Innovative Auto-ID and LBS - Chapter Three Historical Background

Historical Background: From Manual Identification to Auto-ID

 

INTRODUCTION

This chapter takes the reader through a historical tour of identification techniques from ancient times to the present. The histories shed light on how the purpose of citizen identification (ID) has changed as it has been impacted by complementary and supplementary innovations. The chapter provides a thorough exploration of government-to-citizen (G2C) ID systems, so as to better understand the possible uses or potential misuses of current and future mandatory ID schemes. It also presents some of the evolutionary changes that have taken place in the nature and scope of citizen ID, and their subsequent potential implications on society. Historically governments have requested the registering of their population for census collection and more recently the need to know what social benefits accrue to each household. Nowadays, however, citizen ID numbers are even used to open bank accounts and to subscribe to mobile services, among many other things. In addition, auto-ID techniques are not only pervasive but are increasingly becoming invasive. The chapter draws examples from history and emphasizes the types of issues that should be carefully deliberated in the introduction of any new national ID-based scheme. These schemes need forward planning and safeguards beyond those currently provided.

 

Defining Identification

Identification is defined in several ways, dependent on what aspect is being considered; it is “the act of identifying, the state of being identified [or] something that identifies one” (Macquarie Dictionary, 1998, p. 1062). The verb identify is linked to the noun identity, such as in the case of the term identity card which can be used to identify someone belonging to a particular group. Founded in Europe (from the Late Latin identitas) the word identity became noticeable in the English-speaking world around 1915, primarily through Freud (Pollock, 1993, pp. 1-20). The preferred definition for identity within the context of this book is the “condition, character, or distinguishing features of person or things effective as a means of identification” (Macquarie Dictionary, 1998, p. 1062).

    

MANUAL IDENTIFICATION

Early Identification Techniques

Before the introduction of computer technology the various means of external identification were greatly limited. The most commonly used method was relying on one’s memory to identify the distinguishing features and characteristics of other humans, such as their outward appearance or the sound of their voice. However, relying solely on one’s memory had many pitfalls and thus other methods of identification were introduced. These included marks, stamps, brands, cuts or imprints engraved directly onto the skin, which were to be later collectively referred to as tattooing. A tattoo is defined as “...permanent marks or designs made on the body by the introduction of pigment through ruptures in the skin...” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1983c, p. 841). Tattooing is considered to be the human’s first form of expression in written form (Cohen, 1994; Delio, 1993; Gell, 1993; Jaguer, 1990; Sanders, 1989; Rubin, 1988; Jones, 1987).

“All the nomadic peoples try to distinguish themselves from the rest, to make themselves unique and also to establish a means of recognizing their kinsmen in the various clans. In order to achieve this, they resort to the resource which is the most accessible and the most lasting: their skin. This decorated skin defines the boundary against the hostility of the outside world, for it is visible to everyone and it accompanies the individual everywhere” (Grognard, 1994, p. 19).

Historical records date the first tattoo about 2000 BC to Ancient Egypt, though there is evidence to suggest that tattooing was introduced by the Egyptians as early as 4000 BC (Cohen, 1994, p. 25). Tattoos and/or marks on humans were considered both disapprovingly and in some instances (which were not lacking) quite acceptable. An example of the former is in the Old Testament in the Book of Leviticus 19:28, where God commands Moses: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you”. Similarly in the New Testament in the Book of Revelation 13:16-17, there is the infamous passage about the beast who forces everyone “…both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark…” Though, strictly speaking, the mark [charagma] is not necessarily a tattoo per se. It can be a mark or stamp, engraved, etched, branded, cut, imprinted (Gingrich & Danker, 1958, p. 876). In classical literature, however, tattooing could serve to identify the bearer’s rank, status or membership in a group or profession. The historian, Herodotus (c. 484 - c. 425 BC) writes concerning the Thracians, “[t]hey consider branding a mark of high birth, the lack of it a mark of low birth...” (Herodotus, 1972, p. 282). The mark was usually visible for others to recognize. M.G. Michael (1998, pp. 278-301) has written extensively on the topic of tattooing and marking with reference to the Bible. In addition, for a complete guide to tattooing as a form of body art, particularly by people in Africa, Asia and Oceania, see Rubin (1988).

 

The Misuse of Manual ID

Branding as a method of identification (especially of minority groups) continued throughout history. In antiquity tattooing was generally held in disrepute, “[t]he ancient Greeks branded their slaves (doulos) with a delta, and the Romans stamped the foreheads of gladiators, convicted criminals sentenced to the arena, for easy identification” (Cohen, 1994, p. 32). According to Paoli (1990, p. 140), “…the Romans fastened to the necks of slaves who were liable to run away an iron collar with a disc (bulla) firmly attached to it bearing the owner’s name and address.” Even until 1852, the French penal system would identify thieves by “...a V tattooed on the right shoulder, and galley slaves by the three letters GAL” (Grognard, 1994, p. 25). United States convicts and British Army deserters were similarly treated (Jones, 1987, pp. 148-150).

