One of the most anticipated sessions at the Online News Association conference in Denver last week was the annual favorite, titled “10 Tech Trends in Journalism.” The Hyatt Regency ballroom was packed with people eager to hear from futurist Amy Webb on how much their technology — and jobs — would change over the next few years.
Many new developments were shared, along with a few jaw-dropping future predictions (Think cameras the size of dust that can collect information as they float). But perhaps the most interesting new technologies are already here, and they have to do with privacy.
Future Today Institute founder Webb shared her research regarding biometrics authentication technology — the use of human characteristics to verify identity — and how it’s becoming more advanced. Algorithms now have the ability to recognize us not just by our faces, but also by our posture and smiles. They can recognize us whether we’re moving or standing still, and even if our hair is obscuring our faces.
This level of recognition means that computers often recognize us in photos or videos when our closest friends can’t. On a convenience level, it’s a good thing: It makes tagging photos on social media more accurate and allows us to customize our online shopping. But in other ways, especially when it comes to privacy, this emerging technology can be unnerving.
Security concerns
A survey by the Ponemon Institute found that when asked what kind of information they would be willing to provide the government for identification, only 11 percent of Americans surveyed said facial or retina scan. In contrast, 18 percent of Brits and 35 percent of Germans surveyed said they would prefer to use a facial or retina scan.
Much of the distrust of biometrics stems from fear of what the government might do with sensitive information. In August, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent a letter to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine requesting that he not allow the FBI to access the state’s biometrics database.
“We question why Ohio would consider giving the FBI even more ability to access personal information, with minimum security and oversight, and with no opportunity for public input,” said Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio.
Daniels argued that the FBI’s “ongoing track record of widespread mass surveillance and blatant disregard for laws and policies meant to protect our privacy should, at the very minimum, give Ohio pause.”
Beyond government accessability, many are concerned about the security of the information itself. Were a breach of a biometrics database to occur, it would be more difficult to stop the data from falling into the wrong hands. As a December 2015 paper by the Future of Privacy Forum stated, “it is much harder for a person to change their face than their credit card number.”
Security benefits
While the concerns about biometrics are valid, there are many solid arguments for why they are beneficial.
“Biometrics cannot be lost or forgotten,” reads a 2009 article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. “Furthermore, the security level is relatively equal for all users in a system, which means that one account is no easier to break than any other.”
Recognizing this benefit, companies are beginning to move away from traditional passwords. In February, MasterCard announced it was rolling out a new security feature that allows customers to use selfies or thumbprints to prove their identities when buying items online.
When it comes to biometric use in the government sphere, privacy is the main concern. However, it can be argued that there are many upsides to the practice in terms of both safety and convenience. For example, the Department of Homeland Security uses biometrics to compare a person’s identifying features, such as fingerprints, to check if they are on a terrorist watch list.
In addition, the Transportation Security Administration now offers Trusted Traveler programs such as TSA Pre-Check, which allows passengers to bypass long security lines in exchange for undergoing a background check and fingerprinting ahead of time.
Protecting your prints
We’ve already discussed the rapid progression that has been made in the use of biometrics. It seems there is no turning back at this point. But problems continue to crop up, even for seemingly indestructible biometrics authentication. In May, Russell Brandom wrote a piece for tech news site The Verge, demonstrating how to copy a fingerprint and break into someone else’s smartphone using a dental mold and Play-Doh.
“As long as federal agencies are collecting fingerprints in bulk, they’ll never be private, which means they’ll never be truly secure,” Brandom wrote. “Once it’s been collected, it can be revealed in a breach … For anyone hoping fingerprint readers would usher in a new era of mobile security, that’s terrible news.”
So what are we to do? While the biometrics field is still in its infancy, AVG Technologies’ Tony Anscombe wrote in a recent opinion piece that biometrics can be a safer alternative to a password, but only if they don’t stand alone.
“Biometrics should be seen as part of a layer in the authentication of a person,” Anscombe said. “Combined with the need for a specific device and something the individual would know such as a PIN, then the risk would be minimised (sic), but on its own in a scenario of protecting something valuable, it may not be enough.”
