Biometrics and Racial Profiling
-
Upload
john-sutherland -
Category
Documents
-
view
119 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Biometrics and Racial Profiling
FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE
AN INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS
John Alan Sutherland AU # 2980775 POLI 580 Dr. J Smith Fall 2011
1
ABSTRACT
The use of Facial Recognition Software has expanded beyond the simple application of
verification and identification of known criminals and terrorists. It is being used to correlate
diverse sources including a person’s biometric data from pictures and video surveillance,
personal non-biometric information and what can be described as generalized group “traits” into
profiles of individuals for the purpose of predicting his or her future behavior. The method of
collection of this material without the subject’s consent, the misuse of group trait generalizations
for individual profiles and the continued discriminatory use of racial profiling in selecting
subjects for surveillance infringe the basic rights of citizens in a free and democratic society.
INTRODUCTION
In the post 9/11 era Facial Recognition Software (FRS) has become an important biometric
tool used by military, security and police forces allegedly to fight crime including terrorism
(Volpp, 2002). However the uses of FRS and its usefulness to the state extend far beyond it
being a simple tool for identification of known criminals or terrorists.
On its most public level FRS is an internet based technology allowing a photograph or a video
surveillance taken of an individual to be quickly compared to pictures stored in a data bank for
the purposes of determining identity (Thornhill). That part of FRS use is seen as being
2
completely automated with little human input in the comparison. In this application FRS has its
highest level of reliability. But that reliability is still subject to weaknesses in the digital camera
technology which is central for comparison between pictures.
On another level FRS technology is being used for “profiling” of individuals who are “of
interest” to the state. FRS analyzes photographs or video surveillance of a person to collect
biometrical data. This is then correlated with other personal and general non-biometrical data in
order to create a pattern of behavior for a person. That pattern can then be used to predict what
his or her intentions are for future action. FRS relies upon multiple sources of information to
reach a level of meaningful predictability in this application. In order to complete a profile FRS
requires a high degree of human input to fill in the gaps of absent information and to make
generalizations about the individual which can affect the validity of the process. Profiling has
been described as an attempt to deal with the diversity and complexity of reality through
categorization (Backhouse A. C., 2008). Once an individual is categorized into a particular group
FRS assigns a generalized pattern of behaviors thought to be common to that group to the
individual. Individual behavior patterns are thus skewed by group behavior patterns both
positively and negatively.
Profiling becomes “racial” profiling when it classifies persons as belonging to a particular
race or ethnic group. Generalized so called “racial Traits” are then used to profile individuals
who have been identified as belonging to a particular race or ethnic group based on their physical
appearance. This is by far the least reliable application of FRS and one which critics say is
another form of racial prejudice and discrimination.
3
In attempting to extract biometrical data from pictures there are many factors which can
cause distortion of images and hamper accurate matching and identification. These include such
factors as lighting conditions, changing weather conditions, complex and/or moving background
and complex foreground and occlusions (Angelos Yannopoulos, p. 97). All of these may prevent
accurate matches and even result in incorrect matches or false positives. Despite these flaws,
governments and private security interests have sold FRS to the public based on the argument
that its use provides greater protection against potential terrorists (Magnet, 2007). While it
speeds up a process that would normally require checking thousands of so called “mug” shots of
criminals and/ or terrorists is it more accurate?
But what of concerns as to the use of this technology to collect data on citizens without
their consent. Once a picture of a “suspicious” person has been taken it is available to the state
for a wide range of purposes including future monitoring of persons in whom the state has an
interest. Most agents of the state deny that the subject has any right of privacy to a photograph
taken in a public place (Angwin, 2011). When FRS is used for detecting and interpreting
suspicious behavior in order to discover dangerous intentions (Science and Technology: If looks
could kill; Surveillance Technology|, 2008), it crosses into an area which must rely upon non-
scientific generalizations in order to create a profile of a person. This process prejudices the
individual because of his or her supposed race or ethnic group (Angwin, 2011) . Experience has
shown that much of what is generalized about individuals is based on assumptions of traits for
different races and ethnicities. A person whose profiling pattern is based on these ethnic or racial
generalizations loses the equality of rights including the protection of the state guaranteed to all
citizens.
