Cross-Cultural Aspects of Global Biometric Deployment - Report Example

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Global Biometric Deployment Name: Course: Institution: Date: Introduction Biometric is a scientific approach to the process of individual identification on the basis of behavioral or biological attributes (1). Biometric when viewed from this perspective is therefore a tool for the establishment of confidence that the people in a specific society are already known and that they belong to an identified group of people with rights (2). In addition, the deployments of biometric systems are also based on the understanding that different individuals within the society are physically and behaviorally unique in numerous ways (1). Through biometric systems governments and other agencies have been able to institute some forms of regulation in the ability of different individuals to access physical spaces and other rights and benefits, including the ability to cross borders of different countries (3). There are diverse motivations in the use of biometric systems which in most cases overlap. These include the reduction of the rate of fraud while at the same time improving on the public and state security (4). Questions have however been raised concerning the efficiency of biometric steam in the maintenance of security. This is in line with their sustainability and manageability across different cultures. The main objective of this study is to assess the cross cultural aspect of global biometric deployment. This will be realized through a general understanding of biometric system deployment. In addition, the evolution of the biometric systems in different sections and countries will also provide a better platform for understanding its application across different cultures. General understanding of the biometric system and its deployment Biometric systems of recognition can be understood through two fundamental aspects that are defined by the bodily characteristics: distinctiveness and permanence. The level of applicability and accuracy in the identification process of a biometric trait is highly dependent on the level by which the premises of permanence and distinctiveness are true to specific population (5). Face, fingerprints and the iris comprise the most popular physiological attributes whose usage in the commercial industry is most popular (6). The use of fingerprints, for instance, has been found to be the most popular in the civilian market due to its level of truth in terms of distinctiveness and permanence (7). This means that the choice of the biometric system to deploy in any society is therefore dependent on the nature and the requirement of the intended identification application (1). Voice biometric for instance has been considered as the most appropriate in authenticating applications that involve mobile phone sensors. This is often in the microphone which is a sensor within the mobile phone that can be used in capturing voice (8). In developed nations such as China, Japan, The US and countries in the European Union the need for personal and national security has often characterized the use of biometric systems in different applications (5). Fingerprints have been considered as the low cost biometric system application that can be incorporated in machinery such as laptops and mobile phones (9). Other traits such as the iris and face have been viewed as possessing sufficient discriminatory powers and can be used in large scales biometric identification process (10). The application of biometric systems in different cultural settings has been perceived as a unique security system due to its ability to generate negative identification. Negative identification has often been used in identifying persons that are yet to be enrolled into the system (5). The use of this approach to the process of identification in the US for instance, has often been to minimize or prevent the possibility of multiple enrollments of individuals into the system especially when using large-scale biometric application (11). Through negative identification process it will be impossible for individuals to engage in malpractice especially while seeking social benefits from the government (10). Popular biometric modalities The face is one of the most popular attributes that can be used to distinguish individuals. Differences in facial appearance and formations have often been used even in the absence of the biometric systems. Face from this perspective can be said to be a natural approach to automated biometric recognition (5). The deployment of biometric systems for face recognition involves the use of spatial relationships among the locations of features on the face (8). These include the eyes, lips, the global appearance of the face and lips. There are however challenges associated with the forensic and civilian application of face recognition technologies (12). These include photographic and video related complications. In addition, accidents and gender hereditary traits have been identified as challenges associated with the use of facial traits in the bile metric systems (10). Asian countries that share similarities in terms of their ancestry and genetic composition such as China, Japan, Taiwan, South and North Korea have often faced complications in the use of face in biometric applications (8). The similarities between individuals from different cultures make the variable of distinctiveness less applicable in such a society. Metropolitan and multiethnic societies such as the the US, Europe and African countries have often found the use of facial traits while deploying biometric systems to be the applicable considering the racial and ethnic differences (1). Other than the problem of genetic similitudes, there are also challenges such as gesture, facial makeup which present variations that affect the performance of face recognition (8). The use of face recognition as a biometric approach in the identification process continues to invite a high user acceptance; robust face recognition in less ideal situations has continued to pose challenges to the technological world (10). The use of fingerprints in the deployment of biometric systems has been perceived as the longest serving approach of the identification process. The use of this approach can be traced back to 500 B.C in the reign of the Babylonians and in the 3rd century among the Chinese where the art was used in sealing official documents (8). The popularity and success of fingerprints emanates from the regular texture patterns that characterize the ridges and valleys that characterize the fingers of every individual in the society (13). These defining features are presumed to be unique. The ridges for instance are composed of minutiae which are often in the form of ridge endings and ridge bifurcations (14). The difference in the formation of the fingerprints of every individual in any society is related to