New study examines the problems and promises of forensic biosecurity

A new paper in Security Journal, The Dimensions of Forensic Biosecurity in Genetic and Facial Contexts, puts forth that among the key challenges for forensic facial security is the accuracy and instability of facial biometric markers over lifetimes, “and the fact that algorithms are prone to error in complex identification scenarios.”

“Forensic biosecurity” in genetic and facial contexts refers to the application of forensic techniques analyzing biological data like DNA and facial features to enhance security measures and to create robust security systems, encompassing aspects like individual identification, threat assessment, and surveillance, while raising concerns regarding privacy, ethical implications, and potential misuse of such powerful technologies.

Forensic biological techniques that have been used in multiple security contexts and biometric applications have the potential to lead to a new class of “forensic biosecurity where forensic genetics and facial techniques conjoin in logic and practice in both the domains of evidence and intelligence.” But there are “inherent” challenges, according to the paper’s authors.

The aims of the paper were to discern the benefits, challenges, and vulnerabilities associated with genetic and facial science as they underpin security efforts,” which, the researchers noted, are techniques that “are typically conveyed in security discourses as being necessary and valuable for various forensic contexts” like security and police investigations, and “illustrated through the flourishing of techniques and knowledge by which forensic biological data is applied in investigations of criminal activity.”

“Current and emergent forensic biological techniques relate to the prevention and disruption of crime, intelligence gathering, and criminal investigations. However, utilizing biological information as the basis for identifying or assuming criminal behavior in investigative procedures includes risks,” the researchers said, pointing out that “even low-level inconsistencies and errors are not well tolerated in security-focused policing, with questions of legitimacy at stake regarding proportionality and acceptability.”

“It is important to note that genetic and facial forensic techniques do not act perfectly in security environments,” the authors emphasized. “The particular concern for the present is in what ways it is possible to consistently analyze emerging forensic biosecurity applications in the making.” And, they said, there’s “the additional concern regarding how to accurately ‘forecast’ or ‘anticipate’ such forensic technobiological efforts and effects. In both the present and future contexts, attention must not only be focused on the beneficial aspects of the technoscience, but also to the potential fragility and uncertainty as this relates to and impacts society. The constant quest to upgrade, repair, and improve such technoscientific efforts reveals the perpetual nature of such forensic biology. As such, there are key considerations associated with the forensic science underpinning these two biological techniques.”

“For both forensic genetic and facial biosecurity,” the researchers said, “there are the combined challenges around ethics and privacy, as well as the potential for wrongful convictions with the fallibility of such technologies,” the paper’s authors say. And “as such, it is important to remain cautious regarding the potential impacts on science, society and culture, as well as the administration of criminal justice and national and international security,”

“Emerging technoscience may be effective and innovative in the present, however, it is difficult to accurately forecast or predict the future consequences of such innovations, particularly as they impact marginalized groups and populations already over-represented in forensic databases,” the authors said.

The researchers warn that because emerging technologies frequently “become entrenched and mainstream” they also become “difficult to change,” noting that the initial “enthusiasm portrayed by law enforcement and security agencies regarding emerging technologies shows that it is important to remain somewhat cautious about the proliferation of these techniques. While such science and technologies appear to be effective and innovative in the present, it is difficult to accurately forecast or predict the future consequences of such innovations.”

The researchers wrote that the “challenges inherent to forensic genetic security relate to complex mixture samples, the increased sensitivity of technologies leading to the greater potential for contamination, as well as the rapid evolution and diversification of genetic technologies constituting possible errors in the interpretation of data and profiles.”

Consequently, they write, “key challenges include accuracy, the instability of facial biometric markers over lifetimes, and the fact that algorithms are prone to error in complex identification scenarios. For both forensic genetic and facial biosecurity, there are the combined challenges around ethics and privacy, as well as the potential for wrongful convictions with the fallibility of such technologies. As such, it is important to remain cautious regarding the potential impacts on science, society, and culture, as well as the administration of criminal justice and national and international security. Emerging technoscience may be effective and innovative in the present, however, it is difficult to accurately forecast or predict the future consequences of such innovations, particularly as they impact marginalized groups and populations already over-represented in forensic databases.”

The researchers said the “biosecurity concerns” they identified include privacy violations that emerge from the extensive collection and storage of genetic and facial data. This, they say, raises “concerns about individual privacy and potential misuse.” As does the risks posed by unauthorized access to sensitive biometric data stored in databases.

The researchers found that the ethical considerations narrowed on concerns about the matters of consent and informed choice; in other words, “ensuring individuals understand how their genetic and facial data will be collected and used.”

The researchers also noted that there’s the problem of discriminatory profiling, which they found can open the door to the “potential for biased targeting based on genetic or facial characteristics.”

The most important takeaways from the study are:

• Legal frameworks: Establishing clear legal guidelines regarding data collection, storage, and use of genetic and facial data;
• Public engagement: Educating the public about the potential benefits and risks associated with forensic biosecurity technologies; and
• Scientific validation: Ensuring the accuracy and reliability of forensic genetic and facial analysis methods.

Article Topics

biometric identification  |  biometrics  |  biometrics research  |  data privacy  |  ethics  |  face biometrics  |  forensics