Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

208 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005The deliberative process on this bill has already suffered from a lack of open discussionon projected costs. The Home Affairs Committee was warned by a variety of expertsthat detailed specifications were required in order for costs to be reigned in, and withoutadequate research, the specification would remain ambiguous. For instance, the UKComputing Research Committee argued that a number of questions remain unanswered:- “How long could this process be permitted to take (mean,median and maximum) before the delays became unacceptablein the most time-critical of the required functions?- What level of false positive matches (fraudulent use notdetected) is acceptable for the most demanding function forwhich the card would be required?- What level of false negative matches (legitimate use rejectedby the system) is acceptable for the most demanding functionfor which the card would be required?- What level of failure to obtain any matches (biometric not ableto be read) is acceptable for the most demanding function forwhich the card would be required?- Would all necessary data about the cardholder be contained onthe card itself, or would there need to be interrogation of oneor more databases?- How would the authenticity of the data on the card (or in anyassociated databases) be established initially? What is theacceptable error rate in this data?- How sensitive (private/secret) is the data on the card or on anyassociated database? (This will influence the necessarysecurity mechanisms).- Will any databases be accessible from public terminals orconnected to the Internet?- How many people/locations will need to be able to read thedata on any databases?- How many people/locations will need to be able to alter thedata on any databases?- What mechanisms are required to allow the cardholder to haveaccess to, or to modify, any or all of the data held aboutthem?” 484These questions cannot be answered without detailed studies into the use of biometrics,detailed consideration on the content of the cards, trials of cross-countryimplementation, and clear operational guidelines.Particular reference should be made to one study on the feasibility of biometricsconducted by the National Physical Laboratory and BTexact (hereafter referred to as‘the NPL report’) conducted in 2003 (see section on Biometrics). The UK ComputingResearch Committee found this study to be ‘competent’ and supported the conclusions,although with the caveat:484 ‘Memorandum submitted by the UK Computing Research Committee’, submitted to the Select Committee onHome Affairs, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/130we52.htm.
The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 209“that the analysis of error rates for the only biometric that appears tobe feasible for the envisaged system (iris scanning) have been drawnfrom two sources of limited dependability. The first is a study of only200 volunteers, a sample unrepresentative of the general population. 485The other is a study by the company that holds the patents for thetechnology and which would be a major beneficiary of anywidespread introduction of iris scanning systems.” 486The NPL report concluded that the choice of biometrics should be made once additionalinformation became available, through further studies and consultation. The ComputingResearch Committee concluded similarly:“We believe that a well-controlled, independent, large-scale studyshould be undertaken before any decision is made to commit to aparticular biometric technology, to ensure that the necessary low errorrates can be achieved for a population of 60 million people, and thatno minority group is unacceptably disadvantaged by the chosenbiometric.”Subsequent studies that were conducted were of some value; though the results weredelivered too late to inform debate on the first occasion that the Bill went throughParliament. In the Spring and Summer of 2004 the Home Office promoted a trial-run ofthe biometric systems envisioned for the new passports and identity cards. The trial wasconducted by the Passport Service in London, together with three other centres aroundBritain and was led by Atos Origin.The trial involved 10,000 volunteers. At an early stage of the work the Home Officeargued that:“The trial is about testing the effectiveness of the technology. We willwant to know if we need to have the three biometric details. Forexample someone may have an eye problem so the iris scan may notwork properly. Another person may have a disability which preventsus taking fingerprints. We are just trying to establish the practicalaspects of incorporating the information into the biometric database.We will use the exceptional cases to test the robustness of the system.[...] We are confident that we are using cutting edge technology andwe also need to be aware of the risks of fraud. This is the besttechnology available so we need to make sure we are recordinginformation in the right way.” 487Shortly afterwards it became known that the trial had been delayed by three monthsbecause of difficulties with the hardware and software 488 even though the equipmenthad been fully tested by the contractor. In acknowledging the delay, the Home SecretaryDavid Blunkett argued that “it is important to get it right rather than get it quickly.” 489485 http://www.cesg.gov.uk/site/ast/biometrics/media/BiometricTestReportpt1.pdf.486 ‘Memorandum submitted by the UK Computing Research Committee’.487 ‘ID Trials: What is involved? BBC Online’, April 24, 2004488 ‘ID card trials put back by technical glitches’, Richard Ford, The Times, May 5 2004489 Ibid.
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:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173: 158 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 183 and 184: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 199: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
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?