Privacy activists hate the idea of using biometric ID software in public places. But DW's Jefferson Chase says that it's better to test whether it can help prevent terrorism and major crime than to reject it out of hand.
Advertisement
Image: NDR
There's a part of me that would love to join in the chorus of those who want to scupper the tests of facial-recognition security software at a Berlin train station. There's something seductive about identifying a conspiracy theory in which malevolent forces "from above" seek to control people's lives. Only in this case there's no conspiracy. How could there be? Everything in this process is out in the open.
Earlier this year, with no shortage of publicity, Berlin police found volunteers to participate in a test of a prototype facial-recognition system at Südkreuz station. The system seeks to match images of people on CCTV cameras with pictures of the volunteers in a test database. Volunteers also wear transponders providing information about their whereabouts. Comparing the two sets of data will give a good indication of whether the technology is of any use.
DW's Jefferson Chase says facial-recognition software should be given a fair chance
Criticism has arisen because the transponders apparently collect a bit more information than originally intended, but there's been no suggestion that authorities are trying to use any of this data, and none of the volunteers has decided that he or she no longer wants to take part. I covered this story when the project was launched a few months back and asked a group of volunteers whether they had privacy concerns. None of them did. On the contrary, they were curious about whether the technology would work and eager to make a contribution to what they say is a good cause.
Naïve, the activists might say, but is it? Most of us are completely unaware of the types and volume of data that mobile phones and social media collect and share about us. Yet how many of us think twice about employing GPS to find our way and checking Facebook or email accounts with private companies for new messages? Compared to that, participating in a highly public test monitored by journalists, politicians and watchdog organizations seems pretty safe to me.
Intelligent video surveillance
03:18
This browser does not support the video element.
And for a pair of political reasons, it's important that the tests continue. After the terrorist attack on a Christmas market in Berlin last December and the subsequent manhunt for the attacker, right-wing populists accused the German government of failing to do everything in its power to prevent terrorism. A rejection of biometric identification technology on general principle would feed such accusations. Testing the technology, on the other hand, shows that the government is trying out various ways to protect people against terrorism.
Experiments like the one at Südkreuz station are also in the public interest because they reveal the limitations and potential abuses of facial recognition systems. Critics say the technology won't work and is prone to mistaken identifications. If that's so, isn't it better to find out and confirm that in a test environment?
When asked about the technology while touring the station on Thursday, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere spoke about it in terms of an experiment, saying that if the technology worked, it would be "an unbelievable plus for security in Germany."
I take de Maiziere at his word. This experiment may fail. The technology may prove useless or incompatible with individuals' right to privacy in Germany. If so, let's find out. I'm very glad that watchdog groups are keeping close tabs on what's going on at Südkreuz and look forward to the debate once the results of the experiment are in. Canceling it would only deprive the public of the sort of information it needs to come to a consensus about this potentially beneficial, potentially harmful technology.
From the fingerprint to biometric data
125 years ago an Argentinian criminologist systematically took fingerprints of prisoners. Today there is a wealth of biometric information which police officers can collect: DNA, sounds, pictures and data.
Image: arfo - Fotolia.com
A standard in modern forensics for 125 years
In 1891, a Croatian born, Argentine criminologist, Juan Vucetich, started building up the first modern-style fingerprint archive. Since then, fingerprints have become one of the main forms of evidence used to convict criminals. Here, a police officer spreads dust on the lock of a burglarized apartment. Fingerprints become visible.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Archiving and comparing prints
He uses an adhesive film to capture the fingerprint. Then he glues it to a piece of paper. In the past, comparing fingerprints was a painstaking affair. Officers had to compare fingerprints found at the scene of a crime, one-by-one, with those of possible suspects. These days computers do the job.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
No more ink
Taking fingerprints used to be a messy affair - with ink and dirty hands. These days scanners have replaced the inky mess. And the data can immediately be sent to a database and turned into biometrical data.
Image: picture alliance/dpa/P. Endig
Fingerprints form an identity
The computer identifies typical spots within the ridge patterns of the fingerprint. These include forks in the lines, spots and the location of the center of the print. Fingerprints are never the same between two people - not even with identical twins.
Image: itestro/Fotolia.com
Vote early and vote often!
No chance! Here, officials use fingerprint scanners during an election in Nigeria. It's how they make sure the people voting are registered voters and that they only vote once.
Image: APC Presidential Campaign Organisation
Who entered Europe where?
This is an important question for officials who have to decide about the refugee or asylum status of applicants. In the European Union all migrants are supposed to have their fingerprints taken at the first point of entry - provided, of course, the local police officers are equipped with the scanners.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/A. Weigel
Hands off! It's my data!
Many smartphones now come with fingerprint recognition software, such as the iPhone's Touch-ID. The owner of the phone unlocks it with his fingerprint. If someone else finds or steals the phone, they have no way of getting at any encrypted data within.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa Themendienst
Secure ATM banking
This is an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) in the Scottish town of Dundee. Customers wanting to withdraw money need to show biometric proof of identity - in the form of a fingerprint. Not good news for pickpockets.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Fingerprint inside the passport
Since 2005, German passports, and many other passports, contain a digital fingerprint as part of the biometric information stored on a RFID (radio-frequency controlled ID) chip. Other information on the chip includes a biometric passport photo. The facial image is similar to fingerprints: no two images are alike.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/P. Grimm
When computers recognize faces
Facial recognition software, which uses biometrics, is well advanced. It is possible to identify suspects within large crowds, with surveillance cameras. Also internet services and private computer owners are increasingly making use of facial recognition software to sort holiday pictures and tagging them to names.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
The inventor of the genetic fingerprint
Alec Jeffreys discovered DNA-fingerprinting almost accidentally in 1984 during research at the University of Leicester. He identified a specific pattern on DNA segments, which were different for every human. He created a picture, which looks like a barcode at the supermarket.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
A barcode for every human
Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) started storing such barcodes in a federal database in 1998. Investigators have since solved more than 18,000 crimes, using genetic fingerprints.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Clearing the innocent
It's not just criminals who get identified. Many innocent people can be cleared of criminal charges through good identification. For some, technology has saved their lives. Kirk Bloodsworth spent almost nine years on death row. The US Innocence Project has proved the false incarceration of more than 100 people using DNA evidence.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Clarity for victims' families
The first big test for DNA-fingerprinting came with the mass murder of Srebrenica. Bodies, exhumed from mass graves, were systematically identified using DNA techniques. They were then reburied by their loved ones. Here, five year old Ema Hasanovic pays last respects to her uncle. More than 6,000 victims of the massacre - mostly men - were identified using DNA-fingerprinting.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/A. Emric
Biometric data on your phone and computer
You may be surprised, but there's biometric information in sounds and other digital data. Voice recognition software can, for instance, identify people making threatening phone calls - the human voice is also unique. And don't forget: we leave all kinds of digital traces on the internet, which hold clues to who we really are.
