A Scanner Darkly: Why state agencies will be interested in iris scans for sex offenders
Posted on December 6, 2007
Filed Under Criminal Law, Sex Offenders |
For the past months, I’ve been reading up on iris scanning and how some agencies are willing to use this technology for creating a solid national registry for sex offenders. One recent article I came across was written over a year ago in response to North Carolina’s SORIS™ program. The most significant argument was that if a system of identification works, why fix it? Besides, iris scanning is an expensive and a training intensive process. And, this I wholly agree with. But, at the same time, iris scanning will prove to be an emerging technology used to track sex offenders for the next decade–and here’s why: iris scanners are available to various law enforcement agencies in several jurisdictions and our laws support the use of them.
Biometric Intelligence and Identification Technologies (BI2 Technologies) of Plymouth, Massachusetts donated a $9,995 unit to Alameda’s County Sheriff office in July of this year and according to a Chronicle article would be scanning those eyes “within weeks.” The same company also donated another iris scanner in New Mexico valued at $10,000 in November. BI2 Technologies first had a vision of making this possible not only for these separate agencies but for Hampshire County’s Sheriff’s Office over two years ago. Since then, the entire state of Massachusetts has adopted this technology and uses a specialized video camera that takes a snapshot of the person’s iris (eliminating human errors due to the iris’ unique make-up).
There are certainly pros and cons for iris scanning, because fingerprints are widely used in crime scene investigations. It would be silly to make the assumption that people leave their irises behind, right? So, fingerprinting in this regard still has a place in criminal investigations. However, while fingerprinting is the gold standard of identifying suspects and catching criminals, iris scanning will become more of a tracking tool for registered sex offenders because the public and laws are pushing the demand for a more streamlined and accurate process for creating a secure database of sex offenders. And the reason why the Department of Justice is so intent on using iris scanning is because sex offenders have a higher probability of committing the same crimes. Even higher are the child molesters who are up to as “four times as likely to be re-arrested for the same crimes than non-offenders.” (BI2 Technologies Press Advisory, July 2007)
Federal legislation was passed in 2006 (The Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act–“AWA”) for the US Department of Justice which called to revamp the previous sex offender registration and tracking act passed called the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act (1994). And then later a more familiar manifestation (1996) known as Megan’s Law which lets the public know where sex offenders live, picture identification, incarceration date and nature of the crime. A few months ago I did a search in my zip code to see how many sex offenders I have (and to see what they looked like) and discovered [using a non-official site called http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org] that I have ninety-one registered sex offenders in my neighborhood. Great, now what? At least it’s good to know where they are so that I can steer clear of those areas, but it would be better if agencies could keep a more accurate track of these people if they plan to migrate from county to county.
Since 1994, numerous standards have been adopted in over hundreds of jurisdictions and in 2006; law was passed to implement a more streamlined process that enables law enforcement “to protect the public against sex offenders and offenders against children.” Tracking is key to this initiative and I’d argue that iris scanning which can allegedly be done by a mere scan of the eye from a distance instead of the old fashioned way of processing a set of prints. So, in essence there are plenty of benefits to this particular system. This tracking is best known as SORIS (Sex Offender Registry and Identification System) that “registers and positively identifies convicted sex offenders using iris recognition biometric technology.” (BI2 Technologies Press Advisory, November 2006)
A twenty-six page document in PDF form published by the Department of Justice outlined the proposed guidelines for registering and tracking the perpetrators of such crimes which argued that notification “for the protection of the public, and to eliminate potential gaps and loopholes under the pre-existing standards by means of which sex offenders could attempt to evade registration requirements or the consequences of registration violations.” In addition the AWA calls for implementation within three years and part of that implementation include electronic automation using as a practical matter “current electronic and cyber technology to track seamlessly sex offenders who move from one jurisdiction to another [ensuring] that information concerning registrants is immediately made available to all interested jurisdictions.” Already we’ve seen places such as Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina roll out an iris scanning system as well as the entire state Massachusetts. (B12’s home-based state)
So basically, iris scanning creates (and will continue to create) a lot of issues such as privacy, cost, and use of the data. Some articles, like the security/tech article I first came across, raise the questions as to if iris scanning is really practical once adopted. Other articles, like the Chronicle one offer more insight as to how the technology works and what applications iris scanning is used currently. Not only that, iris scanning can be used for many other applications such as positively identifying seniors and missing children. And, programs such as I.R.I.S. (Inmate Recognition & Identification System) which tracks and processes inmates scheduled for release far more accurately than what is now in place.
Given all that, there is this growing trend that is occurring, and that is: if we provide the technology to law enforcement, then it surely gets implemented without much of a protest against it. Why? Because some people take comfort in knowing that law enforcement is doing something smart about crime. Case in point: when breathalyzers became portable I am sure there was a distinct population that was annoyed at the fact that the technology infringes on the privacy–and other issues to be sure like it being a sort of illegal search. At the same time, there was another group who fully embraced it because they wanted more drunk drivers off the road and that such devices seem like a great deterrent to DUI’s.
Iris scanning will be used for other things in conjunction with registering and identifying sex offenders like how in the state of New Jersey elementary schools are using this same technology for scanning parents and elected guardians to pick up their children from school. Nevertheless, I venture to guess that in a few more months we will see news of convicted sex offenders filing law suits against law enforcement on the basis of invasion of privacy and other possible litigation against the ways iris scanners are used in criminal processing in the meantime, we’ll actually know whose sinister, dark eyes we’ll be scanning.
—–
Here’s a partial list of jurisdictions now using this technology:
1. Las Cruces, New Mexico
Article: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/An_eye_on_identity
2. Alameda County Sheriff, CA
Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/05/MN2NT4QLR.DTL
3. Charlotte, NC
Article: http://www.techjournalsouth.com/news/article.html?item_id=1501
….
This article was a response from Security Curve Weblog’s July 13th 2006 post, “Iris Scanning for Sex Offenders” you can view the entire article at: http://www.securitycurve.com/blog/archives/000415.html
Comments
One Response to “A Scanner Darkly: Why state agencies will be interested in iris scans for sex offenders”
Leave a Reply
I am still up in the air about whether I like this. Sure it is an invasion of privacy, but so is prison. I think it may be a valid form of punishment as a part of registration.