the differences in the spatial distribution of the minutiae points. For the complete identification of an individual, a collection of minutiae points must be employed to ensure a successful identification process (10). In terms of cross cultural application of this biometric approach, almost all forensic and law enforcing agencies on the global platform use the Automatic Fingerprint Identification system (AFIS) (15). Furthermore, the popularity of this approach is based on the emergence of cheaper and compact fingerprint readers which has made the use of fingerprint traits as a preferred choice for deployment in most civilian and commercial applications (13). The Iris has also been considered as one of the modalities in the biometric system of identification. The iris is the colored ring that surrounds the pupil in the eye. The use of this modality is based on the ability of the iris to produce images under infrared illumination (10). These images consist of a complex texture pattern that is characterized by a multiplicity of individual attributes such as the pits and furrows (16). These attributes allow for one of the most reliable approached to personal identification. The iris is internal organ that contains texture that is relatively stable and distinctive even in identical twins hence effective as a biometric modality (8). The success of the iris identification technique is founded on the assumption that it has been integrated with numerous personal identification systems in different countries (1). For instance in the United Arab Emitters, border crossing is often a complex procedure that is largely one of the most secure (15). This is often to guard against terrorism among other security concerns. The process of improving on quality surveillance in China, Germany, Australia and the US especially following the 9/11 attacks have resulted in the use of computers to capture the iris at a distance. The complications that have been associated with such technological approaches revolve around the high cost of deploying these biometric apparatus (8). The use of palmprint as a modality for biometric identification is based on the understanding that the human palm is composed of palmar friction ridges and flexion creases (17). This approach towards identifications often used in forensic application especially when analyzing evidence in a crime scene. It includes the identification of latent prints in different scenes of crimes (10). Palmprints operate in the same procedure as fingerprints since it involves the use of minutiae and creases in the identification process. The biometric systems when deployed to engage palmprints often employ texture features (14). This modality is however less popular for the civilian population due to the complexities arising from differences in the physical size of human palms (18). Voice based recognitions also a biometric modality that has often been used in identifying individuals on the basis of their speech. The differences in human voice encompass both physiological and behavioral attributes (15). The physiological attributes of voice recognition are dependent on the shape and size of the vocal tract. In addition, the lips, mouth and nasal cavities also contribute to the type of voice produced by an individual (19). Furthermore, the behavioral attributes that define the generation of voice include the movement of the jaws, tongue, velum, lips and larynx (20). This means that it is possible for the voice of an individual to vary overtime especially with changes in behavior, age or medical conditions (21). The process of analyzing voices for recognition is often abased on different variables such as intensity, duration, and quality and pitch information (22). The process of recognizing a speaker especially in tele-banking is often sensitive to different factors such as background noises. Tele-banking is often used in societies with high levels of technological development. This is because such societies have the financial ability to install the technology (20). Signature is often considered as a behavioral biometric modality that is used in different financial transactions. There have been complications related to the development of systems that can be used in the verification of signatures to minimize the possibility of fraud (23). Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been identified as one of the most stable biometric identifies considering its presence in the nucleus of every human being. In addition, its efficiency is also based on the understanding that it has a unique structure in every human being with the exception of identical twins (24). The use of DNA matching is often common among the forensic and law enforcement agencies. The unsuitability of this process is however based on the assumption that it is expensive and time consuming hence limiting the possibility that it can be used in large scale biometric application (10). First generation Biometric and third cross cultural deployment Initial application of biometrics, fingerprints, was mainly used in forensic and law enforcement sectors. The first generation of the AFIS to help in curbing crime was introduced in 1970. During this period it was only part of the world that had advanced in terms of technological capabilities (25). The Automatic Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) were majorly zero generation biometric systems. This was because of their inability to handle large scale data and the difficult in synchronizing data from different apparatus to form big data (13). The low rate of internet connectivity and the differences in the design of the AFIS can be said to have contributed to it inefficiency. The period after 1970 was characterized by the desire of different countries such as Britain, the US and Russia to improve on their levels of security in different entry points such as airports, borders, railway stations and ship harbors (25). This explains why biometric systems of operating on different modalities such as the iris, fingerprints and face recognition were introduced for both civilian and commercial purposes (13). In the US, there was the US-VISIT system that was founded on the use of finger prints. In other countries such as Netherlands and Australia, there government introduced Privium System and the SmartGate System respectively. The former was based at the Amsterdam airport and it operated on the iris modality while the latter was in Sydney airport operation on face recognition (10). There were other examples of first generation biometric systems that were installed in different countries to enhance security measures. These include the fingerprint recognition systems in Walt Disney parks and face recognition systems in Japan. Technological advancements and the desire to institute biter security measures in different countries have been cited as the factors that promoted the development of different biometric