Like the Biblical mythology of God stopping the sun and the moon in the Book of Joshua so that a day does not end; the 11th September, 2011 is our present day example of a day when the sun and moon stopped, it will never end. In it, our opinion of one another was irrevocably changed; suspicion became the norm with trust an exception, the rule of law has changed with the introduction of erstwhile unimaginable laws like the Patriots Act, air transport became a nightmare, so did immigrations (Wickins, 2007) . One of the biggest victims of 9/11 however, is the beautiful science of biometrics; it has now been transformed into a monster that has civil societies and human rights activist the world over up in arms over its ethical and privacy issues.
Biometrics
Biometrics entails the use of quantifiable prerequisites of a person as a form of identification; among the physiological prerequisites currently used for biometric identification include fingerprint, facial recognition, DNA, hands vein measurements and/or geometry, Iris and retina recognition, and body odor tests. Among the measurable behavioral characteristics include walking styles, voice, accent and typing rhythm (Wickins, 2007; Jain, 2012) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
History of ethical and privacy issues
Biometrics date back to the late 19th century when Sir Francis Galton established the uniqueness of fingerprints, the idea was then implemented by Alphonse Bertillon who started collecting fingerprints of criminals as a crime fighting measure. Biometrics then developed in two main dimensions, publicly in crime fighting where probable cause was required for a person’s biometrics to be collected and recorded and privately as a security measure where the collection and storage of bio-data was either controlled or permitted by the individual (Alterman, 2003) .
Minimal bio-data was however collected for identification when one required a passport. However, with the advent of terrorism in general and particularly 9/11, the near compulsory and forced mass collection, analysis and storage of the minutest details of bio-data began with neither probable cause, permission nor control by the individual owners of the bio-data: this marked the advent of the current ethical and privacy biometric impasse (Alterman, 2003; Jain, 2012) .
Ethical Issues
Philosophical concerns
It is a well-founded philosophical principle that unlike other animals, there is more to man than what can be empirically perceived. It therefore, follows that any system that reduces any human being into a set of measurements is dehumanizing and is essentially unethical. It is inter alia for this reason that Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben declined entry into the US as it meant having his bio-data collected and recorded (Wickins, 2007) .
Discriminations
There are three elements of discrimination in the issue of biometrics, the cause, the effect and the nature of biometrics. The cause element is premised on the reasons for taking the bio-data and to what level the tests are carried out, most technicians who are taking bio-data base their decisions on the typical opinions of certain peoples including people of color, Arabs and Orientals; this encourages discrimination (Wickins, 2007) .
Most forms of discrimination are based on what we are rather than who we are as members of the human species: nothing tells what we are better than physiological bio-data: it tells of our past, present and probable future thus increasing the grounds for discrimination and stigmatization. Finally, advanced biometrics has developed software based cognitive biometric systems that categorize people based of the general perceptions currently in place. This process is discriminative in nature (Alterman, 2003) .
International Sharing of Biometric information
As the effects of 9/11 continues to be fueled by the increasing forms of stealth terrorism, the government, being desperate to get biometric information from probable terrorists from around the world is willing to offer for trade the biometric databases they hold in exchange of programs with other countries whose cyber security and other laws do not conform with our own levels of cyber security and who do not respect privacy as much as we do. This means that a person who allows the government to have his biometric information could also be giving out the same information to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or other countries sharing information with the USA without the individual knowing about it (Alterman, 2003) .
Privacy issue
Whereas the right to privacy is not expressly provided for in the constitution, the 4th amendment and the several landmark interpretations thereof by the Supreme Court make it clear that the right to privacy is embodied in the spirit of the American constitution and is therefore a fundamental right! Further, the advantages that come with privacy and keeping our personal information as personal can be construed as virtual property as under the tort law maxing that is promised on the proverb: A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold (Alterman, 2003) .
Unfortunately, biometric technology has advanced to the level that a person’s bio-data can tell all your secrets and lay bare every single detail regarding one’s ancestry, physiological and medical attributed and conditions. The fact that anyone has access to that information, no matter how legally authorized they are unconstitutional unless there is a plausible probable cause (Wickins, 2007) . The greatest nightmare however lays in the fact that this information is not secure, in the advent of the advancement of hacking and other security breaches as clearly exhibited inter alia by organizations such as wiki leaks. This creates a continuous fare that any day; we might find our most intimate secrets trending on the internet after government databases have been hacked (Alterman, 2003) .
Conclusion
The fight against terrorism clearly seeks to make a better safer nation and world. However, the current levels of biometric technology and how it is being used has transformed the fight against terrorism into acts and omissions whose repercussions are worse that terrorism itself and amounts to the proverbial man who crushed his big toe to get his mind of a headache: this is made worse by the fact that terrorism activities are still taking place which my create justifications for enhancing the current biometric trends, clearly there must be another better way.
References
Alterman, A. (2003). ``A piece of yourself'': Ethical issues in biometric identification. Ethics and Information Technology, 5 (3), 139-150.
Jain, A. K., & Kumar, A. (2012). Biometric recognition: An overview. In second generation biometrics: The Ethical, Legal and Social Context, 49-79. Springer Netherlands
Wickins, J. (2007). The ethics of biometrics: The risk of social exclusion from the widespread use of electronic identification. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13 (1), 45–54. Retrieved from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17703608/>
