Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
117Â Â Future Directions Suggestions for Further Study Acknowledging that this primer has been developed at a time when biometric technologies, the related laws and policies, and, most importantly, our understanding of the technology are developing, the research team suggests a timely update of this research, ideally within 2 to 3Â years. The research team is also mindful that a primer has limited scope to address emerging issues, especially regarding the tools deployed for COVID-19 pandemic recovery that are driven by the need for a touchless environment. There are five core suggestions for further study, which may be additional research scopes, pilot projects, or proof-of-concept ideas that government and industry stakeholders could pursue. Running Inventory of Airport Pilot Projects and In-the-Field Research Regarding additional research scopes and especially pilot projects, the research team realizes the immense value that feedback from in-the-field research into biometrics, together with new applications of biometrics and (in some cases ongoing) pilot projects, have provided to the research and development of this primer. For future projects, a running inventory of com- mencing, ongoing, and recently completed in-the-field research and pilot projects testing new technologies, procedures, or ideas would be a valuable resource for principal investigators and their teams. Maintaining such an inventory (possibly through the IdeaHub platform) in a collaborative manner would benefit the ACRP community. For Further Study Five core suggestions for further study are discussed in the following. 1. Human Factors Research There are core aspects of biometrics that are heavily driven toward technological solutions. The language of solution development largely concerns false-accept and false-reject rates, as well as the architecture and solutions to share information. While many solutions involved a holistic review of human factors, more research is needed to assess the acceptability and suitability of the solutions to the subject of biometrics: humans themselves. Research could involve a range of tests around the solutions and devices or emerging areas in passenger communications. Digital transparency in the public realm, for example, is an area that requires more attention to uncover opportunities to improve passenger and employee understanding of the use of biometric data. C H A P T E R Â 6
118 Airport Biometrics: A Primer 2. Self-Sovereign Identity, Middleware, and Traveler Verification Service SSI could provide passengers and staff greater ability to own identity data fully without inter- vention from outside administration. At the same time, systems that are geared toward admissi- bility to the United States are structured around longer (75-year) retention periods that challenge the control function and privacy concepts such as the right to forget. As systems like the TVS are geared toward the ability to host identity information in a government-controlled cloud system, there is an emerging area of problem solving that requires more detailed use cases to bridge the gap between SSI and models such as the TVS. Middleware is likely needed as a way of defining the models for the ability for the TVS to work with emerging global standards such as ICAO DTC. Whether the research effort is suitable for a hackathon or series of hackathons to deliver potential solutions, there is an aspect of creating an environment to maximize the strengths of SSI and the power of the existing TVS framework. 3. Biometrics Best Practice Designations The current state of facial recognition and biometrics is one where the language is expansive and unclear to the end user. High-profile abuse and misuse of artificial intelligence, selling of consumer identity information, and other biometric practices have created major concerns among the general public. Moreover, the methodologies, however different from ones used by airlines, airports, and many government agencies, can be tainted with the same negative brush when in fact the technology/governance may be quite different. Whether it is green buildings, genetically modified food product certification, or other applica- tions that are driven by potentially risky issues, there is further research needed on codification of best practice designations in biometrics that cover the range of privacy, operational, technology, or other aspects of uses to differentiate the myriad of technology deployments at airports. The research that led to the WEF publication of âA Framework for Responsible Limits on Facial Recognition Use Caseâ (World Economic Forum 2020c) should be regarded in the research, and, ideally, be implemented at airports, especially as the evolution of domestic TSA checkpoint biometrics accelerates. 4. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Reviews High-profile cases of biometric systems that have performed differently by race are indicative of issues from a societal and technological point of view. Where one community is adversely affected compared to another, issues exist that can challenge the perception of biometrics at airports, especially with populations of passengers from all around the world. Moreover, there are also known issues for individuals with different mobility issues who can benefit from or be challenged by biometric solutions. 5. Digital Twins and Biometric Models Another area of research relates to creating a digital model of facilities for airport operators and aviation industry participants to use to better understand the potential of biometric systems. In the past, the U.S. Commercial Aviation Partnership had an econometric model in place to assess the value of new measures at airports. This research effort was conducted under the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (Peterson et al. 2006). There may be a need to augment past efforts to emulate across airports, airlines, and government agencies a standing model based on digital twins that is able to predict the power of different modes of biometric implementation across major passenger and employee flows.