4
Since the decision to photograph or conduct video surveillance is based on the subjective
reasoning of the person initiating the process, it follows that if the subject is a “suspicious”
subject primarily because of race this is racial profiling (Muffler, 2006). Human reasoning is
based upon the experiences, training and biases of the individual making the decision to
photograph. It is clear that for reasons of economic cost and sheer volume a decision has to be
made by someone as to who will be photographed. But if that decision is based on a biased view
that some groups of individuals are more likely to be criminals or terrorists than others
(Nakamura, 2002)this is not only discriminatory but illegal. The weakness in FRS technology is
that it can and often does rely upon groups constructed along racial or ethnic lines (Nakamura,
2007). Taking a picture of a Middle Eastern individual at an airport screening center and
comparing it to databanks of potential terrorists is based on a generalization that all Arabs are
potential threats to western society. This is racial discrimination and prejudice. It is neither
scientifically based nor is it based on any non-biometrical data for the individual. Whether racial
profiling is ever justifiable in the interests of national security is another issue. So too is whether
individual freedoms should be curtailed to allow this invasion of privacy by FRS technology
which denies equal rights to these individuals.
The general public seems to have accepted FRS technology without questioning to what
extent it infringes upon individual rights and freedoms. This is largely due to the partnership of
state and media in raising the level of the terrorism threat to panic proportions. FRSs have
allowed individual privacy to be undermined to theoretically benefit collective security
(Nakamura, 2008). As warned by Whitaker we are fast approaching the state of total surveillance
of our lives (Whitaker, 1999) with it seems very little protest.
5
This paper examines what FRS does and does not do; and how and why the use of FRS to
create profiles and interpret individual biometrics and their biometric patterns can become racial
profiling encompassing racial discrimination and lead to increased racism (Fox, 2010-2011).
Further it discusses what, if anything, can or should be done to safeguard the equal rights of all
citizens from such interference. We are a society that believes in the “rule of law”. That rule
encompasses the principle that anything that creates discrimination against certain groups based
on ethnicity undermines a free and democratic society. The diminution of the rights of any group
within our society ultimately affects the rights of all. Understanding the basis of FRS technology
is important in order to expose its weaknesses and how its use unfairly harms the reputations and
rights of ethnic groups of our citizens (Hosein).
THE PARAMETERS OF FRS
To understand how FRS technology can be abused and lead to unwarranted invasion of
privacy and racial profiling it is important to understand what FRS is and what it is not. Initially
it was used by military, police and security forces for determining identification of persons who
were already known threats to the state. Cynically one can question whether individuals who
have their pictures in data banks for past crimes would place themselves in a position to be
photographed by security forces.
In reality FRS is being used by state agencies for the purpose of gathering further data on
persons who may pose a threat to the powers of the state . Digital pictures once taken become
part of the state’s data collection for that individual. In this application FRS technology is used
as part of the process to construct, correlate and interpret profiles or patterns of behavior for
persons the state wishes to monitor. FRS constructs profiles through use of pictures; enhanced
6
with additional video surveillance photography; taken over a period of time; supplemented by
other personal information and data about the person; and using generalizations about the person
based on comparison to other persons with similar biometric traits which we refer to as group
profiling. From this composite profile or pattern FRS allows state agencies to “discover”
(Hildebrandt, 2008) what the suspect’s future actions will be. Will the person be a criminal or
terrorist threat to the state? FRS assists in this “data mining” and by providing patterns of
correlations between data in respect of an individual and his or her group. Trust me it is not
capable of finding terrorists by capturing the “deviant look” (Nakamura, 2008).
THE PROBLEMS WITH DIGITAL PICTURES
It is easy to believe from watching the television show “24 Hours” (Nakamura, 2008) to
reading the hype in the popular press (Angwin, 2011) that facial recognition devices using digital
camera technology are infallible in their ability to quickly match faces to databanks and confirm
identity. While a picture is said to be worth a thousand words, a digital camera is not the human
eye with a human brain capable of interpreting what the eye has seen. In fact “digital” is not
even the best camera for creating an accurate representation of what the human eye sees. While it
is true that faces play an essential role in human communication (Dugelay, 2005) digital
photography is probably one of the least effective ways of capturing facial expressions.
We are all photographers in an amateur sense. Without any prior training we can take
pictures of people around us incidentally recording how the person looked at a particular point in
time. The photograph album becomes a family record of our time on earth and that of the people
close to us. But many of our pictures are poor images of our subjects. Often when we later bring
7
out the albums we sometimes have difficulty identifying who the subjects are because of the lack
of clarity of the pictures.
Digital photographs taken for the purpose of identifying a person or capturing their
biometric facial traits are often done in an amateur manner with similar results to our family
photographs. Usually the conditions under which the picture is taken do not produce a picture
similar to the one stored in a database. The software’s capability for direct comparison between
pictures is only as good as the product in the picture: poor picture quality leads to inaccurate
comparisons. When pictures are similar but not perfect matches does this not logically lead to
subjective interpretation the agents of the state as to whether there is a match? In court
proceedings one of the questions routinely asked of a witness presenting photographic evidence
is: “Is this an accurate representation of the person (or thing)?”. To the person who took the
picture it is only as accurate as he or she recalls at the time the picture was taken. In the recent
riot in Vancouver, British Columbia following the Stanley Cup finals, photographs and videos
allegedly taken by amateur onlookers were used to identify individuals who were subsequently
charged with crimes against property. Whether these pictures will stand up in court to identify
the accused in the act will have to await the trials including cross examination by the defense to
highlight any differences between the digital pictures and the actual accused in the witness box.
Even if a digital picture is of good quality it is seldom able to display emotion. When we take
our own pictures we actively encourage our subjects to show happiness by asking them to smile
for the camera. But rarely do our photographs disclose any other emotion. FRS professes not to
need professionally taken pictures in order to be effective in identification. But most digital
pictures have too much room for error; usually are not good quality ; and fail to be detailed
8
enough to bring out any facial peculiarities or emotional facial signs. Manufacturers of facial
recognition devices oversell the capabilities of their digital systems.
Digital pictures taken in the field cannot be compared to those taken by professional
photographers. Professional photographers have the skill and expertise to create perfect pictures.
They still require proper lighting and time to create them. In fact they are able to create pictures
that will portray a person or object in any manner they like and with any emotion they want to
display. I once defended an accused in a case of sexual assault where he was identified from a
police lineup and picked up the next day on the street near the scene of the attack. The victim’s
description of her attacker was that he had dark features with dark hair, dark clothes and a dark
complexion. My client happened to live in the area of the crime. He had dark hair and was a
darker ethnic Italian. He fit the victim’s description . The victim’s overuse of “dark” in her
description conveyed to me an inability on her part to clearly see her attacker’s features because
of the night darkness in the location of the attack. My professional photographer and I went to
the scene at night where he took several pictures of the area. By adjusting the camera lens the
area could be made as dark as the professional photographer liked. While the prosecutor objected
to the introduction of our pictures as evidence as they were not taken on the night of the attack
the judge allowed them in as evidence for identification purposes as an accurate representation of
the site of the attack. These pictures showing a very dark area as well as my young client’s alibi
of being home with his wonderful Italian mother resulted in his acquittal . Clearly photographs
have the ability to distort what the human eye can see and produce a representation unlike what
was seen.
Of course even eyewitness descriptions may lack validity and cause the creation of
misleading profiles. There is solid evidence to cast doubt on the reliability of witness
9
descriptions. In recent years there has been an increasing trend in racial hoaxes, or cases where
crimes, real or fabricated are falsely attributed to minority suspects (Gumbhir, 2007). Racial
hoaxes prey on larger cultural images and beliefs associated with race/ethnicity and crime,
drawing on the public’s fears and misgivings to conceal aspects of the overall situation. An
example is the widely publicized case of Susan Smith, a white mother of two children who in
1994 accused a black male of carjacking and kidnapping her children when in fact she had
murdered them. If the content of crime reporting and witness statements can be influenced by
racial/ethnic biases, for whatever reason, then this information should not be embraced without
greater scrutiny in deciding who should be the subject of photographic monitoring.
Professional photographers are experienced in taking photographs of people with an eye
for bringing out certain prominent features of their subject to portray traits which give the person
a certain uniqueness. The portrait photographs taken by the famous Canadian photographer
Karsh are important examples of that work. His famous portrait of Sir Winston Churchill was
taken in a way to convey the strength and determination of the British war-time leader which was
one of the strengths of Churchill’s personality. According to Karsh this was his intention in
setting up the picture. Few if any of those manning security cameras have the ability or skill to
take such pictures. Therefore pictures as indicated are only as good as the skill of the
photographer given time and conditions to create a professional photograph.
