By Tim Ferguson, 19 November 2008 11:51
NEWS
Despite the furore that has dogged the UK's ID card rollout, Brits appear to be in favour of using biometrics technology and even their blood in order to protect their personal information and identity.
Three-quarters of UK adults would be prepared to use fingerprint scans to verify their identity with banks and government agencies, according to research by tech services company, Unisys.
silicon.com's A to Z of Biometrics
Click on the links below to find out everything you'll need to know about biometric security.
A is for Accuracy
B is for Behavioural biometric
C is for Cash machine
D is for Database
E is for Ear
F is for Facial recognition
G is for Gummi bears
H is for Hand geometry
I is for Iris
J is for Juan Vucetich
K is for Keystroke dynamics
L is for Liveness testing
M is for Mobile phones
N is for Network security
O is for Oxford
P is for Palm
Q is for Queues
R is for Registration
S is for Signature verification
T is for Twins
U is for Universality
V is for Voice verification
W is for Walk
X is for X-ray
Y is for Young
Z is for Zurich Airport
The figure is much higher than elsewhere in Europe - just 59 per cent of French respondents and 62 per cent of those from Germany said they would want to use fingerprint scanning tech.
In addition, 56 per cent of UK adults said they would be willing to use scans of blood vessels for the same purpose, compared to just 26 per cent of Germans.
But Jim Norton, senior policy advisor at the Institute of Directors, said the high UK figure is possibly more representative of the "worry factor" around personal data than real understanding of how biometric technology could be used - reflected by the research's discovery that 57 per cent of respondents are very or extremely concerned about ID theft.
Norton added the UK hasn't yet got to the point where there is an informed debate about how biometrics technology is used.
"I think the technology is good but I think there's relatively poor understanding if you ask the person in the street what these technologies mean and more importantly how they would actually be used in a practical system," he told silicon.com.
Norton added that the future of biometrics technology is highly dependent on the progress of the controversial government ID card scheme.
"You're never going to have [biometrics] as a complete panacea. There is always going to have to be other ways of showing identity," he said.
Home Office minister Meg Hillier said in a statement: "Using biometric identity cards will improve the way we verify our identity and this research suggests the public recognise how important secure and reliable checks are."
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
"Norton added the UK hasn't yet got to the point where there is an informed debate about how biometrics technology is used"
thats because scare tactics are much more effective for the governments aims, a scared electorate does what it's told, when it's told and doesn't ask awkward questions
so get ready for more "it's to stop crime/terrorism/stealing from you/harm to the kiddies" fear making announcements from the home secretary designed to stop you trusting anyone but the government
2. Karen Challinor
and the other minor point
half of britons would give blood and three quarters would use fingerprints
according to a survey by unisys
would they really
- was anyone reading this actually asked these questions by a researcher ?
funny how they keep missing me with these things
- how large was the sample, when and where was it conducted
asking passers by on the steps of parliament doesn't really count as a location likely to give an unbiased opinion
- were there any options on the form that said "none of the above" or were all the options supportive of the use of biometrics
3. Guy Herbert
The headline's a little bit misleading. They weren't asked, would they give blood? - and I suspect the numbers saying yes would be tiny if they were.
What they were asked about was non-invasive blood-vessel pattern biometrics. There's no particular reason to worry about that technology, which has some advantages over the commoner fingerprints and iris scans. However all such manufacturer surveys need to be treated with caution as measures of public opinion, since they usually are seeking assent to some proposition, rather than looking at unprompted or knowledge-based preferences or realistic options.
4. Guy Reynolds
The biggest problem with biometrics as I see it and that rarely gets aired, is the issue of false positives and false negatives, and what will actually happen when the scan of your fingerprint does not match with the one held on file.
As a result I don't trust any form of biometric system, simply because if you get false negative, and "The computer says 'No'" how else to you prove you are you when you biometric data has been rejected.
