Thankfully, we have witnessed an incredible growth in the number of thoughtful, sincere and honest approaches to how this new technology fits into a world that values individual privacy, protects property and innocent human life and brings increased efficiency to the creation of wealth.
We have also seen how many journalists have publicized the role biometric identity management systems can play in extending these benefits to the world's less developed countries by fighting corruption, protecting the vote and enabling programs benefiting many of the world's poorest inhabitants.
This progress in the coverage of biometric technologies is to be celebrated because it furthers reasoned discussion and understanding and because it provides a contrast to the increasingly rare efforts of those whose work serves only to polarize, confuse and misinform.
One such article deserves a thorough examination:
The background is that Australia is contemplating a system requiring all gamblers to enroll in a smart card-based identification system. The stated objective is that this will allow the government to address the problem of gambling addiction.
Fingerprint scans ruled out of pokies reform plan (The Age, Australia)
We used this article as part of the informational basis for this post but its assertions deserve further comment.
BIOMETRIC identification, such as fingerprint scans, will not be used in the mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines, quashing fears that punters' privacy would be breached.This statement is false. A database of extremely sensitive information on everyone who uses a smart card will be kept regardless of whether or not biometrics are included. Quashed? Really? A system that respected the privacy of Australians would not collect private information on everyone whether they have a gambling problem or not. Collecting the data creates the risk. Collecting the data on everyone to protect the few, creates risks for everyone to reduce risk for a few. Biometrics have nothing to do with it.
Families Minister Jenny Macklin and independent MP Andrew Wilkie yesterday ruled out using biometric data, favouring a smartcard to limit the amount gamblers could spend on pokies in a session.How? Who will set the limit? Wouldn't allowing problem gamblers to set their own limit mean that there are no problem gamblers?
The gambling and hospitality industry had warned that a biometric identification was dangerous and could lead to identity theft.Forcing every customer to provide enough information to issue the card will expose far more people to the risk of identity theft than managing an opt-in biometric system for problem gamblers only.
The biometric information stored in a database is essentially useless for stealing an identity. Did your credit card application have a blank for your fingerprint, photo? No? Even if it did, someone who steals a biometric template cannot recreate an image of the body part used to create it. Did it have blanks for the type of information that will be required in order to issue the smart card; information such as name, address, date of birth, etc.? Yes?
Besides, who would steal the identities of opted-in problem gamblers? Only the stupidest identity thieves of all time. But a database of all gamblers could be an extremely valuable thing to hack.
In asserting that the nameless "gambling and hospitality industry" has deemed biometric identification dangerous, when effective is the better adjective, the article's author runs the risk of insinuating that business owners are sowing fear in the public in order to continue to profit from the illnesses of others. Is this what he intends?
Mr Wilkie's support for the government hinges on the mandatory pre-commitment scheme being implemented in 2014, which will need the support of the crossbenchers. ''This is a test of leadership for Julia Gillard but I think she is up to the task,'' Mr Wilkie said. ''I'm happy to rule out fingerprinting, retinal scans, any other sort of biometric system that might be out there and I agree with [Ms Macklin], Australians are very comfortable with cards.''Alas, the real point of the article: Politics. Are Australians so comfortable with cards that they will hand over enough private information not only to track all of their gambling habits, but to build detailed accounts of much of their private lives as well as creating a new avenue for identity theft? Should they be?
The pokies reforms include a $250 ATM withdrawal limit at pokies venues, but yesterday Ms Macklin and Mr Wilkie said that there would be exemptions for small country towns whose only ATM is at the pub.$250 per day = $91,250 per year without leaving the premises. You can always leave, get more cash and come back.
A meeting of the Select Council on Gambling, established by the Council of Australian Governments, will meet today.Journalist writes lazy, one-sided article where:
An emerging technology is slandered;
Politicians grandstand;
Gambling businesses avoid a political fight;
Australian citizens have their privacy reduced;
Problem gamblers get no help.
Did I miss anything?
