By Steve Ranger, 26 May 2005 13:45
NEWS The results of a government identity card trial have revealed that while the public is confident with the process of having their biometrics registered, questions still remain over the viability of the technology.
More than 10,000 participants were involved in the government trial between April and December last year.
The trial used a "one-off" system developed by Atos Origin using the latest technologies available at the beginning of the trial.
The enrolments took place within a purpose-built oval biometrics booth with a wall mounted camera. On top of the desktop was an electronic signature pad and sunk into the desktop was the fingerprint device.
The report said: "The majority of participants from all sample groups successfully enrolled on all three biometrics."
The study found that on average it took seven minutes and 56 seconds for successful enrolment on all three biometrics, including 90 seconds for the one-to-many database search.
Nearly all participants managed to register their fingerprint and facial biometric, but only 90 per cent of participants managed to register their irises in the system.
On average it took 39 seconds for facial verification, 58 seconds for iris verification and one minute and 13 seconds for fingerprint verification.
The report said the goal of the trial was to test the processes and record customer experience rather than test the technology itself.
But, of the three biometrics, it found the face had the lowest verification success rate, with only 69 per cent of participants managing to verify the facial biometric.
Nearly all (96 per cent) of iris verifications were successful but only 81 per cent of fingerprints were.
"One of the factors influencing failure was that the single fingerprint device used for verification occasionally did not record sufficient detail from the fingers," the report said.
Registration and verification of the biometrics of disabled participants was much lower across all three methods.
However, the report found that across all three biometrics, the vast majority of participants found their expectations of the overall experience "to have been either met or bettered". It found that the level of intrusion across all three biometrics, in relation to participant expectations, was not an issue.
Iris was selected as the preferred biometric by participants, and concerns about having biometrics recorded dropped after they had experienced the process.
The majority of participants felt biometrics were not an infringement on their civil liberties and would help with passport security, preventing identity fraud and preventing illegal immigration.
Find out more here on the Home Office website.
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
So we trust our identity to technology that 'sort of' works ?
And again no mention of the database thats the real civil liberties killer
2. anonymous
I wonder if any of these good people asked who would be keeping their biometrics safely out of view from phishers, scammers, terrorists, the corrupt and the plain incompetent, on the millions of scanners that will be needed to verify people's "identity" that will be scattered all over the place and who of course just can't wait for us to pay to provide them with a "foolproof" way of proving who they are not.
Also did nobody ask what happens if a biometric on yourcard and "unique" database fails to agree with your actual face, eye or fingerprint due to natural wear and tear? Do we get arrested and thrown in jail until we can "prove" who we are or do we just get told to "move along there. You don't really need to prove who you are!."
As to cost I understand Afghanisthan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq all have excellent emerging IT outsource services where all our biometrics can be stored and processed very cheaply. (if the bill starts to look a bit steep to do this in good
old Blighty).
At least we know that our data will be nice and safe in the hands of famously secure HMG and their IT outsourcing experts.
Oh yeah!
3. David Fletcher
"The majority of participants felt biometrics were not an infringement on their civil liberties...."
I am guessing that anybody who feels that biometrics ARE an infringement of their civil liberties, did not volunteer to participate!
4. anonymous
£400 cost to average family with 2 children. And we're told that "ID cards are popular with UK citizens" - tell me another one.
What does this government take us for?
Either they're liars or we're idiots.
5. anonymous
The government has effectivelly admitted that it has no idea how expensive the
ID card scheme will be, and that the technology (surprise, surprise) is not
full-proof! On top of that, the price goes up to around £90 - we forgot VAT!
All this creates great trust in a system that has problems identifying black
people and people with disabilities!!! You couldn't make it up!
6. Michael Organe
Don't panic, it will take twice as long as they expect, the budget will rise by a factor of ten and it will work no better that the passport system, the air traffic control or the London Ambulance system.
7. Glyn Evans
I wonder where the information came from that suggests that the 'public was confident' about giving up biometric information being held on them? I suspect this to be little more than 21st century propaganda from a desperate govnmt that has very little public support. ID cards will never stop things from happening. Take 7 jul in London for example it is quite possible that these human bombs had all got their ID cards - chips n all