CONCORD, New Hampshire - January 24, 2010 - It may be one of the shortest bills debated in the New Hampshire House of Representatives during this legislative session. The operative section of HB 299 consists of a single line: “(c) Reasonable identification shall not include fingerprints.”

The bill, which passed the House 255-93 on January 6, also had one operative target: Bank of America.

Since late 2008, Bank of America branches in New Hampshire have been requiring non-customers to provide a fingerprint as identification even when cashing checks drawn on its accounts. It is the only bank in the state using the so-called “Thumbprint Signature” program, but the program is not uncommon elsewhere.

Biometrics, the process of capturing intrinsic physical traits such as fingerprints or retinal patterns, is on the increase around the country with corporations and governmental agencies rushing to create systems to record and verify identities.

House Bill 299 would add that single line to the state law that dictates what is acceptable required identification when presenting a “negotiable instrument” for payment. Fingerprints would no longer be acceptable if the bill becomes law.

The Senate has yet to take up the measure, but the bill’s goals already have been met. BOA New Hampshire President John Weeks told a House committee last week that the fingerprinting would stop February 8.

The bank deserves some credit for voluntarily changing its policies, albeit in the face of a public shaming. But its action may also derail the bill’s momentum in the Senate, leaving some opening for thumbprint identity verification in the future.

Still, the original question stands: Who thought fingerprinting citizens was a good idea in the first place?

The Telegraph spotlighted the practice of fingerprinting bank customers in a story published in July 2009. Litchfield resident Gail Jozitis was incensed when she tried to cash a check drawn on a Bank of America account and was asked to provide a thumbprint in order to get the money.

“I told them, ‘In a pig’s eye!’” Jozitis said at the time. “How in the hell can they ask me for that?”

Kevin Dolan, a regional executive of BOA, responded that the practice was “effective at curbing fraud” and the resulting financial costs for both customers and banks.

The bank stressed the database is not searchable for the purposes of comparing fingerprints, as might be seen on TV crime shows when a suspect’s prints are matched against those found at a crime scene.

Those assurances may be true, but promises like that are often empty, even when well intentioned. In 2005 alone, Bank of America lost more than 200,000 confidential customer records in three separate incidents.

Under state law, companies that suffer similar data breaches of confidential customer information affecting New Hampshire residents are required to report and explain the incident to the New Hampshire Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau.

In 2009, more than 100 reports were filed, though none involving BOA. Nationwide, since 2005 there have reportedly been more than 250 million customer records lost or stolen from corporate or governmental databases.

Bank of America has done the right thing by rescinding its fingerprint policy in New Hampshire. It ought to reconsider it in every state until our laws and technology have advanced to the point where biometrics can be used to safeguard both identity and privacy, not one over the other.