DOJ: Retinal Scan or Scam?

I'm not technology adverse and retinal scanning is a development with many benefits society will most likely come to appreciate in time. But I believe one particular initiative in the news these days deserves a closer look.

The Department of Justice is spending $359,000 of our tax dollars to install retinal scanning capabilities into three multiculturally diverse schools in central-New Jersey, purportedly to test a system that would increase the level of security for children against child predators. If you buy that simplistic rationale from DOJ, I have a bridge to sell you. It simply does not add up.

The MSM has been broadcasting it as a light tech piece, but no one seems to be giving any serious thought to several curious, if not downright troubling elements of this program.

The school in question already has an advanced card swipe system for access to the school, placing it significantly ahead of what most every other school in the nation has. Yet, the school administrator pronounces it obsolete?

"The idea is to improve school safety for the children," said Phil Meara, superintendent, Freehold Borough School District, on Monday. "We had a swipe-card system that operated the doors, but the technology was obsolete."

One of several items that troubles me about this program has to do with what amounts to a corporate subsidy. While the DOJ is using almost $400k in tax payer dollars to at least partially fund it, who really stands to gain from this, since Hewlett Packard, Eyemetric Identity Systems, LG Electronics USA and Newton Security, Inc. are all technology companies involved and touting the project as their own? Those companies stand to make millions, if not billions if a system like this were ever rolled out broadly. So why exactly is it we must subsidize its development? Do we get stock?

And are we really to believe that the most effective step against child predation the DOJ can take today with $400k is to implement a system which doesn't track a single predator, but captures the identity and additional significant data of, theoretically, every parent, child, guardian, teacher, administrator and janitor of a school district?

About that bridge. Because even if this were about protecting children, it's impossible to imagine what a system like this would cost to implement nationally into our public school system, assuming it would ever get off the ground in an era when something as low-tech as a national ID card is a political hot potato. The child protection hook they are using to sell this program simply doesn't make any sense.

Does anyone really believe it would cost less than billions and billions of dollars to role out such a system on a broad basis? And all for the purpose, or so we're told, of protecting our children from pedophiles? Hard to question that motivation as a marketing lever, perhaps. But is it true?

And fiscal responsibility aside, what about the privacy aspects of this system, which already now stores the retinal scans of hundreds of parents and young children? And the program specifically states this new system's ability to interface with another, broader database.

_A visitor management computer system that keeps a digital record of everybody that enters the school.

_A system that sounds an alarm when a person holds a door open for someone else.

_A timesaving application scanning driver's license information and retrieving information for records.

Need I point out that the children allegedly to be protected here don't even drive? And this technology isn't really something brand new. It's already being used at airports and in some buildings and it's now the second generation of retinal scanning for a New Jersey school system. Do all the people participating realize that they can now effectively be tracked, with an associated database of information, say, if they were going to take a flight? Were the children really given a choice?

This kind of technology is already at work in airports around the country like Orlando International Airport, where the program, known as Clear, has been in operation since July. It has 12,000 subscribers who pay $79.95 for the convenience of submitting to iris scans rather than going through lengthy security checks.

There's also an element of irony in this being implemented in a heavily Democrat controlled state. At the same time the Democrats in Washington are trying to rake the President over the coals for spying on Americans, in cooperation with a Republican Justice Department, NJ is implementing perhaps the most privacy intrusive technology solution known to man.

An iris scan is said to be more accurate than a fingerprint because it records 240 unique details — far more than the seven to 24 details that are analyzed in fingerprints. The odds of being misidentified by an iris scan are about one in 1.2 million and just one in 1.44 trillion if you scan both eyes. It's a kind of biometrics, the technique of identifying people based on parts of their body.

and this:

Jan. 25, 2006 — Parents who want to pick up their kids at school in one New Jersey district now can submit to iris scans, as the technology that helps keep our nation's airports and hotels safe begins to make its way further into American lives.

As the school selected was specifically chosen because of its multicultural composition, obviously someone is envisioning rolling it out across the population. Do the parents signing on to this voluntary program realize that they can now effectively be tracked through some hotels? With their driving record and who knows what else in tow?

The Department of Justice will use the study to gauge the multicultural Freehold community’s perception of using this technology in a school environment, as well as to evaluate its effectiveness to improve school and student safety.

I have a better idea. How about some openness without the we're only protecting the children angle. The threat from predators to children is very real, but in no way is it so significant as to justify a system like this on a national basis. If the DOJ wants to know something about this system, how about they tell us a little more about it and their plans, first ... and then, you know, they could always simply ask.

Comments

[ViVi]

I dont get it???

[Cindi in PA]

Ahhhhh tag them while the are young, blame it on safety of the children, yeah people will buy that. After all, who isn't concerned with their childs safety at school. One of the questions I would have, Would it be within my rights as a parent to give a school district or anyone for that matter the right to track my child as such? Curios only because I know a parent can not sign away their childs rights, no matter the childs age.

[shonane]

I think you hit the nail on the head at the beginning. The school has some money and somebody is going to make a lot of money at the expense of the taxpayer - they hooked up.

How may sexual predators get into the schools anyway? How often does someone sneak in and snatch or have sex with a child at school? I have never even heard of this happening. Only a really stupid predator would attempt that as there are people everywhere. That isn't where a predator external to a school system would look for kids - maybe on the walk home. From the news, some of the predators are already working there -- shouldn't all young, good looking teacher be suspect?

We use scan cards at my office complex, and have a lot of confidential, highly protected data. Combined with security guards, the security works fine. Visitors have to sign in and turn over their drivers license until they leave the building. They could get a lot of school security coverage for this money and employ some people too.

[Cindi in PA]

The safety issue has not been addressed either. I have a retinal scan done every two years. Seeing stars for several hours after as a result. I cannot imagine having a scan done 180 days of the year and it not having some type of affect on the eye/s. These scans are so advanced and getting more so everyday. The eyes tell a great deal about a person. Over all health, drug and alcohol addictions.

[CitizenDick]

And to think the conservatives used to afraid the liberals would enact an all knowing, all seeing police state. LOL!

[splashtc]

seems they want to take all the fun out of crime! I'm against it. Neighbor should know neighbor and use common sense in matters not rely on technology.