BIOMETRIC TRAITS AND RACE
All of which brings me to the point of whether it is even possible (much less desirable) to
interpret race and ethnicity from photographs. Having failed badly in my own attempts at
correctly identifying the ethnicities of various Chinese, Japanese and Korean subjects from their
10
pictures at http://www.alllooksame.com I can support those that argue that there is no way that
photographs can accurately convey a person’s race. And that particular website uses only
pictures of non-mixed nationalities. Imagine the difficulty of trying to determine the ethnic
makeup from a picture of someone who is of a racially mixed background. Photographs convey
nothing more than a mere representation of images frozen in time from which the viewer must
draw conclusions. Further the necessity of drawing those conclusions leads the viewer to consult
his or her own generalizations or those that have been preprogrammed in a person from the
opinions of others. Even more specific and perhaps more accurate than photographs in
identification are the use of iris scanners to identify individuals by the biometrics of their eyes.
But photographs in and of themselves cannot convey race or ethnicity.
Can photographs convey enough in the way of biometric data to be of probative value? The
scientific basis for using physical characteristics or biometrics are not new. But what are
biometrics? Biometrics have long been used to verify and identify individuals and groups by
using what can be described as “measureable human characteristics both physiological and
behavioral” (Angelos Yannopoulos, 2008). Biometric traits are defined as human characteristics
that must satisfy certain requirements in order to be useful for identification. These requirements
are: sufficient inter-person variability for distinctiveness purposes; invariability over a period of
time and thus a rather low intra-person variability; measurability; and universality (A.K. Jain,
2004). Physiological characteristics are strongly connected to the human body. They include
such traits as iris patterns, face image, odor, hand and finger geometry, DNA and fingerprints.
We often refer to these as “hard” biometrics. But we are still limited in the number of
physiological traits we can use for identification of particular individuals as well by the cost of
compiling large databases of individual fingerprints, iris prints and other hard biometrics.
11
What has become more important in the field of biometrics are what are referred to as
“behavioral biometrics” (Angelos Yannopoulos, 2008). These can be described as
“measurements” of human characteristics related to a person’s conscious or unconscious
behavior, actions, or skills-and not his/her physical features. They are functions performed by a
person at a specific point of time for a specific reason (e.g. a person’s typing patterns, signature
or method of moving the computer mouse) (Vassiliki Andronikou, 2008). Why are these
important? Because in order to understand how a person will act in certain situations we need to
observe that person and make certain conclusions as to why he or she is acting in a certain way.
FRS becomes a process of interpreting a person’s actions and trying to discern if there is a
pattern to their actions which can tell us what the person’s intentions might be. Behavioral
biometrics can provide useful profiling information such as a measure of a person’s preferences
or mood (Angelos Yannopoulos, 2008). More importantly these can link the individual to a non-
biometric profile. These capabilities can be regarded as direct and indirect profiling and
constitute behavioral biometric profiling.
PROFILING
What do we mean by profiling? Profiling is a process of “discovering correlations between
data in databases that can be used to identify and represent a subject and/or the application of
profiles (sets of correlated data) to individuals and represent a subject or to identify a subject as a
member of a group or category” (Wim Scheurs, 2008). In simple terms it is a description of who
the person is including his or her physiological traits combined with observations of the person’s
actions as well as generalizations we make from having observed similar people with similar
12
types of traits and actions. A good example is the profiling done on television shows like C.I.S.
when the police forensic unit attempts to come up with a profile of the suspected killer based on
his or her physical evidence found at the scene such as fingerprints or shoe prints, plus perhaps a
witness statement and evidence collected from the wounds to the victim plus similarities to other
similar crimes. The Latin term “modus operandi” also is sometimes used instead of profile.
However when we try to classify the person as belonging to a particular race or ethnic group
and then ascribe to that person what we believe are general traits of that racial group we are
engaged in “racial” profiling. Does it make any sense to describe an individual in a way that we
have designated as appropriate to the traits of that group even though he or she may only
partially conform to those traits (Backhouse M. , 2005)? If we believe that First Nation people
are lazy we may incorrectly give a person this trait because we believe they are First Nations.
