The Negative Implications of Biometrics in Overpolicing

The Negative Implications of Biometrics in Overpolicing

In the modern era of technological advancements, bio-metric identification has emerged as a novel and efficient means of user authentication. Biometric systems, such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scans are commonly used as a security measure in airports, banks, and government agencies for identifying individuals.

However, the use of biometrics in policing has long been a topic of concern. Critics argue that biometrics not only violate citizens’ privacy but also reinforce the discriminatory nature of policing. Biometric data, once collected, can be stored and analyzed indefinitely without the individual’s consent, which poses a significant threat to civil liberties.

Moreover, biometric tracking systems have been deployed in many countries against marginalized communities as a tool of overpolicing. In the US and Europe, biometric identification techniques have been particularly prevalent in identifying people who are members of ethnic minorities, low-income groups, or homeless people.

In the United States, facial recognition technology has been challenged for its inherent bias towards certain demographics. Moreover, studies have shown that facial recognition algorithms are less accurate in identifying women and people with darker skin tones. Such technicalities have the potential to reinforce the social biases that result in overpolicing of communities of minorities.

The use of biometric technology in overpolicing is not limited to the US or the UK. In India, the government’s biometric identification program has been criticized on multiple fronts. The country’s National Crime Records Bureau has maintained biometric databases of criminals, and it is feared that this data could be utilized to restrict the movements of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

Furthermore, biometric identification programs can be expensive to implement, leading to an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. This results in a low return on investment as the programs have not shown significant improvements in security and surveillance.

In conclusion, biometric identification is a double-edged sword. When used correctly, it can be an efficient and secure means of authentication. However, its widespread use in policing has the potential to be discriminatory and intrusive. It is essential to reevaluate the use of biometrics in overpolicing and ensure that civil liberties are not violated in the pursuit of public safety.

Speech tips:

Please note that any statements involving politics will not be approved.