Advertisement

Ethics and Policy of Forensic Biometrics

  • Emilio Mordini
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition book series (ACVPR)

Abstract

Ethical issues raised by forensic biometrics partly overlap with general ethical implications of biometrics. They include issues related to collecting, processing, and storing, personal data, privacy, medical information, and respect for body integrity, risks of misuse and subversive use, and respect for human dignity. There are, however, also ethical issues specifically raised by forensic biometrics. One of them is particularly intriguing. It concerns the nature of biometric evidence and to what extent biometric findings could be accepted as an evidence in court. At a first glance, this problem could seem purely legal, without major ethical implications. Yet, at a deeper analysis, it turns out to have significant ethical components. I will focus on them and on some recent policy developments in this field.

Keywords

Crime Prevention False Recognition Judicial System Criminal Proceeding Punitive Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Mordini E, Tzovaras D (2012) Second generation biometrics: the ethical and social context. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mordini E, Massari S (2008) Body, biometrics, and identity. Bioethics 22(9):488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mordini E (2008) Nothing to hide. biometric privacy and private sphere. In: Tistarelli M, Juul N, Drygajlo A, Schouten B (eds) BIOID 2008 Biometrics and identity management, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 247–57Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mordini E, Rebera AP (2013). The biometric fetish. In: About I, Brown J, Lonergan G (eds) People, papers, and practices: identification and registration in: transnational perspective, 1500−2010 London, Palgrave, pp 98−111Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mordini E (2009) Ethics and policy of biometrics. In: Tistarelli M, Stan ZL, Chellappa R (eds) Handbook of remote biometrics for surveillance and security. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mordini E, Rebera AP (2011) No identification without representation: constraints on the use of biometric identification systems. Rev Policy Res 29(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moenssens AA (1963) Admissibility of fingerprint evidence and constitutional objections to fingerprinting raised in criminal and civil cases. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 40(2):85–124Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaye DH (2003) Questioning a courtroom proof of the uniqueness of fingerprints. Int Stat Rev 71:521–533CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haber L, Haber RN (2004) Error rates for human latent print examiners. In: Bolle R, Natalini R (eds) Advances in automatic fingerprint recognition. Springer, New York, pp 339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stacey R (2004) Report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the madrid train bombing case. J Forensic Ident. 6(54):706–718Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Champod, C. (2000). Standards of proof. In: Siegel J(ed) Encyclopaedia of forensic sciences, Academic Press p 890Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egli NM, Champod C, Margot P (2007) Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification system—Modelling within finger variability. Forensic Sci Int 167:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Champod C, Lennard C, Margot P, Stoilovic M (2004) Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. CRC Press—Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cole S (2008) Comment on ‘scientific validation of fingerprint evidence’ under Daubert’. Law Probab Risk 7:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirsch Ballin MF (2012) Anticipative criminal investigation. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollock F (1922) Essays in the law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Summers RS (1999) Formal legal truth and substantive truth in judicial fact-finding—their justified divergence in some particular cases. Cornell Law Faculty Publications,   Paper 1186Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saks MJ (2003) The legal and scientific evaluation of forensic science (especially fingerprint expert testimony). Seton Hall Law Rev 1167–87Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Commission (2014) Rights of suspects and accused. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/criminal-rights/index_en.htm. Accessed 2 June 2015

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Responsible Technology SASParisFrance

Personalised recommendations