Biometrics: which identifier works best?
Friday 19th December 2003
Technology Channel: Information Security
Biometrics have been used for many years for a variety of applications across a range of industries, including the use of fingerprint or iris scans for personal verification in the financial services industry, such as for withdrawals at ATMs. But much of the evidence for or against biometrics can be found by looking at the travel industry - specifically the measures being taken at airports across Europe.
Biometric identification has been in use at airports in Europe, and even worldwide, for a number of years, but it is in the past three to four years that implementations have been accelerating. Schemes in place in 2001 include a facial recognition programme at Keflavik Airport in Iceland, as well as the start of an iris recognition programme for frequent travellers using Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. Yet it was the terrorist events of 2001 that provided the greatest impetus for airports to jump on the bandwagon and initiate their own schemes.
The biometric schemes in place across Europe are a mixed bag: some employ just one of facial, fingerprint and iris recognition; others - such as those being implemented at Frankfurt Airport in Germany and Umeå Airport in northern Sweden - combine both fingerprint and iris recognition capabilities. In addition, some airports are using biometric identifiers to control access to restricted areas at airports, whilst others are aimed at speeding up the processing of passengers. Further, some schemes are being extended to cover both employee access as well as passenger security and convenience.
As part of its efforts to improve homeland security, the US is mandating that biometrics must be incorporated on the passports, visas or other identification documents being used by passengers entering or leaving the country under its US-VISIT scheme. However, the number of schemes - as well as the variety of different biometric identifiers in use in these schemes - will make interoperability problematic, especially if machines have to be put in place to automate the identification of individuals through fingerprint, face and iris analysis.
The International Civil Aviation Organization is working to develop a global, harmonised blueprint for the integration of biometric identification into passports and other forms of identification. It is hoping to implement a standardised system of identity management among its 188 member countries. It has selected face recognition as the preferred biometric identifier owing to this form of biometric identifier having the highest compatibility with key operational considerations, followed by fingerprint and then iris recognition. However, these findings fly in the face of trials of face recognition technology in various parts of the world, which show that false acceptance rates are high using this technology and that it is not especially effective in matching people against databases of known undesirables. Fingerprint recognition, on the other hand, is more reliable since a computer can match up to 70 different characteristics that are unique to an individual. Iris scans are even more effective, able to match up to 270 unique characteristics.
Within Europe, there is a wide variation of biometric techniques being used, meaning that the desired goal of standardisation is unlikely to happen any time soon. What is required is that the internal ministers of the EU countries get together to reach some kind of compromise to promote interoperability, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon, especially in the light of the expansion of the EU. In the meantime, many schemes involve the use of more than one biometric identifier, but this makes such schemes more expensive to roll out. The UK government, for example, is toying with the idea of including face, fingerprint and iris biometric identifiers on its proposed ID cards. For many concerned with privacy, that is going just too far
it-director.com
steve |
