Advertisement

Data Protection and the use of Biometric Data in the EU

  • Annemarie Sprokkereef
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 262)

Abstract

This article is concerned with the legal approach to the regulation of biometrics in European policy making. It is observed that the latter is based mainly on a data protection perspective. From this data protection point of view, the handling of biometric data in the EU would benefit from a more stringent application of the purpose binding principle. Further, it is demonstrated that more thorough impact assessments could become the cornerstone for legal assessments of the application of data protection principles in individual biometrie projects such as EURODAC. The conclusion is that the current approach to informational trends and biometrics will have to develop beyond personal data protection towards a more comprehensive notion of societal data protection through privacy enhancing data and identity management. Within this wider framework, data protection should be able to deal with the use of biometrics and multiple layers and concepts of privacy created by the information society as it is developing.

Keywords

Data Protection Biometric Data Residence Permit Legal Approach Personal Data Protection 
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.
    I. van der Ploeg, The Illegal Body: ‘Eurodac’ and the Politics of Biometric Identification, Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 295–302 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Darquennes, and Y. Poullet, RFID: Quelques Réflections Introductives a un Débat de Société, Revue du Droit des Technologies de l’Information, 26, 255–279 (2006).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. de Hert, W. Schreurs and E. Brouwer, Machine-Readable Identity Documents with Biometric Data in the EU: Overview of the Legal Framework, Keesing Journal of Documents and Identity, 21, 3–10 (2006).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Prins, Making Our Bodies Work for Us: Legal implications of Biometric Technologies, Computer Law & Security Report, 14(3), 159–165 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Governance Project EUI, Florence (May 30, 2007), http://www.eu-newgov.org/index.asp.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Lodge, European Governance 2015: Popping the Digital Bubble, in: New Spaces of European Governance, edited by J. Melchior (University of Vienna, Vienna, 2006) pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Lodge, EJustice, Security and Biometrics: the EU’s Proximity Paradox, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 13(4), 533–564 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Chatwin, A History of ICAO Doc 9303: The Development of International Standards for Travel Documents, Keesing Journal of Documents and Identity, 23, 16–22 (2007).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Netherlands Biometrics Forum, Rotterdam (May 30, 2007) www.biometrieforum.nl.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Surveillance Studies Network, A Report on the Surveillance Society For the Information Commissioner ( London, 2006), p 9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    UNESCO, Information for all Programme (IFAP), Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies: a Survey edited by M. Rundle and C. Conley (UNESCO, Paris, 2007) p 40.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Koorn, et al, Privacy Enhancing Technologies Witboek voor Beslissers (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, The Hague, December 2004).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Netherlands Biometrics Forum, Biometrics. Cut out for us? (Netherlands Biometrics Forum Rotterdam, 2007) p9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Hes, et al, At Face Value: on Biometrical Identification and Privacy (The Hague, Registratiekamer, September 1999) pp 48-56.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Lips, J. Taylor and J. Organ Identity Management as Public Innovation: Looking beyond ID cards and authentication systems, in: Information and Communication Technology and Public Innovation: Assessing the ICT-Driven Modernization of Public Administration, edited by V. Becker et al (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006), pp 204–216.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. J.A. de Hert, Biometrics: Legal Issues and Implications. Background paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, DG JRC (Seville, European Commission, 2005).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Thomas, Biometrics, International Migrants and Human Rights, European Journal of Migration and Law 7, 377–411 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. de Hert and A. Sprokkereef, An Assessment of the Proposed Uniform Format for Residence Permits: Use of Biometrics, CEPS Briefing Note for the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, (Brussels, May 30, 2007); http://www.libertysecurity.org/article1193.html.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Balzacq and S. Carrera (Ed), Security versus Freedom: A Challenge for Europe’s Future (Ashgate, 2006).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See Thomas reference 17 above.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EC) 1030/2002 Laying Down a Format for Residence Permits for Third Country Nationals. Brussels, 16th Oct 2006: (May 30, 2007); www.edps.europa.eu.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    2006 Budapest Declaration on Machine Readable Travel Documents, FIDIS, Budapest); http://www.fidis.net/press-events/press-releases/budapest-declaration/.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Council of the European Union, Briefing 19 Sep 2007, Interinstitutional file: 2006/0088, 12665/07, p1, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/sep/eu-biometric-visas-12665-07.pdf.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Sprokkereef and P. de Hert. Ethical Practice in the Use of Biometrics Identifiers within the EU. Law, Science and Policy, 3, 177–201 (2007).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    EURODAC is a European Union wide electronic system (including a fingerprint database), for details on SIS, VIS and EURODAC in general see: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/index_en.htm. On this particular point consult: COM (2007) 299 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Dublin system, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/ 2007/com2007_0299en01.pdf, p 11.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Standing Committee of Experts on International Immigration, Refugee and Criminal Law, CM0712-IV, Note on the Proposal of the JHA Council to Give Law Enforcement Authorities Access to EURODAC, the Hague, 18 Sep 2007, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/sep/eurodac-meijers-committee.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Op cit p 2 and 3.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See reference 11.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See reference 10.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Joint Research Centre, Institute of Prospective Technological Studies DG JRC. Biometrics at the Frontiers: Assessing the Impact on Society. Technical Report EUR 21585 (Seville, European Commission, 2005).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Bailey, The Open Society Paradox; Why the 21st Century Calls for more Opennessnot less (Potomac Books, 2004).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    European Biometrics Forum, Security and Privacy in Large Scale Biometric Systems. Report commissioned by the EC-JRC/IPTS (European Commission Joint Research Centre Technical Report, Oct. 2007 http://is.jrc.es/documents/SecurityPrivacyFinal Report.pdf).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annemarie Sprokkereef
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Communications Studies (ICS)Leeds UniversityUK
  2. 2.Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society (TILT), Faculty of LawTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations