“Those who know far better than I say things are going in the right direction,” he said.

Tony McNulty was also quoted saying something similar on the PM show on Radio 4 the other day. They then did an interview with a biometrics experts who has been advising the Home Affairs Select Committee. The quote I found most interesting was:

To be honest, I think that there’s a possibility that eventually we will conclude that [biometric technology] isn’t good enough, or the current systems we’re using are not good enough for a large scale public domain application such as an ID card.

I don’t think that the interview is available on the BBC website any more, but I transcribed it on the day, and posted it here:

http://www.discorice.org/weblog/2005/05/25/well-that-didnt-take-very-long/

(Apologies for the self-link, and indeed for the state of the site at the other end.)

1 – The whole point of biometrics is that it is discriminatory… in the sense that it is intended to “discriminate” between one individual and another. The *technology* is discriminatory, unambiguously but with no moral dimension.

2 – However, the other point of course is that the technology could enable discriminatory behaviour… and that’s what is to be identified and guarded against. So, for instance, if a foreseeable consequence of adopting the technology is that n percent of disabled citizens are unable to register using any of the supported biometric methods, and that in turn results in a difference between their ability to access public services and the ability of other citizens to do the same – *that’s* discriminatory.