Biometrics and Identix

Group: Jessie Barter, James Fessel, Jason Qui, Ravi Tharisayi

Sources and Questions:

1. University of Indiana Website on Biometrics

a. What is biometrics? What is the history?

b. What are some current technologies? What are some future ones?

c. What are the social issues surrounding biometrics?

2. “Fingerprint Matches Come under More Fire as Potentially Fallible”

a. How successful is forensic science? (Note statistics.)

3. Identix Website

a. Describe the company’s mission.

b. Where does Identix focus in the field of Biometrics?

c. How do the Identix products work?

d. What are the potential uses of Identix technologies?

4. “Biometrics Beyond Prime Time” (10/25/2005)

a. What are the prospects for the Biometrics industry?

5. “Cash or plastic? How about fingerprint?” (07/20/2005)

a. How is Biometrics being used currently?

b. How might Biometrics be used in the future?

1. University of Indiana Website on Biometrics

History of Biometrics

One of the first known cases of humans using biometrics to identify one another was by early Chinese merchants. Joao de Barros, an explorer and writer, wrote that the Chinese merchants used a form of biometrics by stamping children’s palm prints and footprints on paper with ink. In doing this, the Chinese solved a way to distinguish young children from one another (Garfinkel 2000 38). This is one of the earliest known cases of biometrics in use and is still being used today.

Though biometrics have been used throughout the history of the world, it never became a distinct field until an anthropologist named Alphonse Bertillion sought to fix the problem of identifying convicted criminals. The problem with identifying repeated offenders was that the criminals often gave different aliases each time they were arrested. This would prevent them from receiving the larger sentence for being a repeated offender. “Bertillion realized that even if names changed, even if a person cut his hair or put on weight, certain elements of the body remained fixed” (Garfinkel 2000 39). This led him to form a method of measuring the distinguishable parts of a person’s body, which never changed throughout their life such as the size of the skull or the length of their fingers. This system was called anthropometrical signalment and was very basic in its implementation. Whenever a person was arrested they were sent through a series of measurements that recorded the length and distinguishable marks of their bodies. This was all recorded on a card and filed away in groups with similar measurements. Whenever a new criminal was brought off of the streets, instead of taking down their name, the authorities would measure them and look for a matching card (Garfinkel 2000 39).

This system was a huge breakthrough and was adopted by prisons and police stations across the country and world, though it did have some drawbacks. For instance, some large cities had huge databases of cards, and sorting and searching for a particular card could take days. Another drawback was that anthropometrical signalment was found not to be a totally unique biometric. This was discovered when they found that some people shared the same measurements.

Eventually quicker and more accurate forms of biometrics, such as fingerprint analysis, were formed and led to the end of anthropometrical signalment. As technology gets more and more advanced, the ways to distinguish the different biometrical signalments become more and more precise. This has led to field of biometric technologies that we live in today.

Biometric Technologies

With today’s technologies becoming faster and more precise everyday, there isa need in the biometric field for new devices that are ever more accurate, cost effective, and simple in their implementation. Below is a list of the major biometric technologies that are available today, and ones that may be available in the near future. One of the newest biometric technologies which is thought to be the “ultimate” biometric identifier is also one of the most controversial biometric. This is DNA matching.

DNA Identification-

DNA is often called the code of life and is known to be totally unique for each person. The reason that DNA identification is so popular is because it is perhaps the most precise system of identification known, and is widely accepted as absolutely accurate. This is good from the standpoint of identification purposes but could prove to be a major problem in the future. For instance, the one of the most popular methods of taking DNA is by taking blood samples. People must label and do the job of entering the sample into a database, and people make mistakes. Hypothetically, your name could forever be associated with the blood of a criminal. When they commit a crime the DNA sample that is discovered at the crime scene will point to you (Garfinkel 2000 49).

Another problem with DNA is that it is you. With the human genome project well underway, scientist may soon know someone’s faults, such as Attention Deficit Disorder or Alcoholism, by simply viewing their DNA. If a nationwide network of DNA information is made, there might be only a couple steps until everyone’s biological flaws are revealed. This is a major invasion of privacy and might prove to be the downfall of DNA testing.

These are only a few examples of what the “ultimate” identifier can do, and the barriers that it must break to be accepted as an everyday biometric technology.

Finger/Thumb Print-

This is the most widely used biometric technology and is well known for its affiliation with law enforcement and the world of entertainment. This technology is very reliable and accurate, and has been backed up by many studies that verify that fingerprints are indeed unique. Simson Garfinkel states that "Fingerprints are fixed by birth and remained fixed for life. The marks truly are a unique signature: there is so much room for variation that no two people ever have shared, or ever will share, the same pattern" (Garfinkel 2000 41). Fingerprints are not stored by picture but by measurements of the distances between the ridges and loops of the thumbprint.