Have we not just reinforced our racial prejudice towards that ethnic group? The more complex a
system of attributing traits to a group becomes the more prejudices it may end up incorporating
into the profile of the individual (Johnson, 2004). Further these are not scientifically proven
traits but anecdotal and part of our particular culture. The ascribing of these unscientific traits to
a person only serves to reinforce racial discrimination against that person. The use of stereotypes,
loose generalizations or broad statistical correlations to suspect a person of being a criminal or a
terrorist is racial profiling (Merrick J. Bobb, 2006). The more general the criteria used to isolate
individuals, the greater the likelihood that people will be targeted repeatedly or erroneously
(Merrick J. Bobb, p. 32). At the core of all racial profiling definitions is the idea of racial
discrimination (Gumbhir, 2007).
13
WHY AGENTS OF THE STATE CONTINUE TO USE RACIAL PROFILING
Security and police continue to use racial profiling because they can get away with it. They
are given a great degree of leeway by most courts in using race as one factor in their profiling of
suspects as long as they can show that there is a basis to suspect that a crime has been
committed. More objectionable is the concept of race based policing or racially biased policing
where the prime reason for photographing or surveillance of someone is because of their race.
In general terms every definition of racial profiling includes the idea of racial discrimination
or “using race as a criterion for treating one person or group differently from others” (Gumbhir,
p. 16). Racial profiling is the intrusion of racial/ethnic biases into the decision to photograph or
conduct surveillance and the improper use of information on race/ethnicity in criminal/terrorist
profiling procedures (Gumbhir, p. 16). The reality is that that there are racial/ethnic disparities
present in law enforcement practices. The source of racial profiling occurs primarily in officer
decision making whereas the institutional aspects of criminal profiling often merely condone
such practice.
How do we ensure that state institutions monitor and address the misuse of race and
ethnicity in individual officer decision-making. In the United States racial profiling is defined as
“any police-initiated action that relies on race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the
behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has
been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity” (Gumbhir, p. 17). This
definition is grounded in the theory that it is the use of racial/ethnic stereotypes in officer
decision-making that causes differential treatment among members of different ethnic groups.
Stereotyping may be related to the overt racial prejudices of individual officers.
14
How is it possible to eliminate racial profiling from acceptable law enforcement tactics
which place prime reliance on a suspect’s behavior and known information on crimes and
criminal enterprises? Criminal profiling instructs officers to consider multiple indicators of
suspiciousness. It is likely that officers who consider race/ethnicity in their decision making also
consider aspects of a suspect’s behavior as well as descriptions of suspects-at-large in this
process. Is the presence of some behavioral indicators or information enough to dismiss claims
of racial profiling? The United States Supreme Court has stated that as long as officers can
provide some legal or valid reason for their action, questions about stereotyping and judgments
based on race/ethnicity are rendered moot. But will the use of ethnic/race stereotypes not cancel
out the legal reason for the officer’s actions (Gumbhir, p. 18)? It appears that most definitions of
racial profiling find it acceptable for officers to consider race/ethnicity when they are working
from a description of a suspect in a known crime. This result reveals a distinction between
reactive and predictive or proactive police action. In terms of reactive police action, working
from descriptions provided by witnesses to crimes is a longstanding investigative tool. If the race
or ethnicity of the suspect is reported by the victim or witness it logically brings race into the
profiling. On the other hand the absence of a suspect’s description introduces predictive criminal
profiling which relies on demographic and behavioral characteristics as indicators of crimes not
known to police and opens the door to discriminatory racial profiling.
Some critics define racial profiling as “hard” profiling and criminal profiling as “soft”
profiling. “Hard” profiling uses race as the only factor in assessing criminal suspiciousness.
“Soft” profiling uses race as only one factor among others in gauging criminal suspiciousness
(Gumbhir, p. 20). Is soft profiling a legitimate and acceptable law enforcement practice? It still
rests on the idea that racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to commit certain crimes than
15
whites. An example is in the area of drug crimes. Statistics there show the highest percentage of
all drug arrests involve black subjects compared to that group’s percentage of the total
population. However there are flaws in these statistics as they fail to take into consideration
social, political, historical, economical, logistical and legal factors. It is wrong to assume that
enforcement related data reflects an unbiased estimate of offending. Data on arrests are nowhere
close to being a representative sample of offending in a given jurisdiction. The seriousness of the
crime, the strength of available evidence, the relationship between the victim and suspect and the
suspect’s attitude towards the police officer all have an impact on whether or not a suspect is
taken into custody. In addition apparent differential offending may be thinly veiled differential
enforcement. Finally certain categories or behaviors are radicalized i.e. given racial connections.
