W7y8w3

documents in accidents, economic crimes includingphishing, or human and – specifically – childtrafficking. It also mentions that the physiognomicrecognition of individual’s faces that this systemuses allows for the projection of how people’s faceswill change over time.The government maintains that the implementationof this system also strengthens migratorycontrols in order to ensure that every person thatenters the country is the same person that leaves it.Besides this, the system increases the chances ofclarification of solving crimes, providing greater scientificsupport in the resolution of criminal cases.Even though the system is considered a stepforward as a government resolution to act on thesesensitive matters, implementing it could entailsome dangers, depending on how it is used in thefuture:• SIBIOS collects information from all Argentinenatural citizens, as well as foreign residentsin the country, by means of the first article ofDecree 1501/09. 15 Some of the data collectionstandards also apply to foreign individuals whodo not have a national ID such as tourists ortravellers in transit who arrive in the country.This actually means that the scope of the datacollection exceeds even the 41.09 million inhabitantsof Argentina.• SIBIOS will be fully “integrated” with existingID card databases, which aside from biometricidentifiers include the digital image, civil status,blood type and key background information collectedsince the person’s birth. Apparently thereis an intention to increase the amount of datacollected. Recently a legislator presented a billthat proposes including palm prints among theregistries for the system. 16• The main criticism of the system is that it contradictsprivacy norms and also has implicationsin terms of the citizens’ security, since there areno clearly established mechanisms of controlfor the system. In this sense, the local organisationFundación Via Libre, with the support ofthe Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), raisedthe alarm about the implementation of SIBIOSand the risk it implies for people’s privacy. TheEFF has been warning for a long time about howdamaging it is for a free and democratic societyto aspire to having “perfect surveillance”. Alongthe same lines, the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian15 infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/155000-159999/159070/norma.htm16 www.diputados.gov.ar/proyectos/proyecto.jsp?id=159974Assange, said that Argentina – although not onthe scale of China and the United States – has“the most aggressive surveillance regime in allof Latin America.” 17As mentioned before, the concerns in terms of SIBI-OS relate not only to the power created through datacentralisation, but also to different issues regardingits implementation and use. The decree that allowsthe implementation of SIBIOS does not include adequatemechanisms of control and protection ofsensitive personal data. The functions assigned tothe coordination unit created to manage the systemare not clear and it is not an autonomous body.There has also been no public discussion aboutthe conditions under which public officials will haveaccess to the data. Yet this type of mass surveillancecan have serious repercussions for those whoare willing to voice political dissent. The risk is evenworse considering other public policies and privateinitiatives related to monitoring public spaces –such as monitoring streets using video cameras 18 inthe most important cities of the country 19 or implementinga biometric system for the identification ofpeople at football games when there is violence. 20According to Eduardo Bertoni, an Argentine lawyerspecialised in freedom of expression and ICTissues, the deficiencies in the institutional designwhen it comes to implementing SIBIOS could increasethe dangers already predicted by the criticsof the system’s implementation. 21 Another aspecthighlighted by Bertoni 22 is the so-called “right toanonymity”, considered as one of the basic guaranteesof democracy, because it allows the expressionof opinion without fear of reprisal. Consequently,this right also enables freedom of expression.ConclusionsIf we consider SIBIOS a tool implemented for theinvestigation of crimes, the system is a good resource.However, the issue of the sensitivity of the17 Interview with Julian Assange by Infobae. www.youtube.com/watch?v=If7MbOvuEbg18 Ramallo, F. (2013, August 29). Porteños bajo el foco delas cámaras de vigilancia. Infotechnology.com. www.infotechnology.com/comunidad/Porteos-bajo-el-foco-delas-camaras-de-vigilancia-como-funciona-el-sistema-demonitoreo-20130826-0004.html19 CEMAC (Centro de Monitoreo y Atención Ciudadana) www.rosario.gov.ar/sitio/lugaresVisual/verOpcionMenuHoriz.do?id=8726&idLugar=398820 AFA Plus. www.afaplus.com.ar/afaplus21 Bertoni, E. (2013, December 15). Una herramienta peligrosa. LaNación. www.lanacion.com.ar/1647828-una-herramienta-peligrosa22 Interview with Eduardo Bertoni by Infobae, 24 April 2014. www.palermo.edu/derecho/up-en-los-medios/gobernanza-global-deinternet.htmldata, and the ways it is used in the investigation ofcrimes, should be decided in a participatory way ina democratic society. The lack of legislative debatedue to the fact that the creation of SIBIOS was decidedby a presidential decree leaves the issue outof the reach of public opinion.There was little consultation before the implementationof SIBIOS with non-governmental andindependent entities – which is usually a positivefeature of the current government when it comesto shaping policies and legislation that impact onbasic human rights. Because of this, there are extremelylow levels of awareness of the risks entailedin the collection of such an amount of private datathat remains in the hands of the state and within thereach of public security bodies.Even though the rights to privacy and data protectionare enshrined in international law and inthe Argentine constitution, national IDs and similarmethods of data centralisation increase state capacityfor intrusive surveillance. In this sense, therationalisation for the collection of biometric datain a nationwide ID scheme should be examined toavoid the unnecessary collection, processing, retentionand sharing of this very sensitive data.Regarding transparency in the implementationof the system in Argentina, the measure wasofficially announced in the media at the time itwas launched, described as being a technologicalimprovement to help fight crime and as an actionframed within the overall modernisation of thestate. Since both arguments strike the general publicas advancements, this might have negativelyaffected open, intensive and thought-provoking debatearound the real implications of the measure.Action steps• In this context, the following action steps can berecommended in Argentina:• Demand more transparency and accountabilityfrom the government in terms of the use of thebiometric information, including who has accessto it.• Develop campaigns targeting legislators in orderto inform them of the controversial aspectsthe issue raises in relation to human rights.• Create awareness campaigns for citizens sothey are informed of the risks this initiative poseswhen it comes to personal data, privacy andsurveillance.• Conduct comparative research on the successand failures of similar systems in other countrieswhere they have been implemented.62 / Global Information Society Watch argentina / 63