 

During the Holocaust

In recent times however, society has become intolerant of tattooing as a means of enforced segregation where the act is committed without the permission of the bearer, and with dubious intent. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler in his planned genocide of the Jewish people during World War II (1939-1945) enforced various methods of identification to separate them from the rest of the population. There is evidence to suggest that punch cards originally intended to help in the tabulation of census data, were used instead to help segregate the Jewish people from the rest of the German and Polish populations (Black, 2001, pp. 22, 58) (figure 1). On September of 1941, an order was issued that all Jews were to “...wear a Star of David badge” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 202) (figure 2). Those who did not comply with such orders were sent to Nazi extermination camps immediately where they were “...branded like animals. A registration number, corresponding to the camp, was stamped on the left forearm. This was preceded with a “D” if the person was Jewish...” (Grognard, 1994, p. 21).

In the Drowned and the Saved, Primo Levi (1986, p. 118f), an Auschwitz survivor, writes of the mandatory tattooing of individuals that occurred in the concentration camp:

“...a true and proper code soon began to take shape: men were tattooed on the outside of the arm and women on the inside; the numbers of the Zigeuner, the gypsies, had to be preceded by a Z. The number of a Jew, starting in May 1944... had to be preceded by an A, which shortly after was replaced by a B... After this date, [September 1944] there began to arrive entire families of Poles... all of them were tattooed, including newborn babies.”      

In this case both the character and the number were used for identification. The character indicated the group the individual was linked to and the number uniquely identified the individual. The numbers were serialized numerically and accompanied by shapes, symbols and letters which identified the prisoner’s status, nationality, or religion (Rosenthal, 2008). Women were not issued numbers from the same series as the men. Another survivor was quoted in The Nazi Doctors: medical killing and the psychology of genocide,

“I remember when… that thing [the number tattooed on each prisoner’s forearm] was put on” (Lifton, 1986, p. 165). That thing according to another account stood for dehumanization. “And as they gave me my tattoo number, B-4990, the SS man came to me, and he says to me,| “Do you know what this number’s all about?”| I said, “No, sir.”| “Okay, let me tell you now. You are being dehumanized” (Michael Berenbaum, 1993, p. 147 quoted in Dery, 1996, p. 311).

There were various methods of applying the tattoo as described by Rosenthal (2008), in addition to placing the tattoo on differing locations on the body, based on the group the individual belonged to. For some Soviet prisoners-of-war (POWs) captured by the Nazis in 1941, a number was tattooed “by means of a metal plate with interchangeable needles attached to it; the plate was impressed into the flesh on the left side of their chests and then dye would be rubbed into the wound.” After a month of interrogation and inspection, the POWs were then placed into sub-groups such as “fanatic Communist”, “politically suspect”, “not politically suspect” or “suitable for reeducation”. This was a type of manual-based social sorting (Lyon, 2004) which for instance, identified 300 “fanatic Communists” (Czech, 1990, p. 102). Later in 1942, the practice of tattooing on the forearm of individuals was done with pen and ink, mainly to Jewish persons, and only systematically at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp Complex. The practice of branding was not confined to the Nazis. Up until the fall of Communism the practice was even continued by the former Soviet Union on exiled criminals and political prisoners in Siberia, for security purposes.

 

The Importance of Context

The wearing of a badge does not immediately imply the misuse of ID- it all depends on the context and who it is that has requested this manner of identification and for what purpose. For instance, European migrants in the early 1900s traveling by ship to New York City were given a badge to wear to make identification easier while going through immigration (Marcantonio, 1940). The badge was either pinned on clothing or as in the majority of cases tied to a cotton necklace. After undergoing a medical examination certain letters would be recorded on the badge to identify the condition of the immigrant, especially if further screening was required. Those suspected of suffering from mental illness or other health concerns not acceptable to authorities were separated from larger groups and sent back to their homeland. There was simply no other manner in which hundreds of thousands of people could be processed efficiently in such a short period (figure X). The badge also alleviated the requirement for the migrant to communicate with officials, especially because the majority did not know English.

One can see that the early identification techniques, while primitive in nature, could be hideously misused against minority groups in helpless situations. Plainly, when a technique becomes available it is applied wherever it is required, “without distinction of good or evil” by whomever has the capability and authority (Ellul, 1964, pp. 98-100). There has been much written on whether technology or techniques, possess a “moral neutrality” (Brown, 1990, ch. 2). Mumford and Gideon hold the stance that “if a technology fails to alleviate misery, but only compounds it… the blame falls not on the tools, which are themselves neutral” but upon external factors such as historical circumstances (Kuhns, 1971, pp. 82-83). Ellul on the other hand, believes that the technique itself has an autonomous mandate, that “…once man has given technique its entry into society, there can be no curbing of its gathering influence, no possible way of forcing it to relinquish its power. Man can only witness and serve as the ironic beneficiary-victim of its power”. That being true, advances in data collection techniques have even greater far-reaching effects.

 

ADVANCES IN RECORD KEEPING

As manual record keeping procedures evolved, identification became an integral part of the data collection process. Widespread branding of people was unacceptable and thus other means had to be developed to allow authorities to keep track of individuals. These means varied drastically throughout the ages but increased in sophistication especially after the Industrial Revolution. When computerization occurred most of the manual techniques were ported into an electronic environment. This part of the chapter sheds light on some of the incremental innovations that led to the development of automatic identification.

 

The Registering of People and the Census

The registering of people dates back to ancient times, see for example, 1 Chronicles 21:1, 7 and Esther 6:1. Also, in 2 Samuel 24:2, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people.” And in Luke 2:1-3, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment, when Quirin’i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.” The Romans were particularly advanced in their data collection requirements, wishing not only to count but to gather additional information about their citizens (Scullard, 1981, pp. 232f):

“A periodic census of Roman citizens was held… every four years, but from 209 BC onwards… every five years…  This was a reflection of the mustering of the army into centuries, and it was these men, grouped in the five classes, that were the chief concern of the censors who had to register them in their tribes and assess their property in order to assign them to the correct classes for purposes of both taxation and military services. The head of each family had to answer questions about the property and age of all its members…”

Censors had to rely on manual identification techniques to ensure the accuracy of inventories. This was a very difficult and time-consuming task, especially since “…houses had no numbers, and many streets were nameless. The ancients had not discovered the countless practical advantages of numbers” (Paoli, 1990, p. 138). An error made by the censor could impact the life of a citizen since,

“early inventories were made to control particular individuals- for example, to identify who should be taxed, inducted into military service, or forced to work… Strictly speaking, the modern population census began in the 17th century. Before then, inventories of people, taxpayers, or valuables were made; but the methods and purposes were different to modern ones” (Britannica Encyclopedia, 1983a, p. 679).

As can be seen, over time newer more advanced techniques were developed which ultimately served to change the purpose of the population census. More automated means of identification and data collection made it possible for census surveys to be extended. For example, in the U.S. Census of 1890, part of the process of classifying and counting the data collected was automated (Comppile, 2004). Herman Hollerith invented a method that allowed census takers to punch holes in predetermined locations to represent various characteristics. The holes were then processed by a machine. As elementary as this may seem, such advances led to subsequent breakthroughs in the field (Austrian, 1982). Of course, this does not mean that errors in the data collection of personal information are no longer incurred.

 

Record-keeping by the Church and State

The overall intent of a census was to determine the aggregate profile of people residing within a defined geographic region so that authorities could address their needs appropriately. Census statistics,

“are used as the basis for estimating the population at the national, state and local government levels, for electoral purposes and the distribution of government funds. They are used by individuals and organizations, in the public and private sectors, for planning, administration, research, and decision making” (Castles, 1993, p. 35).

However with advances in social welfare, authorities required to know more specific details about their citizens and their individual circumstances. In establishing an official relationship with the citizen, identification and specialized record keeping practices became important from the perspective of the state (i.e. for the purpose of citizenship). A variety of paper-based documentation was instituted; in some cases special seals or ink-based stamps were used to indicate legality. Examples of official documentation included land title deeds, birth certificates and bank account records. These were among the most common proofs of identity but this varied dependent on the state in question and period of history.

 

The Notion of a Personal Document File

The importance of the Church in the evolution of record-keeping should also be highlighted. In many parts of the world the local church was a thorough documenter of events and very much an integral part of government until about the Middle Ages. For instance, church laws and state laws ran in parallel until the Middle Ages. Church and State had their own law and court systems and there were often issues over jurisdictional rights (Anglim, 1999). The interaction of the Church and State led to developments in the centralization of government and bureaucracy (Caenegem, 1988). With the centralization of power came a need for the centralization of citizen information which led to the creation of personal files. Churches also provided proofs of identity, such as marriage and baptismal certificates. Some churches even kept records of disputes or wrong-doings and how victims had been recompensed. Given that the size of towns was relatively small compared to today, names could be used to identify individuals. But the Industrial Revolution was set to change things dramatically, especially as mass production drew large groups of people (in most cases from surrounding towns) closer towards employment opportunities in factories. Given names and surnames were not always unique. In some instances the name was accompanied by the paternal lineage, or an address location, or by a nickname. However even address locations in ancient times were for the greater part difficult to precisely identify. In ancient Rome for instance, roads were nameless “and were referred to simply by such expressions as ‘The road to’… a few of the more important had names…” (Paoli, 1990, p. 141).

One of the earliest modern day responses to improved identification techniques and record keeping standards came in 1829. In that year, British Parliament made a decision to enact the reforms of Prime Minister Robert Peel who wanted more emphasis to be placed on printed police records. In this manner relevant data could be stored in a personal document file and linked back to individuals using a unique value. In many ways these records were forerunners to government databases that were linked to ID cards. During this same period, photographic technology was invented but it was not until 1840 that amateur scientist William Henry Fox Talbot developed the negative-positive photographic system which eventually became a useful police identification tool. In an age of computers, humans generally take for granted the invention of the still-shot camera and motion camera because the technology is so readily available. But a simple ID badge with a photograph on it really did not become widespread until after the turn of the 20th century. Photographs fastened to cards were excellent manual identifiers before the proliferation of cameras which then enabled fake IDs to be developed by criminals. As soon as this occurred an additional measure was required to ensure positive identification.

