By Will Sturgeon, 19 April 2004 17:50
NEWS A poll of silicon.com readers has revealed strong support for including biometrics - such as fingerprint and iris scan data - on UK ID cards.
Of the 60 per cent of readers who are in favour of some form of compulsory ID card a massive 85.4 per cent are in favour of including biometric data, which is being heralded as a near foolproof layer of complementary security - though many still dispute that claim.
The news will prove popular with Home Secretary David Blunkett, who announced earlier this month his intention to press on with plans for biometric ID cards for UK citizens.
But despite an apparent groundswell of support, biometrics is not without a controversy all of its own. The financial sector is keeping pace with the government in researching consumer biometrics but the roadmap to a major rollout has not been without incident.
David Taylor, technology consultant at Barclaycard, who has worked closely on biometric ID verification systems, said trials with fingerprint biometrics had proved too unreliable, while the more accurate iris-scanning faces strong public opposition, born largely out of unfounded fears relating to the laser scanning of eyes.
There are also reports of Asian women in particular having skin so fine they were unable to reliably provide and reproduce fingerprints for scanning. Similarly those who had recently used hand cream foxed the readers, as did those at the other extreme with particularly hard or calloused skin, such as chefs, gardeners and labourers, according to Taylor.
But for Taylor the biggest problem for any rollout will be the enrolment process - simply getting people to turn up and register their details in the first place.
"I don't know how on earth the government is going to do this," he said. "The logistics are nightmarish."
Although Taylor believes government will roll out biometrics long before financial institutions, he said there is much the government could learn from the banks' earliest trials. He believes highly charged emotive concerns about a centrally controlled 'Big Brother' database could easily be avoided.
Taylor said: "If the data - such as a fingerprint - was stored only on the card and not on a central database then that would remove the Big Brother element. It would be a simple of case of asking 'am I who I say I am?' rather than 'who am I?'" The data would then be complementary to other identifiers such as photo, signature or PIN for example.
Taylor believes such one-to-one systems would be likely to meet with far more public approval than "one-to-many", as the data would remain in their hands.
Biometric data is also increasingly seen as a secure and efficient way of processing passengers through airport security and is being touted as an important tool in the crackdown on international terrorism. The US is bringing in regulations requiring visitors to the States to enter using biometric passports.
Biometric schemes are also being trialled in Germany and The Netherlands.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. Simon Walker
Unfortunately, with the "Am I who I say I am" route of storing the data on the cards, makes the process of forging the card far simpler, with the 'central database' approach to forge a card would need both 'someone on the inside' in addition to the (probably) easily available means to produce the card.
2. Murdoch Mactaggart
As David Taylor effectively, and rightly, points out a card holding biometric data simply asserts that the person presenting the card is the person presenting the card. Granted such cards would presumably not be self-certified any more than, say, passports but they would suffer from exactly the same limitations. Passports are routinely forged and are of no security use whatever in serious situations; exactly the same considerations would apply to a localised biometric ID card except that there would be even more incentive to forge it and this would lead to increased identity theft and inconvenience to such victims.
The alternate version, backed up by a central database, is equally absurd although here it's because the idea of accurately managing a complex database of some 60 million people for the UK is risible. Recent attempts such as the credits fiasco or the NHS computerisation debacle give a taste of what would happen in reality. Why should this even more elaborate and difficult project work?
Too many in govenment and the security services fail to understand that technology doesn't solve social and political problems, useful though it may be as a component. And the second point they, sadly, don't understand is that far better security comes from linking together individual small, manageable elements of security rather than trying to build a mammoth and inevitably rickety construction. Ockham's Razor applies well here as elsewhere.
Biometrics can work excellently in limited domains, particularly of known users and backed by other relevant data but as a kind of grand catch-all it fails, as test after test has shown and despite the propaganda of the vendors involved.
The only consequence of deployment of biometric ID cards whether centrally linked or stand-alone will be to increased cost and inconvenience to individuals while simultaneously worsening, not improving, national security.
3. L Baker
I am against it, on the grounds of its future use, and the true intentions, ie behind the big brother state
4. Jim Walters
Whilst the idea or biometrics sounds good it is simply un-workable in the real world, in my opinion.
Firstly: there the cost, every point of entry in the the uk, every post office window, evry bank indow, evry police station, etc. will need a scanner, and there not cheep who's going to pay for that?
