Biometric Privacy Issues Essay

Introduction

Biometrics gives individuals an immutable and unchangeable identity that makes them unique. It provides people with unique sound, voice and appearance and undetectable fingerprints' identity. The unique and inseparable identity in people convinces companies to identify with biometrics as untapped commercial value. The discovery has triggered growing numbers of businesses integrating biometric data into their existing operating systems (Rothstein, 2008). Whether implemented to prevent timekeeper fraud, reinforce internal security or streamline operations efficiency, biometric data usage is more prevalent within the acceptable contours of best practices. The trend leaves the future of data security within the individuals' fingertips and irises. Such manifests in the increased interest amongst healthcare, banks and retailers to authenticate information using unique biological features (Prabhakar, Pankanti, & Jain, 2003). Biometric authentication has obvious benefits in creating strong passwords, thereby greater security. Its usage delivers more convenience than the general personal recognition, hence able to supplement and replace existing methods. The widespread usage of biometrics emerges from the need to offer sufficient security that one can neither share, misplace nor steal.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The increased usage of biometrics in public and private sector raises concerns over violation of privacy. Privacy protection is necessary to prevent possible theft and misuse of biometric data held by service providers, e-commerce, and government agencies. The implementation of automatic personal recognition founded on an individual's behavioral and physiological characteristics should feature sound checks to deter fraudulent use and attacks (Bambauer & Rogers, 2017). Doing so is necessary amidst its acceptance as a reliable infrastructure. However, it faces naturally growing concern over the possible abuse of information help to violate individual's right to anonymity. They are a potential target by cybercriminals given the difficulty of replacing compromised and breached biometrics (Labati, Piuri, & Scotti, 2012). Unlike in credit cards and passwords, compromised biometric templates allows the hackers to bypass certain systems. The possibility of breaches in commercial and negative recognition platforms compels the enactment of comprehensive legislation to protect users from systems abuse.

Continuing Growth in Biometric Technology Use

The incidence of identity fraud shows the inability for conventional technologies to deliver such functionality. The magnitude of such cases affirms the need for strong biometrics to positively recognize people and limit access to sensitive information such as medical records (Labati, Piuri, & Scotti, 2012). The implementation of biometrics in the execution of ordinary functions would allow the application developers to index individual details without the user's knowledge. The ability of the automated access mechanism could enable system administrators to track all accesses to privileged information. The obvious advantage in the use of biometrics-based accesses is improved accountability within the execution of functions and transactions in the information systems (Bradley, 2017). Besides aiding criminal investigations, strong identifiers including finger-prints enhances integrity within the system. However, their use in commercial and private-use applications raises several privacy concerns.

Increased usage of biometrics places the right to privacy on possible violation on three systematic scopes. The collection of statistical information from the scanned biometric measurements could offer unintended functional range (Labati, Piuri, & Scotti, 2012). The biometric identifiers could yield statistical correlation with genetic disorders hence likely for the collectors to use it for biological research. Making statistical inferences through medical information can translate to a channel for systematic discrimination and bias against people the research may perceive risky (EEF, 2017). The use of strong biometric identifiers gives unwanted identifications that expose the information to unintended application scope. It occurs when the information obtained from fingerprints completes bits and pieces on the individual's behavior. Such collection givens the government and corporate opportunity to accumulate power over the target population autonomy. Lastly, the superiority of today's technology makes it possible to derive the biometric sample on an individual's face (Labati, Piuri, & Scotti, 2012). Doing so makes covert recognition possible without the enrolled person's knowledge. It violates the privacy right of individuals who desire their biometric characteristics to remain anonymous.

Privacy Concern in Biometric System

The acceptance of the biometric system by the public depends on the privacy risks users perceive to exist. The public worries of identity thefts that leads to impersonification. Again, biometric systems are prone to misuse of stored personal data. The structure of a biometric system exposes users' privacy to attacks at the sensor, extractor, database and matcher levels. In their study Labati, Piuri, and Scotti (2012) identified the existence of different perspectives in biometrics privacy. They include risks users perceive to influence the biometrics system acceptability, design of privacy protection techniques, and biometric trait. The existence of variants in the risks compels the use of different protection approaches including privacy-protective, privacy-sympathetic, privacy-neutral and invasive applications (Labati, Piuri, & Scotti, 2012). The design utilized in privacy-sympathetic and protective systems should restrict the scope and capabilities for information stored within the system. It should accommodate deletion of biometric data to avoid prolonged storage in the database and leave minimum quantity necessary to perform the recognition. Similarly, users should have control to unroll from the biometric data (EEF, 2017). Operators should be accountable to detect new errors and misuses in the biometric system.

