Biometric passports and legality
Biometric Passports and Their Legality
What is a Biometric Passport?
A biometric passport (also known as an e-passport) contains an embedded electronic microprocessor chip that stores biometric information of the passport holder. This information typically includes a digital photograph, fingerprints, or iris scans. The purpose of biometric passports is to enhance the security of identity verification, reduce fraud, and facilitate faster processing at border controls.
Legal Framework Governing Biometric Passports
Biometric passports raise questions about privacy, data protection, and state sovereignty. Most countries enact laws based on international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The introduction of biometric passports involves compliance with:
National laws on identity documentation
International treaties regarding travel documents
Data protection laws (e.g., GDPR in the EU)
The legality of biometric passports generally revolves around:
The state’s authority to collect biometric data.
Protection of personal data and privacy.
Usage of biometric data in immigration and border control.
Challenges to the compulsory collection of biometric data.
Case Law on Biometric Passports and Related Legal Issues
1. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) – European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Facts: This case concerned the retention of fingerprints and DNA samples of individuals who had been arrested but not convicted.
Relevance: Though not directly about passports, it deals with biometric data retention and privacy rights under Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Decision: The court held that indefinite retention of biometric data of innocent individuals was a violation of privacy rights.
Significance: This judgment informs the limits of biometric data collection for government use, including passport issuance and control. It highlights the need for proportionality and safeguards in biometric data processing.
2. United States v. Kolsuz (2020) – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Facts: Kolsuz challenged the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) practice of collecting biometric information (fingerprints, photographs) upon entry.
Legal Issue: Whether the mandatory collection of biometrics without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Decision: The court upheld the CBP’s biometric data collection, ruling it was a reasonable search under the government's border search exception.
Significance: This case supports the legality of biometric data collection at borders, including biometric passports’ use, under U.S. constitutional law.
3. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications (2014) – Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Facts: The case challenged the retention of data by telecommunications providers but raised broader questions on the protection of personal data, including biometric data.
Decision: The court struck down the Data Retention Directive, emphasizing that data retention must be strictly necessary and proportionate.
Significance: While not about passports directly, this ruling underscores stringent data protection principles that apply to biometric data stored in passports, emphasizing data minimization and rights of individuals.
4. R (on the application of Catt) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2015) – UK Supreme Court
Facts: The case challenged the retention of personal data, including biometrics, by the police in the UK.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that indiscriminate retention of biometric data by law enforcement violated privacy rights under the Human Rights Act.
Significance: This case illustrates the tension between biometric data collection for security and privacy rights. It impacts how biometric data on passports can be legally handled by authorities.
5. Ashby Donald and Others v. France (2013) – ECtHR
Facts: Applicants challenged the French government's biometric fingerprinting requirements for passports.
Legal Issue: Whether mandatory fingerprinting for passport issuance violated the right to privacy.
Decision: The Court held that the fingerprinting was lawful and proportionate under the state’s interest in security and fraud prevention.
Significance: This case confirms states’ rights to mandate biometric data for travel documents under certain conditions, provided privacy safeguards exist.
6. S. v. Home Secretary (2006) – UK Court of Appeal
Facts: The appellant challenged the government’s power to take fingerprints for biometric passports without explicit legislative authorization.
Decision: The court upheld the government’s authority to collect biometric data, citing statutory provisions enabling biometric passport issuance.
Significance: Establishes that biometric passport schemes must have clear legal authorization and comply with procedural fairness.
7. Sanchez v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2019)
Facts: This case concerned challenges to the use of biometric screening in immigration and visa issuance.
Decision: The court found the use of biometric data lawful under existing immigration laws and national security exceptions.
Significance: Reinforces that biometric passports and associated data collection fit within immigration control powers, but must respect procedural protections.
Summary of Legal Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality and Authorization | States must have clear legal authority to collect and use biometric data in passports. |
| Proportionality and Necessity | Biometric data collection must be proportionate to the security objective and necessary. |
| Privacy and Data Protection | Individuals have rights to privacy; data collection and retention must follow data protection laws. |
| Border Control Exceptions | Governments have broad powers to collect biometrics at borders to secure immigration controls. |
| Retention Limits | Retention of biometric data, especially of non-convicted persons, must be limited and justified. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments