1
12 iris US military orders handheld iris devices L -1 Identity Solutions’ wholly- owned subsidiary SecuriMetrics has received two orders from the US Military for its family of PIER portable iris recognition and enrolment devices. Thousands of PIER devices are in deploy- ment throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and other areas of conflict. The orders have an aggregate value of more than US$2.5 million and will be used in connection with the Military’s Biometrics Automated Toolset (BAT) System, used for positive identification, tracking and visualiza- tion of persons of interest. One order is from the US Army for PIER 2.3 and PIER-T devices. The second order was placed by the US Navy Spawar Systems Center for PIER 2.3 and 2.4 devices to be fielded by the US Marine Corps. According to Bruce Hanson, president of L-1’s wholly owned subsidiaries SecuriMetrics, and Iridian Technologies: “The US Military’s continued use of iris-based recognition devices is evidence of its superior performance in the field where fast and precise identification of subjects can often be the difference between life and death.” PIER is a rugged hand-held device that allows the operator to enrol and identify individuals using the human iris. It can store a database of up to 200 000 individuals. When connected to an L-1 SIRIS matching engine, the PIER family of devices can be used to confirm an individual’s identity against a database of one billion records in less than one second. Contact: Doni Fordyce at L-1 Identity Solutions, Tel: +1 203 504 1109, Email: [email protected] fingerprint EURODAC under the spotlight A n annual report into the activities of EURODAC (the EU wide AFIS which helps determine which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum claim) in 2006, has been pub- lished by the European Commission. The report gives information on patterns of asylum seeking and illegal entry in the EU and shows there may be a ‘deterrent effect’ starting to take effect for ‘multiple applications’. “EURODAC is an essential part of the EU’s Common European Asylum System” said vice- president Franco Frattini, EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security. In 2006, EURODAC processed 165 958 sets of fingerprints of asylum seekers, 41 312 sets of fingerprints of people crossing the bor- ders irregularly and 63 341 sets of fingerprints of people apprehended while illegally staying on the territory of a Member State. Figures show that in 2006, the number of registered asylum applications further decreased while the number of registered irreg- ular entrants increased significantly (up 64% compared to 2005). The report reveals that in 17% of the total number of cases, the same person had already made at least one asylum application in the same country or in another Member State (known as a multiple applica- tion). In some cases, several applications had been made across several EU Member States by the same person. This percentage is only 1% higher then in 2005, reflecting a possible deterrent effect stating to take hold. This newsletter was unavoidably drawn into the fray to report on this month’s lead story. When NIST wrote a paper (based on the FRVT and ICE 2006 tests) saying that face recognition was now able to compete with iris recognition in accuracy terms, it undoubtedly raised a few eyebrows. This paper was followed with another, this time by NIST’s Elaine Newton, which appears to say that the perceived accuracy of iris recognition is unfounded scientifically. (No wonder some sponsors of the NIST trials have described, rightly or wrongly, the decks being stacked against iris.) In order to prove that iris recognition is widely perceived as accurate, Newton’s paper extracts a quote from this newsletter (one that I made in 2005) and other evidence from other much more eminent sources. It is certainly true that in 2005 I perceived iris recognition to be the most accurate mainstream biometric, and, for the record, still do. Newton’s paper, I believe (although she strongly denies), misleads the casual reader. To lead her paper with a quote that “the conventional wisdom in the industry is that iris recognition is highly accurate” suggests that she is about to show that iris recognition is not necessarily as accurate as imagined. Instead the paper does nothing to disprove this conventional wisdom, and seems to ignore other evidence from around the world that shows iris is indeed a powerful technology. To take one example, and perhaps this is the example which gave iris recognition such a good reputation in the first place. The UK’s highly respected NPL did a test in 2000/2001 which tested various biometrics. It produced a famous ROC curve graph which showed iris to be in a class of its own (ie no curve at all for iris as there were no recorded false matches). NPL’s scientific test was different in many ways to ICE and to the other two tests Newton examined. However, it is still a valid test and one that showed iris to be in an accuracy class of its own. Then there is the body of evidence from the field that shows iris to be frighteningly accurate – although, as Newton told me, that is of little interest scientifically. Perhaps I am being harsh, but it seems to me that making such eyebrow-raising claims is more about trying to get a paper noticed than about sensible scientific comment. This is a shame, because apart from the accuracy diversion, it is actually a very good paper. Mark Lockie COMMENT NEWS / COMMENT Biometric Technology Today October 2007 EURODAC background Since 15 January 2003, the fingerprints of anyone over the age of 14 who applies for asylum in the European Union, in Norway or in Iceland are stored in a database called EURODAC. EURODAC was created to support the development of an asylum policy common to all Member States of the EU. The EC operates the system on behalf of participating States. Co-operation in this framework has formed a basis for future common large-scale IT projects, such as the second generation of the Schengen Information System or the future Visa Information System. Under the EURODAC system, participating States take the fingerprints of each asylum seeker over the age of 14. These fingerprints are then compared with fingerprint data transmitted by other participating States stored in the central database. If EURODAC shows that the fingerprints have already been recorded, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the country where his/her fingerprints were originally taken.