Signatures were about the most unique method of cross-checking someone’s identity between original and duplicate copies. This was all dependent on the literacy level of the individual, though unique markings were accepted as substitutes. By the late 1870s, a significant breakthrough in identification came about in India. Sir William Herschel (a British ‘Magistrate and Collector’) had made a defendant’s fingerprint part of court records. Ron Benrey also reported that Herschel used fingerprints as manual signatures on wills and deeds (Connecticut Dept, 1998). For the first time, a biometric had officially become a means of precise identification. In 1901, police technology had advanced so much that Scotland Yard had introduced the Galton-Henry system of fingerprint classification (Lee & Gaensslen, 1994). To the present times, fingerprints have been associated with crime for this reason. The system did not become widespread because the practicality of taking fingerprints of all citizens and cross-matching records for individual transactions was not viable.

 

The Evolution of the Citizen ID Number

Unique citizen identification numbers were adopted by numerous countries around the period of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Unique identifiers in the context of citizen numbers are known by a variety of names. These include: identification number (IN), personal identification number (PIN), uniform personal identification mark (UPIM), national identification number (NIN), universal identification number (UIN), unique identification system (UIS), universal identifiers (UID), unique personal identifier (UPI), single identifying number (SIN), standard universal identifier (SUI), universal multipurpose identifier (UMI), universal personal number (UPN), unique lifetime identifier (ULI). The majority of these nation-wide numbering schemes have been maintained, relatively unchanged, till today. Some of the national numbering schemes include: the Person Number (PN) system of Norway, the Central Register of Persons (CRP) in Denmark, the German Insurance Number (GIN), the Social Account Number (SAN) of Austria, the Insurance Number (IN) of the former Czechoslovakia, the French Identification Number (FIN), the Insured Persons Number (IPN) of Switzerland and the National Insurance Number (NIN) of the United Kingdom (New Zealand Computer Society, 1972).

The initial person registration system used in Sweden dates back about three hundred years when the process involved the Church of Sweden. Local parishes were considered to be like regional administration offices. But in 1947 each person was assigned a PN that was recorded electronically in 1967 from metal plates to magnetic tape. The Netherlands used the census of 1849 as a starting point for there decentralized PN system. But in 1940 personal cards with unique numbers were issued to the whole population that acted as lifetime identifiers. In Israel a PN was allotted in 1948 via a census after the State of Israel was officially established. A Population Registry Law in 1965 established the basic information that had to be collected when registering. This involved disclosing details about the ethnic group that one belonged to, as well as religious beliefs and past and present nationalities. In 1966, this information was computerized. Iceland has used a population register since 1953. When a citizen reaches the age of twelve they are given a number that is based on the alphabetical sequence of a person’s name in the total population. In 1964, Norway’s Central Bureau of Statistics was asked to establish a national identification numbering system as the world learnt of the potential of electronic data processing (EDP). In 1968, Denmark followed in Norway’s footsteps by computerizing their records as well. France has used numbering systems for individuals and organizations since 1941. The system was computerized in 1973 after existing records were put on magnetic tape and adapted to include check digits. Finland introduced their personal identification code (PIC) system in 1964 (Lunde et al. 1980).

The potential for a globally implemented unique national identifier (UNI) is realistic. This could be tied in with the concept of a follow-me telephone number such as that defined in Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT). UPT “…will enable each user to participate in a user-defined set of subscribed services and to initiate and receive calls on the basis of a personal, network-transparent UPT Number across multiple networks and any terminals, fixed or mobile, irrespective of geographic location limited only by terminal and network capabilities and restrictions imposed by the network operator” (ITC, 1992). For the purpose of showing the evolution of the citizen ID number, one of the oldest schemes, the United States social security number (SSN), will be discussed in more detail. The maturation of the SSN is representative of many person number schemes worldwide.

 

CASE STUDY: THE U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

By the 1920s, countries such as Britain, Germany and France were using personal document files to administer specific government assistance schemes for unemployment, worker’s compensation, health, pensions and child endowment (Clark, 1943, p. 9). Western European countries had established population registers that were updated continually to include the name, residence, age, sex and marital status of an individual. The registers were administered at a municipal or county level initially but towards the mid-1900s they became more centralized. There was an increasing demand for the registers by government for voting, education, welfare, police and the courts (Lunde et al., 1980, p. 1). In observing the processes of the European governments, the United States (U.S.) sought even more efficient methods of identification. Thus the Social Security Administration (SSA) was formed, a centrally managed scheme, supported by an official Act in 1935. The SSA was instituted by President Roosevelt after the impact of the Great Depression in the early 1930s. This act was designed to protect individuals and their families from unemployment, old age, sickness etc (SSA, 2003). Setting up the program was a daunting task. The U.S. government was dealing with a large group of people (five million elderly people alone), each personal record attached to several applications (pension, medicare, family allowance etc.), and individuals were geographically dispersed. Since money and benefits were being distributed at a cost to taxpayers, the government was obligated to establish guidelines as to eligibility, proof of identity and citizenship to keep track of funds.