Retina Scan-

Retina scans have become very popular with corporations whom use biometrics because of the accuracy and speed in which they can be implemented. Retina scans test the pattern of blood vessels lining the retina of the individual human eye. Another bonus of retina scans is that they are not revealed to the casual observer, and we do not leave behind traces of its detail as we might with fingerprints or DNA.

Face Recognition-

Face recognition is a technology that tests the distinguishing marks and measures of an individual human face. This technology has become popular in recent years due to the increased speed of computers. Also, it can be implemented quickly and is one of the least physically intrusive biometrics.

Future Biometric Technologies-

Listed below are a few of the biometric devices that have recently become available or are in the final stages of testing. These technologies hope to bring in accuracy with the least amount of personal intrusion possible.

Vein Pattern Identification-

This technology is like a retinal scan in that it uses special light to produce an image of one’s vein pattern in their face, wrist, or hand. An advantage to this technology is that veins are stable throughout ones life and cannot be tampered with.

Ear Shape Identification-

In recent years, some have came to recognize that the ear is as unique as a fingerprint. This technology merely measures the geometry of ones ear.

Body Odor Identification-

This system uses a sensor that takes your hand to identify your body odor. It then stores it in a digital database. This product is still in testing and when released may be too expensive for normal commercial use.

Body Salinity Identification-

This technology exploits the natural level of salinity in the human body, which is accomplished by an electric field that passes a tiny electrical current through the body. As of now, individuals salinity levels are believed to be unique, but biometric identification is not the only use that we may benefit from this emerging technology. The electrical current, which passes through the body, can also carry data. Transfer rates, equivalent to a 2400-baud modem have been claimed. This technology could include interaction between communication devices carried on the body such as watches or mobile phones.

Social Impacts of Biometrics

Biometrics is a technology that will either greatly benefit or burden us in the near future. With a boost in security and surveillance in the past few years, the only step that I think we can take is to implement biometrics into our everyday lives. Whether we do this by simply putting our fingerprints on our drivers license’s (as some states have already done, including California), or making DNA sampling a common task in peoples everyday lives, I cannot see us simply rejecting the technology.

Warren and Brandeis, for instance, stated in 1890 that our privacy is ever so slowly being dissolved. This was brought to their attention after an uninvited guest had taken a photograph at a private wedding. This event prompted Warren and Brandeis to urge the public and the government to pass legislation to protect ones privacy (Garfinkel 2000 6). To this day there are no specific articles in the constitution that protects ones privacy. Over the last hundred years the public has been desensitized to everyday events such as surveillance. Biometrics poses great benefits but also many drawbacks, one being that we may also become desensitized to its effects.

A world in which biometrics grow to become common could greatly benefit us. Instead of paying cash at a grocery story, you could simply have an iris scan, and the store will put it onto your account. There would be no reason to carry around wallets with credit cards and drivers license. Everything would be stored digitally on a nation wide network. Forget about remembering passwords and PIN numbers, your fingerprint will do. No more counting of ballots and debating over “hanging chads,” a digital voting network means results would be totally accurate and updated by the minute. Not only could everything be much easier and streamlined in a world of biometric technologies, but also identity theft would be a thing of the past. Everyone would be totally accountable for their own actions, and their own actions alone. This could send crime rates to an all-time low. There appear to be countless benefits that biometrics can help us achieve. This world would truly be a remarkable one to live in, but many experts agree that it is a naïve world.

Biometrics have many hurdles to get by in order to become as present and common as they are in the world described above. Problems that face biometric growth is the fact that the cost of identification devices are, presently, much too high and “people are hesitant to trust giving a ‘piece of themselves’ to a machine” (“Social” 1). Another problem is that biometrics have always been used in the case of criminals, and when we start using these identification technologies on innocent civilians, it gives the innocent civilians a presumption of guilt.

Perhaps the strongest argument against implementing biometrics into our everyday lives is that people would have to enter the information into machines, and people make mistakes. In a world where your name would be tied to nothing but your biometric fingerprint, a mix-up could be disastrous and place false guilt on you. Imagine the case of a disgruntled employee at a biometrics database agency. You better hope she doesn’t hold a grudge against you because how hard would it be for her to link your name to the DNA of a convict.

