Critical Evaluation And Discussion


The public are suspicious about how and where their information would be used, and the real motives of the governments supporting this technology. It has been proposed that police should have access to the national database to verify fingerprints, whereas at the moment they only have access to a database of people who have previously been detained. To help pay for the implementation it has also been proposed that the database be made available for commercial companies such as banks to check the identity of customers, the proposal states that the bank will submit data which will be checked against the national database and a result will only say that the person’s identity has or has not been confirmed. The technology also raises problems with reliability and the high number of false accepts and rejects. Under optimal conditions, where users are accustomed to using the equipment the identification rates can be above 90%. In a realistic situation, conditions are unlikely to be optimal and many people will not use the systems regularly enough to be thoroughly competent at using it. The United Kingdoms database will eventually contain the data of 60 million people, which raises a question about how many false positives will be returned and the time it will take to check a submitted biometric with the information held on the database. This chapter critically evaluate the issues relating to this study.


European Union Smart Card Homeland Security Biometric Data Biometric System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acharya, L., 2006, Biometrics and Government,, (April 3, 2007).Google Scholar
  2. Argenbright, G., 2006, Saflink SureAccess Reader Can Improve Security at Seaports, Airports and Other Critical Facilities, (November 15, 2006).Google Scholar
  3. B&J Biometrics, Inc., 2006, Releases New Ultra Biometric Fingerprnt Encryption Mouse,;; and (February 20, 2007).Google Scholar
  4. Bradt, G., 2006, Silex technology launches first biometric WiFi access control device, Press Release: (February 27, 2007).Google Scholar
  5. CEIS (Commissioner for enterprise and information society), 2004, Conference on Biometrics for the benefit of the citizen: a European Perspective, Contribution By Ján Figel’, Phoenix Park, Dublin.Google Scholar
  6. Clement, A., and Boa, K., 2006, Developing Canada’s Biometric Passport: Where are Citizens in this Picture? Google Scholar
  7. Conforti, M., 2007, Fidelica Microsystems Announces Release of Fingerprint Authentication Platform, Press Release: (March 7, 2007).Google Scholar
  8. Council Regulation (EC) 2004, Standards for Security Features and Biometrics in Passports and Travel Documents Issued by Member States, No 2252/2004 of 13 December.Google Scholar
  9. DeFina, F, 2006, New Panasonic Iris Reader Delivers Faster, More Accurate Access Control Identification and Authentication, (September 27, 2006).Google Scholar
  10. Ford, R., 2006, ID cards under threat in review of Home Office, Times Online, 12 July 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Grijpink, J., 2001, Biometrics and Privacy, Computer Law and Security Report, Volume 17, Issue 3, May.Google Scholar
  12. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2006, Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence (PDF), Sixth Report of Session 2005-2006, August 2006.Google Scholar
  13. House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, 2003, A National Identity Card for Canada?,, (March 4, 2007).Google Scholar
  14. International Biometric Group, 2005, BioPrivacy Application Impact Framework, (May 07, 2007)Google Scholar
  15. KPMG, 2005, Home Office ID Cards Programme Cost Methodology and Cost Review Outline Business Case Review (PDF), Published Extract, November.Google Scholar
  16. LSE, 2005, Identity Project 2005, The Identity Project: an assessment of the UK Identity Cards Bill and its implications (PDF), London School of Economics and Political Science, June.Google Scholar
  17. Lundquist, E., 2007, Kwikset(R) Introduces Futuristic New Biometric Home Security Application,, (March 18, 2007).Google Scholar
  18. Morrison, R., 2006, id-Confirm(TM) Unveils Portable, Turnkey Biometric Solution to Financial Fraud and Identity Theft, (December 30, 2006).Google Scholar
  19. Najm, C., 2006, Cryptolex Trust Systems Unveils New Approach to Secure Identity Verification, (November 2, 2006).Google Scholar
  20. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2006, Information from media lines, July.Google Scholar
  21. Pertsov, P., 2007, Biometric Offering for AD Opens the New BioLink IDenium Product Line, Press Release: (March 28, 2007).Google Scholar
  22. Prabhakar, S., Pankanti, S., and Jain, A., 2003, ‘Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Concerns’, IEEE security and Privacy, march/April.Google Scholar
  23. Purdue University, 2001, Match Future Biometric Technologies, (March 11,2007).Google Scholar
  24. Richard, D., 2006, Atmel’s New FingerChip Sensor Targets Physical Access Control Devices, 609 (March 19, 2007).Google Scholar
  25. Roberts, B., 2003, ‘Are you ready for biometries’, HR Magazine, Mar 2003, Volume 48, Issue 3.Google Scholar
  26. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), 2006, THE RTID REPORT, (April 1, 2007).Google Scholar
  27. Ruggles, T., 2006, CSC Announces New Identity Management and Credentialing Solution, (September 20, 2006).Google Scholar
  28. Secguide, 2001, Biometric Technologies, (March 17, 2007).Google Scholar
  29. Shoniregun, C. A., 2005, Impacts and Risk Assessment of Technology for Internet Security: Enable information Small-medium Enterprises (TEISMEs), Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Sparapani, T.D., 2006, On Secure Flight and Registered Traveler Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, ACLU Legislative Counsel, February.Google Scholar
  31. Statewatch News editorial, 2006, EU-Passports, July, (March 20, 2007).Google Scholar
  32. Stryczek, M., 2006, American Barcode and RFID Announces TETRAGATE, which Links Biometric Facial Recognition and RFID, Creating Formidable Security Solution, Press Release: (February 2, 2007).Google Scholar
  33. UK Home Office, 2005a, Regulatory Impact Assessment (PDF), May.Google Scholar
  34. UK Home Office, 2005b, Home Office Response to The London School of Economics’ ID Cards Cost Estimates & Alternative Blueprint (PDF), July.Google Scholar
  35. United States Department of Homeland Security, 2005, Transportation Security Administration, Statement of Kip Hawley, Assistant Secretary before the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity, Committee on Homeland Security, United States House of Representatives, November.Google Scholar
  36. United States Government Accountability Office, 2006, Homeland Security: Recommendations to Improve Management of Key Border Security Program Need to Be Implemented, February.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Personalised recommendations