text: Throughout history and across all cultures, societies have engaged in a balancing act between the virtues of a society in which thoughts and information flow freely, and the benefits of privacy and security. The tension between these social objectives is seen in many areas.
  In the context of industrial and technological development, societies wish to encourage the creation of new and useful ideas. To do so, society must on one hand give creative citizens the right to own, profit from and protect the confidentiality of their own creative ideas. On the other hand, society must also compel the open disclosure of those creative ideas for the benefit of all. This tension is played out in the creation and enforcement of intellectual property laws.
  In the context of business and commerce, society seeks the broad dissemination of market information to reduce the friction and inefficiencies of commercial transactions. On the other hand, society also wishes to protect the privacy of individuals and businesses whose commercial profiles constitute that market information. This tension is played out in the creation and enforcement of privacy laws.
  In the broader social context, while all societies have an interest in knowing about and regulating their citizens for the safety of society as a whole, many societies also choose to protect the freedom and privacy of their citizens from government intrusion. Highly regulated societies in which the government scrutinizes the activities of its own citizens often have very low crime rates and a secure environment, while very open societies that protect privacy and anonymity must often tolerate higher crime rates and a less secure social environment. This tension is played out in the laws regulating criminal investigations and law enforcement.
  To date, this balancing act between the preservation of an open society and the protection of privacy has been a “zero sum game.” In the arena of technological and industrial development, when society tightly guards commercial intellectual property, development of new ideas and technology can be impaired. This phenomenon is widely reported and debated with respect to copyright protection on the Internet. Many denizens of the Internet strenuously argue that “information must be free” on the Internet to promote the speedy development of new ideas. Yet many others argue that the widespread copying and dissemination of private or proprietary information on the Internet discourages innovation by undermining a creator's right to protect and benefit from his or her creations. The proponents of each side of the argument believe that to the extent one agenda is advanced, the other must be diminished.
  In the context of commercial information, commercial interests strenuously seek protection of their right to “mine” and aggregate commercial databases through both traditional means and through the new “clickstream” monitoring technologies available on the Internet. On the other hand, citizens strenuously seek protection of their privacy against such Big Brother invasiveness. Here too, the proponents on each side of the debate believe that to advance one objective is to diminish the other.
  A similar debate with respect to personal or other confidential information has arisen since the unnerving events of September 11th. In the United States, the events of Sep. 11, 2001 have resulted in an intense public discourse over the wisdom of adjusting our own balance from an historically open society affording a great degree of freedom and privacy for citizens, to one that sacrifices a degree of that freedom and privacy for better protection against terrorism. To date, the discourse has continued to treat the issue as a zero sum game: that is, we must decide how much privacy and anonymity we are willing to give up to be safer. From diatribes over the U.S. Patriot Act to debates on national ID cards, there is an intense interest in how the balance is adjusted.
  Fortunately, biometric and database technologies have evolved to a point where addressing both areas of concern need not involve a zero sum game. In the industrial, business, commercial, law enforcement and other social contexts, the integration of these technologies to make personal or other sensitive information available to parties who need it without relinquishing control of the information or compromising our privacy and anonymity presents a unique set of challenges, requiring a new and novel solution.