Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

236 The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005operator would ask the card-holder for the requested information and then pass it backto the authentication service, who would confirm whether the answer was correct. Asthe full pin/phrase would not be exchanged, the call centre operator would not know thefull pass-phrase and this would not compromise security. 626 A similar semi-PIN wasoriginally envisioned for on-line transactions. 627However, use of a PIN would enable security breaches which the use of biometricinformation would prevent, either through an ‘online check’ or an ‘off-line check’. Offlinechecking would involve comparison of the card-holder’s characteristics comparedwith those stored on the card. This would mean investing in suitable scanners and cardreaders, and would therefore be suitable only for high value transactions where the cardholder was present, unless the card holder owned their own fingerprint or iris scanner. 628An on-line check would involve comparison of the card holder’s biometriccharacteristics against those held on the central register. This would require that therelevant organisation purchase a scanner, a card-reader and also on an on-lineconnection to the authentication service. 629 In the case of iris or fingerprint scanning,matches would be confirmed or disputed by a computer system based on statisticalprobability, but with respect to facial recognition, human judgement could suffice. Nobiometric system is foolproof and: “there is always a finite probability that the systemwill fail to identify a valid card-holder”’. 630 Use of a digital signature incorporated intothe card was briefly considered; however this would incur added costs due the need fora more sophisticated microchip. 631BiometricsThe Government originally established a four point-test to decide which biometricinformation to include in an identity card system: cost, feasibility, acceptance of thetechnology in principle, and acceptance of the technology in practice.The question of feasibility covers implementation difficulties for those living in sparselypopulated areas or who are housebound, and the fact that a: “nation-wide network ofdevices to record biometric information would have to be installed”. The considerationsfor acceptance of the technology in practice seem largely to rest on the level ofconvenience when individuals visit recording devices and that: “there might still be arisk of queuing at peak times such as on Saturday mornings”. 632 The Government alsorecognises that issues may arise for UK passport holders living abroad, and it would bedifficult for all the individuals concerned to visit a consulate in person for a biometriccheck. 633The Government decided in 2002 that the most promising types of biometricidentification for consideration in the entitlement card scheme are fingerprints, iris626 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 77627 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 78.628 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 81.629 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 82.630 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 83.631 Consulation Document, section 4, 2002, paragraph 84.632 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 40.633 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 42.
The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005 237patterns and facial recognition. 634 This approach was confirmed by the NPL/BTexactstudy that recommended specific forms of biometrics that could be used, and outlinedtheir challenges. The report concluded that, while biometrics could be used, the costs ofusing all three would outweigh the benefits. That is, the report stated that thecombination would improve performance but that this: “performance improvement isunlikely to be commensurate with the increased costs, and collection of the additionalbiometric images might be seen as unnecessarily intrusive by the public”. 635With regard to fingerprinting, electronic scanners require well trained staff to ensureproper use. The Government originally envisaged a far simpler scanning system thanthat used by the police or the immigration service, originally considering the scanningof four fingers only. 636 Additionally, the prints would not be scanned to a legal standardof proof of identity and therefore future staff would not need to be as highly trained asthose working for police forces or the Immigration Service to interpret the results of anypotential matches detected by the computer. The Government has subsequentlyadmitted that it wishes to have the fingerprints used to solve crimes. As the UKPSreport on biometrics found that the verification rate on fingerprinting was quite low,with only an 80% success rate, 637 this would require adequately trained staff andgreater care in the fingerprinting process.The Government has previously acknowledged the notions of criminality that somepeople will associate with having to provide their fingerprints. It also acknowledges thatany intention to apply fingerprinting across the entire population is non-trivial. In theearlier stages of the policy, the Government referred to the difficulties involved intaking the finger prints of elderly people electronically due to the increased dryness oftheir skin. 638 Both of these indicate that costs will be higher, both because of refuseniksand those who are unable to comply.For the use of an iris biometric, each iris is scanned and matched against a computerrecord. The Government considered the use of more sophisticated cameras which do notrequire the individual to focus on a fixed point, and which will be more helpful for thosewho are partially sighted and blind. However, the Government is well aware of thechallenges to this practice, because early in the process it noted that iris scanning hasonly been used to date on systems holding up to a few thousand records, as opposed tothe many millions required by the suggested scheme. 639 In the UKPS trials, the irisverification rate was still unacceptable for a national ID programme, and bettertechnology is required.Facial recognition is also a biometric option. It is noted that this source of informationwould be less costly to implement than iris scanning or fingerprints: “as it would notrequire a regional network of devices to record applicants’ information” and it wouldrequire no change to the existing application process.634 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 30.635 ‘Feasibility Study on the Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme’, paragraph 38, page 12636 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 34.637 UKPS study, 2005.638 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 35.639 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 37.
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:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 202 and 203: 188 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 215 and 216: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?