 

The SSN Gathers Momentum – More than Just a Number

As government policies became more sophisticated, administrators required a mechanism for the unique identification of individuals to improve the efficiency of operations. In 1938 the social security number (SSN) was introduced. The SSN was phased in to reduce the incidence of duplicate records, allow for more accurate updates and ensure that entitlements were received by the bona fide. With the introduction of the SSN came the social security card. Each card contained the nine digit SSN and the cardholder’s name. The card (with the printed number on it) was useful in that cardholders could carry it with them and quote it freely when requested to fill out government forms. It meant that citizens did not have to memorize the number and risk referencing it incorrectly. The card also acted as a proof of identity. This deterred many people from making fraudulent claims, yet the quality of the paper card was poor and susceptible to damage. Thus the need for cards to be made out of more durable material. Cards made out of cardboard were initially introduced, followed by plastic cards with embossing. By 1943, President Roosevelt had signed “...Executive Order 9397 (EO9397) which required federal agencies to use the number [SSN] when creating new record-keeping systems” (Hibbert, 1996, p. 693).

In the early fifties the insurance and banking sector also adopted the SSN and requested it from each individual who wanted to open a bank account and make monetary transactions. By 1961, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was also using the SSN as a taxpayer identification number (TIN) (SSA, 2002). It can be seen that knowledge gained from the improved administration of government services was applied to other sectors, such as finance. Thus the ID number itself, had two important uses when the computer age arrived. First it could be used as a primary key for storing personal information in databases. “The PN, as a computer file key, has the characteristics of uniqueness, permanence, reliability, and universality” (Lunde et al., 1980, p. 2). Second it could be linked with any identification technique for authentication or verification. It was the ID itself that was fundamental to these applications whether in the form of a unique number, character set, symbol or image. The ID device accompanying the ID was more a facilitator. What should be observed is that even without advanced machinery and automatic identification techniques, the underlying information systems concept had been born.

 

The Computerization of Records

The proportion of recorded transactions was now reaching new limits in the United States. Written records had served their purpose but could no longer effectively support the collection, storage and processing of data. Government agencies were plagued by such problems as limited physical storage space for paper documentation; slow response times to personal inquiries; inaccurate information stored in personal records; difficulties in making updates to records; duplicate information existing for a single person; and illegal and fraudulent claims for benefits by persons. By 1970 the SSA had set up its headquarters in Baltimore. The basic data stored there included the “...social security status of every citizen with a social security registration... and equivalent records on all phases of the Medicare program.” The SSA had established 725 field offices and citizen transactions were communicated to SSA headquarters via dedicated circuits where it was received on magnetic tape ready for input into the SSA computer (Miller, 1970, p. 77).

Initially the types of analysis that could be performed on the records were limited (Lipetz, 1966). By 1977 however, the government had not only computerized its paper records but had even developed computer matching applications (figure 6). The Public Law 95-216 “mandated that state welfare agencies use stage wage information in determining eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC). Subsequent legislation also required similar wage matching for the Food stamp program” (Kusserow, 1984). By the early 1980s it was common for data matching programs to check personal records between social security, other federal agencies and the banking sector. In this manner the government could determine whether a citizen was receiving legitimate funds and contributing to the nations numerous taxes.

The emergence of the microprocessor and the development of electronic storage devices enabled the invention of information technologies that could automate the process of identifying living and non-living things (Yoffie, 1997, pp. 41-110). Historically, auto-ID systems have been constrained by the capabilities of other technologies they have been dependent upon. Limitations in network infrastructure, central processing unit (CPU) speeds, electronic storage space, microchip miniaturization, application software and data collection devices are just some of the components that have impacted auto-ID. For example, it has already been noted in this chapter that the first biometric manually recorded for criminal records was the fingerprint as far back as the 1870s. However, it took more than one hundred years to develop a commercial electronic fingerprint recognition system that had the ability to store thousands of fingerprint minutiae and cross-match against a large database of records with a workable response time.

 

Problems with Some Government Citizen Identifiers

The U.S. social security number ultimately became a multi-purpose identifier though originally it was only meant to be used for social security purposes. As paper records were transferred into a machine-readable format and simple searches performed it became apparent that there were duplicate SSNs. One must note that the SSN was created without the knowledge of how computer technology would revolutionize the government’s processes. By the time computers and networks were introduced into the SSA’s practices, the SSN was a legacy system that maintained numerous well-established problems. At the center of these problems was that the identifier’s composition was not unique; neither was it randomly or sequentially generated. The nine digit SSN was broken up into three sections: area number assigned to states on a population basis, group number (2 digits), serial number assigned sequentially (4 digits) which was controlled by the first six letters of the person’s surname (New Zealand Computer Society, 1972, p. 28). When the regional-based ID numbers were pooled together to form a central population register (CPR) the IDs were found not to be unique. As Hibbert (1996, pp. 686-696) critically pointed out, “[m]any people assume that Social Security numbers are unique, but the SSA didn’t take sufficient precautions to ensure that it would be so”. In addition to this, the SSA itself was forced to admit that more than four million people had two or more SSNs (Westin & Baker, 1972, pp. 396-400).

