TwinCities.com reports on a case concerning the storage of newborn babies’ blood in Minnesota. I’ve written before about the unauthorized or unknowing retention and use of babies’ blood samples for purposes other than disease screening. The Washington Post has written about the ethics and privacy issues when children’s medical data is collected and retained without parents’ knowledge or consent. In mid-2010, Texas announced that, as part of a lawsuit settlement agreement, it would destroy five million blood samples taken from babies and used for research without their parents’ consent. The blood was originally gathered to screen for birth defects. Privacy issues connected to newborns’ blood samples have been raised internationally, as well. In New Zealand, the Privacy Commissioner warned against expanding the use of such genetic data beyond disease testing, noting DNA is the “ultimate marker of identity.” A Tel Aviv University researcher’s article in Science said we don’t know the future privacy or civil liberty implications of distributing children’s genetic data.

TwinCities.com reports:

Adding to a national debate that pits privacy concerns against medical researchers, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a lower court must reconsider a challenge to the state Health Department’s practice of storing blood samples from newborns indefinitely.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in the case said the ruling means the Health Department might be forced to destroy nearly 1 million blood samples that researchers have drawn on for limited medical research purposes since 1997. [...] Read more »

The New York Times reports on plans by the Afghanistan government concerning the biometric data of residents and visitors to the country:

Since September, Afghanistan has been the only country in the world to fingerprint and photograph all travelers who pass through Kabul International Airport, arriving and departing.

A handful of other countries fingerprint arriving foreigners, but no country has ever sought to gather biometric data on everyone who comes and goes, whatever their nationality. Nor do Afghan authorities plan to stop there: their avowed goal is to fingerprint, photograph and scan the irises of every living Afghan.

It is a goal heartily endorsed by the American military, which has already gathered biometric data on two million Afghans who have been encountered by soldiers on the battlefield, or who have just applied for a job with the coalition military or its civilian contractors.

The Kabul airport program is also financed by the United States, with money and training provided by the American Embassy. Americans, like all other travelers, are subject to it. [...] Read more »

The New York Times reports on the increasing use of facial-recognition technology on the general public, such as in a bar. As identification technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it could easily unmask people and track their movements. Those who were previously part of the unnamed crowd could be singled out for identification. See this previous post for a discussion about the First Amendment right to free speech and how widespread identification technologies can affect that. More of my thoughts on facial recognition in this older GCN interview.

The Times reports:

SceneTap, a new app for smart phones, uses cameras with facial detection software to scout bar scenes. Without identifying specific bar patrons, it posts information like the average age of a crowd and the ratio of men to women, helping bar-hoppers decide where to go. More than 50 bars in Chicago participate.

As SceneTap suggests, techniques like facial detection, which perceives human faces but does not identify specific individuals, and facial recognition, which does identify individuals, are poised to become the next big thing for personalized marketing and smart phones. That is great news for companies that want to tailor services to customers, and not so great news for people who cherish their privacy. The spread of such technology — essentially, the democratization of surveillance — may herald the end of anonymity. Read more »

Avner Pinchuk, who runs the Privacy Rights program at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, writes about personal privacy concerning biometric data in Israel in an opinion column for the Jerusalem Post:

Last week, after almost five years on the case, authorities located and arrested the suspects that publicized private information on the Internet about Israelis stolen from the Population Registry. Investigators were surprised to learn that not only was the entire Population Registry leaked, but so was other sensitive material such as the national adoption database, which stores details on adopting parents, adopted children, biological parents, etc. The Ministry of Justice described the damage done to the country and its residents as “severe.” This case has called attention to the dangers all the country’s citizens face if someone were to get their hands on the biometric database which the government is set to begin piloting in the coming days.

The “Identification Card, Travel Papers and Biometric Database Bill,” passed in 2009, is meant to provide a reliable, “smart” system that includes biometric data, such as fingerprints and digital photographs, in identification cards and passports. The biometric data will also be concentrated in a database system maintained by the Interior Ministry. [...]

With such a database, the potential for abuse of power and information is extremely high. [...] Read more »

I’ve discussed before the increasing use of facial recognition technology in advertising, especially in “digital signage.” Most people have heard of the term connected with billboards or other screens that have cameras (and facial-recognition technology) to watch people watching ads in order to improve their marketing. The digital signs log data such as gender, approximate age and how long someone looks at an advertisement. This is supposed to help build a better billboard — one that is tailored specifically to the individual standing in front of it. However, the data-gathering and surveillance practices raise substantial privacy questions. (Disclosure: The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a set of privacy guidelines for digital signage, which I consulted on and contributed to, in the report “Building the Digital Out-Of-Home Privacy Infrastructure.”)

USA Today and the New York Times have detailed safety problems that can arise from these digital billboards. BBC News has reported on the use of digital billboards in the United Kingdom. The Wall Street Journal has reported on digital signage use in Japan. The Los Angeles Times reported on the expansion of these digital billboards and their use of facial-recognition biometric technology in casinos, Chicago-area bars and more.

Now, the Economist takes a look at the use of facial recognition technology in digital signs and how advertisers are gathering data on people beyond just what they’re looking at — the tech can read your mood and check your vital signs, as well:

[M]aking online ads that not only know you are looking at them but also respond to your emotions will soon be possible, thanks to the power of image-processing software and the ubiquity of tiny cameras in computers and mobile devices. Read more »

NextGov reports on privacy questions concerning facial recognition systems as the biometric technology become more popular:

As social media firms and law enforcement agencies increasingly use facial recognition technology to facilitate public and online service, privacy issues surrounding the commercial apps, at least, are raising eyebrows in Congress.

On Wednesday, Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, requested a report from the Federal Trade Commission on the security implications of facial recognition technology. He anticipates the recommendations will help the committee update legislation regulating online privacy. Read more »