The government says they want more than one set of biometric data on the card and in their system, but who is going to go to the expense of installing a mutliplicity of scannering devices just incase your finger print does not match and anyway there are till a significant number of people for whon none of the biometrics will work reliably
5. Guy Herbert
Guy Reynold's point is good, but the problem is worse than it seems. If biometrics are to be used for a government-backed scheme, then one has to ask. what will be the administrative consequences of (1) having the system in the first place and (2) of a false match?
Multiple biometrics make those unanswered questions harder. More modes means more cost to organisations using the scheme and more complicated processes for everyone involved. Using multiple modes at the same time increases the chances that at least one will produce a false match. What will happen with conflicting answers? Bureaucratic systems do not generally cope well with doubt.
The Home Office's approach to life appears to be that this is fine: the person concerned should be detained for questioning or denied the relevant service (beating the system, on the other side, is not countenanced). If you can't be verified as it sees fit, that is your problem - and you are presumptively a criminal so it serves you right.
However, in a world that isn't an official bully's paradise, it would be intolerable for thousands of people at any one time being unable to conduct ordinary civil transactions when they need to for stochastic reasons, and for thousands of others to be arbitarily imprisoned awaiting the ministry's approval of their existence.
6. Paul Wilson
Fingerprint for id's, ie biometrics, is only seen to be opposed by people who are dis-honest or are on the edge of dis-honesty. For example, If a bank has your fingerprint to say that it is you withdrawing funds, but you commit a crime, like robbery, murder, assault. Will the Police have the authority to scan All fingerprint databases for a match. you can be caught, for the majority who are honest, that is not a worry or an issue. BUT the thugs, crooks, thieves, muderers, rapists, fraudsters, they would not be on the streets long, and guess what, the Prisons would soon be overcrowded. But is it 100% safe against Criminals hacking, and changing data. NO it isn't. Biometrics is a way of safeguarding against fraud, but it is NOT that magical solution to fraud or identity theft, not on it's own. But in combination it can be a vital fight against it. Safety is in numbers, ie - multiple instances of the same fingerprint(s) obviously held in different locations. NOT a single centre. As the old saying goes, Do not keep all your eggs in one basket. It is one of the more safer forms of ID checking, BUT only if done correctly. It opens a pandora's box of issues on morality, consent, legality, human rights to name a few. then there is the logistics of implementing anything like this.
7. Tim Jackson
If I'm willing to frequently give a little blood in the cause of something as trivial as fixing my car, I don't see why I should object to using it to prove my identity. Even if that wasn't the question.
What I'm less prepared to do is to sign up to paying an ongoing bill (through fees or taxes) for a national identity database for which I've seen no evidence of any potential return on investment, and no evidence that defending its security will not be a financial bottomless pit (except that it will probably get left in a taxi, whereupon we can write off the investment).
8. Chris Anderson
I don't care what Biometrics are held on a card I posses as long as none are held on any government server!
9. misceng
Guy Herbert's doubts about biometrics are very well founded. I attended a lecture given by consultants to the government on the ID card project. While they painted a rosy picture of biometrics, they were forced to admit, during question time, figures for the failure rate. They admitted that some people especially Asian women had skin so smooth that getting a good fingerprint was very difficult. Overall the failure rate could mean up to 60,000 of our population being classified as unidentified and therefore potential criminals.
10. Drew Stephenson
Good comments from KC as usual, and also from the two Guys. There are those who would argue that Guy Herbert already has an agenda, but (ignoring the fact that he has declared this in his occupation) until someone in government actually answers the questions he raises i can't see how anyone (without a vested interest) can seriously support this initiative.
11. Jane Dunne
As always, and perhaps understandably, the questions leading to the "conclusion" were not stated. It is easy enough to set up a collection of questions leading to any desired conclusion, as Sir Humphrey Appleby ably demonstrated in an episode of 'Yes Minister'/ 'Yes Prime Minister'.
The point of such surveys is to know the answer you want to achieve and then to ask the appropriate questions!