Summary of a Workshop on the Technology, Policy, and Cultural Dimensions of Biometric Systems (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Summary of Panel Sessions and Presentations
2 Summary of Panel Sessions and Presentations
Pages 5-32
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 5... ...
The challenges relevant in varying degrees to all biometric systems were grouped in three categories by the panelists, with primary emphasis during this discussion given to the first category of challenges. · Improving the accuracy of biometric technologies and related performance evaluations through research on sensor resolution and ergonomics, algorithms and techniques for biometric fusion, characteristics of biometric feature spaces, and scientific methods to better quantify biometric systems' performance under realistic conditions.
|
From page 6... ...
Such a system can log all the people who have been in a room and capture the frontal images that are best suited to facial recognition at higher resolution. Given that users of biometric systems may not be familiar with the technology, the ergonomics of the sensor and associated data capture hardware may affect the biometric information that is collected.
|
From page 7... ...
In addition to improving the collection, processing, and integration of biometric information, panelists also underscored the importance of understanding more about biometrics feature spaces, including determining how many independent dimensions there are for each unimodal biometric, how many are required to determine distinctness, and variation in feature space dimensionality across different biometric modes. Biostatistical tools and processes could also be helpful in determining the effectiveness of dimensions in creating and using representative but smaller test populations and in understanding changes in biometric identifiers over time.
|
From page 8... ...
· Provide access to large data sets and different types of data, such as multimodal data, to measure performance improvements and find ways to increase the amount of data used in biometric performance studies.1 · Develop challenge problems to guide academic research and to create a baseline for comparisons and independent evaluations. · Increase the documentation of government-funded and -proposed research (see Session 2 for additional discussion)
|
From page 9... ...
· Data and data selection choices, which include understanding the reference and expected user populations, can have a large impact on the accuracy and effectiveness of testing and evaluation. BOX 2.2 Early Biometrics System Deployment at an Airport One panelist described the evaluation of different biometric technologies for several operational deployments, as well as the design of a future biometric system for controlling access to Boston's air transportation system.
|
From page 10... ...
to assess the readiness of a system for deployment and to provide a framework for characterizing performance as a function of variability in a given system; and (3) to monitor performance of a system in the field, which includes characterizing system performance in terms of the failure mechanisms and identifying technical challenges that can feed back to research and development.
|
From page 11... ...
Experimental Design Participants noted that good experimental design is important in evaluating systems and selecting evaluation data and that many of the issues that arise are not specific to biometrics. Data selection issues need to be acknowledged up front rather than being hidden or elided in the evaluation of systems.
|
From page 12... ...
. These systems were orders of magnitude apart in terms of error rates, presumably because the two populations from which the data were being collected had very different motivations.
|
From page 13... ...
SESSION 3: LEGISLATIVE, POLICY, HUMAN, AND CULTURAL FACTORS Panelists: Tora Bikson, David Kaye, Lisa Nelson, and Peter Swire Moderator: Jeanette Blomberg In Session 3 panelists were asked to address the legal, policy, social, and cultural aspects of biometric systems, as well as the implications for the collection and use of biometric data in different contexts at both the national and international levels. Five main themes emerged during this session: · Three different modes of identification evidence -- mitochondrial DNA, facial recognition, and latent fingerprints -- were discussed in relation to "general acceptance" and "scientific validity" -- two legal standards for the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.
|
From page 14... ...
Mitochondrial DNA has also been accurately sequenced in a laboratory, and the frequency of mitochondrial haplotypes can be estimated to determine if two samples being analyzed are similar.16 It was noted that questions pertaining to the theory and appropriateness of the computer algorithms used to perform facial recognition, a relatively new type of biometric identification, would need to be answered to determine the technique's admissibility in a court of law. It would be important to know if the algorithm has been adequately tested and the results have been published or if it is proprietary and not published; whether there is sufficient research literature demonstrating the validity of the approach; whether conditional error probabilities have been established and, if so, their values; and how the matches are presented (e.g., in a binary form or as the probability that the two signals come from a common source)
|
From page 15... ...
To prevent similar problems with new biometric identifiers and the loss of the "keys" that breed fraud, a law was proposed at the workshop that would prohibit the selling or sharing of unencrypted biometric data. Similar to recently proposed legislation to prohibit the "sale or display of social security numbers,"20 the draft law aims to minimize access to high-quality images of biometrics (irises, fingerprints, and so on)
|
From page 16... ...
It was suggested that although factual legal doctrine does not directly relate to biometric technology, principles from constitutional cases defining protections against searches and seizures and in the realms of informational privacy and intimate decision making were applicable for the development of biometric technology policy. Furthermore, normative expectations of privacy also must be taken into consideration and might well be decisive for the acceptance of the broader use of biometric technologies.
|
From page 17... ...
· Acceptance of biometric technology will increase as technology reliability improves. · Two of the lesser concerns were inappropriate information sharing, in either government or private sector settings, and the theft of biometric identifiers.
|
From page 18... ...
