In an effort to thwart the state’s growing number of identity-theft crimes, state senators passed a bill last week that would allow the Department of Licensing to use fingerprints and high-tech means for identification.

The bill, however, will not likely see the House floor because of concerns over civil liberties violations and worries over the technological soundness of currently available biometric measurement tools.

Biometric identification technology automatically confirms an individual’s characteristics, such as face, hand shapes, retinal scans and fingerprints.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of biometric identifiers has been offered as a method to increase national security.

Senate Bill 5412, sponsored by Dale Brandland, R-Bellingham, would give driver’s license applicants the option of recording their fingerprints on their license for a $2 fee.

"There will always be people who think that it is a big brother issue," said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island. "But if anyone has had their license stolen, they know what it feels like. This will just give them the option of a more secure driver’s license."

Haugen sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Brandland. She said that more that $150 million was lost last year in retail alone to identity theft.

Bill proponents believe that biometric identification would thwart the fraudulent issuance of driver’s licenses — a practice they say contributes to many cases of identity theft. Washington’s identity thieves are responsible for the state’s 10th-place ranking for identity heists in 2003 with 4,741 cases, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Though the legislation easily passed the Senate on a 46-2 vote, the bill faces a steep uphill battle.

Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, was one of two senators who voted against the bill Tuesday.

"Having a thumbprint on a few drivers’ licenses is not going to protect against identity theft," Stevens said. "I think it will soon be shown that it doesn’t accomplish the veil of security it is supposed to produce, and identity theft will continue to grow in Washington."

Jerry Sheehan of the Washington State ACLU said the excessive cost and biometrics’ demonstrated flaws should have legislators shaking their heads at this bill.

"It is the question of government adopting a highly suspect technique that would incorrectly allow innocent citizens to be viewed as wrongdoers," he said.

About 5 percent of people do not have readable fingerprints, according to an article in the December 2003 issue of Economist magazine.

The same article reported that fingerprint scanners are easily fooled.

"When you have very large number of transactions and you have even a relatively smallish error rate, you begin to have a hefty rate of false-positive transactions that will get into the tens of thousands," Sheehan said.

The Department of Licensing supported the initial draft of the bill, which made biometric identification compulsory. That support was later withdrawn after substitute versions made the system voluntary.

"It means that the people that would participate would most likely be law-abiding, upstanding citizens," said Jeff Smith of the Department of Licensing. "The people who would be skirting the law would not participate."

Smith said the $2 proposed cost would be a disincentive for participation, and that the proceeds from an optional participation would not likely be enough to cover the cost. He added that an optional system would likely create longer wait times.

The Department of Licensing, which currently has a neutral position toward the bill, would be more supportive of it if it were mandatory, Smith said.

A mandatory biometric system is exactly what Stevens is afraid of.

The second portion of the bill entered into privacy issues, which I jealously protect," said Stevens. "My concern is that tomorrow the Legislature will be asked to mandate thumbprints for all drivers’ licenses. We need to avoid the next step."

The bill, which is around for its second legislative session, has yet to be scheduled for a hearing in the House Transportation committee.