Context changes Relevance

Technology is created envisioning a purpose. As time progresses, the purpose might change with time, probably changing the entire meaning of its existence.

We started our assignment looking into the evolution of technology in locking and unlocking mechanisms on personal devices. As part of our research, we came across biometric systems and realized there is a rich history in fingerprinting. We focused our research to fingerprint unlocking on personal devices. Our search into the history of fingerprints took us into criminal and legal contexts. Soon, we decided to look into fingerprint as a biomarker because that topic in itself had a lot of information. We looked at the legacy of fingerprint through the Indian lens and how each significant development in fingerprint influenced India.

During our research, we came across notes of William Herschel, a British Officer in Bengal, India in the 1850’s. He collected fingerprints of people for a span of every few years and kept examining them for changes. He suspected that fingerprints could be unique and permanent. With his own interest, he started collecting fingerprints of Indians on legal documents instead of signature [fig 1]. As many Indians were illiterate, they could not sign, they made symbols of their caste instead. This led to forgery and an unidentifiable signature. Herschel suggested fingerprint as a signature could solve this.

Fig.1. The token-signatures of those who cannot write or read, in several Castes. Year 1865. Date 8 February. [1]; 1. Cultivator; a harrow. 2. Barber; a mirror. 3. Shop-keeper; scales. 4. Carpenter; a chisel. 5. A Washerman’s board. 6. Female; a bracelet. 7. Widow; a spindle. 8. Caste uncertain; scissors. 9. Family Priest; an almanac roll.

When the permanence and uniqueness of fingerprints had been proved and methods to identify and differentiate fingerprints have been developed, it has been widely accepted in the criminal context.

With our facilitator’s guidance, we looked at how fingerprints moved on from a legal and criminal context to something we use to unlock phones every day. We understood the transition happened from fingerprint seen as a tool for identification to a tool used for authentication. When we looked at its use in unlocking devices, the use of fingerprint technology made sense: a yes or no question — yes leads to unlocking & no, keeps the phone locked.

But when we looked it up in a larger context such as Aadhar, where simple yes or no could deny a person his/her right to health care, loans, education, ration, etc. in the future. Aadhar eliminates a whole layer of human identification. When somebody wanted ration through his or her white card before Aadhar, the shopkeeper recognized the person he had been serving all this while — with or without the card. A lot of other factors were in place before something could be denied. Is it okay now, to give or deny someone his or her basic amenities through a single yes or no? [2]

So, the fingerprint system went from identification to authentication. It went from the tool being used to identify and punish people for their crimes to a tool used to unknowingly punishing people by using authentication at greater platforms where authentication should be more than a simple yes or no. While it does make complete sense in using it for something smaller (such as unlocking phones). Hence, context changes the relevance of technology.

References

[1] W. J. Herschel, “The Origin of Fingerprinting,” Oxford University Press, 1916.

[2] Mathew, “Aadhaar failure: Several thousand in three districts in Odisha denied ration for two months,” National Herald India, 21 October 2019.