 |
|
| CURRENT SECTION :: TechZone | |
|
 |
The Government seems set to make the classic project management mistake of setting the work schedule before anybody has seriously looked at what the proposed biometric identity system will actually do. If Government plans are realised, the ID system will roll out for its first live use in 2007. This is only eighteen months away. Most companies allow more time for planning and executing an office move, let alone embarking on a hugely complex project commissioned by a department with less than exemplary experience in IT management. Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Commons financial watchdog, said: "Given the Government's track-record in this area, it is extremely problematic whether they have any hope of developing this project on time or to budget." The National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) is a case in point. In November 2004, a software bug left police forces in England and Wales unable to run national fingerprint checks for over a week. Tight schedules and questionable management would be problematic enough, if there weren't significant technical hurdles to jump. It is unknown what combination of biometrics the government will eventually choose, but all of them have their problems. Biometric systems are measured using FAR and FRR, standing for False Acceptance Rate and False Rejection Rate respectively. For fingerprint systems these figures typically stand at 0.1 per cent depending on vendor and operating environment, but this means that for every ten interactions with the state, one in a hundred of us may have difficulty proving or disproving our identity. Technical problems are numerous and not easy to solve. Fingerprint readers can be fooled by the calloused hands' of manual labourers, and as reported recently in The Times, a group of students in Japan baffled sensors with an artificial "gummy" digit made with gelatine. And if you think the system will make us safer despite the costs, there is evidence to suggest that using body parts as biometric passwords is not such a good idea. In March, Mr K Kumaran, an accountant, was walking towards his S-Class Mercedes Benz in a Kuala Lumpur when he was assaulted. His finger was chopped off with a machete, allowing his attackers to start the biometric-protected luxury motor without the owner's permission. Professor Ross Anderson of Cambridge University, quoted in a recent parliamentary debate said, "I am afraid that iris scanners like fingerprint scanners are liable to be defeated by sophisticated attack." Well, Mr Kumaran probably doesn't think his assailants were all that sophisticated, and given that the car was unable to tell if the finger was attached to live body or not, he may be regretting not owning a set of keys. Iris scanners have been foxed by laser prints, and facial recognition works only if the subject sits still in front of the camera and hasn't been to Spec Savers or had a hair cut. And unlike humans, software cannot tell identical twins apart, which is good news for future megalomaniacs and their plans for world domination through cloning. But, as if to underline the classic mistake in forcing an unrealistic schedule, in order to win over Labour rebels and gain a majority of just 31, the Government promised concessions on costs. Oh dear: Anybody in IT project work, from the lowly keyboard sanitiser to the lofty management consultant, will tell you that shorter project timescales means greater costs. It will require more staff, more overtime and more careful control. The only way to reduce costs is to cut functionality, and yet the only historical precedent for a national identity system in the UK was during WWII. Initiated to provide identity checks with regard to no more than two functions of the state, by the time the ID card was abolished in 1952, the number of functions had expanded to 39. It doesn't seem likely the Government will want less for its money, so it’s already trapped in wanting all the features, at the lowest price, in an impossible time scale. It certainly makes you wonder what sort of bug-ridden system will eventually hobble out under the gleeful gaze of the media. William Knight Jul 7, 2005 Email this article Printer friendly page Previous Page
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All content © Contractor UK Limited | [Archive] | [Register for News Letter] | [Privacy Statement] | [Terms of Use] | [Top of Page] |