25 · Will individuals be given the opportunity to inspect and to correct biometric information collected about them? How will this be done?
|
From page 19... ...
Joint Technical Committee 1 Standards Committee 37 to develop voluntary best practices for the international use of biometric technology in private corporations by 2006. The international working group aims to bring together different cultural and legal perspectives into a common framework of principles based on fair information practices.
|
From page 20... ...
One account was given of a remote village chief vouching for an individual's proper name when no paper documents existed. An underlying problem with large-scale biometric identity management applications that rely on paper-based documents to establish a legal identity lies not so much in capturing the biometrics, it was suggested, but in creating and trusting the linkages.28 A panelist called the mapping of a traditional, paper-based identity to a biometrics-based identity the Achilles' heel of biometric identity management applications.
|
From page 21... ...
The system must also accommodate those who are not familiar with the biometric technology and process as well as those who intend to be uncooperative. The potential solutions offered by the panelists for the false nonmatch rate and enrollment problems include the improvement of sensors and system ergonomics in order to acquire higher quality biometrics.
|
From page 22... ...
of nonenrollment, such as screening for inclusion on a watch list, the individual is trying to avoid a match.33 · Human factors are critical for optimizing the capture performance of biometric techniques. Attention to system ergonomics that automatically adapt to human factors, such as a facial recognition camera that adjusts to differences in height and presentation, can make a system less intimidating and more natural for users and may significantly reduce enrollment error rates.
|
From page 23... ...
However, participants noted that one challenge to research in multibiometric fusion techniques has been the limited supply of true multibiometric data (i.e., multibiometric data from the same human being)
|
From page 24... ...
Taipale, and John Woodward Moderator: Peter Higgins In Session 5, panelists were asked to discuss a variety of issues related to biometric data sharing, including technical challenges as they relate to synchronicity and connectivity of data on the one hand and security and privacy of data on the other hand; policy considerations for sharing biometric data between agencies; and practical consideration of standards development and crossjurisdictional cooperation. The following are some of the topics covered in this session: · Newly established and long-standing biometric data-sharing applications at the state, national, and international levels were described in the contexts of military defense, law enforcement, and immigration.
|
From page 25... ...
is a pilot biometric information-sharing system within the Boston Police Department that was developed to recognize foreign-born individuals illegally residing in the United States and to facilitate access to information about immigration violations.39 The panelist described the process as follows: When an individual is arrested on any charge, 10 rolled fingerprints, mug shots, and information on distinguishing features such as tattoos are entered and stored in CAIS. The same information is entered in the Massachusetts State Police Department's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
|
From page 26... ...
BOX 2.5 Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System As described by several panelists, the FBI's Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) criminal master file is a criminal law enforcement technical capability with a database consisting of over 48 million electronically searchable sets of fingerprints and corresponding criminal history information on individuals arrested in the United States for a felony or serious misdemeanor charge.1 The panelists highlighted some of the system capabilities that facilitate the linking of past criminal records across jurisdictions and contribute to a high degree of accuracy and effectiveness in biometric identification.
|
From page 27... ...
More recently, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004 added the requirement to expedite the addition of a biometric to the entry and exit system. 43 The panelists indicated that since the beginning of the US-VISIT program in January 2004, there have been 5,342 watch list hits, with a 1 percent error rate, out of more than 4.2 million visa applications.
|
From page 28... ...
There is ongoing work to develop information-sharing models with other governments, such as the Enhancing International Travel Security program, intended to enable governments to validate "good" people, not just to identify the "bad." Policy Challenges Related to Large-Scale Systems Technical and policy challenges raised by information sharing among large-scale biometrics systems were also discussed. Such challenges include maintaining data integrity, consolidation of biometric information, and integration of databases.
|
From page 29... ...
Broader Technical and Policy Challenges Related to Biometric Information-Sharing Systems In examining the broader goals for and challenges of biometrics systems, the importance of evaluating such systems with respect to their purposes and context was stressed, along with the need for policies to establish appropriate error rate goals or thresholds, facilitate the identification of potential sources of error, and promote a better understanding of what improvements biometric systems offer over existing security, access control, and other systems (see Session 3)
|
From page 30... ...
The former, verification of an enrollment claim, serves to verify the individual identity, often with the subject retaining control over his or her own information. In the latter, identification without an enrollment claim, additional data are attributed and tied to an individual based on biometric identifiers, with third parties generally controlling data attribution and reputation of the subject.53 With respect to limiting identity theft, it was suggested that claim verification, where individuals have an incentive to control their reputation, might be more useful than a system in which biometrics are aggregated in a database and later sold, which would not be much better than current processes that aggregate and sell SSNs.
|
From page 31... ...
Additionally, it was suggested that technical systems should include "policy appliances," or mechanisms that (1) permit an intervention point for human beings to make a decision to control data sharing and (2)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.