Back to Previous Page
Dr. Joseph Atick is the president and CEO of Identix-one of the nation's largest biometrics companies. In an interview with GlobalPOV, Dr. Atick describes society's overall resistance to improving the identification process, and exposes a fundamental misunderstanding about what biometrics technologies can really do.
GlobalPOV: Why is the whole concept of identity becoming so complicated?
JA: We're basically turning into avatars in a world where we no longer fear the consequences of our actions. In a society where our actions were once immediate and local, our identity was always there. Now we can hide behind false identities or we can adopt alias. Technologies to print passports and drivers licenses-traditional forms of identity-are now so easy to acquire. You can get a high resolution printer and special paper and you're in business. 80% of these attempts succeed, because it doesn't require too much sophistication.
And with the Internet, we have more access to information and more expectations for access … and along come more opportunities for someone to steal your identity. It's no longer a society where transactions are based on proximity and knowledge and a handshake. It's now based on an anonymous medium where you can hide behind that computer screen and pretend to be anyone you wish to be.
Also, our resistance as a society to improving the identification process has led the U.S. to a system of identification that's basically unacceptable. Having a social security number-which is something that can easily be stolen-is by no means a mechanism for identification that should be relied upon by the financial system…or any other system, for that matter.
GlobalPOV: So tell us a little bit more about why people feel so uncomfortable with the idea of more advanced identification system technologies.
JA: It's basically a misunderstanding of what identification technology can do … which has to do with the notion that I will be tracked, because I will be identified. The honest truth is that technologically, that is not feasible. To be able to say that you will be able to identify millions of people-from thousands of points of action by their biometric-is simply not feasible.
This Orwellian vision was propagated by the privacy groups - and the ACLU in particular - and it does not explain the reality and the laws of physics that prevent tracking. We're now suffering because of this perpetration of science fiction notion.
The laws of physics prevent this application called "tracking". The fact is that you cannot do what Orwel said based on the type of information that a human body is able to supply you. You can't simply walk in front of a camera and be identified against 20 million people...let alone 200 million or 300 million people. There isn't enough information to allow a computer to establish your identity that way.
Tracking is what people are worried about … and I'm 100% against tracking. I will work in my capacity to stop tracking applications from developing. We do have the right to be anonymous in a society, but we do not have the right to create multiple identities. At the time when I go to get my drivers' license, I shouldn't be allowed to establish multiple identities. But I should be allowed to be anonymous as I go about my own life and my own business.
If you look at every legitimate application of biometrics, there's no violation of privacy. The only violation of privacy that we have is a science fiction version. It's about time for somebody in the media to explain that biometrics cannot violate privacy, because they cannot perform the fundamental task that the ACLU is saying they do perform...which is tracking.
GlobalPOV: So if not tracking, what do biometrics technologies do?
JA: Two things:
One is detection. You have a limited number of people-let's call them the 'bad folks'-that are known to be terrorists, criminals or fugitives that society needs to protect itself against. You can detect them, just like you detect weapons and bombs in luggage, by installing biometric systems that filter through the thousands of people of people that walk through the airport … and an alarm will show up whenever one of those people shows up. That's different than identifying every single person, because the system cannot do the large database of millions of people. This is one application-in my opinion-which has no implication to invading anyone's privacy, because the only privacy they invade is that of those criminals.
The other application of biometrics is what we call the identification tool - where you're using it with an investigator to establish at the time of the registration of the identity that this identity is unique. So when you show up at the DMV, they run this thing against the database to check that you're not lying and not trying to develop a new identity. If you are unique, then they can come up with a driver's license with you, and that's a unique identity. This application is for whenever someone applies for a privilege - drivers license, passport, new financial account, etc.
GlobalPOV: How has September 11 affected the general attitude about identification technologies?
JA: Before September 11, we were operating in a climate where any proposals to improve public safety based on the notion of identification were met with severe resistance. The politicians-behind closed doors-would agree that we were woefully unprepared to protect the public from these things. But in public they would say they wouldn't protect notions of identification systems because of privacy issues. There are a lot of cases-in my opinion-where we have erred on the side of not improving public safety for fear that we would be infringing on rights to privacy.
Legislators right now are very much in favor of improving identification technology. The pendulum has swung the other way since 9/11, which has given the government more power. The legislators are sympathetic, but I'm not sure whether they understand that biometrics do not perform tracking...or if they're just sensitive to the fact that public safety is a high priority right now.
GlobalPOV: Did you see Minority Report? Did you feel like that was feasible?
JA: That was Hollywood. The feasibility of these systems that they're talking about...it's not just a matter of time, it's a matter of fundamental limitation. Laws of physics will prevent these things from happen. But the fear is now directing the actions of the politicians…the public fear of this notion, which is not scientifically feasible.
GlobalPOV: Are you at liberty to disclose your biggest customers?
JA: The INS and the State of California for criminal justice. Fingerprinting technology is one of the biggest sellers, because it's older, more established, more stable and mature - so we've been supplying various agencies with their automated finger technology needs.
There are about 110 major airports in this country - when they hire a new employee, they're now required (after September 11) to do a criminal investigation and background check. It used to be that you sent somebody down to the police station for them to do the background. Instead, now they go into the employment office and get a fingerprint scan. The fingerprint is sent to the FBI, and within 24 hours, they give the yea/nea, hire/don't hire...and the no-hires are investigated. You want to make sure you're hiring individuals that can be trusted.
There are 15 job categories right now - in 35 states - that require the same process, and we supply the equipment that does that.
GlobalPOV: These systems are designed to verify that you're not a criminal or a terrorist, but does it verify that you are who you are?
JA: No, it just says that you are not a criminal.
GlobalPOV: So if I were masquerading as an average Joe citizen, it wouldn't flag anything?
JA: No, because all we're checking you against is a national criminal database.
GlobalPOV: Would you care to speculate about how to solve the greater problem of verifying that someone is who they are?
JA: I think that is a distinct problem. It's equally important, if not more important.
The solution is a compromise. Instead of having a national id program, just make sure that people are unique. We don't care who you are, as long as you're unique. We care about two things: 1) uniqueness of identity, and 2) that you're not a criminal. If you can establish those two things, then you solve the problem of identity fraud. Once you establish an identity, and you're not a criminal, I don't care who you are...but you will have to consistently be the same person.
Since the driver's license is the mechanism by which we have become accustomed to establishing identity, now they're talking about a standard across the states. They're saying that each state will have the same data formats (it's called the AAMVA standard). Once they have that standard, 10 minutes before they issue you a license, they'll be able to issue a query to all of the servers in the other states to make sure that your biometric doesn't exist already somewhere else. They're investing about $70 million to develop that standard, and multiple states are currently adopting biometrics and the AAMVA standard.
It's all about standards. We're marching towards that. In the next 5 to 10 years, all states will have the ability to check your uniqueness, regardless of where you submit the request from...because all the states will be tied together through this network. It's just like the interoperability of banking systems. Think about the explosion of ATMs...the power of the network allows you to magnify the power of the service without having to create something centralized.
• Respond on the Message Board
• Back to Previous Page
|
