Report - Guardian

154 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005people from ongoing impositions and requirements placed on them by a DocumentAuthority.Collection of biometric data. The collection from an individual of biometric data is setout in 5(5)(b). The Bill provides no detailed information on the manner of thiscollection, nor does it set out the minimum standards for the technology used. It ispossible that blind and visually impaired people are more likely to encounter difficultyin using the biometric technology, and thus a requirement should be in place on the faceof the Bill to ensure the protection of their privacy and dignity.Inability to register an iris. The Bill sets out requirements for the surrender ofbiometrics on the order of the Secretary of State, and establishes penalties for defyingsuch an order. This provision raises a number of questions of practicality. How does ablind or visually impaired person establish to the satisfaction of a Document Authoritythat he or she is physically incapable of being registered, rather than being obstructive?What evidence or documentation should be required to establish the relevantcircumstances? What arrangements are to be put in place to deal with such situations? Itcan be argued that these conditions should be set out in the Bill rather than being left tothe Regulations.Notification of change of personal circumstances. Penalties are specified in 6 (4) and12 (1) for failure to obey a directive of the Secretary of State and to notify thegovernment of change of personal circumstances. The latter - on the face of the Bill -may encompass changes to personal biometric conditions. It would appear, for example,that the 200,000 or more people per year who undergo cataract procedures would berequired to notify the government and (possibly) then be required to re-enrol. Manyblind or visually impaired people who undergo medical treatment would be unsure of achange to their iris biometric. Others with deteriorating eye conditions may feel theyshould notify the government routinely to avoid a £1,000 penalty. This would, perhapsin law, be viewed as an unfair and unacceptable burden.Provision of services. S.15 of the Bill sets out a requirement for the production ofidentity cards and other “registrable facts” (including biometric data) for the provisionof benefits and services. The Bill makes no provision, nor sets out any safeguard orlimitation, for people who are unable to provide a usable biometric. It is important torecognise, on the basis of the data set out earlier in this report, that significant numbersof blind and visually impaired people may not be able to be verified against theirenrolled iris.Provision of false information. The Offences created in Section 30 relating toprovision of false information give rise to concern. The Bill states that imprisonmentmay result from providing such information when a person (a) knows or believes theinformation to be false; or (b) is reckless as to whether or not it is false. A person with achanging or deteriorating eye condition, or a person who is preparing for medicaltreatment, might be accused of fulfilling these conditions. This risk becomesparticularly substantial at the point of re-enrolment or verification, when an iris may notmatch the biometric recorded on the National Identity Register. The Bill, in the view ofblind and visually impaired people we have consulted, should be explicit on these pointsand provide appropriate safeguards.