Normative Assumptions in Biometrics: On Bodily Differences and Automated Classifications

  • Irma van der PloegEmail author
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 20)


This chapter sets out to question the normative assumptions about human bodies embedded in biometric technologies, and to articulate and discuss issues emerging from the various ways in which biometric technologies and human bodily differences interact and interfere with each other. It will do so in particular in relation to ‘next generation biometrics’ such as soft biometrics, physiological biometrics, and distant sensing technologies.


Biometric System Biometric Identification Normative Assumption Fingerprint Pattern Facial Photograph 
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.



International Civil Aviation Organization


Machine Readable Travel Documents



Funding of the research for this paper was partly provided by the European Research Council and the European Commission, both under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013), DigIDeas Project/ERC Grant Agreement 201853, and HIDE project/EC Grant Agreement 217762.


  1. Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker WE, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society—studies in sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 205–224Google Scholar
  2. Bordo S (1993) Unbearable weight. Feminism, western culture and the body. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowker GC, Star SL (1999) Sorting things out, classification and its consequences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer E (2007) Digital borders and real rights. Effective remedies for third country Nationals in the Schengen Information System. Wolf Legal Publishers, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns RP, Teufel H (2008) Privacy impact assessment for the future attribute screening technology project. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Castle MN (1998) Hearing on biometrics and the future of money. Committee on Banking and Financial Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole SA (2006) The myth of fingerprints. Gene watch.
  8. Den Hartog JE, Moro-Ellenberger SL et al (2005) How do you measure a child? A study into the use of biometrics on children. TNO, DelftGoogle Scholar
  9. Duden B (1991) The woman beneath the skin, a doctor’s patients in eighteenth century Germany. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Fausto-Sterling A (2008) The bare bones of race. Soc Stud Sci 38(5):657–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foucault M (1975) The birth of the clinic: an archeology of medical perception. Vintage/Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault M (1977) The history of sexuality vol 1: The will to knowledge. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault M (1979) Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. Vintage/Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway DJ (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Harding S (ed) (1993) The ‘racial’ economy of science. Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayles KN (1999) How we became posthuman. Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Home Office Identity and Passport Service Passport Photographs. London.
  18. Jain AK, Lu X (2004) Ethnicity identification from face images. SPIE International Symposium on Defense and Security: Biometric Technology for Human IdentificationGoogle Scholar
  19. Jain AK, Dass SC et al (2004) Soft biometric traits for personal recognition systems. International Conference on Biometric Authentication, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  20. Koslowski R (2005) Real challenges for virtual borders: the implementation of US-VISIT. Migration Policy Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Lacqueur T (1990) Making sex. Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass./LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour B (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In: Knorr-Cetina KD, Mulkay M (eds) Science observed. Sage, London, pp 141–170Google Scholar
  23. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Li SZ, Schouten B et al (2009) Biometrics at a distance: issues, challenges, and prospects. In: Tistarelli M, Li SZ, Chellappa R (eds) Handbook of remote biometrics for surveillance and security. Springer, London, pp 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyon D (ed) (2003) Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Merleau-Ponty M ((1945) 1962) Phenomenology of perception. London, Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  27. Mintie D (ed) (1998) Biometrics in human services user group Newsletter, The Connecticut Department of Social Services, 2(2)Google Scholar
  28. National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Biometrics (2007) The National Biometrics Challenge. Washington, DC, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  29. Riera A, Soria-Frisch A et al (2008a) Multimodal physiological biometrics authentication. Biometrics: theory, methods, and applications. Wiley/IEEEGoogle Scholar
  30. Riera A, Soria-Frisch A et al (2008b) Unobtrusive biometric system based on electroencephalogram analysis. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2008:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rouvroy A (2009) Governmentality in an age of autonomic computing. Technology, virtuality, utopia. Computer Privacy and Data Protection, Colloquium on Autonomic Computing, Human Identity and Legal Subjectivity, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. Schiebinger L (1993) Nature’s body. Gender in the making of modern science. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Star SL (1991) Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. In: Law J (ed) A Sociology of Monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 26–56Google Scholar
  34. The BioSecure Network of Excellence (2007) The Biosecure Research Agenda.
  35. van der Ploeg I (1999a) ‘Eurodac’ and the illegal body. The politics of biometric identity. Ethics Inf Technol 1(4):37–44Google Scholar
  36. van der Ploeg I (1999b) Written on the body: biometrics and identity. Comput Soc 29(1):37–44Google Scholar
  37. van der Ploeg I (2002) Biometrics and the body as information: normative issues in the socio-technical coding of the body. In: Lyon D (ed) Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk and automated discrimination. Routledge, New York, pp 57–73Google Scholar
  38. van der Ploeg I (2003) Du Corps-matière au corps-information. La Recherche—Hors Série: Le Corps Humain de A à Z (12):36–39Google Scholar
  39. van der Ploeg I (2008) Machine-readable bodies: biometrics, informatization and surveillance. In: Mordini E et al (eds) Identity, security and democracy. Lancaster, IOS Press, NATO Science Series, Amsterdam, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  40. Woolgar S (1991) Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In: Law J (ed) A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. Routledge, London, pp 57–99Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Infonomics and New Media at Zuyd UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations