Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim.

[Phillip H. Zakas]

> 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