Aimee wrote: The International Biometric Industry Association position is that biometrics is "electronic code" and not personal information: http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm The IBIA has always advocated protective legislation. For an idea of industry sentiment, the IBIA response to one California bill is here: http://www.ibia.org/newslett010606.htm (bill would have required a warrant.)
Why isn't automated video surveillance considered biometric? Isn't the point of biometric identification to reduce personally-identifiable features into a code which can be easily stored and referenced computationally? And if so, this video surveillance system, with its automated face recognition software, should be considered a form of biometric identification. Further, if the category "personal information" isn't just about medical history, financial records, etc., shouldn't it include photographs and video and voice? Obviously the IBIA demonstrating naivety when it says biometrics are simply "electronic code" and not personal information. (which reminds me of a speaker at biotech 2001 who advocated the sharing of all mri and xray images to futher research into computational biology -- as for privacy "we'll figure it out later".) The rest of the privacy policies of the IBIA (http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm) are horribly off the mark as well. What about the concept of individual rights to provide/not provide data; insure that the $7/hour rent-a-cop is monitored to make sure he isn't using data illegally; insure data won't be used in applications/research not already agreed-to in advance by the individual; individual right to not have biometric information collected in the first place or even opt out of existing databases, etc. etc.? phillip