The use of biometric identifiers in security systems is an enticing idea and has been embraced by the public following its use in banking systems where the data from iris scanners, facial recognition, and fingerprint scanners is utilized. Biometric identifier locates the user’s details from the central database, whereas the verification biometrics verifies their identity by attaching these details with the preregistered behavioral or psychological data on file. The biometric identifiers are classified into psychological features which relate to the shape of the body and behavioral features which relate to the pattern of a person's behavior (Parven 2012, P.52). All these systems of identification have been accepted in the community as secure modes of identification in businesses; however, the use of DNA identifiers elicits challenging ethical issues among the public. Currently, it is used to identify genetically-inherited diseases in hospitals as well as the tool for collecting evidence in criminal investigations by security agencies. Once the DNA profile of an individual becomes a digital file, protecting may be difficult. The National Security Agency of the U.S.A revealed that the boundary between the government and commercial data is porous and these identifiers could be stolen arousing issues of security threats and violation of individuals’ privacy (Adeoye 2010, p.2). The current legal systems have also not handled these developments; their status on biometric identifiers is unclear. The court has not addressed the legality of collecting biometric data of individuals without their knowledge. This paper explores the possible influence of using DNA profiles as biometric identifiers in healthcare, privacy, and crime, as well as in businesses or government systems.
Healthcare/Life Insurance
The minimal use of unique biometric identifiers in healthcare facilities hinders the utilization of electronic record keeping in these facilities. When patients share confidential information with healthcare professionals, errors might occur in the recording system increasing the chances of the data being transferred to the wrong parties infringing the privacy of the patients. The DNA database can form a logical patient identifier which eliminates the obstacle of information-sharing and cooperation in the dissemination of health data (Haskell et al. 2010, p.785).DNA profiles safeguard the patient’s confidential records from being mixed with alternative databases containing the personal information of other patients, and therefore security and ownership of this data is paramount. When the DNA barcode or fingerprint is used as unique identifiers, the database serves as the storage of the patients’ information. For instance, the DNA information owned by the federal government remains under their custody protected from access or disclosure to unauthorized persons. Similarly, the DNA data held by the private healthcare industries, the federal and the state is safeguarded from access by unauthorized parties using strong security and high levels of regulations. Also, the available technology and networking offer third level protection of the data. The submission of the DNA information and its storage in the healthcare database without infringing the individual’s privacy are issues that need to be addressed before the patient agrees to undergo the test. The control or ownership of the DNA database in healthcare is therefore contentious and requires a proper way of eliminating the question of privacy in the testing process.
The basis for the vehement objection to the establishment of DNA database as uniform identifiers is based on misconceptions about its use. Various commentators warn that the DNA fingerprint of an individual can reveal most private information about their genetic make-up if someone else gets access to that information. These warnings predict the abuse of the data by the officials of the law enforcement, employers, adoption agencies, schools, insurance and others raising concern that the information would lead to the eugenics movement, similar to that of 1920's (Ballou 2010, p.25); however, such fears are still unfounded. The DNA database can be implemented if the scientist probes over this claim to eliminate some of these fears among the public. The most sensitive genetic features suspected are the ones associated with psychopathic, criminality and personality disorders but little is known about the existence of these genetic traits in a persons DNA. The details of an individual’s possession of these traits are quite invaluable for the law enforcers, employers or the insurance companies. However, the healthcare or the organization holding the DNA information has substantial power over the individual. On the other hand, the patient believes that their content and medical records are confidential and the owner of the information is mandated not to disclose the information or prevent access by unauthorized parties. The perception of information protection by the health professionals in the public knowledge promises confidentiality as well as affirm the compliance of the professionals to the federal regulations and laws (Waldo, Lin " Cox 2010, p.18). By disclosing the personal information to the health professional, the patient assumes that confidentiality would be maintained and the information would not be accessed by any other person without their consent. The issue of disclosure or access to DNA information and the creation of the uniform database is a controversial subject and require further litigation to clear the current discourse in the public domain.
DNA fingerprinting in healthcare facilities are not entirely reliable because they are prone to complications of errors. The use of the sophisticated machine for DNA is a complicated and time-consuming procedure and requires well-trained specialists as well. Testing is also under threat where samples for testing are easily contaminated, thus interfering with the entire process. Any human error, for instance, the combination of the DNA sample with other substances, might produce incorrect results. On the other hand, the utilization of the DNA identifiers in healthcare is essential for its use in detection of illnesses and their cause. Beyond, the DNA fingerprinting is used to determine the predisposed diseases in a person (Adeoye 2010, p.5).
Privacy
The genetic privacy concept is a multifaceted and essential contemporary of philosophical, human rights and legal issues. In genetics, privacy means the protection of genetic data of a family or an individual from unauthorized access (Parven 2012, P.96). According to Ballou (2010, p.30), genetic privacy refers to the protection of records or data relating to the analysis of the samples of an individual’s DNA. Similarly, it is the control, the use and the disclosure of one's genetic information. The nature of DNA report of a person is sensitive as well as familial because it holds the influence of human health, life, employment, reproductive choices, marriageability, abilities to acquire loans, enforcement of the law and adoption. It is the right of every individual to maintain private rights to DNA ensuring there is no interference from external forces, unless with an overwhelming reason to defy it; for instance where a person fails to supply DNA materials when linked to possible involvement in the murder. DNA privacy may be delineated in three ways; Firstly, access to genetic information by third parties violates their rights to privacy. Secondly, genetic privacy prevents others from using an individual’s DNA information. Thirdly, the privacy of a person whose genetic make-up is being exposed is interfered with against their consent. Neither the state nor the laws have the right by forcing the individual to gain knowledge of their DNA information. In pursuit of the criminal suspects, the investigators may question their relatives on issues of relationships and the offender’s whereabouts when the crimes occurred (Hindmarsh " Prainsack 2010, p.341). The interrogation of the suspect’s family members often requesting their DNA test is a more striking privacy intrusion. Such incidences raise objections of using DNA as biometric identifiers because they lead to interference of one’s privacy as well as ruin their marriage.