How do we then balance the use of race/ethnicity in officer decision-making with concerns
about racial discrimination? How do we differentiate racial profiling from acceptable decision
making processes related to criminal profiling? Racial profiling exists at the conceptual
connection between race/ethnicity and suspicion. Therefore to define, theorize and study it we
must look at the role of race/ethnicity in the social construction of suspicion and “the symbolic
suspect” (Gumbhir, p. 26). Further an historically and tactically oriented approach must be taken
to limiting racial profiling in practice. Attempts must be made in identifying patterns in state
agent’s practices that are indicative of the disproportionate application of pretext suspect
attitudes to minority individuals. Ways must be incorporated into police and security
organizations so that race/ethnicity is not used as the filter through which other indicators of
suspiciousness are interpreted. Race/ ethnicity must never be the tipping point in the individual
agent decision-making. As well race/ethnicity should never be used as anything other than a
confirmatory factor. Information related to race/ethnicity should be considered only after other
16
criteria have been satisfied. In the absence of other key characteristics of a description such as
sex, age, height, and weight, race/ethnicity must not be employed as the justification for police
action.
The initial decision to suspect that someone is involved in illegal behavior is at the core of
the controversy surrounding issues such as racial profiling. It is important to determine how a
decision is reached to arrive at the symbolic suspect. Officers act and react based on general
indicators of suspicion that are likely to be enmeshed with a number of other symbols and
meanings.
What is the relationship between suspicion and race/ethnicity? There appear to be four
possible dimensions of suspicion: criminal potential; danger; priority; and reward.
Generalizations about the criminal potential of racial/ethnic groups will inevitably produce self-
fulfilling prophecies. When considering the element of danger we have to consider the role of
politics in determining and directing police action. Moral entrepreneurship not only creates and
modifies laws but is involved in agenda setting and prioritization. Hierarchies of importance,
both formal and informal inevitably develop within communities and agencies. Finally officers
who are successful in enforcing relevant laws will likely receive formal rewards in the form of
commendation and promotion. These in turn encourage more arrests. Finally police culture tends
to be isolationist and totalizing in the sense that officers rarely socialize with those who are not
knowledgeable of and sympathetic towards police work. As a result they are unlikely to
encounter much diversity in their lives and experiences outside of work. Police culture is
dominated by philosophy that rejects progressive viewpoints of activists and social scientists,
especially those that emphasize racism and social justice in their criticism.
17
CONCLUSION
Humans successfully use information gathered from the observation of the behavior of
others because the human brain enables us to collect and interpret such data. While computer
technology is always improving we have not found a way to give computers the ability of the
brain to process intuitively this data. Machine intelligence is not able to interpret biometric and
non-biometric behavior using the subtlety of social behavior, of rhetoric, of playfulness, or of
mock seriousness. Therefore machines are not able to equal human emotion recognition systems
in the area of acquisition, extraction and interpretation. Given these shortcomings any
technological system that automates the collection of data on individuals and attempts to build
their profiles using group generalizations including racial “traits” will fail without human
subjective input. Given these shortcomings for FRS technology we have to ensure that there are
proper checks and balances on the use of automated individual profiles to eliminate the influence
of racial profiling from the human decisions based on these profiles.
Unfortunately profiling especially group profiling ,which by it very nature allows
generalizations, will never be free of errors and will when it involves race and ethnic groups
never be free of racial profiling. As well the more complex a system becomes the more
prejudices it may end up incorporating. Therefore it is important that as we proceed with more
profiling using computer technology that we try to gather as much non-biometric data as possible
on an individual in order to limit the generalizations that we have attached to him or her in the
form of unproven group traits. Such a step would then require that a decision making
classification or interpretation be based on this available incomplete non-biometric data. At this
point biometric sensors could be used to offer additional information. Biometrics therefore
serving as a link to an individual’s profile would offer an opportunity to create a trace of an
18
individual’s actions , daily activities and transactions. Biometric profiling should be used to fill
in the gap not as the basis for building the profile.
