Finger Prints, Iris-Scans, and a Sense of Belonging

-- By NatashaBronn - 31 May 2012

Introduction

In 2009, the Government of India, through the Unique Identification Authority of India, initiated the AADHAR program, designed to collect biometric identification information from all 1.2 billion citizens. The program aims to document all of the country’s residents, a third of whom currently have no form of identification, and to issue unique 12-digit identification numbers to each registrant which would replace all other forms of identification in India. While the program is not mandatory, many government services are now tied to possession of an AADHAR number, thus citizens will essentially be required to register or forego government services if they do not. The program promises to streamline many public services in India which currently require separate registration cards for each service, and to finally account for millions of Indians who formerly went unnoticed by the state and who therefore failed to receive welfare and other benefits because of their lack of identification.

The program has lofty public goals as well, often referred to as the “biggest social project” on the planet, it has been marketed as a way to “provide identity” to the lower classes who can now be proud to carry an ID card. Some have said that it offers the card bearers a “sense of belonging.” The program has also been lauded as new form of “inclusive growth,” and a way to shift economic power in India by making a third of the country newly accountable to both receive public services, and eventually then to act as consumers themselves. Due to poverty levels and administrative difficulty in documenting its citizens, currently only 3% of Indian citizens pay any income tax. Further, the AADHAR program is also meant to reduce fraud in India, by requiring people to scan their finger prints to match those listed in the data base each time they collect government ratios or vote.

With these noble objectives in mind, AADHAR appears to be a boon to the population of India; a gift of sorts from the Indian government to its undocumented population. But beneath the surface, there are deep concerns that a database of the finger prints and iris scans of 1.2 billion people is not a privacy violation and a risky precedent to set for the rest of the world in the realm of data mining and surveillance.

Public Service: Private Support

The ADDHAR project is the brain child of Nandan Nilekani, former CEO of billion dollar company Infosys Technologies. Despite his corporate ties, Nilekani insists that the AADHAR project is only intended for use by the Indian government, however, the system is in fact intricately tied to the private sector. For example, AADHAR receives biometric support from C-1 Identity Solutions, an American run intelligence and surveillance company. While it is unclear precisely under what terms of use the privately run supporting companies operate, and what access they have to the biometric data, the potential consequences are unsettling. For example, though the Government of India hopes that the AADHAR project will be a success, there are concerns that the project is too large an undertaking and will have to abandoned. To date, however, biometric information has been gathered from over 200- Million citizens. If this data is not in use by the government, the potential exploitations in the commercial world are endless for marketing by understanding age and occupational demographics. Further, even if the information is not used by any of the private partners, concerns exist that the government may not invest the resources needed to adequately secure the data that has already been gathered, and this mass of bio metric information could lead to identity fraud or other large scale surveillance concerns.

Building Our Own AADHAR

These concerns raised by the Indian AADHAR system lead to questions about the potential creation of such a program in the United States. Collecting biometric data on all 300-million Americans would certainly assist in government security and surveillance efforts, and replacing passports, drivers licenses, social security cards, with one sleek identification card may reduce a certain amount of bureaucracy. It has been suggested, however, that in the U.S., the government need not create such a database, because we are creating of our own volition. With over 100 Million monthly American users, Facebook is a prime example of data that we’ve gathered about ourselves. Eventually, Facebook may have just as much, if not more identifying information than AADHAR. Users eagerly input their full names and birthday dates, and upload over 300 Million photos of each other each day which they dutifully “tag.” Need a mug shot of suspect? How about 1,000 photos of the suspect in various outfits and locations instead?

Organ Donors to Pharmaceutical Consumers?

Further, Facebook has begun to chart the territory into collection of sensitive medical information which could eventually lead to the collection of biometric data. In May of 2012, Facebook launched a user option to list status as an “organ donor” on profile pages. Though potentially sensitive information, by the end of the first day of the launch, over 100,000 users had elected to list themselves as organ donors and, over 6,000 had followed a link from the site to enroll in state registries. An impressive number, considering that on an average day, only about 400 people nation wide enroll as organ donors. Facebook’s attempt to list organ donors and increase enrollment numbers clearly has many laudable effects, however, now that it has been shown that users are willing to place certain medical and personal information on their profiles, it is possible that this trend may continue if there is a market for it. For example, revenue from ad sales from pharmaceutical companies could sky rocket, if users had a way to signal certain ailments on their profiles. This launch occurred around the same time as the change of Facebook’s “Privacy Policy” to its new label as simply “Data Use Policy.” We can only hope this change is coincidental.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NatashaBronn
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.