1 Saying NO To Biometrics By Guru Dev Teeluckdharry (MBA – University of Leicester) 'Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.' - Aldous Huxley Introduction The society today is being revolutionised with Biometrics, which is a term derived from the words 'bio' (meaning life) and 'metrics' (meaning to measure). Biometric technologies include fingerprint recognition, face recognition, hand geometry, iris scanning, voice recognition, signature recognition, retina scanning, ear/lip motion recognition, body odor analysis, skin reflection analysis, nail bed analysis, body shape analysis, dental analysis, and DNA recognition. (Langenderfe and Linnhoff as cited in Roberts and Patel). The field of biometrics is evolving at a very fast pace. Passwords, usernames and codes are things of the past. Nowadays, governments are opting for biometric technologies with respect to National ID cards, social security cards, e-passports and driving licenses. Furthermore, these technologies are also being put forward as arguments worldwide, to help resolve problems such as international terrorism, crime prevention, civil war, drug trafficking, identity theft, computer and internet crime, border control, illegal immigration, financial scam, fraud, security and unlawful activities in the society. But how far are they effective? Are we conscious that such technologies are fraught with risks and dangers? Courts and Biometric Data Schemes Courts' decisions with respect to a good number of biometric data schemes have pronounced that the collection, processing, handling and storage of biometric data in the society are interferences with the right to privacy, integrity and confidentiality. To this point, such interferences may exceptionally be justified if there are adequate legal safeguards against hacking, abuse and misuse of data, and exclusively