We should ever be mindful that the storing of captured raw data in databases poses a threat
to the subject’s privacy, since potential future processing and extraction of additional
information, including age, gender, and ethnicity on this data is possible.
Finally we must always be cognizant that profiling enables those in power to enhance their
power by making ever more precise decisions that benefit themselves rather than the consumer,
individual citizen or employee (Koops, 2008). While society is changing not only through
technology but through globalization, commodification, anti-terrorism objectives, and
trivialization society’s ideas of democracy , the rule of law and fairness are shifting as well.
Legal protection must focus more on redressing wrongs rather than continuing to focus solely on
preventing them. It has become futile to fight against the invasion of privacy by computerized
technology. It is the outcome of data processing-the ultimate use of the data and the resulting
knowledge –that should be the object of protection rather than solely on the collection or
processing itself.
Works Cited
19
A.K. Jain, A. R. (2004, January Vol 14 Vol 1). An Introduction to Biometric Identification. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, special Issue on Image- and Video based Biometrics.
Angelos Yannopoulos, V. A. (2008). Behavioural Biometric Profiling and Ambient Intelligence. In M. H. Gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Discipliary Perspectives (pp. 89-109). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science.
Angwin, E. S. (2011, July 13). Device Raises Fear of Facial Profiling. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal Online: http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/hp/printsavews.aspx?ppstype=Article&p
Anonymous. (2008, October 25). Science and Technology: If looks could kill; Surveillance Technology|. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from The Economist Online: http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/pqdweb?index=0&sid=1&srchmode=1&
Backhouse, A. C. (2008). General Description of the \process of Behavioural Profiling. In M. gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (p. 48). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science.
Backhouse, M. (2005). Descriptive Analysis and Inventory of Profiling Practices, FDIS Deliverable 7.2. Brussels: European Union IST FIDIS Project www.fidis.net.
Dugelay, A. C.-L. (2005). Techniques for Face Motion and Expression Analysis on Monocular Images. In N. S. Strintzis, 3D Modeling and Animation: Synthesis and Analysis Techniques for the Human Body (pp. 201-234). Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
Fox, D. (2010-2011). The Second Generation of Racial Profiling. American Journal of Criminal Law Vol 38 No 49, 49-79.
Gumbhir, V. K. (2007). But is it Racial Profiling? Policing,Pretext Stops, and the Color of Suspicion. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Hildebrandt, M. (2008). Defing Profiling: A New Type of Knowledge? In M. Gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 18-26). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science.
Hosein, G. (n.d.). Threatening The Open Society:Comparing Anti-Terror Policies and Strategies in the US and Europe . Privacy International.
Johnson, M. (2004). Biometrics and the Threat to Civil Liberties. Computer Vol 37 No 4, pp. 90-91.
Koops, B. (2008). Profing and the Identity of the European Citizen. In M. Gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (p. Chapter 15). Rotterdam, The Netherland: Springer Science.
20
Magnet, K. (2007). Communication Research and the Study of Surveillance. communication Review Vol 10, 277-293.
Merrick J. Bobb, N. H. (2006). Racial Profiling. In S. J. Muffler, Racial Profiling: Issues, Data and Analysis (pp. 31-39). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Muffler, S. J. (2006). Racial Profiling: Issues, Data and Analysis. New York: Nova Sciences Publishers, Inc.
Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes:Race, Ethnicity and identity on the Internet. New York: routledge.
Nakamura, L. (2007). Digitizing Race: Visual cultures of the Internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Nakamura, L. (2008). Interface of Identity: Oriental Traitors and Telematic Profiling in 24. Camera Obscura, 109-133.
Thornhill, T. (n.d.). The sinister New software that can scan Any Face and ID it from the Web in Minutes. Retrieved September 30, 2011, from Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/scientech/article-2043786/Snap-unhappy-Facial-recognition
Vassiliki Andronikou, A. Y. (2008). Biometric Profiling: Opportunities and Risks. In M. H. Gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 131-145). The Netherlands: Springer Science.
Volpp, L. (2002). The Citizen and the Terrorist. UCLA Law Review Vol 49, 1576.
Whitaker, R. (1999). The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. New York: The New Press.
Wim Scheurs, M. H. (2008). Cogitas, Ergo Sum,The Role of Data Protection Law and Non-discrimination Law in Group Profiling in the Private Sector. In M. Gutwirth, Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (p. Chapter 13). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science.