The maturity of biometric technology translates to increased interaction between the social sphere and ordinary applications. The situation requires preparedness to safeguard individuals' right to privacy from the potential violation. Consequently, the enforcement of collective legislation to guarantee accountability and standardized acceptability (Rothstein, 2008). The adoption of tougher laws on biometrics privacy is essential for more information available exposed to potential abuse to fulfill the unintended purpose. It arises in the inclusion of genetic research in clinical applications allows medical investigators to track illnesses to the genetic component. The integration of medical investigation on genetic information leaves the pursuit of health records a likely source of substantial genetic information (EEF, 2017). The obvious benefits through personalized medicine place health record an easy target to obtain genetic information. A similar pursuit exists following the increased demand for toxicogenomics accuracy to ascertain health risks in the workplace environment. Labati, Piuri, and Scotti (2012) found trends to leave biometric information a target for unintended scope, thereby need for comprehensive legislation to ensure accountability and restricted access to biometric information.

Exposure to Breach on Medical Privacy

The increased reliance on digitized channels and data storage exposes health information to breach risk compounded in networked systems. The implementation of electronic health formats to store the medical information subjects the private zone to unintended research. Precisely, the presence of multiple health providers makes the electronic medical format fragmented (EEF, 2017). Such will inevitably expose the sensitive information to all parties in the electronic health network. Unlike today where diagnosis and family history remain stored offline, electronic health records would place medical results online. The breach in the network may expose such information to leading to disastrous stigmatization. In particular, physicians treating sprained joints do not necessarily need to know information on other ailments such as breast cancer and Huntington's disease in the family history. Rothstein (2008) found it important to restrict electronically-held information to prevent unnecessary disclosures. Patients should assume complete control over the disclosure of sensitive information on their health records and discard old information.

Perhaps, the creation of a subset on the health data would prevent unauthorized access of personal information and use to unintended scope. The adoption of such a mechanism in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Netherlands alongside Canada safeguard patients' right to privacy. The absence of such a mechanism in the United States leaves room for routine disclosure of sensitive medical information (Rothstein, 2008). The situation would change the Americas capable of preventing the sharing of health information through predefined categories. Nevertheless, striking balance in controlling the disclosure is important since physicians may lose confidence in the accuracy of records conveyed by patients. Such moments may compel them to retake the tests thereby adding the cost of clinical care and undermining the efficiency of having electronic health record (EEF, 2017). Again leaving patients with little control would invite defensive approaches including opting-out of digitized systems and certain care altogether.

Weak Federal Laws

The enactment of protective legislation to enforce health privacy is important as disclosure of health information appears on the horizon in the paced electronic network. Unfortunately, the United States lacks comprehensive coverage in its existing legislation on health privacy. The provisions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (1996) and Privacy Rule (2003) have big loopholes apply insufficiently (PRC, 2014). The latter only applies to entities processing health claims data through electronic means. Their narrow coverage leaves out fitness clubs and onsite employer clinics. A similar flaw appears in the HIPAA provisions where it addresses entities involved in healthcare provision. The two laws exclude the administrators who seek furnishing of health information on their employees. Although the nature of the task involved compels request of health information, the extent of sharing should be checked to avoid excessive disclosures (Rothstein, 2008). The current laws place no limits on the scope of the requests, thereby leaving the federal legislation with little help to protect the right to privacy. The delay to embrace universal private law at the federal level prompted individuals' states to enact their regulations. However, provisions under state laws still allow employers and insurers to request individuals for medical information.

The delay by the federal government prompted individual states to enact privacy laws led by Illinois. Their provisions vary on the disclosures including genetic information with some considering such as largely immaterial (Bradley, 2017). The exclusion overlooks the possibility of employers using predictive genetic...