This immediately posed a problem for both authorities and citizens. The computer system could not handle cases adequately whereby there were more than 999 persons with a surname beginning with the exact same 6 letters living in the same area (as defined by the SSA). While this may sound impossible to achieve some names are very common and a lot of surnames are shorter than 6 characters in length. In other cases the problems that some citizens have endured after their SSN has been stolen, have been well-documented on current affairs programs. The call for some other means of identification, automatic in nature, was heeded and many states more recently have acted to implement state-of-the-art biometric and smart card-based systems to alleviate issues of duplication and crime. The rest of the world have followed the U.S. example, more recently even those countries considered as either lesser developed (LDC) or newly industrialized countries (NIC).

As of 2003, those LDCs and NICs that had PNs for over twenty years included: Argentina (Documento Nacional de Identidad DNI), Chile (Rol Unico Nacional RUN), Colombia, Peru (Event Identification Number EIN), Uruguay and Jordan. The need for PN systems in LDCs and NICs are considered as greater than those in MDCs. Usually LDCs in particular, have very large populations and huge data management problems. In terms of planning for such things as basic infrastructure (e.g. housing, education, employment, health) the task becomes even more difficult without a PN. For example, the distribution of benefits like food, if not handled properly, could become life-threatening to citizens. Thus the recent introduction of smart cards for food rations in many LDCs, as the global economy experiences rises in food prices given the looming oil crisis. Most cards also store a photograph of an individual as well as a biometric. Many countries in Asia also, are now beginning to introduce auto-ID devices for government administration. Examples include Cambodia, Taiwan and China.

     

THE RISE OF AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

The Commercialization of Identification

New technological innovations originally intended for government often find themselves being applied commercially within a short period of time. The lessons of the SSN and other early identification systems were used to improve processes in banking and retail from the 1970s onwards, as a variety of auto-ID technologies became available to implement. The introduction of the bar code and magnetic-stripe card especially was noticeable because it directly impacted the way people shopped and banked. Consumers now had the ability to withdraw funds without having to visit a bank branch. Shop store owners could use bar codes on products to improve their inventory control and employ fewer workers because of the speed of checking-out customers. These innovations were not only targeted at what one would term mass market but they affected every single person in the community. The bar code was linked to the purchasing of food and other goods, and the magnetic-stripe card to money that is required for survival in a modern society. As one scientist wrote in 1965 “...the impact of automation on the individual involve[d] a reconstruction of his values, his outlook and his way of life” (Sacleman, 1967, pp. 36, 552-560).

 

Too Many IDs?

As government and enterprise databases became widespread and increased in sophistication, particularly after the introduction of the desktop computer in 1984, implementing auto-ID solutions became possible for even the smallest of businesses. Auto-ID could be applied to just about any service. The vision of a cashless society gained momentum as more and more transactions were being made electronically and the promise of smart cards was being publicized. But instead of wallets and purses becoming thinner since the need to carry cash was supposedly diminishing, the number of cards and pieces of identification people had to carry increased significantly. Citizens were now carrying multiple devices with multiple IDs: ATM cards, credit cards, private and public health insurance cards, retail loyalty cards, school student cards, library cards, gym cards, licenses to drive automobiles, passports to travel by air and ship, voting cards etc. Dependent on the application and the auto-ID device being used, passwords were also required as an additional security measure. But since passwords such as Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) were never meant to be recorded, expecting consumers to remember more than one PIN was cumbersome. But as Davies pointed out (1996, p. 121f), while “[m]anaging all these numbers is a chore… it’s a state of affairs most of us have learned to accept.” This statement was probably an interim truism until the turn of the 21st century. Today, more than ever, most likely due to major technical breakthroughs, there is an underlying view that computers are supposed to make life less complicated rather than more complicated.

The vision is still one where cards (probably multiapplication and multifunctional in nature) will play an important role in identification but whereby other advances such as biometric recognition systems will be an integral part of the solution to ID. Consider the Access Card proposal of 2006 in Australia where it was suggested that 17 different existing benefit cards would be linked and integrated onto the one smart card (Jackson and Ligertwood, 2006, pp. 45-55). Now compare, the contactless rechargeable smart card, known as the Octopus Card that was deployed in Hong Kong in 1994 (Chau and Poon, 2003). Initially, the Octopus Card was used to allow commuters to pay for all modes of public transport (rail, bus, ferry, mini-van). The card then found its way to becoming a citizen identity card with more than 70 per cent of the population subscribed to the e-cash system.

 

Numbers Everywhere

In his book, Rome: its people, life and customs, Ugo E. Paoli (1990, ch. XIII) emphasizes the significance of numbers by describing what it was like in ancient Roman times without street addresses. He contrasts this setting, i.e. the streets without names and the houses without numbers, by referring to how numbers are used profusely today in modern civilization. It is worth quoting Paoli at length (1990, p. 139).

