Biometric identification systems can help identify criminal / terrorism suspects. The most persuasive argument in favor of biometric systems is that they can work, and help identify suspects who have already been identified as criminals or members of criminal or terrorist networks.
Scientific data can reduce inevitably biased human observation: Arguably, fingerprinting everyone who comes through U.S. borders, or otherwise applying the same biometric standards to everyone, is fairer than relying on people, who use profiles that encourage racial and ethnic stereotyping
Biometric identification may enhance privacy, because it helps safeguard our personal information. At least one researcher, Jennifer Carlisle, has made the case that impersonation and identity theft will be protected if we have a database system we can trust: "our privacy can be better protected though the creation of a universal biometric identification database and that our privacy is far more likely to be compromised by the current plethora of poorly managed, decentralized identity databases."
The enormous outlay for technology research in the private sector may spur fields beyond security, since biometric identification applications also have use in medical and behavior science/ psychology, fields. Medical researchers have argued non-invasive scanning of body parts can provide diagnostic information about internal processes and diseases, for example.
The very accuracy of biometric readings can lead to false confidence that human judgment doesn't matter: Consider this example, provided in a report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
A special note on the importance of trusting subjective judgment: One potential hijacker was turned back by an immigration inspector as he tried to enter the United States. The inspector relied on intuitive experience to ask questions more than he relied on any objective factor that could be detected by "scores" or a machine. Good people who have worked in such jobs for a long time understand this phenomenon well. Other evidence we obtained confirmed the importance of letting experienced gate agents or security screeners ask questions and use their judgment. This is not an invitation to arbitrary exclusions. But any effective system has to grant some scope, perhaps in a little extra inspection or one more check, to the instincts and discretion of well trained human beings.
Biometric identification is not 100% foolproof. Tools malfunction. And the implications matters. According to one analysis of biometric ID at airports:
A false negative rate of even 1 percent could allow at least one bad guy to board virtually any full commercial jet flight, and four or more on a jumbo jet ….Conversely, an equally tiny 1 percent false positive rate could result in at least one innocent person on every flight being falsely matched to someone in a database of suspicious people.
Biometric identifications are only as fair and objective as the political intentions behind them. Unfairly applied, they may compound, rather than eliminate existing stereotypes and prejudices. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department can declare class of people exempt from US-VISIT requirements. As the imperative to be efficient becomes more compelling, these classes could widen to include business travelers, first class travelers or others who can 'buy' their way out of compliance.
Biometric devices violate privacy. The argument can be made that the government does not have the right to the information that our bodies reveal about us, and that their databases are permeable. Moreover, once in government hands, the information can be used for a wide variety of purposes and even be used by the private sector.