusal of entry 3.4. Right of appeal and corresponding refusal form 4. AFTER ENTRY 4.1. Claiming the right of abode 4.2. Further guidance 4.3. Procedure when claim to right of abode upheld 4.4. Certificates of entitlement to the right of abode 4.5. Fees 4.6. Refusal 4.7. Revocation of certificate of entitlement 4.8. Right of Appeal ANNEX A - GUIDANCE - GENERAL 1. LEGISLATION 2. PERSONS ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT OF ABODE 2.1. Who qualified before 1 January 1983? 2.2. Who qualified on or after 1 January 1983? 2.3. What is/was the effect of renunciation of British citizenship or CUKU status in right of abode terms? 3. EVIDENCE OF RIGHT OF ABODE 4. UNCERTAIN CASES 5. CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT ISSUED IN ERROR 6. RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF ABODE IN SOME CASES 7. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT OF ABODE ANNEX B - ESTABLISHING NATIONALITY STATUS AND REFERRAL TO NATIONALITY QUALITY AND ENQUIRY TEAM, LIVERPOOL 1. INTRODUCTION 2. DUAL NATIONALS 3. FORMER BRITISH COLONIES 4. RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES OR BRITISH CITIZENSHIP 5. REFERRAL OF CASES/CORRESPONDENCE TO NATIONALITY QUALITY AND ENQUIRY TEAM 5.1. Cases involving nationality enquiries which may not need to be referred to NQET 5.2. Leaflets ANNEX C - LISTS OF: FORMER BRITISH DEPENDENCIES; AND EXISTING BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES 1. FORMER BRITISH DEPENDENCIES WHICH HAVE GAINED INDEPENDENCE SINCE 1 JANUARY 1949 2.
  • ILPA Response to UK Border Agency Consultation on Compulsory Identity Cards for Foreign Nationals Q1a Does the Code of Practice

    ILPA Response to UK Border Agency Consultation on Compulsory Identity Cards for Foreign Nationals Q1a Does the Code of Practice

    ILPA Response to UK Border Agency Consultation on Compulsory Identity Cards for Foreign Nationals Q1a Does the Code of Practice clearly distinguish between the likely primary and secondary compliance requirements of the forthcoming biometric regulations? Tick Box NO Explanation As per paragraph 2.2 of the Code the Secretary of State may impose a sanction on a person who fails to comply with either a primary or a secondary compliance requirement. There is some suggestion (at 2.4) that failure to comply with a secondary requirement will ‘normally result in the issuing of civil penalty notice’. There is some implication here that a civil penalty notice is the most likely penalty, but this is tempered by the use of the word ‘normally’. It is also suggested at paragraph 6.2 that the civil penalty will be higher for contravention of a primary than contravention of a secondary requirement. The word ‘normally’ is omitted in the case of sanctions for non-compliance with primary compliances. Is this intended to imply that an immigration sanction will normally be imposed? The Code should be clearer on this point. If there is to be a distinction in the sanctions between non-compliance with primary and secondary requirements, then the two sets of requirements need clearly to be distinguished. At the moment this is not the case; a failure to notify a change in circumstances fits the definition of a breach of primary requirement (‘to notify a change in circumstances which….’) and of a secondary requirement (‘notify the Secretary of State when he knows or suspects that the information provided in connection…has become false, misleading or incomplete’).
  • Biometrics: Enhancing Security Or Invading Privacy?

    Biometrics: Enhancing Security Or Invading Privacy?

    BIOMETRICS: ENHANCING SECURITY OR INVADING PRIVACY? OPINION Published by The Irish Council for Bioethics 1 Ormond Quay Lower, Dublin 1. E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.bioethics.ie © Irish Council for Bioethics 2009 All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged. Biometrics: Enhancing Security or Invading Privacy? Opinion. Published by The Irish Council for Bioethics, Dublin ISBN 978-0-9563391-0-2 Price €10.00 BIOMETRICS: ENHANCING SECURITY OR INVADING PRIVACY? Preface Biometric technologies including iris, voice, fingerprint and vein pattern recognition – once the realm of science fiction and film – are now becoming more of a daily reality. The potential biometrics provides as an individual identifier has resulted in the widespread diffusion of this technology into people’s lives. For example, Irish citizens now encounter biometric applications in many different situations, such as for workplace time and attendance, for physical and logical access (e.g. for laptops) and particularly in relation to international travel. In addition, Ireland is now recognised as a European hub for biometric research in both industry and academia. Indeed, the European Biometrics Forum (a European-wide stakeholder group supporting the appropriate use of biometric technologies) was established in Dublin and is part funded by the Irish government. Given Ireland’s involvement in and contribution to biometric research, the Irish Council for Bioethics (the Council) considered it appropriate to examine the ethical, social and legal issues associated with biometric technologies and the collection, use and storage of biometric information. This opinion document outlines the Council’s views and recommendations on these issues.