Biometrics and identity management are not new concepts, but opinions on their value, safety, and dependability vary widely between countries.
People’s reliance on biometrics technology is increasing with each passing day. Biometrics are now widely used for authentication across all devices. The risk has increased as top manufacturers, such as Apple and Samsung, have released over half a million gadgets with fingerprint scanners. Vulnerabilities have increased as the world’s population becomes increasingly reliant on digital technologies.
However, in today’s highly digitized world, establishing one’s identification for every tiny transaction can be a nuisance. That is why banks no longer require a PIN or password for authentication; the contactless card takes care of everything. However, its safety remains a concern.
Leading companies such as Facebook, Google, and PayPal have recently opened additional doors, further confounding the privacy vs. convenience issue. It isn’t easy to choose between the two, but having both isn’t an option.
If privacy is the most important factor, it is best to plan for a secure but not-so-smooth operation. If it’s more convenient, abdicating control to someone else to delete all existing friction is an option.
In the end, it all comes down to one word: IDENTITY.
However, determining one’s identity is a difficult undertaking. And that term is entirely dependent on the context and the sector in question.
In the United Kingdom, ‘identity’ appears to be a fluid, slick concept. British people, almost without exception throughout Europe, do not carry identification cards and are not required to provide one if asked.
The British have a deep-seated understanding that their identity is never a public matter — it is their private, personal, and jealously guarded property. It is not so much a matter of proving it as it is of relying on it to identify oneself.
There is a distinction that is subtle yet significant. Perhaps it’s because British residents are treated as citizens with rights rather than subjects with liberties under the law.
It’s an odd system of centrally regulated anarchy, and instead of a central registration or database, the UK government is forming an “Open Standards Federation,” which will reduce the chance of identities being stolen or misappropriated.
In principle, the right to choose the platform for identity verification — Google, Facebook, or PayPal – creates a sense of ownership. As a result, individuals are becoming overly cautious in this situation. This is precisely how the United Kingdom attempts to strike a compromise between privacy and convenience.
Other countries, like the United Kingdom, must strategize and balance the privacy vs. convenience dilemma. Identity management is unquestionably vital, but it isn’t necessary for every circumstance.
Frictions that are unnecessary will never help to create security; on the contrary, they may lead to frustrations, carelessness, or irritation in the long term. People will begin to question the utility of identity management systems as a result of such feelings. When such questions arise, data security will become incredibly difficult and risky.
Like this post? Checkout our Featured Stories Section
