Sniffing out our next piece of unique biometric data

DNA, irides, fingerprints...the number of unique identifying characteristics that we possess, and that the state wants to get hold of, is high and climbing all the time.

The latest piece of biometric data that you need to worry about keeping secure has been staring back at you from the mirror for some time and, it could be said, is as clear as the nose on your face. 

The BBC explains:

We already have iris and fingerprint scanning but noses could be an even better method of identification, says a study from the University of Bath, UK.

The researchers scanned noses in 3D and characterised them by tip, ridge profile and the nasion, or area between the eyes.

Since they are hard to conceal, the study says, noses would work well for identification in covert surveillance.

The researchers say noses have been overlooked in the growing field of biometrics, studies into ways of identifying distinguishing traits in people.

Is it a matter of time before we find ourselves having to hand over our nose measurements when applying for passports? And will our friendly neighbourhood policeman soon be equipped with an NID - nasal identification device - to aid detection and prove our identity?

Probably not, but perhaps more pertinently, what is the driving force behind all these studies to harness biometric data? If it were purely scientific, I wouldn't be quite so concerned. It's the creeping fear that the government is trying to (in the words of Sir David Varney - permanent secretary at the Treasury) build a "single source of truth on the citizen" that worries.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[JJ]

This is utterly ridiculous. What if you have a nose job? That can easily change the shape of the tip of the nose and the bridge.

[guy herbert]

You need to be a bit careful with this sort of announcement. There is endless boosting by outfits in search of government grants to support their particular research programmes for biometrics. This just looks like one more case, to add to hundreds, of a credulous BBC printing an academic department's press-release rather than subjecting its work to critical analysis. Actual progress on the sort of biometrics that would allow recognition and tracking of people in the street is extremely slow, and it is pretty much unproven that there is such a magic method to find. In respect of biometrics, the world's authoritarians are like Fox Mulder, they "want to believe". The latter fact is what needs highlighting, and how much of our money they are prepared to spend to pursue the dream.

BBW could usefully ask how much is the Home Office giving out in grants to support research in surveillance, datamining and identification technologies. (Which might well be disguised as criminology or forensic science.)

[Sandy]

Hi Dylan, I cannot find your article on taking photographs in the street...I will leave this here.

Photography advice
The Metropolitan Police Service’s approach towards photography in public places is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs,

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.

Freedom to photograph/ film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Terrorism Act 2000
Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

[Sandy]

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Link for above comment

[Rodney Nosnail]

The State measuring noses? Sounds like Germany in the 30's to me.

[Michael]

Oh not "Bertillonage" again! That was discredited over a century ago. Are there no depths these idiots will not sink to?

[Lee]

...

[Lee]

@Sandy

I think many people are aware of the acts and statutes involved in the issue of the police crack down on street photography - so I am not sure why you have posted this here ?

The overwhelming majority of the aggressive mishandling, deleting of photographs, confiscating of cameras, detaining, arresting, moving on, swearing at, bullying, slinging in the van, intimidating, physically assaulting and general malevolence towards law abiding street photographers has only really appeared in the last few years - certainly within the ten years since this act was put into place.

What I am saying is that it has become commonplace for officers to ignore most - if not all - of the recommendations around street photography, and many are unaware of the exact letter of the law.

Parts like . . . 'Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction." . . . probably sound great in the mouths of the legislators, but if an officer grabs your camera, threatens to throw you into the van and then off to the cells and you need to pick up your son from nursery what are you going to do ?

[Nicolas L-M]

I just found this site, some great content but! This article is just full of sophistic! I mean: "what is the driving force behind all these studies to harness biometric data? If it were purely scientific, I wouldn't be quite so concerned".
Who are you to be the judge of what's creepy or not, you just write before: "And will our friendly neighbourhood policeman soon be equipped with an NID - nasal identification device - to aid detection and prove our identity?
-->Probably nothttp://archives.radio-canada.ca/societe/syndicalisme/clips/1800/ in french)

[Nicolas L-M]

Sorry, half of it just didn't show up...
-->Probably not"
What would be the point of it? This technology (which isn't, it's just a way to recognize a nose from an other one) could only be useful if there is an arm robbery or something and we didn't catch clearly the thief face, the nose would only be ONE of the factor who could help identify the guy. I'm quoting the original article on this: "Dr Evans hopes the method can be proven to be effective on this larger sample. "The technique certainly shows potential, perhaps to be used in combination with other identification methods,""
And finally, you wrote: "And will our friendly neighbourhood policeman soon be equipped with an NID - nasal identification device - to aid detection and prove our identity?". There is no such thing as NID, it just can't existe and won't. I don't particularly find that funny nor ironic, you just try to get your readers' feeling angry at policeman for something they won't ever use. You can be mad at them for things like Tazer but not that, after all, there might be lot of abuse from them, but without them, chaos would start quite easily (see what happen to Montreal in 1969: http://archives.radio-canada.ca/societe/syndicalisme/clips/1800/ in french)