Guy Herbert

London

General Secretary, NO2ID

Guy Reynold's point is good, but the problem is worse than it seems. If biometrics are to be used for a government-backed scheme, then one has to ask. what will be the administrative consequences of (1) having the system in the first place and (2) of a false match?

Multiple biometrics make those unanswered questions harder. More modes means more cost to organisations using the scheme and more complicated processes for everyone involved. Using multiple modes at the same time increases the chances that at least one will produce a false match. What will happen with conflicting answers? Bureaucratic systems do not generally cope well with doubt.

The Home Office's approach to life appears to be that this is fine: the person concerned should be detained for questioning or denied the relevant service (beating the system, on the other side, is not countenanced). If you can't be verified as it sees fit, that is your problem - and you are presumptively a criminal so it serves you right.

However, in a world that isn't an official bully's paradise, it would be intolerable for thousands of people at any one time being unable to conduct ordinary civil transactions when they need to for stochastic reasons, and for thousands of others to be arbitarily imprisoned awaiting the ministry's approval of their existence.