US military orders handheld iris devices

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

12

iris

US military orders handheld iris devices

L-1 Identity Solutions’ wholly-owned subsidiary SecuriMetrics

has received two orders from the US Military for its family of PIER portable iris recognition and enrolment devices. Thousands of PIER devices are in deploy-ment throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and other areas of conflict.

The orders have an aggregate value of more than US$2.5 million and will be used in connection with the Military’s Biometrics Automated Toolset (BAT) System, used for positive identification, tracking and visualiza-tion of persons of interest.

One order is from the US Army for PIER 2.3 and PIER-T devices. The second order was placed by the US Navy Spawar Systems Center for PIER 2.3 and 2.4 devices to be fielded by the US Marine Corps.

According to Bruce Hanson, president of L-1’s wholly owned subsidiaries SecuriMetrics, and Iridian Technologies: “The US Military’s continued use of iris-based recognition devices is evidence of its superior performance in the field where fast and precise identification of subjects can often be the difference between life and death.”

PIER is a rugged hand-held device that allows the operator to enrol and identify individuals using the human iris. It can store a database of up to 200 000 individuals. When connected to an L-1 SIRIS matching engine, the PIER family of devices can be used to confirm an individual’s identity against a database of one billion records in less than one second.

Contact: Doni Fordyce at L-1 Identity Solutions,Tel: +1 203 504 1109, Email: [email protected]

fingerprint

EURODAC under the spotlight

An annual report into the activities of EURODAC (the EU wide AFIS

which helps determine which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum claim) in 2006, has been pub-lished by the European Commission.

The report gives information on patterns of asylum seeking and illegal entry in the EU and

shows there may be a ‘deterrent effect’ starting to take effect for ‘multiple applications’.

“EURODAC is an essential part of the EU’s Common European Asylum System” said vice-president Franco Frattini, EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security.

In 2006, EURODAC processed 165 958 sets of fingerprints of asylum seekers, 41 312 sets of fingerprints of people crossing the bor-ders irregularly and 63 341 sets of fingerprints of people apprehended while illegally staying on the territory of a Member State.

Figures show that in 2006, the number of registered asylum applications further decreased while the number of registered irreg-ular entrants increased significantly (up 64% compared to 2005). The report reveals that in 17% of the total number of cases, the same person had already made at least one asylum application in the same country or in another Member State (known as a multiple applica-tion). In some cases, several applications had been made across several EU Member States by the same person. This percentage is only 1% higher then in 2005, reflecting a possible deterrent effect stating to take hold.

This newsletter was unavoidably drawn into the fray to report on this month’s lead story. When NIST wrote a paper (based on the FRVT and ICE

2006 tests) saying that face recognition was now able to compete with iris recognition in accuracy terms, it undoubtedly raised a few eyebrows. This paper was followed with another, this time by NIST’s Elaine Newton, which appears to say that the perceived accuracy of iris recognition is unfounded scientifically. (No wonder some sponsors of the NIST trials have described, rightly or wrongly, the decks being stacked against iris.)

In order to prove that iris recognition is widely perceived as accurate, Newton’s paper extracts a quote from this newsletter (one that I made in 2005) and other evidence from other much more eminent sources. It is certainly true that in 2005 I perceived iris recognition to be the most accurate mainstream biometric, and, for the record, still do.

Newton’s paper, I believe (although she strongly denies), misleads the casual reader. To lead her paper with a quote that “the conventional wisdom in the industry is that iris recognition is highly accurate” suggests that she is about to show that iris recognition

is not necessarily as accurate as imagined. Instead the paper does nothing to disprove this conventional wisdom, and seems to ignore other evidence from around the world that shows iris is indeed a powerful technology.

To take one example, and perhaps this is the example which gave iris recognition such a good reputation in the first place. The UK’s highly respected NPL did a test in 2000/2001 which tested various biometrics. It produced a famous ROC curve graph which showed iris to be in a class of its own (ie no curve at all for iris as there were no recorded false matches).

NPL’s scientific test was different in many ways to ICE and to the other two tests Newton examined. However, it is still a valid test and one that showed iris to be in an accuracy class of its own. Then there is the body of evidence from the field that shows iris to be frighteningly accurate – although, as Newton told me, that is of little interest scientifically.

Perhaps I am being harsh, but it seems to me that making such eyebrow-raising claims is more about trying to get a paper noticed than about sensible scientific comment. This is a shame, because apart from the accuracy diversion, it is actually a very good paper.

Mark Lockie

COMMENT

NEWS / COMMENT

Biometric Technology Today October 2007

EURODAC backgroundSince 15 January 2003, the fingerprints of anyone over the age of 14 who applies for asylum in the European Union, in Norway or in Iceland are stored in a database called EURODAC. EURODAC was created to support the development of an asylum policy common to all Member States of the EU.

The EC operates the system on behalf of participating States. Co-operation in this framework has formed a basis for future common large-scale IT projects, such as the second generation of the Schengen Information System or the future Visa Information System. Under the EURODAC system, participating States take the fingerprints of each asylum seeker over the age of 14. These fingerprints are then compared with fingerprint data transmitted by other participating States stored in the central database. If EURODAC shows that the fingerprints have already been recorded, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the country where his/her fingerprints were originally taken.