Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

176 The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005scanners). The other key category of concern is related to hidden identification andtracking of individuals. For the biometrics proposed for the ID card, this appliesparticularly to face recognition.FingerprintingAccording to the NPL/BTexact study, there are still significant fears about the use offingerprinting.“One senior UK fingerprint examiner with many years of experiencein the front line of police activities mentioned that many householderswho had been burgled refused to be fingerprinted to eliminate theirown prints from those of a burglar – in spite of assurances about thedestruction of their data after use. In a deployment in the USA,however, we were told that assurances of limitation of use weresufficient to gain the trust of the participants.” 432The sense of criminalisation is one of the larger obstacles to the wide-spread use offingerprints, particularly on the scale envisioned by the UK Government involving anational registry that can be used by the police for watch-listing.There are two key points concerning fingerprinting that are likely to compromise thegovernment’s objectives. The first is that the proposed system is not “universal”. Asignificant number of people will not be able to use it. The GAO report concluded thatthe fingerprints of about 2 to 5 percent of people cannot be captured “because thefingerprints are dirty or have become dry or worn from age, extensive manual labor, orexposure to corrosive chemicals”.These findings are supported by the biometrics industry. BarclayCard has conceded thattrials with fingerprint biometrics proved them too unreliable as a means of verifyingidentity. People who had recently used hand cream created serious problems for thefingerprint readers, as did people with particularly hard or calloused skin, such as chefs,gardeners and labourers.The GAO report raises other concerns that challenge the universal applicability ofbiometrics. It advises that comparative biometric testing has shown that:“certain ethnic and demographic groups (elderly populations, manuallaborers, and some Asian populations) have fingerprints that are moredifficult to capture than others.”Error rates in fingerprinting are both significant, and poorly understood. According to arecent review 433 of available systems, only a handful of products achieved an equal errorrate of under 3%, and the performance of most was much worse. Furthermore, it wouldbe hazardous and risky for governments to lock their core infrastructure into a singleproprietary product while both attack and defence are evolving rapidly.432 ‘Feasibility Study on the Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme’, for UKPS, DVLA, and the Home Office,by Tony Mansfield and Marek Rejman-Greene, February 2003, p. 27.433 Fingerprint Verification Competition 2004, Open Category Results: Average results over all databases,Preliminary results, http://bias.csr.unibo.it/fvc2004/results.asp.
The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005 177According to one expert, our understanding of fingerprints “is dangerously flawed andrisks causing miscarriages of justice”. 434 Amongst the numerous cases of mistakenidentification through fingerprinting, that of Brandon Mayfield is indicative of the manyproblems in assessment and interpretation of fingerprint data.Following the Madrid Bombings of March 11 th 2004, Spanish National Police managedto lift a fingerprint from an unexploded bomb. Three highly skilled FBI fingerprintexperts declared that Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield's fingerprint was a match to thecrime scene sample. U.S. officials described the match as “absolutely incontrovertible”and a “bingo match”. As a former U.S. soldier, Mayfield’s fingerprint was on thenational fingerprint system. Mayfield was imprisoned for two weeks. The fingerprint,however, was not his. According to one law professor,“The Mayfield misidentification also reveals the danger thatextraneous knowledge might influence experts’ evaluations. If any ofthose FBI fingerprint examiners who confidently declared the matchalready knew that Mayfield was himself a convert to Islam who hadonce represented a convicted Taliban sympathizer in a child custodydispute, this knowledge may have subconsciously primed them to“see” the match. ... No matter how accurate fingerprint identificationturns out to be, it cannot be as perfect as they claim.” 435When Mayfield’s personal information was combined with the crime scene evidence,the FBI was convinced of his culpability. Yet according to a recent panel of experts,they were wrong. 436 As the collection of biometric information increases, and as itmoves from law enforcement to civilian applications, the error rate may significantlyincrease.Iris recognition and blind and visually impaired peopleIris recognition is a relatively new identification technique. In the decade since the irisidentification algorithms were patented, nearly all technical reports and trials have beenconducted at a general level. It appears that no trials have been undertaken with specificreference to blind or visually impaired users. When such people are unable to use asystem for whatever reason, they are referred to within the biometrics industry as the“outlier” population (the members of which are colloquially known by the industry as“goats”). 437 They are frequently excluded from research trials. The reported levels ofaccuracy and acceptability of iris recognition therefore tend to be based on analysis ofthose who are physically able to use the technology rather than representing a crosssectionof the community.A distinction should be made between the “outlier” population – those who physicallycannot use the technology – as opposed to the population who would find thetechnology difficult to use or who would produce inconsistent data. The latter group434 ‘The Achilles' Heel of Fingerprints’, J.L. Mnookin, Washington Post, May 29, 2004.435 Ibid.436 ‘FBI Faulted in Arrest of Ore. Lawyer’, B. Harden, Washington Post, November 16, 2004.437 See references to this term, for example, in http://www.speechtechmag.com/issues/3_3/cover/442-1.html
Page 1:
The Identity Projectan assessment o
Page 5 and 6:
The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
22 The LSE Identity Project Report:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
100 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 157: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 160 and 161: 146 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317:
show all

Report - Guardian

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?