Proponents Push for Biometric IDs

WASHINGTON--Hong Kong expects to adopt a universal identity card with high-tech capabilities in 2003. If some members of Congress have their way, a similar card could be adopted in the United States.

The so-called smart ID card uses biometrics, a technology that identifies a person by a physical method such as fingerprinting, facial recognition, or iris scanning. The cards may contain personal data, act as a credit card, and enable a person to pay vending machines and parking garages without cash. Each use will require a fingerprint matching one on record.

By mid-2003, Hong Kong's 6.8 million people will carry "smart cards"--each bearing a digital photograph, fingerprints, and personal information including the person's name and date of birth. Other uses for the cards, such as to serve as a driver's license, library card, or electronic wallet, would not be mandatory.

Hong Kong residents raised personal privacy concerns, but the government is moving forward with the plan. Officials say the cards will help them work more effectively and control immigration.

Wary Response

When discussion of a national identification card arose in the United States after the September 11 terrorist attacks, civil liberties groups and privacy advocates immediately opposed the idea. They say that biometrics technology is not reliable enough for such an application.

As a related issue, identity theft is a growing problem in America, according to Rich Stana, an official of the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The issue must be addressed on several fronts.

"I don't know if any one proposal is the silver bullet," Stana says. "Just as there are so many documents that create an identity, there has to be a different means to address the problem."

The state identification systems are fragmented, particularly in their early use of biometrics. All states currently take digital photographs of drivers' license holders, but states use different biometric methods. While California (for example) uses fingerprints, West Virginia uses an iris scan.

States need to standardize their systems, says Jason King, spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a nonprofit group that represents state motor vehicle departments.

The Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank in Washington, wants government to mandate standardized security features on state-issued cards.

In the Hopper

Representatives Jim Moran (D-Virginia) and Tom Davis (R-Virginia) introduced a bill earlier this year that would authorize $315 million to create the "smart ID" features on drivers' licenses. The measure was not considered this session, but Moran and Davis say that they will reintroduce it in January.

But King says that the AAMVA is still exploring the use of biometric technologies for drivers' licenses and is not ready for the smart card. And technology experts disagree over whether biometrics would effectively combat identity theft.

Civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union fear that smart ID cards will worsen the already growing problem of identity theft.

It will be an "identity theft nightmare" because the biometrics on a fraudulent ID could easily match those of the thief, proving little, says Barry Steinhardt, ACLU director of technology and liberty programs.

The Progressive Policy Institute argues that biometrics have a 99.9 percent accuracy rating, but others dispute that assertion. "It's not perfect, but nothing is," says Shane Ham, a senior technology policy analyst.

Lee Tien, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that fingerprinting is a useful biometric, but that facial recognition is inaccurate.

"Think about how much people vary in their pictures, or look alike," Tien says. If state or federal governments were to adopt facial recognition ID methods, it would be "a huge boost to the technology," but it's too soon to attempt this, he adds.

Tien also regards facial recognition as a dangerous biometric because of the risk of invasion of privacy. "It can be used so easily without people knowing," he says.

People recognize that a trade-off exists between privacy and security, says Ham. "We've always walked that balance."