• Software Channel Sales Manager (...
• IT Applications Manager / IT...
• IT Manager
• Senior Project Manager - Global...
• Project Manager - New mobile...

Biometrics gets in the picture

Beverley Head, Information Age

18/08/2006 12:51:03

Four out of five people would be more comfortable proving their identity with a digital photo than providing a credit card number or mother's maiden name, according to a recent international survey.

The age of biometric identification is dawning. It's being nudged along by significant improvements in biometric technologies, consumer fears regarding identity theft, and government initiatives to reduce fraud and attacks on national security.

Typically, people can be identified by what they know (for example, their mother's maiden name) and what they have (a smartcard). Biometrics adds to that by also identifying people by what they are - taking a biometric measurement of the individual which can then be used to identify them in the future.

Biometric identification techniques currently favoured include finger scanning, hand geometry, facial recognition, iris scanning, retinal scanning, finger geometry, voice recognition and dynamic signature verification.

Since the first attempts were made to automate biometric identification in the mid 1960s, the technology and underlying algorithms have progressed significantly. Today, biometric identification success rates of 98-99 per cent are widespread.

That success rate signifies that in 98-99 per cent of cases the biometric being measured will be matched to the biometric captured at enrolment, while on only 1 in 1000 occasions will the biometric be matched to someone else's enrolment biometric.

US research has already indicated that computers can outperform humans in realistic biometric matching applications and suggest that facial recognition is the most effective form of widespread biometric testing.

The Federal Government has been testing its facial recognition system in Melbourne and Sydney airports and so far conducted 260,000 e-passport transactions. Next year it expects to deploy the Smartgate e-passport system at Sydney airport in what it claims will be the world's first fully operational face recognition system for border control.

As the technology becomes more reliable, and more applications are rolled out, so the general population's level of comfort with biometrics increases. A global survey sponsored by Unisys and released in May found that 68 per cent of people in Asia Pacific would consider using biometric identification if it were available. They believed that the convenience, speed and security of biometrics were an advantage.

While 18 per cent said no (mostly because they did not know what was involved) and 14 per cent were undecided, the Ponemon Institute reported that after name, sex, date of birth and address the next most popular form of identification was biometric. The most popular form of biometric identification was voice recognition (currently being trialled by Centrelink) followed by fingerprint, then facial scans.

This level of consumer acceptance augurs well for the Government's access smartcard which allows biometric identification. Phased in from 2008, the planned smartcard will replace 17 existing card or voucher systems, and by 2010 will be the only way to access health or welfare benefits.

The cardholder's name, photo, signature and card number will be visible while the microchip will hold address, date of birth, and details of children or dependants. Information such as emergency contacts, allergies, immunisation details and donor status can also be stored if the cardholder wishes.

It's the first time since the Australia Card was sunk by the weight of public opinion back in 1987 that an Australian Government has flirted with such a mass identification system.

Speaking at the recent Biometrics Institute conference in Sydney, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said there was growing acceptance that "biometrics are harder to steal or replicate".

And while the Government was aware of concerns "that we are moving to a Big Brother State, and that in a democracy everyone has a right to privacy...we must balance the concerns of privacy with the need for national security".

According to an OECD report on biometrics there are three issues which need to be considered when rolling out biometric applications: the potential for function creep; the risk that biometric applications become an infrastructure for surveillance, and that consent and transparency might be only optional.

Like Ruddock, it stresses the need for a balance to be struck between the rights to privacy and the need for security.

The Attorney General, however, does not believe the advent of the access card necessarily requires new privacy legislation. He said the current frameworks and national privacy principles described how companies needed to operate, and while the Government "would keep those frameworks refurbished", it would not necessarily pass new laws.

It will strive, however, in the push for more biometric standards: "One of the challenges we are facing is a lack of standards, lack of interoperability. Harmonisation of the systems is crucial if the systems are to operate effectively."

Ruddock said that the Australian Government Biometrics Framework was now in development which would promote some level of standardisation.

To those concerned about function creep, having isolated islands of biometric measurement might not be a bad thing. But Terry Aulich, chairman of Aulich & Co and former chairman of the Government's Joint Select Committee on the Australia card, believes applications need to be developed from the ground up with the option of being expanded or interlinked.

"Technologically we have got the capability to deliver a national identity scheme," said Aulich. He believes that even non-compulsory systems - such as the health and social services access card, - should be designed in such a way that they can in the future be extended.

"It is particularly important to plan for the worst case scenario when governments are pressured to link up these systems. We need to be honest and think about and plan for that. If a cataclysm occurs and there is a whole new round of successful terrorist activity, then the whole political ballgame changes.

"The compulsion on government to do something when disaster happens is immensely strong. We need to make it so it's easy to do.

"The argument is not about whether we should be able to do it technologically or procedurally; the question should be over whether we should be doing it at all," said Aulich.

It is hard to argue against technologies which guard against identity theft, widespread fraud or terrorist activity - and it is likely that this is what has led to an increase in consumer comfort regarding biometric identification. It is important, though, to measure that protection against the risk of mass surveillance and the threat that poses to a democratic right to privacy, even anonymity.

As the OECD report on biometrics warns: "Biometric technologies are no panacea. There is a need to strike a balance between privacy and security."