One of the issues surrounding biometrics is that there are competing systems on offer, particularly around what is collected for rapid, on point identification. There are those in Europe who argue that retina / iris scans are not suffiecent and that photo / image processing is subverted by women in particular with hair colour changes. Instead we are told that traditional fingerprints are the best method for identification and new IT enables a hand to be swipped across a reader.

In the UK the use at border of retina scanning, appropriately called IRIS, is being withdrawn by stealth - for example by not maintaining the machinery or by design, not installing at new airport terminals - even when use has been going up.

It is almost like the competing video systems of yesteryear, BetaMax and VHS. VHS won and was then overtaken by the DVD.

There are immense problems in the EU with resolving multiple, legal identities; notably around names used and date(s) of birth.

What does intrigue me is that well known gaps in identity document creation and delivery are not being addressed systematically. It is well known there are problems with passport delivery in certain areas for example.

As SWC has a mainly US readership, replace passport with driving licence.

I remain unconvinced that in 'small wars', invariably in less-developed places and Iraq managed to go in reverse, that biometrics and associated IT offer that much - for general population control. For access control and personnel records yes they can be useful.

My 'litmus test' is will it help defeat the LRA (and the like)?