Technology Exploration Project – M591
May I see your Identification Please?
In the modern world identity is everything, whether it means the ability to receive 5% off of your next shop at Tesco, or the privilege to obtain diplomatic immunity in a foreign country. With such a diverse and overwhelming span of scenarios where identity and identification is needed and used, one must clarify, what is identification? In the context of this article, identification is the means of proving a claim. Examples are using a driving license to prove your age, or a policeman using his badge to prove he is indeed a member of the police force. Identification methods mean nothing without a system of authentication. There needs to be a reliable and consistent method of validating identification. This article will focus on two specific identification methods, their authentication, their reliability and uses, and influences and ethical consequences of their use.
The first form of identification that this article will review is Deoxyribonucleic Acid, more commonly known as DNA. DNA is a nucleic acid which consists of a long polymer of nucleotides (Wikipedia, 2007
DNA). At a distance DNA seems relatively simple. However the sequences of the various nucleotides form hugely complex and intricate patterns. This article will avoid going into levels of detail that is not required for the understanding of DNA identification.
Below is Figure 1, a graphical representation of a DNA chain (Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group, 2007,
Nanoengineering)
Every living organism on the planet contains DNA. In humans DNA patterns are unique to everyone, with a single exception, identical siblings. The method of identifying an individual through DNA is known as Genetic Fingerprinting. Genetic Fingerprinting was first announced in 1985 by Sir Alec Jeffreys who was researching at the University of Leicester (Wikipedia, 2007,
Genetic Fingerprinting). The majority of the DNA found in humans is actually identical (less than 0.1% difference between unrelated people (Hutchinson, 2007,
Genetic Fingerprinting) ). Genetic Fingerprinting works by focusing in on the highly variable repeating sequences in DNA, known as mini satellites. It is thought of as impossible for two humans to have like numbers of mini satellites at a set location in the DNA, apart from in the aforementioned case of identical twins (Wikipedia, 2007,
Genetic Fingerprinting). Genetic Fingerprinting is commonly used as a tool in forensic science to help identify suspects. At crime scenes DNA is sometimes left behind in blood, semen, hair and saliva. This allows forensic scientists to analyse the DNA and compare it to that of the suspects. It has become a highly valuable tool as it is the more serious and violent crimes of assault, rape and even murder which will often leave behind the most genetic evidence. The exceptional property of DNA, in use of identification, is that it cannot be forged. Your DNA is unique to you and with you forever.
On the surface it appears that DNA is a highly efficient and accurate method of identifying if someone is who they claim or claim not to be. However there is a major drawback, everyone carries the identifying properties of DNA, regardless of their wishes. All it takes is a single hair and the right equipment for someone to be able to find out a lot of information about an individual. DNA is often viewed as a genetic blueprint. It carries the biological information on how an individual looks and grows. Everything down to eye colour and nose shape is stored in DNA. DNA is passed down to siblings, which is why families often have visible similarities in their appearance. A very well known medical research project is the Human Genome Project. This was initiated in 1986 (Wikipedia, 2007,
Human Genome Project) with the goal of mapping out every single gene in DNA. Medically this allows for far greater understanding in certain diseases, why they arise and how they can be treated. Research is still being carried out but the completed human genome was announced in April 2003 (Wikipedia, 2007,
Human Genome Project). It is now possible to single out people who have much higher probabilities of many potentially fatal illnesses such as heart disease and forms of cancer. This begins to pose an ethical dilemma, does holding and using DNA in genetic Fingerprinting infringe on personal privacy?
There are many different DNA databases used in various countries, but this article will focus on the UK database. The reason for focusing on a specific database is that legislation and law is not the same in every country. The National DNA Database (here on referred to as NDNAD) was established in 1995 for keeping criminals DNA on record in England and Wales (Postnote, 2006,
The National DNA Database). For any recordable offences other than traffic violations, police are permitted to take a DNA sample without consent. These samples are generally in the form of a mouth swab. Samples may be taken even if it has nothing to do with the crime that the suspect has been arrested for. These DNA samples are then stored on the NDNAD and can be used for comparison with any DNA found at past, current or future crime scenes. One of the more controversial legislations came into force in 2001, with the Criminal Justice and Police Act (Postnote, 2006,
The National DNA Database). It is now legal for a person’s DNA sample to be stored against their will, even if they were not found guilty of the crime they were arrested or suspected for. There have been a number of appeals by cleared and innocent people to have their samples removed and destroyed, however nearly all fail. There was a case in 2006 where a teacher won the right to have her samples destroyed, but this was only due to the samples being taken after the decision was taken to not charge (Wikipedia, 2007,
UK National DNA Database).
