Power and Panopticism-Biometrics This Work

Power and Panopticism-Biometrics

This work intends to examine how biometrics, or technologies of surveillance operates to produce and regulate certain kinds of subjects and to answer the question of 'what forms of social power are produced by gathering visual information? As well, this work intends to understand what kinds of subjects are being produced and to what ideals they are forced to conform?

THE CAPABILITY EXISTS

The work of Mitchell Gray entitled: "Urban Surveillance and Panopticism: Will We Recognize the Facial Recognition Society?" states that it explores "the implementation of the facial recognition surveillance mechanism as a reaction to perceptions of insecurity in urban spaces. Facial recognition systems are part of an attempt to reduce insecurity through knowledge and vision, but paradoxically, their use may add to insecurity by transforming society in unanticipated directions." (Gray, 2003) the potential of facial recognition systems is stated by Gray to be "the seamless integration of linked databases of human images and the automated digital recollection of the past - will necessarily alter societal conceptions of privacy as well as the dynamics of individual and group interactions in public space." (2003)

II. FOUCAULT and PANOPTICISM

The work of Michel Foucault entitled: 'Discipline and Punish' emphasized the "transformative, disciplinary potential of surveillance, explaining the power inherent to the acts of information collection and analysis." (Gray, 2003) Facial recognition, is stated by Gray (2003) to represent an ability to "digitally archive a limitless gaze over urban space...[and]...a leap in this disciplinary influence." (2003) There is a problem according to Gray in that one may not assume that "the traditional conceptions of privacy would have meaning in a society riddled with facial recognition cameras."(2003) the technology of facial recognition is in the form of a software that maps the facial details and ratio through use of algorithms and the results is a "computation" referred to as "eigenface." (Gray, 2003) While many of the uses of the facial recognition system are "benign" in nature the increasingly liked database systems through networking increases the scope and the power of this technology.

III. POSITIVE & NEGATIVE IMPACTS on SOCIETY

The promises of facial recognition biometrics are both positive and negative in nature and added to this are findings in a study conducted by the Department of Defense which state that "very high error rates, even under ideal conditions, where the subject is staring directly into the camera under bright lights" existed. (Gray, 2003; paraphrased) Furthermore, there were many false negatives or in other words, there were many faces that the system failed in recognizing. This type of software has the potential to track individuals throughout the span of their movement within the urban space and "both public and private" space. Moreover, the ability of facial recognition software extends to the capacity for reaching "quickly into the past for information." (Gray, 2003) This extends dramatically "the effective temporal scope of surveillance data analysis." (Gray, 2003) All that is required for searching the stored database is a few keystrokes with automatic recognition instead of spending hours watching videotape.

IV. CURRENT DIRECTION of BIOMETRICS

It is likely, that the use of these surveillance systems in society will continue and the reasons supporting this likelihood are stated by Gray to include: (1) arguments that this technology is not really useful in crime reduction are "dismissed summarily in the media as contrary to common sense"; (2) when one area introduces this system crime is displaced into the areas that surround it that do not have surveillance which results in those areas also adopting the use of the surveillance system; (3) the presence of surveillance systems attracts businesses; and (4) the systems have proven their use in collecting evidence relating to serious criminal acts such as murder and saves in manpower resources by allowing viewing of the scene prior to dispatching officers. (2003) According to Gray, the current direction of surveillance in society is "toward omnipresence; more spaces are watched in more ways, capturing information about those within." (2003)

IV. BIOMETRICS in SOCIETY BECOMING PERVASIVE

The work of Karsten Weber entitled: "The Next Step: Privacy Invasions by Biometrics and ICT Implants" relates that there are various forms of biometric recognition technology which are based on both physiological and behavioral characteristics which include those as follows: (1) Facial thermogram; (2) Hand geometry; (3) Iris scanning; (4) Retinal scanning; (6) Vein checking; (7) Gait recognition; (8) keystroke analysis; (9) mouse dynamics; (10) signature analysis; and (11) Voice verification. (2006) Weber states that furnishing real life space with "the advantages of ICT" is likely to result in life be "overridden by the disadvantages of infringements into our privacy..." (2006) Weber relates that while biometrics for protection of the elderly individual who is in bad health is greatly positive however, should the biometrics have the capacity to make identification of individuals who approach the carrier, while this would be positive in terms of protection it is when alternatively viewed "a perfect means of supervision." (2006)

V. RESULTS of BIOMETRIC PANOPTICISM

Weber (2006) states that the "utilitarian and communitarian idea that the state must protect and propagate the common good of society is alien to libertarians as well as to liberals." When the individuals in society expect the government to provide for their protection what results is a restriction in the liberties of individuals in that society due to the trappings required in protecting individuals in society. Within the Libertarian framework, as well as to an extent in the framework of the liberal philosophy "only persons are right-holders; for them groups or society are metaphysical conceptions and cannot be rights-holders." (Weber, 2006) From this view, "...a mandatory use of ICT implants or biometrics to support a certain conception of a good life or the common good is morally illegitimate." (Weber, 2006) Weber states that if the state and its agents are truly obligated in protecting the rights of citizens then authorities of the state absolutely "must prohibit the private use of such technology, and, at the same time, must provide the protection" for those who desire to use the technology." (2006)