By Sylvia Carr, 10 November 2004 16:03
NEWS Biometrics are becoming an accepted form of identification for the general public, according to a recent survey commissioned by EDS and the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).
Just over two-thirds of the US consumers polled said they were open to the idea of using biometric information - such as digital fingerprints and iris scanning - to verify their identity.
Nearly 90 per cent cited the convenience of biometrics - compared to remembering passwords - as the reason they'd accept it.
Paul Martin, executive director at EDS UK, sees the results as part of a trend whereby people are getting more comfortable with the technology. He told silicon.com: "There's emerging evidence people accept that biometrics are much the same as digital pictures which people now accept on passports."
The survey also provides evidence that a need exists for improving security measures; 60 per cent of respondents said they'd give out personal information such as their address and account numbers to unsolicited callers or emails.
The use of biometrics has been a focal point of UK Home Secretary David Blunkett's plans to roll out compulsory ID cards.
MPs have raised concerns that the biometrics used for ID cards may not be trustworthy and may be uncomfortable for users.
EDS' Martin admitted biometrics must be properly implemented. "They must be tamperproof," he said. And the enrolment process must be done correctly to link a person with the appropriate biometric data, he added.
The EU in October approved the use of biometric identification - both facial and fingerprint data - in passports.
And a recent survey from Hitachi Data Systems revealed almost half UK companies polled said they expect to implement biometric technology within two years.
The EDS research, called the 2004 Identity Management Survey, consisted of interviews with over 1,000 US consumers.
Comments
There are 13 comments. Join the discussion
1. Arthur Riding
It is wonderful to see that the majority of the public are rising above the media fuelled fears, indeed terror, in some quarters about the introduction of biometrics. It is patently obvious to anyone with a brain and without criminal intent that in principle, biometrics are a very 'good thing' for us all. I have yet to see a single reason which makes any sense at all, or any attempt at logic, as to why we should not introduce biometrics.
Perhaps we can now move on and focus on what should be the real issue -which is which is the best system/s and how can we make them sufficently safe and robust - and cheap.
2. David Fletcher
I know that this will upset a load of people, but I'd go much further than Arthur Riding.
If I could have a chip in my arm, with a serial number that was used instead of a passport/ID card, also linked with my Visa account, driving licence, library and store cards and use it in conjunction with a fingerprint to identify myself instead of having my wallet filled to bursting with all of those damned rectangles of plastic, I'd be first in the queue.
Now that the technology is available,it's high time the world got together, cut out all the crap about infringement of liberty and offered law abiding citizens a foolproof and convenient method of identifying themselves.
3. Robin Cotterell
David Fletcher
Wont be so pleased when someone cuts his arm off so they can steal his identity!
4. David Fletcher
Suspicion would probably be aroused as the identity thief attempted to use the fingerprint on the end of my arm at immigration control, or to pay at the supermarket checkout!
5. Graham Coles
Why cut anybodys arm off?
Just read the RFID chip from a distance where you won't be noticed then pick up one of the millions of fingerprints the unsuspecting victim leaves everytime he touches something and make a false overlay for your finger. Then go on a spending spree because biometrics don't lie!
As far as I am aware from discussions on security groups, the equipment to achieve both halves of this are available; the latter being pioneered by a japanese gentleman who fooled a biometric fingerprint reader with a few dollars worth of gelatin after making an imprint of a fingerprint left on a piece of glass with readily available materials.
Think I'll stick to a piece of plastic that I will notice if it goes missing rather than having a tracking device implanted in my arm that will let criminals or anyone else know exactly where I am all the time.
6. Walt Ryan
My concern is not with biometrics for those that choose to use them for their own personal convenience. The real problem with biometrics is when the government camels begin to stick their noses in my tent and force me to use them where and when they feel it is convenient.
7. John Gostling
You could install an immobiliser in your arm so that if it did get cut off it would be unusable. it could even be programmed to raise the middle finger upon attempted usage.......just a thought!
8. anonymous
I don't mind validating my photo with a biometric, but I DO mind all the biometrics being stored centrally as well.
This second step is unnecessary from a security point of view (for passports etc.), as well as multiplying the cost of such a system several times.
All that's necessary is:
a) this is a valid ID card
b) this ID card belongs to this person
What adding the central database does is to allow:
c) this retina scan (or DNA?) matches Mr J Bloggs of Paranoia Cutting, East Cheam.
No thanks!
9. Marian Mayer
Well stated, Walt Ryan. My immediate reaction to this article was a previously held assumption that the government is using the War on Terror to convince people to blindly accept "security measures" such as Biometrics. I can still see the benefits and conveniences this new technology provides, though.
10. anonymous
It is irresponsible for the general public to allow this much technology to control our lives. Eventually we will be nothing more than George Orwell's mindless "Proles." Slowely our population is becoming more and more numb and further detached from the real world around us.
11. anonymous
Biometrics are fascinating, the options are abundant, though peoples' willingness to readily accept this technology is a malignant indolence. Is it really such a burden to remember a pin number? This tech. is like a bill passing in Congress, It won't merely exist for the purpose of identification, it will have all sort of 'ryders' attached to invade our lives and further the interests of the neo-cons. There are intrinsic values at stake here as well. I am not a pious person, though scripture comes to mind regarding these Chips in the body: "Beware the Mark of the Beast..." I don't want any more infringment upon my liberties...
12. J. K. Matthews
Even if you don't take any biblical references into account, biometrics is still a bad thing. The problem is not the daily practical applications, the problem is the potential. I think it is unwise to rely on a single system as flaws are inherit to all systems. The natural tendency of a system is to break down (see "entropy"). And when the machine breaks down, we all break down.
And I agree, it is not difficult to remember passwords and PINs - I use several random string passwords over 14 characters on a daily basis without problems. We shouldn't cater to the weakest links of society because it brings the whole damn system down a notch.
People don't mind a lot of things and that is the problem. There is no longer a passion for liberty and the people in charge are getting wise to this. If we continue on our path of apathy, our society will collapse. We're too comfortable for our own damn good. Things are too convienient and that is not always a good thing (see a Windows operating system for an example of that idea).
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
- Benjamin Franklin
Truer words are seldom spoken and this is more relevant today than it has ever been. I wish more people would read the U.S. "founding fathers" works. I wish more people would read and memorize the constitution.
The question is how far will all of this go?
Thanks for listening.
13. stinky will
The argument that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear,ie only those with criminal intent are worried is complete and utter nonsence. To those that say such things some advise,
1.Learn about databases and how they can be linked.
2.Forget about data protection these protections are presently under debate.
3.Learn about the other acts that will have an effect on the use and sharing of personal information.
4.Realise that the type & size of the database that is to be constructed has never been acheived before.
5.The results from the limited tests that were done were not promising when equated to the 50,000000 uk citizens that would be using the card.
6. Any number of reasons to many to mention.
Finally again the statement that only those with somethig to hide etc etc
is a typical statement from those who have not researched the issue,and merely quote from the daily rubbish newspapers.