A world of biometric saturation, as in a world of extreme surveillance, may not allow us to breathe and be ourselves. We may go through the whole day knowing that the only place that we can truly live, is at home. Corporation will undoubtedly fight for the right to use biometrics to same money and increase security, but will the employees stand for it. These questions will be answered soon enough.

2.

Fingerprint Matches Come Under More Fire As Potentially Fallible
October 7, 2005;PageB1
By: Sharon Begley
Fingerprint examiners would probably be happy if they never heard the name "Brandon Mayfield" again, but for researchers who study the scientific basis for fingerprint identification Mr. Mayfield is the gift that keeps on giving.
Mr. Mayfield is the Portland, Ore., lawyer and Muslim convert whose prints the FBI matched to those taken from a suspicious bag near one of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. When Spanish police insisted the prints didn't match Mr. Mayfield's -- and eventually linked them to an Algerian living in Spain -- the FBI conceded the error and apologized to the jailed Mr. Mayfield.
Since such an error is supposed to be impossible (an FBI handbook says, "Of all the methods of identification, fingerprinting alone has proved to be both infallible and feasible"), the case has achieved a certain notoriety. So when scientists recently tested fingerprint IDs, they told examiners one set of prints were from Mr. Mayfield and the other set from the Madrid bombings. "We told them we were trying to understand what went wrong in that case," says Itiel Dror of Britain's University of Southampton, who did the study with student David Charlton. "Could they please look at the prints and tell us where the examiners had gone wrong."
One examiner said he couldn't tell if the pair matched. Three said the pair did not match and helpfully pointed out why. The fifth examiner insisted the prints -- notorious for not matching -- did match.
Give that one a gold star.
Unbeknown to the examiners, the prints were not from Madrid and Mr. Mayfield. They were pairs that each examiner had testified in recent criminal cases came from the same person. The three who told the scientists that their pair didn't match therefore reached a conclusion opposite to the one they had given in court; another expressed uncertainty, whereas in court he had been certain. Prof. Dror will present the study later this month at the Biometrics 2005 meeting in London.
A study this small would hardly show up on scientists' radar screens. But it comes at a time when traditional forensic sciences -- analysis of bite marks, bullets, hair, handwriting and fingerprints -- are facing skepticism over the validity of their core claim: that when two marks are not observably different, they were produced by the same person or thing.
Michael Saks of ArizonaStateUniversity, Tempe, argues that the claim lacks "theoretical and empirical foundation." There is no basic science that predicts how often marks that match on some number of characteristics actually come from different people, as there is for DNA typing. And data on the frequency of false matches are sparse.
It isn't just fingerprints. Last month the FBI announced that its lab would no longer try to match bullets by the trace elements they contain. Although the FBI "still firmly supports the scientific foundation of bullet lead analysis," the bureau said, "neither scientists nor bullet manufacturers are able to definitively attest to the significance of an association made between bullets."
That decision may be the first move toward what Prof. Saks calls "the coming paradigm shift in forensic science." For too long, he argues, forensic science has been excused from rigorous research on how frequently attributes (ridges and whorls in fingerprints, trace amounts of tin or antimony in bullets) vary and on the probability that marks with identical attributes come from different people or objects.
In the most serious break with rigorous science, forensic science often regards the very notion of probability as anathema. The International Association for Identification, the largest forensic group, says testifying about "possible, probable or likely identification shall be deemed ... conduct unbecoming." Only 100% certainty will do. The pioneers of DNA typing, in contrast, calculated the probability of false matches, making DNA the most scientific forensic science.
The unsupported, and unscientific, claim of infallibility is being tested in Massachusetts' highest court, which last month heard an appeal on the admissibility of fingerprints. Defense lawyers argued that the technique falls short of the standard the U.S. Supreme Court established in its 1993 "junk science" decision. The decision held that scientific testimony must have a known error rate. It will be interesting to see how much longer fingerprinting can get away with "zero."
What is it if not zero? FBI proficiency exams since 1983 find an error rate of 0.8%. Multiplied by the millions of cases crime labs process, that works out to about 1,900 possible mismatches every year. But misattributions "appear to be occurring at an accelerating rate," says Simon Cole of the University of California, Irvine, who recently compiled 22 cases of mismatches for a study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. That rise, he suggests, may reflect the fact that examiners are "under greater scrutiny."
According to a 2002 handbook of forensic science, error rates are not what you see on TV. They're as high as 63% for voice ID, 40% for handwriting, 64% for bite marks, 12% for hair. The real numbers may be even higher: Blind tests, slipped into an examiner's workload rather than marked, "Here's the test!", are essentially nonexistent.

3. Identix Website