Thursday, November 29, 2012

Food Stamp Biometric I.D. Program Introduced Under Guise of Fraud Reduction

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

At the beginning of 2012, I wrote an article entitled “Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents,” where I detailed the Indian UID program being implemented for purposes of “cutting down on corruption” in the distribution of social welfare benefits.

At the time, I wrote in the introduction to the article, “However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning, but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Western world, specifically the United States.” But, while this statement was clearly not an outlandish claim, the fact is that the Indian UID is very similar to programs which are in operation all over the country and that have been operating since at least late 1998.

In some areas like Los Angeles, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, and California, the slow emergence of the UID-style program for food stamp recipients is clearly evident. Many other areas of the country are considering the implementation of the program as well such as Florida, Maryland, Michigan, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.

Like the Indian UID program, the roll-out of the American system will require the fingerprinting of individuals receiving food stamps under the guise of reducing fraud. Yet, like the early status of the Japanese version of the UID, the Juki-Net, the emerging American system is currently being implemented on a state-wide or local basis (county or city), with no administration by the US Federal government.

However, that is not to say that the Feds have no interest in the program. Indeed, as reported on the USDA’s own website, in May-June 1998, the USDA actually conducted interviews with representatives of human service agencies in most of these states to determine their feasibility in terms of reducing food stamp fraud.


Or, at least, that was the stated purpose of the interviews. The real reason for conducting the brief studies on the feasibility of the program, however, might actually have been to determine whether or not the general public is ready for the roll-out of the American UID on a nationwide basis in the near future.

Regardless, the results of the interviews are quite interesting in their own right, even as they are presented by the USDA. In fact, the USDA is rather open about the lack of success of the programs in terms of fraud reduction.

In the report, which is entitled, “Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report,” it is stated that “Finger imaging has been readily integrated into the human services programs of the affected states. However, despite the positive reaction to finger imaging from the State officials we interviewed, there is still uncertainty regarding the extent to which this technology can reduce multiple participation fraud.”

In the section entitled, “Finger Imaging and Fraud Reduction,” the report reads “Assessing the ability of finger imaging to reduce fraud is difficult because the amount of fraud caused by duplicate participation in welfare programs is unknown, and because changes in caseload after the introduction of finger imaging cannot be interpreted unambiguously as reduction of fraud.”

In fact, the report estimates that the finger imaging technologies, at best, detected only 1 case of duplicate applications in every 5,000.

With these statements in mind, one would be justified in wondering whether or not the question of multiple participation in food stamp programs is even that serious of a question to begin with. Obviously, the premise of the fingerprinting program is built on the assumption that such fraud is occurring. However, neither the local, state, or federal government can provide any actual numbers or credible evidence of such events at least so far as this report is concerned.

Yet, what is more striking than the effects on alleged and supposed cases of fraud is the information relating to the reaction of the general public who were fingerprinted as well as that of the staff doing the fingerprinting.

At this point, it should be noted that the state of Illinois has tested retina scanning technology while Massachusetts utilized facial recognition.

Nevertheless, the report is clear that opposition to the program from both food stamp recipients and those operating the finger printing technology was virtually non-existent. In all cases, the programs actually went better than expected and without the negative responses that the agencies had anticipated. The report states,
The States with operating systems reported that implementation of new biometric client identification procedures had a negligible impact on operations at the local office level. In general, States also reported that the problems and obstacles encountered in operating their respective projects are not unlike those encountered in demonstrating any new technology or procedural modification. These States also reported that their systems and procedures were implemented without unexpected difficulty and were rapidly institutionalized. All the States confronted a range of basic physical space and logistical issues, including where to situate the new equipment, how to appropriately alter job descriptions, who to reassign or hire to handle the new procedures, and how to adjust the flow of clients and paperwork most efficiently. However, none reported any particularly noteworthy difficulties. States reported that clients have been cooperative and accepting of the technology. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, one must always take statements made by government agencies pushing an agenda such as biometric identification with a grain of salt, as many of these agencies are notorious for claiming public support for a project merely as a public relations strategy. This means that many agencies, like the TSA for instance, will claim the vast majority of the public is satisfied with the new procedures, thus insisting that those who oppose it are in a distinct and radical minority, which then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, considering the levels to which American culture has sunk in recent years, particularly in the areas of privacy and civil liberties, the fact that fingerprinting for the purpose of receiving food stamps does not excite opposition and rage on the part of the recipients is not surprising either.