The main argument for NDNAD and other similar projects is quite simply, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. While this is true, many people, including myself, cannot help but feel that having so much personal information stored about you is an invasion of privacy. New legislations on the rules or use and additions to NDNAD are being added regularly. It is a real possibility that in the future more government branches or businesses will be granted access to the database. Before long you could have insurance companies reviewing your DNA to work out your life insurance rates based on your immunities and weaknesses to certain illnesses. Although it is a safe bet that this will never happen, people are worried that the rules and regulations governing NDNAD might shift toward that direction.
To try and fully understand the general opinion of the public, I created a short but concise questionnaire. The questionnaire started off by asking if people knew genetic fingerprinting even existed outside of the movies. It then informed the participants of the NDNAD explaining its functionality and uses. The main questions are listed below with the results included.
People who took part in the questionnaire: 30
1)
Are you aware that DNA Genetic Fingerprinting exists outside of the movies and crime shows?
Yes – 27 No – 3
2)
Do you agree that all convicted criminals should have their DNA sample stored on the NDNAD?
Yes for all convictions – 10 Yes for repeat offending/assault/rape/murder – 20 No – 0
3)
If yes to question 2, How long should their sample remain in the database?
1-5 Years - 0 6-10 Years -6 11-15 years - 6 Permanent – 18
4)
Are you aware that suspects who use DNA to prove their innocence still have their DNA stored, even if it is against their will?
Yes – 4 No – 26
5)
Should all UK residents submit a mandatory DNA sample?
Yes – 11 No – 19
6)
If no to question 5, How about a mandatory fingerprint instead?
Yes - 8 No - 11
For each question there was an additional comments box, this allowed the participants to justify their answer when they thought necessary. Question 4 shocked the most people. The general census from the comments was that people were angry this can happen. If people use DNA to prove their innocence, it should not be kept on record without their explicit permission. With the current legislation, people proving their innocence must pay the price of their personal DNA sample being kept on record indefinitely.
I found the results to question 5 surprising. It is my strong belief that each person is entitled to their privacy. DNA cannot prove a person guilty alone. It is generally used as extremely strong backing evidence in conjunction with other factors. The police should be able to request and take a DNA sample from a person who has a clean record if they have any reason to suspect them. I added question 6 to verify if people did not like the government holding any information on them, or if it was just the personal nature of DNA which people like myself were opposed to.
Genetic Fingerprinting brings two very complex and deep subjects together, Privacy and justice. Due to their very nature, people will always have strong opinions on both sides. One must sacrifice privileges and rights to a certain degree in order to live in a relatively low crime country. The question is where to draw the line, which is a question that unfortunately has no real answer.
The second and radically different identification tool this article is going to dissect is the passport. Most people see a passport as a little book that often gets stamped when you visit foreign countries, but it is far more than this. Passports are one of the only internationally accepted identification documents. Contrary to popular belief, passports are not actually designed to confirm a person is “John Smith, aged 36”. They are identification documents to prove that “john Smith” is a member of a certain state, the state which issued the passport. Generally all states allow members of all other states to travel through and/or visit for a limited period of time, and by proxy the passport allows “John Smith” entry to the country. The passport also requests that the bearer is given protection by the local law of the country the bearer is visiting (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport).
Passports have been around for an extremely long time, in one form or another. In fact one of the earliest documentations of what could be considered a passport is found in the book of Nehemiah, circa 450BC (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport). Nehemiah was an official serving under the king of Persia, King Artaxerxes. Nehemiah asked permission to travel to Judah, and the king gave it in the form of a letter. This letter requested safe passage to Nehemiah as he travelled through their lands (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport).
The passport most likely got its name from medieval times. During those times cities were surrounded by huge walls to protect them from unwanted visitors or attackers. These walls had several gates, known as portes. Documents of authorisation were required to pass through these gates. These documents were issued by local authorities to any traveller, and contained a list of cities which the traveller was permitted to enter. Various derivations of these original passports continued to be used until the mid 1800s. Rail travel meant huge quantities of people were travelling all around Europe. The old passport system simply could not cope and France completely removed all passport and visa requirements in 1861 (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport). Other countries had the same troubles as France and generally followed their example, removing all passport requirements. In the early 1900s virtually all border control systems in Europe had been abolished and international travel became much simpler. As World War 1 was taking place, governments realised the need to screen people entering their countries. Spies played a large role in enemy intelligence gathering and as such international travel became a much more scrupulous task, once again passports were required for border crossings. After the war the new, more in depth passport system stayed in place. These passports were relatively similar to modern day versions, with a photo and basic information about the holder. The United Nations and International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, issued official guidelines for passports, to ensure all variations followed a common format (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport).
