When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race and the Technology of Identity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WHEN BIOMETRICS FAIL: GENDER, RACE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF IDENTITY Shoshana Amielle Magnet Durham: Duke University Press, 2011 Building upon a well-established tradition of considering science and technology as constituted by culture, Shoshana Amielle Magnet problematizes the discourses behind the expansion of biometrics--technologies that aim at verification and identification by means of using data obtained from measuring bodies through iris and retina scans, digital fingerprinting, and facial recognition. Marketed as perfect tools to reduce human error and eliminate subjective judgement, digital biometrics are being increasingly implemented in the areas of law enforcement, information access, and border security. Magnet, however, calls into question the industry's claims of impartiality of identification technologies by arguing that biometrics are based on outdated, essentialized notions of identity and disproportionately target minority populations. The notion of biometric failure features centrally in the book, and Magnet unpacks its multiple meanings in the introductory chapters. In a literal sense, identification and verification technologies fail more often than the biometrics industry representatives would like to admit: there are mismatches and false rejections of known subjects as well as possibilities that high-tech devices can be hacked or fooled. On a larger level, biometrics fail to realize their core promises of objectivity, convenience, and reliability. Magnet adopts Donna Haraway's concept of corporeal fetishism to explain how a relentless pursuit to uncover the inner truth of identity aims at transforming a body into a knowable, fixed object. The framework of corporeal fetishism allows Magnet to trace how bodies that do not conform to a projected image of a white, able-bodied, and gender-conforming male user are constructed as inscrutable and therefore, as having a low economic value in a big business of biometrics. To support her argument, Magnets cites numerous accounts of biometric failures on othered bodies. For example, face scanners sometimes fail to accurately identify people of color; iris scanners are not designed to accommodate individuals with visual impairments; devices that speed up the flow of passengers in the airport will not work on people in wheelchairs or with certain medical conditions. Biometric systems not only privilege white able bodies, but also assume a strict male/female binary which erases the existence of gender-variant individuals. After providing an overview of the development of biometric technologies, Magnet critically assesses the three major areas of their use: the prison industrial complex and the welfare system in the U.S., and the security system at the U.S.-Canada border. Operating in a neo-liberal context of moving from rehabilitation to punishment, prisons function as locations of surveillance, allowing biometrics companies to capitalize on the growing rates of incarceration; with no opportunity to opt out, prisoners become convenient test subjects for identification and verification technologies. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».