Feeds

Government ID Card claims deflated

Biometric data open to abuse, says EU data supervisor

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

Biometric data employed for identification purposes could be misused and lead to "function creep", the European Data Protection Supervisor has warned.

In a comment this week, the EDPS, who monitors the use of public data, said the ease with which biometric information, such as fingerprints, could be shared with other databases across the EU would leave it open to abuse.

The statement is in stark conflict with the UK government’s claims that biometric data used for its controversial ID card scheme will not be used for any other purposes.

The EDPS Peter Hustinx said the accuracy of biometric data in uniquely identifying a person is "overestimated", and could in fact "facilitate the unwarranted interconnection of databases".

Commenting on a European Commission paper last year on the interoperability of different databases across the EU, Hustinx said biometric data could not be guaranteed to provide the unambiguous 'primary key' required by most databases for identification. In many cases a primary key is a number unique to one individual.

As a result it could breach EU principles of data quality, Hustinx said.

A further concern is that because biometric data is not unique, it could lead easily be shared between different databases throughout the EU.

Ultimately, Hustinx warned, this could lead to function creep when the interlinking of two databases designed for two distinct purposes provides a third one for which they have not been built.

This is in turn would lessen the possibility of member state governments being able to supervise the protection of personal data.

Overall, the EDPS also said the EC’s paper had not given a clear definition of interoperability and called for further analysis in order to ensure protection of data.

He said: "The commission argues that interoperability is a technical rather than a legal or political concept. This is confusing and only serves to avoid fundamental issues. Interoperable systems increase the risks for citizens, if such systems allow for new access to their personal data. It is essential to examine this more carefully and not hide it as a technicality."

Copyright © eGov monitor Weekly

eGov monitor Weekly is a free e-newsletter covering developments in UK eGovernment and public sector IT over the last seven days. To register go here.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Knock Knock tool makes a joke of Mac AV
Yes, we know Macs 'don't get viruses', but when they do this code'll spot 'em
Feds seek potential 'second Snowden' gov doc leaker – report
Hang on, Ed wasn't here when we compiled THIS document
Why weasel words might not work for Whisper
CEO suspends editor but privacy questions remain
DEATH by PowerPoint: Microsoft warns of 0-day attack hidden in slides
Might put out patch in update, might chuck it out sooner
BlackEnergy crimeware coursing through US control systems
US CERT says three flavours of control kit are under attack
prev story

Whitepapers

Choosing cloud Backup services
Demystify how you can address your data protection needs in your small- to medium-sized business and select the best online backup service to meet your needs.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile
Data demand and the rise of virtualization is challenging IT teams to deliver storage performance, scalability and capacity that can keep up, while maximizing efficiency.
The hidden costs of self-signed SSL certificates
Exploring the true TCO for self-signed SSL certificates, including a side-by-side comparison of a self-signed architecture versus working with a third-party SSL vendor.