\tRepresentatives of Serbia\u2019s state institutions\u00a0–\u00a0ombudsman Sa\u0161a Jankovi\u0107, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub \u0160abi\u0107, Ministry of Internal Affairs Bojana Pani\u0107,\u00a0experts in the matter of biometric technologies\u00a0–\u00a0Ninoslav Janji\u0107 (WLS Electronic), Ratimir Drakuli\u0107 of the Faculty of organisational sciences, Oliver Suboti\u0107 of Serbian Orthodox Church –\u00a0as well as civil society organisations\u2019 (CSO) representatives, Dejan Milenkovi\u0107 of YUCOM and Aleksandar Pavi\u0107 of “Za \u017eivot bez \u017eiga” (\u201eFor a life without a tag\u201c)\u00a0<\/i>CSO have taken part in the second public hearing\/debate organised within the project “Increasing Citizens\u2019 participation in Security politics”, “Security, Biometry and Human Rights”.\u00a0This Centre\u2019s project is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).<\/p>\n
\tMaking the opening remarks, CCMR Executive Director Filip Ejdus explained that the issue of biometric technologies has not been discussed in the public so far in Serbia: debate has been oversimplified to the matter of producing new passports and ID\u2019s.<\/strong><\/p>\n \tA common standpoint for two of the initial speakers was that introduction of biometric technology can bring more good than harm coming as the result of misuse. Bojana Pani\u0107 from Ministry of Internal Affairs stressed that no one\u2019s DNA sample cannot be taken without a prior warrant issued by the court authorities, and that the value and objectivity of using biometric evidence cannot be underestimated since these findings are original and cannot be altered. However, the question of the proper period for holding data of this source remains a source of dispute.<\/p>\n \tApproving the usage of biometric technologies, Ninoslav Janji\u0107 added that conventional codes are not safe enough. Why should anyone use them, believes Janji\u0107,\u00a0if data of organic nature can be used as well (fingertips, hand biometry, retina scan, voice).<\/p>\n \tRatimir Drakuli\u0107\u00a0offered a definition of the right to privacy. As he believes, this right understoods the individual as being entitled to\u00a0control which data, in what manner and to whom can be made available. Meaning that “right of privacy over information” encompasses five different rights: to be informed, for data to be used in the proper manner, right to access and inspect, right to correct entered information and\u00a0right to use legal remedy.<\/p>\n \tOmbudsman Sa\u0161a Jankovi\u0107 stressed how important is the principle that “limitations to individual\u2019s rights can be done only with their consent”. Dejan Milenkovi\u0107 followed with a description of the lack of legal framework. If one right to privacy over personal information is protected by the Constitution of Serbia, the key issue is that the law which would follow on and bring more clarity to this matter has not been passed. Therefore, one cannot argue in favour of introducing biometric technology.<\/p>\n \tCommisioner Rodoljub \u0160abi\u0107 emphasised how any society organised must be aware of the possibility for misuse of informational technologies. A society that wishes to be seen as democratic, as he explained, can\u2019t allow itself to forget the value of freedom as the principal value. As long as the possibility of misuse exists, this value is brought into danger. Since there is no legal framework, \u0160abi\u0107 is against using biometrics in production of new ID\u2019s.<\/p>\n \tOliver Suboti\u0107 and Aleksandar Pavi\u0107\u2019s thoughts served as the closing remarks of the debate. Suboti\u0107 feels that the most dangerous implication of using biometrics will be a distrust opening between the citizens and the state: so far, data (of this kind) has been collected from criminals only, but from now on it will be taken from other citizens as well. Yet future implications can prove to be even more dangerous, and this makes necessary a further search for an ideal model of biometrics. \u201eIt is state\u2019s imperative to consider all the possible aspects regarding biometry, because if not, a totalitarian society can be the aftermath\u201c, concluded Suboti\u0107.<\/p>\n \tFinally, the key issue for Aleksandar Pavi\u0107 remains the one, who will be the \u201eowner\u201c of the data collected using biometrics.<\/p>\n \tBy comparing the current trend of decentralisation of the usage of special measures with the creation of more “little brothers” instead of one “Big Brother”, Filip Ejdus thanked the participants on the behalf of the Centre for Civil-Military Relations, and invited them to stay informed of the activities within the project \u201eIncreasing Citizens\u2019 participation in the Security politics\u201c. Filip also suggested a possibility for publishing a collection of essays dedicated to the matter of biometrics.<\/p>\n \tReport prepared by Marko Savkovic<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Representatives of Serbia\u2019s state institutions\u00a0–\u00a0ombudsman Sa\u0161a Jankovi\u0107, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub \u0160abi\u0107, Ministry of Internal Affairs Bojana Pani\u0107,\u00a0experts in the matter of biometric technologies\u00a0–\u00a0Ninoslav Janji\u0107 (WLS Electronic), Ratimir Drakuli\u0107 of the Faculty of organisational sciences, Oliver Suboti\u0107 of Serbian Orthodox Church –\u00a0as well as civil society organisations\u2019 …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":18879,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8596,8591,8603],"tags":[264,1014,7639,7637,10191,10188,8544,7695,8165,8154,7112,7635,10189,6241,10192,7638,7708,10190],"vest_saopstenje":[9454],"coauthors":[164,8671],"class_list":["post-20734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-oversight","category-serbian-security-policy","category-transparency","tag-264","tag-bdquo","tag-biometric","tag-biometrics","tag-cannot","tag-endangering","tag-individual","tag-information","tag-matter","tag-misuse","tag-right","tag-rights","tag-securing","tag-society","tag-subotic","tag-technologies","tag-using","tag-value","vest_saopstenje-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20734\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18879"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20734"},{"taxonomy":"vest_saopstenje","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/vest_saopstenje?post=20734"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bezbednost.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=20734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}