“When we travel, our train has a number, as do the carriages, the compartments, the seats, the ticket-collector, the ticket and the note with which we buy our ticket. When we reach the station we take a taxi which is numbered and driven by a driver similarly numbered; on arrival at our hotel we become a number ourselves. Our profession, age, date of arrival and departure are all reckoned in numbers. When we have booked a room, we become a number, 42 perhaps, and if we are so unfortunate as to forget our number we seem to have forgotten ourselves. If we mistake it, we run the risk of being taken for a thief, or worse. The number is on the disc hanging from the key in our room; it is above the letter rack in the hall; every morning we find it chalked on the soles of our shoes, and we continually see it on the door of our room, and, finally, we find it on the bill. We grow so used to our number that it becomes part of us; if we have a parcel sent to the hotel, we give the number 42; however important we may be, to the porter and the chambermaid we are simply No. 42.”

Everything is indeed numbered (figure 6). Even we ourselves are numbered. And as Paoli (1990, p. 140) continues, this great ease in identifying everything is supposedly “a result of our position as modern civilized men.” These ubiquitous ID numbers (which include addresses) follow us everywhere, and not unexpectedly as Paoli also reckons, have almost become a part of our personalities. On extending this notion Paoli (1990, p. 140) reminds us that even if one finds themselves homeless, without an income, without any hope for the future, they still have their ID number. In a similar light what should be underscored is the increasing requirement today towards obligatory practices to do business with one’s ID number(s). Whether making a transaction over the counter, through the mail, or on the telephone, service providers have become more interested in our customer reference number than our name. One is led to a justifiable conclusion of whether in amongst all of these manufactured numbers, we are little by little, losing our natural right to be called by our given name, and hence allowing for the overthrow of our identity.

 

CONCLUSION

Tracing the path from manual identification through to automatic identification some conclusions may be drawn. First, the practice of identification can be sourced to very ancient times. Second, throughout history manual ID of humans was not always a voluntary modus operandi, especially in the enforced tattooing of individuals in authority. Third, the identification processes and procedures that were developed before automation were replicated after automation, and dramatically enhanced because computer technology allowed for more powerful processing of information. Legacy systems however did impact automation. Fourth, the success of auto-ID was dependent on the rise of information technology. In many ways auto-ID was limited by a variety of hardware and software system components. As soon as these became feasible options for service providers, both in affordability and usability, auto-ID flourished. Fifth, the widespread adoption and acceptance of auto-ID by citizens is indicated in that people carry so many different ID devices for different applications. And finally, and most importantly, national ID schemes are becoming increasingly pervasive, complemented by increasingly invasive ID technologies. Governments need to be forward-thinking in introducing privacy and security safeguards when introducing new schemes and/or new devices, or extending existing schemes to new application areas, particularly of a commercial nature such as banking. No one can predict the future but one thing is certain, if a technology (high-tech or other) is open to misuse, it will eventually be abused.

The following chapter is a full-length interview with Mrs Judith Nachum, a Holocaust survivor. The interview presents examples of how simple manual identification techniques were used to identify the Jewish populations during WWII and to gather them into concentration camps (i.e. a type of manual-based social sorting, Lyon, 2004) and then rigorously applied to dehumanize the targeted people. The interview is explicit in stating how the Nazis were meticulous record keepers, and how identification numbers granted them the ability to link numerous pieces of information together. The Nazis were well-known for keeping detailed hand-written registers, including of Jewish-owned property for each family. The interview with Mrs Nachum, demonstrates that there should be limits as to how governments use “technique” to record citizen information. It also suggests while another similar type of ‘holocaust’ might seem unlikely, that the power of the digital medium to control, if ever unleashed, would be even more punishing in pinpointing its desired minority.

 

REFERENCES

Anglim, C. T. (1999). Religion and the Law: a dictionary. California: ABC-CLIO.

Austrian, G. D. (1982). Herman Hollerith: forgotten giant of information processing. New York: Columbia University Press.

Berenbaum, M. (1993). The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Black, E. (2001). IBM and the Holocaust. UK: Little, Brown and Company.

Brown, G. (1990). The Information Game: ethical issues in a microchip world. New Jersey: Humanities Press International.

Castles, I. (1993). CDATA91 Data Guide: 1991 census of population and housing: Australian Bureau of Statistics Canberra.

Clark, C. (1943). The advance to social security. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Cohen, T. (1994). The Tattoo. Sydney: Savvas.

Comppile. (2004). CompPanels: Images from the annals of the composition #17 (Race Categories and Hollerith Machines).   Retrieved 21 April 2008, from http://comppile.tamucc.edu/comppanel_17.htm

Connecticut Dept. (1998). Understanding public perception. Connecticut Department of Social Services, from http://www.dss.state.ct.us/faq/disuppt.htm

Czech, D. (1990). Auschwitz Chronicle 19391945. New York: Henry Holt.

