The car rental industry has rarely been renowned for its forward thinking attitude and embracement of new technology. However in the UK this is rapidly changing with the improvements in biometric technology. The reason car rental companies are so inclined to take advantage of biometric advances is because they can help to secure their assets and hence improve profitability. Biometric technology however does raise fundamental issues with privacy and data protection; hence it is understandable that many people have concerns with human rights and the protection of their own personal data. This issue goes beyond the car rental sphere, and instead enters a large number of other industries and business sectors.

Fingerprints form an important part of biometric recording and are especially important in the rental sphere. Companies now record customer’s fingerprints in order to create a biometric ID. One of the pilot schemes for this technology took place in Essex’s Stansted Airport. The scheme made it compulsory to submit an electronic thumbprint for any person who wished to hire a car. The forced nature of the scheme however led to many customers feeling besmirched and critical of why they should have to submit personal data.

Companies are quick to assert that this biometric data will only ever be used if the car is stolen; this will take the form of handing it over to the law enforcement bodies so that they can crosscheck their own files with the fingerprints taken at the hire desk. Police were quick to highlight the plaudits of the scheme, claiming that it was a response to the large numbers of thefts carried out by organised criminals.

This situation is becoming prevalent all across the United Kingdom; with many businesses stating that the data recorded is purely a fall back should a vehicle be stolen. These firms argue that the data will not be used for any other purpose, or passed to a third party. The ‘invasion of big brother’ claims are quickly discounted, instead the argument that the recording of biometric data will in fact act towards protecting identities is presented.

Naturally the reaction of customers was mixed. One startled customer at Stansted Airport felt that the staff members of the rental company were joking when they asked for a thumbprint. On finding out that they were serious this particular customer was dumfounded. The rather articulate response was that companies had no right to employ such an arbitrary and disproportionate tactic to fight car crime. However, the companies have such a right, after all it is their assets they are protecting.

One of the issues causing the encroachment of biometric recording has been the increasing numbers of false passports. This touted reason however did not hold sway with many customers; their argument being that if it is possible to board a plane with a passport, then why should an additional form of identity be needed to hire a car? In addition customers were understandably worried about how this data would be stored, seemingly if the government cannot hold personal data securely, then what chance do a car rental company have?

Whatever the arguments surrounding the implementation of biometric technologies it is certain that in the car rental industry they are here to stay. It is a case of put up or shut up for customers. These schemes however have not yet been rolled out all over the country; the success of these trials will undoubtedly give an indication not only of how biometrics will affect the rental industry, but will given an insight into how these technologies are likely to encroach on everyday life.