Forouzan Marzbani
PhD Student in Political sociology, Razi University
Introduction
In the digital age, human existence has undergone profound transformations, to the extent that the body is no longer merely a biological entity but has instead been converted and transmuted into a collection of processable data. Although the history of modernity has always been intertwined with the management of bodies and with what Foucault termed “anatomo-politics,” the walls of traditional disciplinary institutions have collapsed in the twenty-first century. We are no longer confined within enclosed spaces; rather, we live within open networks in which the principal mechanism of control is not physical barriers but biometric data. Today, governments and technology conglomerates extract physiological and behavioral characteristics with great precision, thereby creating a kind of digital twin for every citizen—one that determines the individual’s identity and access rights in social interactions. The central argument of this paper is that biometric data—from facial recognition to behavioral patterns—operate far beyond the function of simple authentication tools; they constitute emerging mechanisms for the reproduction of power, social exclusion, and the commodification of human beings.
Drawing on the ideas of thinkers such as Foucault, Deleuze, and Zuboff, this study examines the transition from the “disciplinary society” to the “society of control.” Its principal hypothesis is that the ultimate danger posed by this transition lies not merely in the violation of privacy, but in the erosion of citizens’ political agency and the emergence of a form of digital totalitarianism. Accordingly, the central question addressed by the present report is this: How have biometric technologies transformed the nature of the state–nation relationship, and what conditions have they created for structural repression?
Theoretical Framework
To understand the potential depth and implications of biometric data, it is necessary to move beyond the technical level and examine their philosophical and political dimensions.
- Gilles Deleuze and the End of Discipline: In his seminal essay entitled Postscript on the Societies of Control, published in 1992, Gilles Deleuze argues that we have moved beyond the Foucauldian age of enclosed environments. In the society of control, the individual is no longer treated as a body but is transformed into data patterns (Deleuze, 1992: 5). Within this paradigm, cybernetic control is exercised not through physical obstruction, but through the granting or denial of access. Biometric data function as the passwords that determine who is entitled to enter public space, use banking services, or travel.
- Contemporary Biopolitics: By extending the concept of “bare life,” Giorgio Agamben warns that biometric technologies reduce citizens to the level of biological existence. When an individual’s political identity becomes tied to their biological characteristics—such as the iris of the eye—the possibility of changing one’s identity or remaining anonymous, both of which are among the foundations of liberal democracy, disappears (Agamben, 2005: 87). Under such conditions, the human body itself becomes incriminating evidence against the individual.
The Nature of Biometric Data: The Body as an Instrument of Surveillance
In general, biometric data are divided into two principal categories:
- Physiological biometrics: fingerprints, facial recognition, iris patterns, hand geometry, and DNA;
- Behavioral biometrics: gait, typing patterns, tone of voice, and even minute eye movements.
The fundamental difference between these forms of data and other types of digital information lies in their immutability and their existential connection to the individual. If the password to your email account is compromised, you can change it; however, if the digital pattern of your face is stolen or misused, you cannot change your face. David Lyon, a prominent sociologist in the field of surveillance studies, describes this phenomenon as “liquid surveillance,” in which data become detached from the body and circulate fluidly through databases, while the person to whom the body belongs exercises no control over them (Bauman & Lyon, 2012: 32).
This ontological transformation has an even more devastating consequence: the body is reduced from a private domain and personal territory to a public interface. Within the paradigm of biometric surveillance, the body is no longer merely the bearer of life or an instrument of labor; rather, it becomes a living and permanently active digital document that continuously transmits information without the will or consent of its owner.
Unlike conventional identity documents—such as national identity cards, credit cards, and similar instruments—which are external to the human body and can be concealed or even destroyed by the individual, biometric data are inscribed within the very biological fabric of our existence. This “fusion of identity and flesh” means that the modern human being, within the society of control, can never truly go offline or conceal their identity.
Accordingly, the new nature of the body is defined by an ontology of compulsory transparency: a condition in which the boundary between the internal and the external collapses, and the body, functioning as an immutable barcode, exposes the subject to the algorithms’ continuous judgment, classification, and commodification, without leaving any avenue of escape through which the individual might return to an autonomous self.
Mechanisms of Abuse and Cybernetic Control
The misuse of biometric data does not merely refer to their being hacked by cybercriminals. The greater danger lies in their systematic use by governments and corporations for social engineering and repression. One of the most dangerous phenomena in the sociology of technology is function creep. This concept refers to a situation in which a system designed for a specific and legitimate purpose is gradually employed for entirely different—and often repressive—purposes.
For example, facial-recognition systems initially installed to enhance airport security and combat terrorism are now used in many countries to identify civil protesters, enforce minor traffic penalties, or track bank debtors (Winner, 1986: 29). This incremental expansion occurs without renewed citizen consent and in the absence of transparent legislation.
In another case, Simone Browne demonstrates in her book Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness that biometric technologies are not neutral. Facial-recognition algorithms are often trained predominantly on datasets containing images of white people and men and consequently exhibit substantially higher error rates when identifying racial minorities and women (Browne, 2015: 112). When such error-prone systems form the basis of predictive policing, they result in wrongful arrests and intensify pressure on marginalized groups.
In addition to the foregoing, within Habermas’s theory of democracy, the public sphere is a space in which individuals can criticize power without fear of immediate consequences. Pervasive biometric surveillance—such as closed-circuit television cameras equipped with facial-recognition technology across public streets—destroys the right to anonymity.
