AnalysisOctober 7 sparks debate on biometric database use
Analysis
October 7 sparks debate on biometric database use
Fingerprints aided identification of victims, but experts question the need for mandatory submissions in light of privacy concerns.
The use of fingerprints from the national biometric database to identify deceased and missing persons following the events of October 7 was relatively limited and does not justify mandating all Israeli citizens to submit their fingerprints to the database. This is the assessment of Attorney Naama Ben-Zvi, supervisor of biometric applications in the National Cyber Directorate, as outlined in a report she recently published. “The use of fingerprints was useful, but not a game changer,” Ben-Zvi told Calcalist. “Citizens should have the choice of whether they want to include their fingerprints in the database.”
Currently, citizens applying for an ID card or passport are required to submit two fingerprints to the biometric database, in addition to facial images. This requirement stems from emergency regulations issued in October 2023 and a temporary order from November 2023, which permitted access to the database for identifying deceased and missing persons and reinstated the obligation to provide fingerprints. This obligation had been gradually phased out in recent years due to improvements in facial recognition technology. Initially, citizens had the option to store their fingerprints, and by 2022, fingerprint storage was entirely discontinued.
The temporary order is set to expire in May, and the Knesset is expected to determine a final policy for the integration of fingerprints into the database based on the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior. Ben-Zvi's recommendation is anticipated to carry significant weight in this decision.
"Until October 2023, a million new fingerprints of citizens who came to issue identification documents were not saved," Ben-Zvi said. "And then October 7 happened. Gaby Portnoy, Director General of the Israel National Cyber Directorate, called me, and we all mobilized. We were asked questions and provided technological expertise related to identification. It became clear that identification of the fallen was a critical issue. We went to the field and studied the entire process of identifying the deceased."
"At a very early stage, the police stated that fingerprints were critical for identifying the deceased and demanded the resumption of mandatory fingerprint collection," Ben-Zvi explained. "At the time, we were still in the midst of the crisis, and identification processes were incomplete. This legislation was enacted under difficult conditions, time pressure, and uncertainty. We recommended making a final decision only after thoroughly examining the data and considering policy implications."
Over the past year, Ben-Zvi and her team conducted an in-depth review of the identification methods used for the victims of October 7. "We requested data from the relevant bodies, primarily the IDF and the police, not only about their use of the biometric database but also about other methods, databases, and models employed. Of the 1,205 victims, approximately 280 were IDF soldiers, and the rest were civilians. Fingerprints from the biometric database helped identify 106 casualties—11% of all victims and 8% of the civilians."
"This does not mean these individuals could not have been identified using other methods," Ben-Zvi noted. The police utilized a range of models and techniques, including DNA analysis, dental records, and other unique identifiers. Other fingerprint databases were also accessed, such as the IDF's biometric database, which includes fingerprints, unresolved DNA samples, and dental records for approximately 3 million individuals drafted into the military. International efforts were also made, with dentists providing victim photographs.
Based on this review, Ben-Zvi and her team concluded that while fingerprints from the biometric database are a useful identification tool, they are not indispensable. "From a national perspective, fingerprints are not a significant game changer," she said.
In light of these findings, Ben-Zvi recommends updating the legislation to allow citizens to choose whether to include their fingerprints in the biometric database when issuing identity cards or passports. "Given the benefits we observed, we believe it is appropriate to give citizens the choice," she said. "Just as people can decide to sign an organ donor card, the decision to store fingerprints should be a personal choice. Taking fingerprints from the entire population infringes on privacy. Additionally, citizens whose fingerprints are already in the database should be allowed to delete them."