Davies, S. (1996). Monitor: extinguishing privacy on the information superhighway. Sydney: PAN Macmillan.

Delio, M. (1993). The Tattoo: the exotic art of skin decoration. New South Wales: Sun.

Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books.

Encyclopedia Britannica (Ed.). (1983a). Census (Vol. II). Sydney.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ed.). (1983b). Common Law (Vol. IV). Sydney.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ed.). (1983c). Tattoo (Vol. IX). Sydney.

Gates, B. (1995). The Road Ahead. New York: The Penguin Group.

Gell, A. (1993). Wrapping in Images. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gingrich, F. W., & Danker, F. W. (1958). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Writers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Grognard, C. (1994). The Tattoo: graffiti for the soul. Spain: The Promotional Reprint Company.

Herodotus. (1972). The Histories. London: Penguin Books.

Hibbert, C. (1996). What to do when they ask for your social security number. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and Controversy: value conflicts and social choices (pp. 686-696). New York: Academic Press.

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, Expanded Edition. (1973). New York: Collins.

Identification. (1998). (1998). In Macquarie Dictionary (pp. 1062). Sydney: Macquarie.

Identity. (1998). (1998). In Macquarie Dictionary (pp. 1062). Sydney: Macquarie.

ITC. (1992, October 12-14). ‘Address Note’, Proceedings ITC. Paper presented at the 8th ITC Specialist Seminar on Universal Personal Telecommunications.

Jackson, M., & Ligertwood, J. (2006). Identity management: is an identity card the solution for Australia? In K. Michael & M. G. Michael (Eds.), The Social Implications of Information Security Measures on Citizens and Business (pp. 45-55). Wollongong: Wollongong University.

Jaguer, J. (1990). The Tattoo: a pictorial history. Great Britain: Milestone Publications.

Jones, C. P. (1987). Stigma: tattooing and branding in Graeco-Roman antiquity. The Journal of Roman Studies, 77, 139-155.

Kaku, M. (1998). Visions: how science will revolutionize the 21st century and beyond. Oxford Oxford University Press.

Kitchen, M. (1995). Nazi Germany at War. Essex: Longman.

Kuhns, W. (1971). The Post-Industrial Prophets: interpretations of technology. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Kusserow, R. P. (1996). The government needs computer matching to root out waste and fraud. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and Controversy: value conflicts and social choices (Vol. part 6 section E, pp. 653f). New York: Academic Press.

Lee, H. C., & Gaensslen, R. E. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in Fingerprint Technology (CRC Series in Forensic and Police Science). New York: CRC Press.

Levi, P. (1988). The Drowned and the Saved, trans. Raymond Rosenthal. London: Summit Books.

Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi Doctors: medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.

Lipetz, B.-A. (1966). Information storage and retrieval. London: W. H. Freeman.

Lunde, A. S., Lundeborg, S., Lettenstrom, G. S., Thygesen, L., & Huebner, J. (1980). The Person-Number Systems of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Israel. Maryland: DHSS.

Lyon, D. (2004). Surveillance Technologies: Trends and Social Implications. In OECD (Ed.), The Security Economy (pp. 127-148): OECD.

Marcantonio, V. (1940). The registration of aliens. New York American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born.

Meissner, D. (2000, 9 June). Tattoos, police instinct used in hunt for snakeheads: Mountie. The Globe and Mail, p. A5.

Michael, M. G. (1998). The Number of the Beast, 666 (Revelation 13:16-18): Background, Sources and Interpretation. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Miller, A. (1971). The Assault on Privacy: computers, databanks and dossiers. London: New American Library.

New Zealand Computer Society. (1972). Investigation of a unique identification system.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1981). Government Involvement in the Innovation Process. New York: Congress of United States.

Paoli, U. E. (1990). Rome: its people, life and customs. London: Bristol Classical Press.

Pollock, G. H. (Ed.). (1993). Pivotal Papers on Identification. Connecticut: International Universities Press.

Rosenthal, G. (2008). The Evolution of Tattooing in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp Complex.   Retrieved 15 May 2008, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/tattoos1.html

Rubin, A. (Ed.). (1988). Marks of Civilization: artistic transformations of the human body. Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History.

Sacleman, H. (1967). Computers, System Science, And Evolving Society: the challenge of man-machine digital systems. New York: Wiley.

Sanders, C. R. (1989). Customizing the Body: the art and culture of tattooing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Scullard, H. H. (1981). Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London: Thames and Hudson.

Society., N. Z. C. (1972). Investigation of a unique identification system.

SSA. (2002). Social security numbers. from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssn/ssnforms.html

SSA. (2003). Historical development. from http://www.ssa.gov/history/brief.html

Stallings, W., & van Slyke, R. (1994). Business Data Communications. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

van Caenegem, R. C. (1988). The Birth of the English Common Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Westin, A. F., & Baker, M. A. (1972). Databanks in a free society. New York: Quadrangle Books.

Westrum, R. (1991). Technologies and Society: the shaping of people and things. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Yoffie, D. B. (Ed.). (1997). Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School.