Up Close and Personal

High-tech identification devices could produce reams of data on law-abiding citizens — but may be useless in fighting terrorists.

Image: Jeff Mermelstein

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

With America on full alert for the foreseeable future, interest in biometric scanners-devices that verify a person’s identity by measuring unique features such as nasal curvature, iris patterns, or hand shape-has been booming. But civil liberties watchdogs, privacy advocates, and even some security gurus warn that the devices are less effective than advertised and that the personal data they generate could easily be misused.

Currently, biometric tools are primarily marketed as “smart locks” to prevent trespassers from entering restricted areas such as military bases. But industry observers foresee much broader applications, from fingerprint readers at atms to iris scanners in office elevators; already, a number of airports have announced plans to install facial scanners designed to identify criminals. By 2005, biometrics is projected to be a $3.5-billion industry.

“There was no single moment when we were all given email addresses,” Samir Nanavati of the consulting firm International Biometric Group told the journal Computing in October. “It will be the same with biometrics. You won’t even notice adoption over the next two to three years. It will just happen.”

One problem with biometric devices, many security experts warn, is that they can only compare the features of individuals scanned with profiles stored in a database-and a database of potential evildoers worldwide is nearly impossible to assemble. Just two of the September 11 hijackers had previously been flagged by federal authorities. “Terrorists are unlikely to pose for photo shoots,” notes Bruce Schneier, founder of San Jose-based Counterpane Internet Security and a longtime civil liberties advocate. “You might have a grainy picture taken five years ago from 1,000 yards away when he had a beard.”

Then there’s the matter of false alarms: Even a device with a 99.9 percent accuracy rate, far better than any of those now on the market, would generate 1,000 false positives for every 1 potential miscreant it ensnared. “The population of nonterrorists is so much larger than the number of terrorists, the test is useless,” Schneier says. “It’s a system that has enormous costsÑmoney to install, manpower to run, inconvenience to the millions of people incorrectly identified, successful lawsuits by some of those people, and a continued erosion of our civil liberties.”

Other privacy advocates worry that the detailed nature of biometric data-which could reveal, for instance, how much time someone spends at a particular building-will tempt authorities and marketers to expand their use. “You’re compiling a database that has three variables in it: time, space, and identity,” says Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union. “And that’s a very scary prospect.” For the time being, though, few Americans seem troubled by such concerns. According to a Harris Poll released in October, 82 percent of those surveyed would allow their fingerprints to be scanned at the airport. “People are willing to do this right now,” says Richard M. Smith, chief technology officer at the Privacy Foundation. “It’s almost seen as patriotic.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend