The Border . . . is You

That's a good point about me seeking sales of my book. I don't make money based on book sales, though my employer does, so there is a similarity between our interests with respect to our organizations'.

However, I don't have to say anything about biometrics and I will still get paid. You have to try to sell biometrics or you won't get paid. The intensity of your self-interest in this issue is far greater than mine. It's literally your job to sell biometrics to the government. That's not wrong, just relevant.

I think your suggestion that I avoid rhetoric is not well placed, given that the point of the post was to challenge the misdescription of this event as being about "border security." That's rhetoric, and misleading rhetoric at that.

Let's talk about self-interest, because your prevarication on the word "sell" shouldn't go unmentioned. You and people in your industry have a direct financial interest in selling biometrics equipment and services to the government. That's not wrong, of course, but people should know it when they consider your arguments and activities.

I get paid for advocating in favor of limited government, free markets, and peace. I get paid no more or less for discussing biometrics or any other technology or program.

You are trying to get my tax dollars, so the burden is on you to make the case that this stuff serves a legitmate end, and that it is not going to needlessly undermine privacy. So what have you and "industry" brought to the table? "Trust us because we care"? Where are you designing privacy into the systems you're trying to sell? I am not impressed by SafLink's four-page 2003 "white paper" on privacy, written by your V.P. of business development.

It is not "analysis paralysis" to recognize the undesirability of biometrics and human tracking for national security purposes. It is the product of well-reasoned analysis, some of which I have done in my book, which I previously mentioned. In it, I make the point that avoiding uniform identification systems is a failsafe against tyranny. You just admitted that it could happen, but rather than considering the policies we should set in light of that possibility, you say "we will have much larger problems than this." That's an unserious response. You may love the Constitution, but that's beside the point if you haven't thought through what identification policies will protect liberty.

Good of you to ask, Matt. I study these technologies and their uses every day. In my book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood, I have examined how identity systems work - and how they fail to address terrorism and other threats while channeling the law abiding citizen into unwanted and ultimately threatening surveillance.

I know many of the people that work on these technologies and programs. Because I serve on the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, I know many DHS officials. I know the P/CEO of one of the corporations I highlighted in my blog post (don't know if he attended), I know staff of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, and many other relevant people.

What I didn't say in my post (your comment may suggest I did) is that any of them favors this technology being used for surveillance of law abiding citizens. They probably think and hope it won't be. (The P/CEO I referred to above very much does not want it to be.) That's all nice, of course - but beside the point. Students of government understand that programs and systems put in place for one purpose inexorably seek out expanded purposes and powers.

So there's a little sketch of my authority to speak on these issues. Now, are you the Matt Shannon who works for SafLink, the biometrics company? The Matt Shannon quoted in the Seattle Times article Getting Piece of $30 Billion Security Pie Not So Easy for Local Businesses? I have to tell you I laughed out loud when I saw that. Maybe you have something to sell . . . ?

If you and colleagues of yours take umbrage at this post, that's OK with me. I'd like for it to make you think over the horizon. If you do, you'll recognize that there's no stopping the systems you're selling from being used for tracking law-abiding citizens, and ultimately they probably will. Because you don't know who will run the government in the future, systems like this may come under the control of people who don't like the way you want to live your life.

I don't have anything against biometrics or biometric technologies in general. I do think that digital identification systems, including most modern biometric technologies, change the meaning and consequences of identification quite dramatically and in ways few people yet understand.

These are things we should adopt slowly and with great care. Neither these vendors nor the Congress have our interests at heart, though they may force these biometrics on us.