Dixon Pam
World Privacy Forum, 12625 SW 62ND Ave., Portland, OR 97219 USA.
Health Technol (Berl). 2017;7(4):539-567. doi: 10.1007/s12553-017-0202-6. Epub 2017 Jun 14.
It is important that digital biometric identity systems be used by governments with a mandate, and the establishment of regulatory, enforcement and restorative frameworks ensuring data protection and privacy needs to transpire prior to the implementation of technological programs and services. However, when, and where large government bureaucracies are involved, the proper planning and execution of public service programs very often result in ungainly outcomes, and are often qualitatively not guaranteeable. Several important factors, such as the strength of the political and legal systems, may affect such cases as the implementation of a national digital identity system. Digital identity policy development, as well as technical deployment of biometric technologies and enrollment processes, may all differ markedly, and could depend in some part at least, on the overall economic development of the country in question, or political jurisdiction, among other factors. This article focuses on the Republic of India's national digital biometric identity system, the , for its development, data protection and privacy policies, and impact. Two additional political jurisdictions, the European Union, and the United States are also situationally analyzed as they may be germane to data protection and privacy policies originated to safeguard biometric identities. Since biometrics are foundational elements in modern digital identity systems, expression of data protection policies that orient and direct how biometrics are to be utilized as unique identifiers are the focus of this analysis. As more of the world's economies create and elaborate capacities, capabilities and functionalities within their respective digital ambits, it is not enough to simply install suitable digital identity technologies; much, much more - is durably required. For example, both vigorous and descriptive means of data protection should be well situated within any jurisdictionally relevant deployment area, in-field deployment of digital identity technologies. Toxic mixes of knowledge insufficiencies, institutional naïveté, political tomfoolery, cloddish logical constructs, and bureaucratic expediency must never overrun fundamental protections for human autonomy, civil liberties, data protection, and privacy.
政府必须使用具有授权的数字生物识别身份系统，并且在实施技术项目和服务之前，需要建立监管、执法和恢复性框架以确保数据保护和隐私。然而，当涉及大型政府官僚机构时，公共服务项目的合理规划和执行往往会产生笨拙的结果，并且在质量上往往无法保证。一些重要因素，如政治和法律制度的力量，可能会影响国家数字身份系统的实施等情况。数字身份政策的制定，以及生物识别技术的技术部署和登记流程，可能都存在显著差异，并且至少在某种程度上可能取决于相关国家的整体经济发展或政治管辖范围等因素。本文重点关注印度共和国的国家数字生物识别身份系统，即其发展、数据保护和隐私政策以及影响。还对另外两个政治管辖区域，即欧盟和美国进行了情境分析，因为它们可能与为保护生物识别身份而制定的数据保护和隐私政策相关。由于生物识别技术是现代数字身份系统的基础要素，因此定向和指导如何将生物识别技术用作唯一标识符的数据保护政策的表达是本分析的重点。随着世界上越来越多的经济体在各自的数字领域创造、完善能力和功能，仅仅安装合适的数字身份技术是不够的；还需要更多、更多——持久的要求。例如，强有力且具有描述性的数据保护手段应妥善置于任何与管辖相关的部署区域，即数字身份技术的实地部署中。知识不足、机构幼稚、政治愚蠢、笨拙的逻辑结构和官僚权宜之计的有害组合绝不能凌驾于对人类自主权、公民自由、数据保护和隐私的基本保护之上。
