Biometrics: redefining privacy
Can biometrics create a new kind of
privacy using bodies, not
passwords?
Juliet Lodge
Nesta...
Biometrics – and privacy
‘… only a problem of labelling ‘ (UK Min)
Definition
Transparency
& the 60% rule
• Constitutional...
Starting point : the end of privacy
And what I call ‘Perverse Biometrics’ and
‘Quantum surveillance’
• Mission creep from ...
Do Biometric apps redefine meaning
of privacy and transparency?
Constitutional: parallels in
misunderstanding
‘EU Council ...
Perverse Biometrics – door to
quantum surveillance or credible
privacy?
Contradictory claimsmaking
• individual and/or col...
Purpose of an Independent
Kitemark?
• restore trust in resilience of ICTs and
credibility of Gov and PPS
• combat risks of...
Conclusion – trust what? The
certainty fallacy and perverse
biometrics
• Technology is insufficient as a privacy guardian
...
Biometrics, privacy and
(un)certainty
‘Citizens must be able to understand
the system so that they can identify
its proble...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Prof juliet lodge nesta presentation on biometrics and privacy

681 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
2 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Awesome is the word!!!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • entertaining and informative at the same time.. thanks, a VERY GOOD JOB.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
681
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
2
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Prof juliet lodge nesta presentation on biometrics and privacy

  1. 1. Biometrics: redefining privacy Can biometrics create a new kind of privacy using bodies, not passwords? Juliet Lodge Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge
  2. 2. Biometrics – and privacy ‘… only a problem of labelling ‘ (UK Min) Definition Transparency & the 60% rule • Constitutional • Procedural • Practice as deception • Trust and Privacy : Who’s in control Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge
  3. 3. Starting point : the end of privacy And what I call ‘Perverse Biometrics’ and ‘Quantum surveillance’ • Mission creep from territorial border security to smart IoT, robotics • Legitimising PPPs, data blending • Insufficiency of scope of ethical codes apps • Inadequate or obsolete politico-legal controls Nesta, London 25 March 2014 : Juliet Lodge 3
  4. 4. Do Biometric apps redefine meaning of privacy and transparency? Constitutional: parallels in misunderstanding ‘EU Council worse than a papal enclave’. Duff, MEP Procedural : … foreign ‘hysteria over EU data protection laws ‘Jan Albrecht MEP Fundamental rights v. Profits: ‘IT giants ... trying to lobby away right to privacy’ Max Shrems Impact of biometric cyberworld on meaning of the above and what it means to be human? Recommendations. Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge
  5. 5. Perverse Biometrics – door to quantum surveillance or credible privacy? Contradictory claimsmaking • individual and/or collective privacy • user control over personal data • Legal certainty v. Technical credibility of new EU Regulation on DP re: ‘right to be forgotten’ • The who, what and how of support measures: what insufficiencies need addressing? • Inconsistencies in law ( egEU regs and directives) • Risks to fundamental rights for all • Lack of consensus over biometrics beyond the fingerprint Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge
  6. 6. Purpose of an Independent Kitemark? • restore trust in resilience of ICTs and credibility of Gov and PPS • combat risks of (un)ethical human (in)security • give privacy genuine meaning and credibility • RECOMMENDATIONS from our ICT Ethics f7p research project incl: - Complement PIAs with EIAs Nesta, London 25 March 2014: Juliet Lodge 6
  7. 7. Conclusion – trust what? The certainty fallacy and perverse biometrics • Technology is insufficient as a privacy guardian • Who’s in control? • Ethical values and practice must inform info collection, handling etc and can do so only if human intervention (whether public or private sector) is visible, identifiable and accountable • How biometrics can uphold T & A to ensure trust in hyperconnected/adjacent maximising realities. Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge
  8. 8. Biometrics, privacy and (un)certainty ‘Citizens must be able to understand the system so that they can identify its problems, criticise it, and ultimately control it.’ Final report of the Convention on the Future of Europe Working Group IX on Simplification 29 Nov 2002 [CONV 424/02 WGIX 13] Nesta, London 25 March 2014 Juliet Lodge

×