Indeed, the report posted to the USDA website does not appear to be acting as a propaganda piece. Rather, it's matter-of-fact statement of results from an interview process engaged in between the federal government and the test bed states that have enacted a soon-to-go-national program of fingerprinting for food stamps.

Regardless, the report does admit that some concerns do exist amongst the general public regarding the fingerprinting program. It states
Clients do have some concerns about finger imaging. Roughly 15% expressed concerns in the State surveys and interviews conducted to evaluate finger-imaging programs. These concerns center on issues of privacy, unjust treatment of poor people, inconvenience, and fear of inter-agency sharing.
Although admitting that there is “little data on which to estimate the size deterrence effect,” the report insists that there is also “little evidence that clients discontinued benefits because they were intimidated by the finger-image requirement.”

The report reads,
Based on the results from client surveys in five States, a substantial majority of clients had no objection to finger imaging and thought it was a good idea.
. . . . .
Interviews with former clients in Texas found that only two of the 78 former food stamp recipients (both of whom had refused to be imaged) attributed their loss of benefits to finger imaging. Similar interviews in Los Angeles County found that, of those former clients interviewed, no one who refused to be finger imaged expressed a concern with the process.
Interestingly enough, since the USDA report was written and published in December 1999, there has been a move to dismantle some of the fingerprinting programs in place all across the country. In fact, as of 2012, Arizona and New York City are the only locations in the country who mandate that food stamp recipients fingerprint as a part of the application process. Soon, if Gov. Cuomo’s new proposals for the program are able to move forward, Arizona may find itself alone in this regard.

However, one would be wise to consider the implementation of these programs in their select locations as nothing more than test projects. Keep in mind, some of the locales not only used fingerprinting technologies but also retinal scans and facial recognition, a technology that has received a massive push forward in recent months via corporations, law enforcement, and the corporate media.

With the constant harping by reactionary politicians and “right wing” commentators about social safety net benefits such as food stamps being abused, the push to more accurately identify the recipients and assure that the allegedly rampant fraud is ended is not likely to wane any time soon.

Thus, coupled with the official results of fingerprinting programs such as those mentioned above are negligible at best, it is not out of the realm of possibility to see calls for both a tightening and enhancement of fraud-reducing mechanisms to soon be announced.

Like in India and Japan, these calls might very well result in the combination of various types of technology and methods of accumulating data. With the record of fingerprinting still out for adequate assessment, the inclusion of facial recognition and retinal scans might then be introduced to work in tandem with social security numbers and other relevant government-data to provide American citizens seeking assistance with their very own Unique Identification Number and identification profile.


Although some areas are backing off on their fingerprinting schemes, we cannot be lulled into complacency or into the belief that biometric identification techniques on the national scale are beginning to fade. In fact, the opposite is actually the case. While some states and cities are apparently dismantling their fingerprinting systems for access to food stamps, the fact is that the biometric identification aspect will undoubtedly reappear.

Unfortunately, when it does, it will almost assuredly be unveiled in a much more advanced and all-encompassing form. By then, the concept of biometric identification will have had plenty of time to gradually become more accepted in the minds of the general public. Thus, it is paramount that those of us who are aware of the potential for this program to return to take advantage of the small window of opportunity we have been presented with in order to mount some manner of opposition.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds great , shut off all the illegal alien EBT cards. Down with the free shit army

Anonymous said...

Like drug testing they are spending a whole lot of money to find just a few people committing fraud, why don't they do a cost/benefit analysis on these paranoid ideas?

Anonymous said...

I am amazed. I remember they wanted to fingerprint (with ink, not digitally) people on welfare here in Canada, and people got angry... because the only time a person is fingerprinted is when they go to jail and people said "we're not criminals! Don't treat us like criminals when we haven't done anything wrong" and so it was droppped... It seems people have forgotten that connection between fingerprints and jails over there. Thanks to advances in technology. BUt doing this for people needed social assistance they are targeting those in need, similarily to in the past here in Canada. It is sad that people are accepting being targeted and singled out as if they are criminals. There is fraud in every professsion at some point or another... targeting those in need, singling them out like this IS unfair... also they are probably being used to ease in the technology which will probably be spread out into every aspect of general public's lives eventually.. First the people on welfare, then students (they've got those palm scanners already), then who else? Eventually they will be tracking everyone. They use target groups then branch out to all other aspects of society.