Security and information related to DNA are crucial and raises difficult issues especially in the wake of the technological revolution. The DNA intelligence of an individual is threatened by the ever-advancing technology such that the exposure may spread widely over within a short time breaching the genetic privacy of the individual (Waldo, Lin " Cox 2010, p.22). Such data online can cause the insurance companies or employers to discriminate the individual on the basis of their genetic traits. When designing the DNA databanks, any information related to features and diseases should be precluded to avoid dissipation of private data, especially in forensic investigation. Any information about the individual’s DNA requires being administered with a high level of privacy and confidentiality. The fingerprint dossiers are easily misapplied, and similarly, DNA identification is prone to be abused when correlating or retrieving criminal records in the databanks. Most of the storage devices used to store DNA data are computers, which means that other people with ill intent can break into the computer systems and access specific DNA data illegally. The private genetic data can be used to obtain the individual information such as their social security numbers, credit ratings, contact details or even use the DNA information to break into their bank account and commit robbery on computerized systems that use DNA information.
Genetic privacy has significantly impacted technology today. The increase in affordability and availability of the DNA testing has led to the widespread use of DNA. Information technology has become more extensive than before causing an increase in sheer volume of storage and retention of genetic information on DNA databases. The risk of gene privacy of individuals has increased through the proliferation of information as they learn more about their genetic profile. The intensification of these risks calls for greater protection of gene privacy by the governments. It is also a violation of privacy when countries maintain DNA banks of criminal suspects (Krimsky " Simoncelli 2010, p.29). The data about those arrested but not convicted and those retained in the database accidentally makes the DNA fingerprinting to be viewed as a tool that violates the privacy of the public thus availing their information readily to others. On the other hand, DNA can help people to know about their family background, for example when identifying their parents or siblings. It is beneficial to people who got separated from their relatives through war, kidnapping, natural calamities, and adoption.
Crime
Some of the issues that exhibit fear among the public for using DNA as a biometric identifier are the cases of convictions of innocent people. Since DNA is considered as substantial evidence in a court, in case of slight errors it leads to the prosecution of innocent people while the perpetrators of crimes remain free. The evidence provided by DNA is persuasive, but any minor failure of the information can lead to a severe limitation of human rights as well as expose individuals to thefts such as cyber crimes (Ballou 2010, p.17). The abnormalities may also occur where the DNA collected at the crime scene fails to match the one in the database of the individual suspect. Also, as a result of contamination of the DNA sample, a wrong matching may be established leading to the conviction of wrong personalities. In fact, the pairing of DNAs relates to study of their probabilities which are perilous to possibly give wrong estimations (Hindmarsh " Prainsack 2010, p.333). The public misconception is also contributed by how the DNA analysis is portrayed in the media. Some judges and lawyers raise concerns about the influence of criminal justice by the "CSI effect." Relying too much on the DNA to make court ruling on criminal cases with the exclusion of the physical evidence is a matter of great concern to the public. In contrast, the correct use of DNA fingerprinting helps the law enforcers to mitigate serious crimes. The body tissues left at the crime scene are used to identify the suspects. For instance, in crimes of rape where the elements of semen trapped on the victims are tested. However, when making a determination, the judges should integrate both the DNA and the physical evidence to bring justice. DNA can also be used to determine the identity of the decomposed body in cases of death.
Conclusion
Some states such as Britain and the United States have hither to build elaborate databases with several DNA profiles of individuals, although they raise privacy and security concerns among the public. The information drawn from the DNA of the person is more detailed than the one obtained from the fingerprints. For instance, the DNA contains every data about the color of the eyes, genetic effects, and others. The widespread use of DNA databases is controversial and unacceptable because it might vitalize genetic discrimination in employment as well as elevate bias in decision making about a person’s insurance eligibility.
References
Adeoye, O.S., 2010. A survey of emerging biometric technologies. International
Journal of Computer Applications, 10.
Ballou, S. ed., 2010. Electronic crime scene investigation: A guide for first
responders. Diane Publishing.
Haskell, R.E., Bartsch, E., Comaniciu, D. and Naraghi, M., Siemens Medical
Solutions USA Inc, 2010. System for managing healthcare data including genomic and another patient-specific information. U.S. Patent 7,788,040.
Hindmarsh, R. and Prainsack, B. eds., 2010. Genetic suspects: Global governance
of forensic DNA profiling and databasing. Cambridge University Press.
Krimsky, S. and Simoncelli, T., 2010. Genetic justice: DNA data banks, criminal
investigations, and civil liberties. Columbia University Press.
Parven, K., 2012. Forensic use of DNA information: human rights, privacy and other
challenges.
Waldo, J., Lin, H.S. and Cox, L.H., 2010. Thinking About Privacy: Chapter 1 of"
Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age". Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 2(1), p.4.
