Identification, Please

In the developed world, high-tech personal IDs are the stuff of Orwellian dystopia. But for everyone else, they could be a path to a happier, healthier, less precarious life.

BY JAMIE HOLMES | MARCH 8, 2011

In the Western world, government-mandated biometric IDs -- identification systems that identify individuals based on fingerprints, irises, and other unique physical traits -- are often regarded with suspicion, even hostility. Last spring, one proposal in the United States to link biometric data to Social Security cards was slammed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on grounds that it would "violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals," bringing "government into the very center of our lives." In Britain, a program for a national biometric ID was halted, as Home Secretary Theresa May put it last spring, "to reduce the control of the state over decent, law-abiding people."

Recording an individual's biometric information does have a "Big Brother" feel to it. But while civil libertarians' concerns of a "biometric surveillance state" may be somewhat understandable in the developed world, in the developing world, biometric IDs have very different implications -- they could transform millions of lives for the better.

For the world's poorest, who often have insufficient or no proof of identity, anonymity is rarely a recipe for "freedom." Rather, it's a cause of disenfranchisement, disempowerment, and exclusion.

According to the United Nations Development Program's 2008 report "Making the Law Work for Everyone," roughly four out of every 10 children in the developing world are still not registered with the state by age 5. "[I]n the least-developed countries," the report found, "this number climbs to a shocking 71 percent." In sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the report found, more than half of births go unregistered, and in Nepal, that fraction climbs to four of every five. In Tanzania and Zambia, roughly 9 in 10 children don't have a birth certificate, according to UNICEF's latest numbers.

As Alan Gelb of the Center for Global Development, who has been researching biometric IDs, recently noted, some form of official identification is necessary almost everywhere in the world for everything from voting to securing credit to receiving health care. Almost all the rights, protections, and entitlements of the state, in fact, depend on being able to prove that you are who you say you are. How does one get a bank account or take a formal loan, after all, without proper identification?

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

 

Jamie Holmes is a policy analyst for the Global Assets Project at the New America Foundation.

CARLOSGOCHOA

10:43 PM ET

March 8, 2011

Missing the Point

"For the world's poorest, who often have insufficient or no proof of identity, anonymity is rarely a recipe for "freedom." Rather, it's a cause of disenfranchisement, disempowerment, and exclusion."

I would argue that disenfranchisement, disempowerment, and exclusion are results of exuberant greed, not insufficient or no proof of identity. I think the author is cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

ROMNEY

1:10 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Fair Point

But then again, the greedy and corrupt have an easier time when much of their people are practically nonexistent. You're right that this wouldn't solve many of the problems faced by the developing world, but it would certainly help.

 

SECURLINX BLOG

11:07 AM ET

March 9, 2011

People in the developing world deserve an identity

Not only do the world's poor deserve a legitimate individual identity, they are demanding one.

The fact that some governments are delivering reflects governments responsive to the needs of their citizens, not an abuse of power.

Those interested in biometrics, corruption and development may be interested in some of the thoughts expressed here:
http://securlinx.blogspot.com/2011/03/rich-country-poor-country.html

 

BRYANSIMPSON

1:44 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Nice addendum

This argument is a nice addendum to Hernando De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital". Anonymity has it's advantages but poverty is certain for someone who can't get credit today. Well done.

 

STEPHEN WILSON - LOCKSTEP

3:14 PM ET

March 11, 2011

Think through the hype

If the problem in the developing world is children aren't registered at birth, and huge numbers of people lack official documentation or identities, then biometrics is not going to help. A biometric has to be matched against a registered template, and linked to a set of attributes. My iris doesn't know my name and address - that *identification* data needs to be recorded first. If you're

Biometrics only identify you to a party that already knows you. They confirm, they don't *identify*.

 

LDCHISLE

4:35 PM ET

March 14, 2011

step in the right direction...

Aside from the many failures of states to live up to their end of the bargain in the social contract (provide citizens with basic human rights guarantees) states are still THE entity against which individuals can claim their human rights. This new technology is a huge advancement in at least providing people with the power to claim these rights against their government. With this identification of citizenship people can then make claims against the government to provide them with a wide variety of social services as well as provide them with the civil and political rights.

Unfortunately, while digitalized identification has much promise it still fails to target millions of people who need the protection citizenship offers the most: refugees. The promises of this technology are based on the assumption that the government is willing to take responsibility for the citizens it grants registration/identification to. When refugees flee to neighbouring countries and subsequent generations are born in refugee camps there is a lack of willingness of states to take responsibility and claim these (millions) of individuals as their citizens. The regime from which the individuals are fleeing may be too corrupt or fragmented to have the desire or capacity to register its citizens- never mind the registration of citizens who are not even within the country boarders. Also, the "host" nation where the refugees have fled often refuses to claim individuals born to refugees within their territory. This refusal is sometimes based on legitimate claims of incapacity- host states (especially with refugee populations in Africa) are often resource scarce themselves and can not take on the financial burden that would be associated with granting citizenship to thousands, possibly millions, of individuals who are originally from a neighbouring state. Whatever the reasons, the result is state-less individuals who have no government against which to claim some of their most basic human rights. New technology in registration will not resolve this issue. Perhaps beyond registering those who we "know" to be citizens (such as the examples in India) we need to question the idea of citizenship as a whole when it comes to the provision of basic human rights. As it stands, the practical reality is that where citizenship is not defined, the provision of human rights (economic, social, and political) ends.