| 
          
         | 
        
          
            <<  
             ^ 
              >>
          
          
            
              
                Date: 2001-09-28
                 
                 
                Terror: Biometrics-Geier im Anflug
                
                 
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                 
                
      In den USA hat das Rennen der Biometrics/ Produzenten um  
Überwachungssystem für Flughäfen schon begonnen. Um 90  
Prozent der gesuchten Personen zu finden, müsste bei  
jedem dritten  Flughafen/Besucher Alarm ausgelöst werden.  
So sieht die Performance der Systeme momentan noch aus 
 
-.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-   
Face recognition useless for crowd surveillance By Thomas  
C Greene in Washington Posted: 27/09/2001 at 19:44 GMT  
 
Anyone offended by the Orwellian implications of using face- 
recognition technology to scan airport crowds for terrorists  
can take heart in the fact that the technology is, quite  
simply, worthless in that situation.   
 
As an authentication tool, used in controlled settings, face  
recognition has real value. But even here we can expect a  
false acceptance rate (FAR) of one in 250, according to  
biometrics outfit FaceKey.   
 
"This means that under controlled circumstances....you  
could expect one false positive out of 250 people when face  
recognition is used alone," FaceKey COO Annette  
Starkweather told The Register. "FaceKey has combined  
face recognition with fingerprint recognition to [achieve] a  
FAR of one in 2.5 million," she added.   
 
"Limiting access to secure areas in airports would be a  
perfect application for biometrics," Starkweather says.   
 
But in uncontrolled settings, such as we'd encounter in a  
surveillance context, the performance of face recognition falls  
to absurd depths.   
 
This has actually been examined by the US Department of  
Defense (DoD) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency  
(DARPA), which sponsored the Facial Recognition Vendor  
Test (FRVT) 2000, the biggest and most well-known test to  
date, Image Metrics COO Gareth Edwards told us.   
 
"With indoor light, and a prior image taken at 1.5m camera- 
subject separations and another taken at 2m camera-subject  
separations, the best false detection rate (FDR) was 33 per  
cent, with a false acceptance rate (FAR) of ten per cent."  
 
This means that "to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need  
to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing  
through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any  
security system could be built around this kind of  
performance," Edwards says.   
 
And yet, a biometrics company called Visionics is trying to  
sell precisely that, rushing to capitalize on the recent suicide  
hijackings in New York and Washington, as we reported  
earlier. [...] 
 
"Most worrying is the number of reports from people who've  
seen working demos and 'field-trials' of these types of  
systems.  Many truly think that they offer an answer. [But]  
when subject to raw, rigorous analysis, we've yet to see any  
evidence that these systems offer any value. There's yet to  
appear any plausible explanation of the results of the FRVT  
test when compared with so-called 'field trials,'" Edwards  
says.   
[...] 
 
Visionics has been sponsoring a public surveillance trial in  
Tampa, Florida, with the stated goal of busting sex offenders  
and pedophiles, two target groups which no one would rush  
to defend. Now they're exploiting the terrorist threat, which in  
recent weeks has become America's paramount fear.   
[...] 
 
A similar company, Viisage, which made headlines by  
scanning crowds at last year's Super Bowl, is also eagerly  
pursuing the airport surveillance angle, and has "offered the  
FBI free use of their face-recognition technology to aid in the  
apprehension or identification of the persons responsible for  
the terrorism in New York City and Washington," for an  
added marketing gimmick.   
... 
Afterwards, they can still haul in a nice profit selling  
incremental 'upgrades' to victims who've invested millions and  
can't justify backing out; and for an added bonus, they will  
have become the 'DoubleClicks' of public biometric data,  
which is sure to be a gold mine in itself. 
 
full text 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21916.html
                   
-.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-
    
                 
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                
edited by Harkank 
published on: 2001-09-28 
comments to office@quintessenz.at
                   
                  
                    subscribe Newsletter
                  
                   
                
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                
                  <<  
                   ^ 
                    >> 
                
                
               | 
             
           
         | 
         | 
        
          
         |