Biometric is the Mark - Government is the Beast

Michael (Micha) Shafir

The fact that elements of that satanic mark scheme are easy to get realized, causes us to
take it seriously. The following discussion provides a few different viewpoints in regards
to the privacy and dignity violations area, which is the idea of potential threats or risks.

“We have built our database to be about 90 million fingerprints, and it's now time for
us to transition from the two to the 10 fingers”… “As the database grows in
size we need more information” (Robert A. Mocny, Director, US-VISIT Program,
Department of Homeland Security)

_______________________________________________________________________
_
“As the database grows in size we need more information” – is known as “The
Biometrics Collection Proximity Paradox”

In the near future, the government shall take all measures to force us to take our shoes
off and deliver our toesprint …

Biometric technologies have extremely serious implications for human rights in general,
and privacy or dignity in particular. The term “Biometric” is a “Sterilized” expression for
Human Body/Organ Specimens mark. Preserving unique human body specimens in a
“national body’s dataset” by governments is an explicit violation of human dignity and
privacy. Some fundamental part of human dignity requires privacy. Privacy is part of the
claim to personal autonomy. It supports the various freedoms that democratic countries
value.

The Case against Biometrics Collections

The current Biometric authentication methods present a serious threat in a manner that
many people regard it as demeaning. The Biometric scheme represents the kind of
closed-minded society that the Soviet Union created, and which the free world decried.

According the basic human dignity law: “There shall be no violation of the life, body or
dignity of any person as such”: Human Dignity transcends any social order as the basis
for rights and is neither granted by society nor can it be legitimately violated by society.

As free individuals, living in a free country, we have the right to control our own body
identifiers and our own physical characteristics. "We are not animals, we are human
beings - our body and its lineaments are NOT a Blob of Tissue … Biometric is referring
to ‘Vital body organs measurement, derived from the Greek words Bio (life) and Metric
(to measure). From a democratic and legal point of view, an individual has the right to
manage his own bodily identifiers (body, dignity, markers, and privacy - Intrinsic cut off
characteristics) as the conceptual basis for human rights.

The biometric matters that touch upon the limits of what is and isn't "human body” is not
relevant. As long official authorities are forcing a cut down, of unique human body
specimens or other body marks from their own citizens… moreover are preserving those
autonomous bodily identifiers in a “National Human Organs Datasets” for roundup, or
future snoop, surveillance or comparisons, which can consider compulsory as a violation
of human rights and privacy. Biometric technologies do not just involve collection of
information about the person, but rather information of the person, intrinsic to them.

Biometrics should enhance rather than conflict with individual privacy and dignity. As
stated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): “Human beings should never be
treated as merely means to an end” - Namely, ‘Human beings must not be sacrificed
to fulfill other purposes’.

Privacy is a fundamental human right upheld under Article 12 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Article 17 of the UN International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and inasmuch applies to all people, regardless of nationality,
immigration status, age, or sex. While providing the foundation for many normative
claims, one direct normative implication of human dignity is that every human being
should be acknowledged as an inherently valuable member of the human community and
as a unique expression of life, with an integrated bodily and spiritual nature.

Privacy laws and policy were derived from a code of fair information practices developed
in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. This Code is ‘an
organized set of values and standards about personal information defining the rights of
record subjects and the responsibilities of record keepers. The Code highlights principles
of fair information practices:
1. There must be no secret personal data record-keeping system.
2. There must be a way for individuals to discover what personal information is
recorded about them and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for individuals to prevent personal information obtained for
one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without their
consent.
4. There must be a way for individuals to correct or amend information about
themselves.

What remains to be determined is the following:

1. Can the biometric information be collected, stored, or retrieved?
2. Can the biometric information collected be used both for criminal and non-
criminal searches and suspicionless searches?
3. Can the system give the individual full control over his abandoned personal
intrinsic information?
The following fact remains: There are no legal restrictions on biometrically identifying
information, or biometric authentication systems.
However: there are severe restrictions on collecting, creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating records of identifiable personal data. One immediate conclusion that we
should draw is that biometrics authentication must be traceless. Just as each type of
biometric deployment can have a different impact on privacy, each biometric technology
bears a different relation to privacy (International Biometric Group, LLC., 2003). Some
technologies have almost no privacy impact, and could scarcely be used in any privacy-
invasive fashion (e.g. Traceless).
Other technologies are much more likely to be associated with privacy-invasive usage,
either due to their core operation or due to extrinsic factors. As with many other
ideas/concepts, viewpoints surrounding this issue or concept vary.
People see different threats or risks and at different levels or degrees of severity. There
are in fact mixed views among the various interest groups about whether the use of
biometrics is privacy enhancing or privacy invasive. It is an important concept though to
realize that various types of biometric technologies can have various types of
influence/impact on privacy.

The monitoring of people's movements and actions through the use of biometrics
increases the transparency of individuals' behavior to organizations and
governments.

Until very recent times, the vast majority of actions and transactions undertaken by
people were anonymous, or were identified only to the extent that an observer saw them
and might remember them, but no records of the event were kept.

Corporations and government agencies have been working very hard to deny people
the ability to keep their transactions anonymous.

As a result of new forms of information technology, the cost of data capture has
plummeted, and huge numbers of transactions are now recorded which would have been
uneconomic to record in the past. These records carry enough information to identify who
the person was who conducted them, and systems are designed so as to readily associate
the data with that person.

Biometric technologies create new capabilities for the association of identity with
transactions that have never been recorded before, such as passing through a door within
a building, across an intersection, or into a public place or an entertainment facility. They
provide a powerful weapon to corporations and governments, whereby yet more of the
remnant anonymity of human action can be stripped away.

Author: Michael (Micha) Shafir - CTO, seasoned entrepreneur, Inventor, researcher,

scientist (RadWare, MagniFire, PonsEye, Pons - Technology GreenHouse, CrossID,
Innovations' Center)
Email: Micha (at) Innovya.com
Direct: +972 54 4837900