Secondly: what if you finger print is damaged or you loose and eye, how can you prove you are who you say you are?
Thirdly: what happens if the scanner give a false reading will a perfectly inocent person be arrested for teroisum because of a faulty scanner (who hasent have computer kit brake down?)
Fourthly: Lets face it criminals are going to hack it in a mater of days any way.
These are just a few of the problems.
This is just a nother scheme of "lets use a computer to fix it" touted by people who have no real idea of how the tech actually works. This seams to be a theam in all govenment tech projects, why don't thay just ask people like us.
BTW theres a system which would give the almost same level of protection but far more reliably and much much cheeper, its called a PIN and cash cards have been using it for years.
5. anonymous
Who cares? This card is not an "entitlment card" as originally proposed, or an "ID" card as currently proposed. David Blunkett has now said that we WILL have to carry them once 80% of the population have them. It is a "WHERE ARE YOU" card and he doesn't care if they are easily forgeable or not.
6. Graham Bland
Has anybody explained yet how ID cards will make us any safer. Everybody seems to think that this will reduce terrorism but how has not been defined. This has more to do with the reduction in benefit fraud, NHS access etc rather than security.
You can have my name, fingerprint, picture and Iris scan any time but will they help anyone decide if I am a terrorist.
7. Richard Sarson
60% for ID cards is a democratic mandate for the government to stop faffing about and get on with it as fast as possible. One of the encouraging things about the vote is that one would expect stroppy techie left-leaning silicon.com readers of all people to be massively influenced by the civlib lobby. But clearly they are not.
The 60% vote could perhaps be interpreted as a 70-80% pro-vote in the general population. Go for it Tony.
8. nj
50 years on, the muslims are a majority, they start stoning women to death. All of a sudden, you don't want the taliban demanding your ID. Or do you?
9. No ID Cards - No Biometrics
ID cards won't stop terrorism, nor will biometrics. The real issue is that lots of companies are going to make bag loads of money, whilst governments increasingly stamp down on civil liberties.
10. Karl Buckland
"60 per cent of readers...in favour of some form of compulsory ID card"
So 60% of people who read this site equates to 60% of the British public?
Does Silicon.com get 60 Million readers?
"85.4 per cent are in favour of including biometric data"
So on a site that people read specifically because they are technophiles only 60% want the card (not an overwhelming majority) and not even all of that 60% want to use biometric technology.
I hardly think this constitutes overwhelming public support.
Find yourself a technophobic web site, see if 60% or more don't want the card. Would this be a fair test?
I don't want to have to pay for the privilege of exposing my personal data to criminal and governmental abuse.
The speed with which crackers cracked the last release of Windows XP (within 4 hours of it's release apparently) shows how advanced these criminals are and how unrealistic the governments expectations are of the computers that they will be putting their faith in.
11. anonymous
To the gentleman that does not want his "personal information" exposed to computer hackers by a national ID card that contains "biometrics".
Your personal information is already exposed RIGHT NOW! The only difference is that your "personal information"[name, address, age,eye color,weight,hair color, place of employment,credit rating,marital status,spending habits....etc,etc,etc] is currently tied to a list of numbers that can be easily stolen and attached to another person's name. This is called "Identity Theft".
So....you can have the current extemely vulnerable "number system"....or a system that ties your information to parts of your individual "unique" characteristics[Face, fingerprint or iris scan] known as biometrics. No matter if you and people like you understand what I am saying to you or not, the governments of the civilized world do understand how important biometric identification is.
Biometrics in the form of secure IDs and travel documents will spread around the civilized world in the next 18 months. You were not, and will not be a part of the decision making process.
"Biometrics versus" the extremely dangerous and faulty "number system". That was the choice world governments were given. They chose biometrics. They chose well.
12. Larry Longdon
As a person that had an involvement in the five year development of the USA's 'Green Card' programme, incorporating a 100% secure, laser-written Image and Fingerprint of the Card Holder, amongst other personal details, it would be a good idea to begin to immediately issue a similar card to all UK asylum seekers and other immigrants so they can be easily traced at all times.
After all, they do not have the same allegience to the country as UK Citizens that have been in this country for generations and it is currently too easy for them to 'disappear' once in the country.