So they use excuses to stop this or that from happening and people like the anonymous commenter above agree until bit by bit they take over everything and even he/she will be under their thumb every hour, every day. Don't be fooled by these Big Brother pricks!!

Anonymous said...

This is clearly racist! If it is racist to require a photo ID to vote why would it not be racist to require a biometric ID for government largesse?

Anonymous said...

I have thought about this stuff for some time, especially here is the USA... they say something like 47% get some type of Government assistance, ie; food stamps, disability, medicare, etc...

What a great opportunity for a 'mark of the beast' type system to come into place..... when so many folks depend on the Gov., subsidiaries to live... How many of them, would go without instead of forced to get microchip ed etc ?

Anonymous said...

Cool, when do we chip the bankers and politicians?

Anonymous said...

Bring it on, if you live by other people hard work then you give up something. If you don't want to give up something then don't take it. Its that easy

Anonymous said...

In Texas one must send in a copy of a valid Texas License or I.D. or Passport (To get that one must submit biometric data i.e. fingerprints)together with a valid address and phone number. In addition to filling out several pages of information and supplying supporting documentation one must also receive only through the mail system a verified phone appointment time. The person's voice is then matched electronically and other data is verified verbally. It's a thorough process to say the least. There's certainly no need for further fingerprinting in this state.

Anonymous said...

Food stamp recipients do not object to providing biometric data because they are told they will not receive the subsidy unless it is provided. Despite the implications people are hungry and want to feed their families so they don't object. Mystery solved.

Anonymous said...

The article does not say much about the 'cost' of all this big brother technology, but safe to say it will be huge. Millions will be funneled to some corporate pigs who will overcharge for every aspect of this project.

Hell, the JP Morgan Bank has made over $$ half a billion dollars$$ on EBT Cards since they rolled them out.
Fascism, big companies and big government screwing the little guy every time.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/Report-JP-Morgan-Makes-Over-Half-A-Billion-Dollars-Off-Food-Stamps

Does that first commenter (what a clown!) have any issues with JP Morgan, or is he just keeping an eye on desperate poor people who crossed a border from one F'd up country to another one? You might be just like them in a few years pal. Maybe sooner.

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with fraud . It is all about controlling the sheeple . What better way to have sheeple by the 'nads if you threaten them with starvation . They will do whatever big brother tells them to do for a sandwich .

Anonymous said...

Make the people POOR and you can get away with ANYTHING!!

Anonymous said...

In Arizona, do the fingerprinting or do not get food stamps. A mass protests has to be done, but people have to feed their families and themselves and go along with the program knowing they have no choice. No one, to my knowledge has been organized to protest the fingerprint requirement. Food stamp recipients or potential recipients have to protest in mass and demand that this practice be stopped and all photo imaging of fingerprints destroyed. This is not a simple matter. Here, the applicant is told it is done to keep those in Arizona illegally from getting on food stamps or receiving other social services. From observing the applicants for food stamps, most would not even think of protesting or have the intestinal fortitude to do so. Arizona is among the states that give the least amount of "food stamps". Each state has its own guidelines for food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. I knew people whose address was in California ad received more food stamps and unemployment benefits than Arizonans, but lived here because the price of food and housing was less. They maintained their eligibility by using a relative's or friends address and stating that the food was kept separate from the people they lived with. They even went so far as to rent a room or rooms from the relative or friend to establish the fact they indeed lived there and made sure that this was their mailing address. California never checked up on them at all, lack of personnel to do this was a big factor. Again, fingerprint or no help. Naturally applicants went along with the program. Over 90% were under the impression this was a Federal mandate, not an Arizonan mandate. The people in Arizona have to be made cognizant of the fact that this is a state mandate and Arizona is the only state presently using it. However, their are those who go along with it for our "security"; just like people go along with the TSA. I do not know if this was a decision of the head of the Department of Security or was an a law passed and made an Arizona Revised Statute. Will have to look into this.

Post a Comment