Passports are validated by person and machine. Upon reaching a checkpoint where a passport must be produced, an official will ask for the documents. They will verify the details and make sure that you are eligible for travel into the country. Machine readable passports are fully standardised by the ICAO (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport). Machine readable passports means that all information can be read in and checked within seconds, saving time at busy checkpoints.
Different people and officials require different regulations. For example the prime minister needs to be able to travel anywhere at any given time. As such different types of passport exist for the various requirements of the holders. There are diplomatic and special passports which imbue the holder with immunity from visa requirements.
Biometric passports are now in circulation, however they are not required. They were first introduced in Malaysia in 1998 (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport). They soon took on and were adopted by many nations, including Great Britain. The biometric passports have a small embedded chip which carries biological information about the passport bearer. These were first introduced as anti fraud devices, making it more difficult to impersonate another individual by use of a fake passport. However, due to a lack of a global standard for these chips, and lack of chip readers at border controls, the chip is often unused. Even if the chip was to be fully utilised, it would be insecure. The information is encrypted and then stored on a Radio-frequency (or RFID) tag. The hardware and software to read the chip is commercially available to anyone. The key to decrypt the information is a combination of information which is actually written on the passport it’s self. This means if someone has the actual passport, it is relatively easy to view the information stored on the chip. Finally RFID tags are readable from a distance of a few centimetres (Wikipedia, 2007,
Radio-Frequency Identification). This means gaining the information on the chip at a distance is possible. Once gained the encrypted information is vulnerable to a brute force attack. The biometric passport adds further possibility to the risk of identity theft. People are liable to assume that due to the digital countermeasures included in the passport against fraud, it should automatically be trusted. People are therefore less likely to investigate deeply into issues with biometric passports.
It is believed that in the near future when technology advances, more in depth verification can be carried out on standard passport photos. These checks will include facial measurements and proportions which may not be visibly obvious to the naked eye. This means that the photo on the passport can be compared digitally to the person claiming entry to the country (Wikipedia, 2007,
Passport).
The process for obtaining a passport varies from country to country. This article is analysing the British passport issuing procedures. Below is Figure 2, a biometric British passport (Wikipedia, 2006,
British Passport)
Identity theft is a very real and serious problem. The latest estimates show identity theft costing the UK £1.7 billion a year (Home Office, 2007,
Identity Theft ). Not all of this cost directly involves passports, but as they are one of the most accepted UK identifiers, they are targeted. There are several measures being taken to help reduce fraudulent use of passports. Firstly the Identity and Passport Service has initiated a database listing lost and stolen passports. This is being internationally shared with foreign authorities to help detect and pursue identity theft offenders. Secondly a relatively new official passport validation service is now publicly available. This allows private companies to check received passports (used by clients as identification) against the official database. The companies are hen able to have a higher level of confidence that the document can be trusted. The final step in preventing identity theft is the new application process. The biggest change is the introduction of interviews for first time adult passport applications. The UK passport application form is very thorough. If you were born after 1983 you need to provide both your own birth certificate and one of your parent’s certificates as well. This is to help certify your nationality. The form needs to be counter signed by a non family member who has known you for at least two years, and is of good standing in the community. Finally, as of June 2007, it is likely that you will be required to attend a short 30 minute interview (Home Office, 2007,
Identity and Passport Service). The interview is mainly to confirm personal information and facts to further prevent identity theft. The passport is only valid for ten years. After that it needs to be renewed. The renewal process is far simpler, generally just sending back your old passport along with a form. Birth certificates and such do not need to be sent to renew a passport.
Proving identity is a problem which has no obvious answer. There are two possible routes to take. The first is to have multiple and extremely secure validation tests carried out when ever identity theft might be a problem. This would greatly cut down on the problem but would give rise to several new ones. Airports deal with thousands up on thousands of customers each day. If each one of these customers had to produce birth certificates, driving licences, passports and undergo an interview each time they wanted to fly, all hell would break lose. Confidence in identity integrity would be high, but processing and administration times would be exponentially increased. It would be near impossible to do, add in the shear inconvenience and this route becomes obsolete.
The second route is to have one form of identification, such as a passport, which proves your identity for all situations. This is far more convenient and efficient, but means it is essential that the documentation can be properly validated. DNA is proven to be immune to fraud, however ethical issues arise on how much personal information people are willing to give out in return for secure identification. It is my belief that DNA will end up playing a greater role in every day identification. However it is unlikely that this will happen until there is a much greater level of public awareness, as to what information is stored in the DNA samples required for identification.
Reference List
Information referenced in this article has been sourced from the list of sites below.
