Report - Guardian

170 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005and iris scans to establish one's identity or, at least, one's uniqueness. The theory behindthis approach is that a biometric is less likely to be spoofed or forged than might asimple photo identity card.In the UK identity proposals, biometrics would be taken upon application for a card andfor entry on the National Identification Register, and would be used thereafter for major‘events’ such as obtaining a driving license, passport, bank account, benefits oremployment. The eye and fingers of the applicant would be scanned, and then comparedboth with the biometric on the identity card (which contains the biometrics in electronicform), and against a national database (which also contains the biometrics).It is a faith in biometrics that is driving the Identity Card Bill. In October 2004, PrimeMinister Tony Blair announced that ID cards would be in the Queen’s speech. On thetopic of technological progress, he stated that“Overall, progress is very encouraging and I'm confident we cansuccessfully develop a secure ID card for the whole country. (…)Computers and technology are so advanced now that forgery ofpassports and identity documents are easier than it's ever been. (…) Asecure modern solution will give us much more protection than wehave at the moment.” 423The Government has repeatedly claimed that the use of biometrics will prevent anyfraudulent use of the system. Often it is said that biometrics is the key enabler of theGovernment’s bill, particularly since the very existence of the National Identity Registerhinges on the verification of biometrics. A central register on a scale of 50 millionrecords would need to contain very accurate biometrics, and the verification processwould have to involve high-integrity devices. To operate at a national scale, asenvisioned by the Government, the technology would have to be close to perfect.Failure of the biometrics and the register can not be an option.However, any claim of infallibility is incorrect. All biometrics have successfully beenspoofed or attacked by researchers. Substantial work has been undertaken to establishthe technique of forging or counterfeiting fingerprints 424 while researchers in Germanyhave established 425 that iris recognition is vulnerable to simple forgery. 426A 2002 report of the United States General Accounting Office “Using biometrics forborder security” states:Biometric technologies are maturing but are still not widespread orpervasive because of performance issues, including accuracy, the lack423 ‘PM Press Conference’, Number 10 Downing Street, October 25, 2004.424 Tsutomu Matsumoto, Hiroyuki Matsumoto, Koji Yamada, Satoshi Hoshino, Impact of Artificial "Gummy"Fingers on Fingerprint Systems, May 15, 2002, http://www.cryptome.org/gummy.htm425 ‘Body Check’, Lisa Thalheim, Jan Krissler, Peter-Michael Ziegler, CT Magazine, November 2002,http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/11/114/.426 Liveness Detection in Biometric Systems, http://www.biometricsinfo.org/whitepaper1.htm.