High-Tech Human Identification Can Fight Terrorism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

RAND Op-Ed: High-Tech Human Identification Can Fight Terrorism

High-Tech Human Identification Can Fight Terrorism

There is no foolproof solution. But biometrics could become a powerful way to maintain security

By John D. Woodward Jr.

This opinion article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on September 24, 2001.

As the nation begins to recover from this horrible tragedy, we need to dedicate our efforts to preventing any such terrorist acts in the future. While suicidal attacks can never be completely thwarted, we, as a nation, can take additional steps to counter them. We should explore many options.

Among them, we should examine the emerging technology of biometrics. While there is no easy foolproof technical fix to counter terrorism, biometrics might help make America a safer place.

Biometrics uses a person's physical characteristics or personal traits for automatic, nearly instantaneous human recognition. Digitized fingerprints, voiceprints, iris and retinal images, hand geometry and handwritten signature are all examples of characteristics that can identify us. While biometric technologies may seem exotic, their use is becoming increasingly common. Earlier this year, MIT Technology Review named biometrics as one of the "top 10 emerging technologies that will change the world."

There are several ways biometrics could be used to impede terrorism.

Currently many sensitive areas at airports are secured by badges and tokens. A person can swipe a pass and be given access to the runway, baggage loading areas and the airplanes themselves. Such measures are not wholly secure because badges and passes are easily forged, stolen and misplaced.

We can do better. For example, airline staff with a need to access sensitive areas of airports could be required to present a biometric like their iris to a sensor. From a foot away and in a matter of seconds, this device captures the person's iris image, converts it to a template,or computer readable format, and searches a database containing the templates of authorized personnel to attempt a match. A match confirms that the person is authorized to access a particular area.

This is not science fiction. Such a system is currently in place at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service uses an Immigration and Naturalization Service Passenger Accelerated Service System where 65,000 enrolled, vetted international travelers voluntarily use hand geometry to verify their identity at ports of entry. This time saving use enables INS officers to spend more time on problem cases.

We want to make certain that necessary travel documents are used only by the person to whom they were issued. Like badges and tokens, passports, visas and boarding passes can also be forged, misplaced or stolen. By placing an encrypted biometric measure on such a document, using a bar code, chip or magnetic strip, we make it harder for someone to adopt a false identity or create a forged travel document.

As these recent incidents make painfully clear, an American airport presents a prime venue for terrorists. Biometric facial recognition systems could help thwart future terrorist acts in such places. Specifically, surveillance cameras at an airport or a port of entry could scan people's faces to capture images. Computer algorithms could then convert these images to a template that could be instantly searched against a computerized database of suspected terrorists to potentially recognize a specific individual. A computer match would be confirmed by visual inspection by law enforcement officials.

While these facial recognition systems are not technically perfected, they are improving. And while civil libertarians might decry their use as some sort of an invasion of privacy, three quick points need to be made:

  • We do not have a constitutional right to privacy in the face we show in public.

  • We are all subject to heightened scrutiny at airports and ports of entry because they are sensitive facilities. For example, the law requires our persons and personal effects to undergo screening through metal detectors and the law forbids us to make jokes about threats on airport property.

  • The facial recognition system does not make any final determinations of a person's identity, but rather alerts the authorities to the need for additional diligence. The U.S. government has taken positive steps to encourage the use of biometrics. It is time to do more.

    Since 1992, the National Institute of Standard and Technologies, the national security community and other federal agencies have participated in the Biometric Consortium which serves as the U.S. government's focal point for biometric technologies. However, the Biometric Consortium operates on a very lean budget with limited staff.

    In the wake of the Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency embarked on a $50 million initiative known as "Human ID at a Distance," a major component of which is facial recognition. DARPA's ambitious goal is to help develop biometric technologies, like facial recognition, that can be deployed to identify a known terrorist before he closes on his target.

    The nation's political leadership has also recognized the potential of biometric technologies. Public Law 106-246, passed last year, included a provision making the Army "the Executive Agent to lead, consolidate, and coordinate all biometrics information assurance programs of the Department of Defense." Soon thereafter, Pentagon leadership created a Biometrics Management Office to consolidate oversight and management of biometric technology for the Defense Department.

    The federal government should encourage continued research and development into biometrics by providing additional resources for this effort. Biometric Consortium efforts should be expanded with a senior administration official designated to head biometric efforts.