When citizens know that their presence at a protest gathering, or even their purchase of a particular book, will be immediately recorded and added to their security profile, they begin to engage in self-censorship. In political psychology, this phenomenon is known as the “chilling effect”: a condition in which citizens refrain from exercising their lawful rights because they fear being observed (Richards, 2013: 1935).
The Political Economy of Biometrics: Surveillance Capitalism
Any analysis of the misuse of biometric data remains incomplete without taking into account the role of late capitalism. In her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Shoshana Zuboff explains that human experience has become a free raw material for the extraction of behavioral data. The new generation of biometric sensors—embedded in smartwatches and virtual-reality headsets—has moved beyond identity recognition; these sensors also monitor emotions. Heart rate, galvanic skin response (GSR), and pupil dilation are forms of data capable of revealing a user’s emotional state. By using such data, companies not only predict consumer behavior but also shape and direct it (Zuboff, 2019: 254). Here, misuse entails the violation of mental privacy or freedom of conscience. A power capable of analyzing your emotions before you yourself become aware that you are angry or depressed possesses the capacity for absolute manipulation.
In the international sphere, biometric data have become a principal instrument for managing migration and borders. Louise Amoore refers to this phenomenon as the “biometrization of borders.” In order to receive even the most basic humanitarian services, asylum seekers are compelled to surrender their biometric data, including fingerprints and iris scans. These data are stored in international databases, such as EURODAC in Europe. Misuse occurs when such information is shared among intelligence agencies without the asylum seeker’s consent, thereby placing the individual in a condition of permanent surveillance and absolute vulnerability. The asylum seeker’s body is transformed into a barcode that either authorizes passage or triggers an order of removal (Amoore, 2006: 344).
Security Risks
In addition to governmental and corporate misuse, biometric technologies are also subject to significant technical vulnerabilities. Advances in generative adversarial networks (GANs) within the field of artificial intelligence have enabled the production of deepfakes. If the audio and visual biometric data of a politician or social activist are stolen, fabricated videos can be created in which the individual appears to make statements that they never actually made.
In the biometric age, identity theft does not merely entail financial loss; it can also lead to character assassination and the destruction of an individual’s social capital. Because biometric data function as keys granting access to virtually everything—from mobile phones and bank accounts to health records—the leakage of such data from government databases, which unfortunately occurs with considerable frequency, poses a severe threat to both individual and national security.
Conclusion
The genealogical and critical analyses presented in this study confront us with the stark reality that humanity has reached a dangerous and decisive historical juncture. The transition from disciplinary societies to societies of control is not merely a technological transformation; rather, it represents a fundamental mutation in the nature of governance and human existence. Although biometric technology is not inherently harmful and may serve legitimate security-related and facilitative functions, the arguments advanced in this study demonstrate that, in the absence of robust legal and ethical frameworks, it has the potential to become the most comprehensive and pervasive instrument of repression in human history.
The principal danger arising from this new condition lies in the emergence of three fundamental challenges that threaten the very fabric of social life. The first is an ontological challenge, in which the human being is reduced from an autonomous agent endowed with will to a collection of data and predictable algorithms. In this process, the individual’s digital twin—a composite of binary codes—takes precedence over their physical existence and determines their actual identity in social interactions.
The second challenge is the political crisis generated by an asymmetry of power. When governments and corporations—the observers—gain access to every concealed physiological and behavioral dimension of citizens—the observed—while themselves remaining hidden behind the opaque walls of algorithms, the balance of power shifts irreversibly in favor of those who own and control technology.
In addition, the inadequacy of traditional privacy laws in confronting biological surveillance constitutes the third challenge. Existing laws were designed to protect information, not to protect bodies and emotions, which have now been transformed into commercial commodities and instruments of control. The direct consequence of this condition is the destruction of the right to anonymity and the creation of a climate of self-censorship in which citizens, conscious of being subjected to permanent surveillance, abandon the exercise of their civil and political rights out of fear of possible consequences.
Accordingly, confronting these existential threats requires a paradigmatic shift in the fields of law and political philosophy. The concept of the right to privacy is no longer, by itself, capable of safeguarding human freedom and must be supplemented—or even replaced—by more progressive concepts, such as the right to remain unknown and absolute ownership of bodily data.
Civil society must remain alert to the fact that biometric data, unlike passwords, are immutable, and that their leakage or misuse can cause irreversible harm. Ultimately, unless independent and powerful oversight institutions are established to audit algorithms and restrain the insatiable appetite of surveillance capitalism, global society will slide toward a model of a digital glass prison.
In such a society, as Michel Foucault warned, permanent visibility and pervasive surveillance will consume the last remaining vestiges of human freedom and transform the human body into permanent incriminating evidence against itself.
References
- Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. From: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3534874.html
- Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography, 25(3), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.001
- Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press. From: https://www.dukeupress.edu/dark-matters
- Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7. From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828
- Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. From: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/55026/discipline-and-punish-by-michel-foucault-and-alan-sheridan/
- Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2012). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Polity Press. From: https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Liquid%2BSurveillance%3A%2BA%2BConversation-p-x000615790
- Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1934–1965. From: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-126/the-dangers-of-surveillance/
- Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press. From: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo49911830.html
- Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs. From: https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/shoshana-zuboff/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/9781610395694/
