Convenience or security – which came first?

By Professor Fraser Sampson, former UK Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner

The use of biometrics in law enforcement is often characterized as a privacy vs security horse trade but we know that the reality is a bit more nuanced. And, like biometric technology, it’s changing. The trade-off generally goes like this: safeguards are intrusive; if you want to be safe you have to surrender some privacy. The extent of both intrusion and surrender will be managed by others (usually the state) but you can’t have one without the other.

Whether this was ever an accurate representation of the issues, remote biometrics are becoming less about a privacy/security face-off and more about balancing personal convenience with public interest. Consumer convenience is driving the innovation – particularly with devices on which you’re reading this – and the technological capabilities it produces can be used to significant effect in the public interest. Among the latest evidence in support of this proposition is the recent passenger survey of air travelers in the United States reported in Biometric Update. The survey showed that a substantial majority of U.S. travelers approve of the Transportation Security Administration’s use of biometrics at airports, reporting 78 percent support among people polled by the U.S. Travel Association and market research company Ipsos.

While a significant number of passengers reportedly supported the use of biometrics at airports in order to make airports safer (66%), the reason that gained the most support (of a reported 90 per cent of passengers) for biometrics was the prospect of it getting them through security layers more quickly. Only four percent of respondents were concerned about their privacy while traveling. In other (admittedly less-than-scientific) words, convenience ranked highest and privacy the lowest. My lack of statistical rigor aside, the survey is interesting for a number of other reasons, the first being that public attitude to biometric technology when used by the state is highly context-specific. International air travelers have generally accepted – or at least become inured to – intrusive searches of themselves, their luggage and belongings in recognition of the peculiar risks and potentially catastrophic consequences involved. From a purely retail perspective an airport is a mall with a runway and the realities of space control measures mean people are unlikely to leave and have a lot of time to shop, eat, mingle and browse. The evolution in biometric technology available to retailers such as facial recognition technology (FRT) means that commercial providers can now offer a frictionless service by which the passenger can check in, drop their baggage, buy duty free goods and find their departure gate on time, virtually without effort.

But just because the paying passenger is prepared to allow their facial image to be used in this way at check ins and check outs, will that mean they are content for it to be used by state agencies for security purposes? On one view, live FRT systems in an airport can get us on our flight quicker, more cheaply and without unnecessary contact with each other and it makes no sense not to use the same system to keep the plane in the air and to prevent the flight being used by those with malign intent – in fact not to do so would be legally and ethically dubious. On the other hand, personal convenience solutions generally rely on express consent (admittedly skipping the small print) with opt outs, conditions and less intrusive alternatives, while law enforcement and state activity are rarely consensual. How far then can the state legitimately infer consent of the citizen in such settings? Do those inferences extend to other security contexts in privately controlled public spaces requiring ticketed access such as concerts and sporting events?

The U.S. survey showed that air passengers supported the use of biometrics for combatting terrorism and human trafficking. Would those attending concerts and games take the same view? How about large public celebrations and other unticketed, free crowded space events? This is already a key question in the evolution of remote biometric use and needs much greater consideration.

Those given more to cynicism in this field might say that this is a suspiciously circular argument. By first creating inconvenience in the name of security, the state can then introduce highly intrusive technological solutions which would otherwise attract more scrutiny and resistance. I am content to leave those arguments to others. Suffice it to say that the survey, along wider developments in air travel generally, continue to illustrate the need for balancing personal convenience with public interest.

About the author

Fraser Sampson, former UK Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner, is Professor of Governance and National Security at CENTRIC (Centre for Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence & Organised Crime Research) and a non-executive director at Facewatch.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  facial recognition  |  Fraser Sampson  |  law enforcement  |  remote biometrics