Dmv End Run Threatens Our Privacy

Biometric identification uses computer scans and matches to replace the human role in verifying identity. Law enforcement currently has access for criminal identification to California DMV’s database which includes thumbprints and photos of more than 25 million people. As public and private surveillance cameras become more ubiquitous, privacy advocates have raised the alarm that facial recognition devices will go beyond legitimate criminal investigations and become a tool to track and record the movements of innocent people.

Sound far fetched? Think again. Consider the retroactive immunity that Congress gave to phone companies last year for their unlawful collaborationism with federal spying on the phone calls of vast numbers of law abiding Americans suspected of having subversive characteristics. Then consider that the DMV contract proposal would give government snoops new weapons to identify and record your presence at a protest rally or picket line. California lawmakers should stand up against the further expansion of government data collection technology that can be used to invade our privacy without first setting ironclad rules that limit its use to essential and lawful purposes.

Beyond fundamental first amendment and privacy concerns, the security of any biometric database should be addressed in a legislative hearing process. Any biometric database must have safeguards against hacking by an identity thief who could substitute his or her fingerprints or facial scan in someone else’s file to create a false identity.

The Department of Finance memo plays down the cost of the new and expanded biometric identification system, stating that there are “significantly higher cost of doing business in the current market and economic environment” as compared to the last vendor contract for driver’s licenses issued ten years ago.

Let’s not forget that California is going broke. Can we afford the DMV’s immediate costs of $4.3 million in this fiscal year, and estimates of $12.5 million per year in each subsequent year? Which teachers and police officers will be laid off to cover the added costs of an ID system that the legislature never approved?

We ask the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to object to the DMV’s proposal to impose sweeping new biometric technologies under the guise of a renewal of a routine vendor contract. A change of this magnitude is a policy matter for the legislature to decide, after considering whether it is secure, affordable, and protective of our privacy.

The Consumer Federation of California is a non-profit advocacy organization. Since 1960, the Consumer Federation of California has been a powerful voice for consumer rights. CFC campaigns for state and federal laws that place consumer protection ahead of corporate profit. Each year, CFC testifies before the California legislature on dozens of bills that affect millions of our state's consumers. CFC also appears before state agencies in support of consumer regulations.