    There is no high-tech silver bullet to solve the terrorism problem. And it's very doubtful that biometrics could have prevented the recent tragedy. But to the extent we can make terrorism more difficult in the future, we achieve a safer America. Biometrics is one technology that can help us achieve this goal.

    John Woodward, a former CIA operations officer, is a senior policy analyst at RAND, where he works on biometric policy issues. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.
     

    -- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 29, 2001

  • Answers

    But of course, it would be able to keep track of honest citizens too. Guess government is intruding more into our lives, rather than less.

    -- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 29, 2001.

    I have yet to see a high tech biometric device which can beat my $1.29 groucho-marx-mustache-and-glasses-with-eyebrows-and-big-nose arrangement, which I wear, not to evade legitimate government-imposed surveillance of its subjects, but rather to filter out pollens to which I am allergic, and because it makes me look debonair.

    -- Slappy (YourPal@And.Mine), September 29, 2001.

    I don't want security, I don't want safety, I want privacy.

    -- Freedom Man (nauseated@the.thought), September 29, 2001.

    Al-d, you home? What does the Book of Revelations have to say about biometrics? Are fingerprints or iris-patterns the mark of the beast, if the beast uses them as marks?

    -- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 29, 2001.

    We do not have a constitutional right to privacy in the face we show in public.

    This is spookspeak. It's not the privacy of our face that's at issue, but rather that of "usually" private personal information that is accessible through this facial recognition technology.

    The facial recognition system does not make any final determinations of a person's identity, but rather alerts the authorities to the need for additional diligence.

    I'd bet it wouldn't be long before this "additional diligence" would be abandoned as unnecessary and inefficient. If your biometric record somehow gets transposed with that of some criminal, good luck trying to rectify that error. I'd like for Mr. Woodward to be the first to experience this nightmare.

    -- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 29, 2001.



    I don't want security I dont want safety I want a big black penis!

    -- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 30, 2001.

    Cherri, bend over and pull down your panties so I can get a shot at both your vagina and anus. I'll penetrate one of them with my black, erect penis and fill it with sperm, while sticking a finger in the other.

    -- Nigger with an erect penis (irape@whitewomen.com), September 30, 2001.

    You are a very, very sick one, no doubt about that now. Dangerously disturbed...

    -- 1-800-GET-HELP (psychotic@white.male.com), September 30, 2001.

    David, "... private personal information that is accessible through this facial recognition technology." Please explain, what personal info?

    -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

    #### #### helen profile #### ####

    Identifying marks: mule drool dna, goat poop dna, chicken snot dna

    Alerts: may spread biohazardous material from mule to mule via lips

    Restrictions: not allowed in or near racing facilities, dairies, or homes for orphaned kittens

    Cross reference: may be found hanging out with Maria, Uncle Deedah, Little Nipper, Cherri, Jack Booted Thug, David L., and other nefarious persons (?) in the system.

    -- helen (here@ya.go.maria), October 01, 2001.



    All from that pretty face of yours. hmmmmmm, not bad technology. Thanks for the scoop, helen, :)

    -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

    Not my face, Maria...my butt. >;)

    -- helen (mule@drool.fool), October 01, 2001.

    On second thought...that biometric won't work...changes with the season...

    -- helen (mules@rule.fools), October 01, 2001.

    LOL!, helen. I am finding further contemplation of facial recognition technology to be rather sobering, so I appreciate your lighthearted posts on this thread even more than usual.

    Maria, the information that first came to mind was Social Security Number. To determine whether a given passenger matches his/her ticket, requires converting the facial image taken of that person at the airport, to some piece of information that was taken when the ticket was issued. SSN seems the obvious choice for doing this correlation. This would mean that purchasing a ticket would require divulging the SSN of the intended passenger to whomever the ticket is purchased from.

    But why stop at passengers. Why not screen high risk individuals at the entrances of airport terminals. Such people might include those who had ever been committed of a crime or seen a psychiatrist.

    But why stop at airports.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    -- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 01, 2001.


    Thanks for that clarification. You had framed your concern in terms of 'privacy' of face recognition. So it's not the technology that scares you but the associated database. Nothing wrong with the technology if it can help in quickly id'ing people. SSN does not have to be the id number used. Passengers can be issued a passenger number not equated at all to SSN to track people moving in and out of airports or any other public center. I don't give out my SSN and object strongly when vendors ask for it.

    -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.


    Moderation questions? read the FAQ