Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Don't sacrifice rights for security

The government's intent to fingerprint all citizens applying for identification cards has been ruled unconstitutional by the Council of Grand Justices. This ruling protects the basic human rights of the Taiwanese people. These rights will not be given short shrift due to political pressure, and cannot be downgraded for administrative convenience. If the Ministry of the Interior wishes to persist in building a biometric database to help maintain law and order, then the law will first have to be amended, or a new law passed.

To be sure, public concerns about a breakdown in law and order are legitimate. One only has to turn on the TV or open the newspaper to see how prevalent crime is. Numerous opinion polls have shown people's thirst for better security, to the extent that they are even willing to sacrifice their rights in exchange for more effective crime prevention and law enforcement.

But human rights groups have rightly raised questions over the government's push to establish a comprehensive national fingerprint database. They point out that the government already has more than 7 million sets of prints on file. And they ask: What if the implementation of the national database fails to reduce crime? Will it then be necessary to collect more biometric data? When people have handed over fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA, no action will escape the government's notice. This might lead to zero crime, but everyone would live in fear of constant surveillance by the authorities. Is this the life that we want?

The constitutional ruling has not put a stop to the possibility of a national fingerprint database. But based on the ruling, it will be difficult for the ministry to establish such a database by linking it with the Household Registration Law (戶籍法). The government will have to find other alternatives. And although it has lost this round of the battle, the ministry is not likely to stop trying -- especially since crime statistics continue to climb. It is unlikely that the ministry will give up on anything that may improve investigative efficiency.

The Grand Justices are not opposed to improving law and order. But they feel that the ministry has overlooked important issues in its headlong rush to improve crime-fighting. Believing that fingerprints are the solution, the ministry has totally ignored issues of data security, the incomplete state of related laws and the need to improve investigative ability.

The Grand Justices' ruling does not deal with whether data should be taken from just the thumbs or all 10 fingers. Rather, it underscores the larger need to strike a proper balance between security and human rights. Though these will always be in tension, there is no reason why they cannot coexist. The ruling expresses the belief that building a fingerprint database -- a move which could profoundly affect people's lives -- cannot simply be rammed through under an article of the Household Registration Law for administrative convenience.

But the government could draft a bill that specifically deals with the use of biometric data and puts strict limits on the collection, management and use of that data. Such a law could pass constitutional muster with the Grand Justices, and create a win-win situation in which the demands of both human rights and law enforcement are met.
This story has been viewed 1207 times.