identifier systems in different countries (13). This explains why by the end of the 1990s, there were improvements in the computation speed, storage capacities and environmental adaptations that characterized the deployment of biometric systems. In addition, differences in the needs of countries contributed to the process of developing customized systems to meet the demands of different populations (10). In the US and China for instance there was need to ensure that the biometric systems that were deployed in different locations had relatively high computation speed and an improved storage capacity to satisfy the needs of the huge populations that characterize the demographic of these countries. The population dynamics were also based on the understanding that these countries receive more visitors through different entry points hence necessitating the need for relatively sophisticated machinery. The later stages of the first generation biometric systems were characterized by the incorporation of biometric systems into portable machinery such as laptops. This has been perceived as an intention towards boosting personal security especially among individual with the desire of securing information from access by those perceived as strangers (10). There are however complications related to the use of first generation AFIS in securing borders and enforcing the law. This is attributable to the assumption that there is an increase in terms of workload facilitated by the requirements of several online applications. The challenges are however exacerbated by the need to match latent fingerprints. This requires a large team of experts for the marking of features and to evaluate the matches given back by the AFIS. This challenge in the view of forensic experts is associated with the difficulties of the state-of the art fingerprint matching algorithms in coping with minutiae interoperability. Other than the limitations in terms of interoperability, the deployment of the first generation biometric system has been found to be vulnerable to hoaxing (26). The growth in the population of hackers has increasingly made the first generation biometric systems susceptible to security and privacy attacks (14). The realization that the biometric systems must incorporate different definitional, technological and operational elements in relation to the society creates the understanding that different societies will only deploy those systems that are beneficial to the population (26). This means that despite the prevailing situations, it is always important to design and deploy biometric systems in accordance with their intended purse and context rather than generality. In addition, this can also be based on the realization that the effectiveness of the biometric systems is dependent on the social context and the prevailing personal or behavioral attributes of the target population (27). Second Generation Biometric Systems The deployment of the first generation of biometric systems in the identification of process across cultures faced numerous challenges in relation to the attributes that are unique to human identity (14). The development of the second generation biometric systems was based on the realization that human identity is in constant change due to complications related to behavior and physiological challenges (28). Inasmuch as other aspects that define human beings such as fingerprints, iris and the DNA remain constant there are social and cultural factors that must be respected in the process of developing and deploying biometric systems across different cultures (14). Liberal democracies such as the United States operate on different systems compared to those of the conservative societies. In addition, the level of technological awareness in a society has also been used as an essential determinant in the development and deployment of biometric systems. Technological awareness determines the ability of different individual in different societies to engage in the effective use of technological apparatus in relation to the intended purpose (29). The challenges that the second generation biometric systems had to addresses can be subdivided into two categories. These are the challenges emanating from engineering complications and the challenges arising from the social perspective (28). The challenges from the engineering perspective include those related to security concerns, the speed, type of application and the accuracy of the systems. In terms of the social perspective, challenges include ethical concerns, health related issues, bias from cultural differences and the privacy protection policies (26). Engineering perspective in cross cultural deployment of biometric systems The process of acquiring data is highly dependent on the environment of data collection and the mechanisms used in the process. This means that the performance of matching algorithm in any biometric system relies on the authenticity of the biometric data. This is an indication that the design of sensors and the deployment of biometric systems in any society must handle two states of contradictory requirements (26). These include the acquisition of high quality data to ensure the improvement of the accuracy levels versus the use of flexible data acquisition protocol (14). The challenging aspects of these contradictory elements are derived from the assumption that they often operate with limited user cooperation and high levels of user acceptability. This means that the implementation of second generation biometric systems will require the incorporation of new sensing technologies as a technique of improving on the data acquisition environment (28). For biometric systems to operate effectively across cultures, it would be important to align the sensing technologies with techniques on how to improve on user convenience. This is based on the realization that the acquisition of satisfactory matching performance by any biometric systems is highly dependent on the level of control in the data collection environment (27). Such results are only realizable in situations where the users are cooperative and the process of acquiring data through the systems can be controlled as in the case of face identification. The unsatisfactory performance of biometric technology is because of the acquisition of data in less ideal circumstances such as the restructuring of faces in surveillance videos and matching of latent prints drawn from crime scenes (28). The use of biometric systems in uncontrolled situation often makes them less efficient hence the need for human intervention. One of the main areas of interest for the second generation biometric systems is to ensure effective performance in less controlled circumstances (26). This is based on the improvement in sensing technologies has necessitated research to assess ways through which the biometric systems can be used in a ways that expand personal identification process (14). This expansion targets identification at a distance and identification when a person is moving. The second generation biometric systems for instance have been able to increase the level of using face images in the identification process to nine meters (30). In addition, through research and technological advancement, it has been possible for the achieve improvement on iris identification when a person is on the move. These improvements are however yet to be implemented considering the complexity involved in the operationalization of such systems (31). The desire for research in improving the ability of the systems to capture images at a distance and on the move is founded on the understanding that the recognition accuracy in the first generation systems falls to about 48% in less constrained outdoor conditions (30). Any form of increase in user convenience will necessitate the creation of a robust matching algorithms coupled with noise elimination techniques that can manage an elaborate range of illumination variations in biometric systems (28). Cross cultural deployment of biometric systems also requires systems with improved data acquisition quality. Such levels of improvement are considered essential in facilitating identification accuracy which has been considered as a necessity when biometric data is used in large scale application (32). Fingerprints identification has often been considered as the most popular approach in collection of forensic or law enforcement data (30). Through high resolution fingerprints forensics, it will be relatively easier for them to engage in the process of collecting authenticated data hence ensuring the availability of effective data collection and analysis standards (4). Face is often considered as one of the pars of the body that undergoes numerous changes in relation to aging and the application of face enhancing techniques (28). For face identification technique to be effective it has become a necessity for biometric imaging apparatus to acquire 2 and 3 dimensional face data. In different cultures, 2 dimension imaging has been the most prevalent compared to 3 dimensional imaging (32). This has been attributed to technological limitations as presented by the cost and the size of the biometric 3D imaging scanners (33). It has been considered a necessity for biometric systems to be feted with improved but relatively smaller devices to enhance their portability and usage in different cultural settings (33). Social application perspective of biometric systems In different cultural and social settings the deployment of biometric systems has often been perceived as offensive and in some instances invasive. This is because the sensors are often in partial or full contact with the human body in the process of gathering person-specific data. User rebellion against the forensic and criminal investigation biometric systems has been considered a challenge to the collection of valid data (30). In the Middle East for example the use of face recognition among women has been perceived as culturally offensive since it exposes a part of the body in women is not allowed in the public domain (34). This has necessitated the need for more research to ensure that the second generation biometric systems are flexible to different cultural orientations within different societies (14). An additional socio-cultural factor that affects the deployment and effective nature of the biometric systems in different societies is that through these systems different biometric traits that are unique to individuals can be made available in the public domain (28). The provision of such information has been perceived to be invading of personal privacy of the users. Technological advancements have also allowed the provision of an association between biometric data bases with other databases in different fields (30). This means that it is possible for private information concerning an individual’s medical condition to be leaked in the public domain. Such possibilities threaten to discriminate specific users of employment benefits and opportunities in the society (35). From this perspective it is possible to argue that the cross-cultural rebellion against biometric systems can be attributed to the complexities in keeping personal information from the public domain (14). The intension by different countries to deploy biometric systems if often founded on the desire to boost and maintain high levels of security. This decision has often necessitated the need for new policies and security initiatives (36). In the deployment process, the security initiatives which are inclusive of the use of biometric technology often interfere with the status quo especially on matters related to existing data (30). This is however a beneficial approach towards the realization of lasting security. Technical standards, for instance, comprise security measures that project the level of maturity within a country in terms of exchanging and protecting electronic data (34). The deployment of biometric data when understood from this perspective supports the level of interchange ability and interoperability (37). This ensures high level of privacy and security while propagating from a reduction in the development and maintenance expenses for biometric technologies (38). In different societies, efforts towards the development of such standards in the operationalization of biometric systems have focused on the specifications, storage capacity, the exchange process and the retransmission of the data collected to different centers (34). Biometric data in the view of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) such as those from the fingerprints face or iris must conform to the international biometric data interchange design (34). The use of standardized application of biometric data allows for easy identification and sharing of information regarding different individual especially when it involves the crossing of international borders. The development of these standards was based on the international threat posed by terrorist organizations (27). The formulation of polices in the process of selecting and deploying biometric technologies also have different effects on privacy concerns. For instance in different cultures, varies technologies have continuously been associated with requirements considered to be invasive on privacy (39). These concerns are often related to the protection of fundamental ethical values such as informed consent, autonomy, equality and trust among other values (27). in addition, the realization that the main duty of the state is to protect its citizens from any form of attack while at the same time protecting their rights creates some form of dilemma in the deployment of biometric systems (34). This means that it is only possible to ensure the protection of the citizens when any form of interface with the rights is proportionate to the benefits of risk involved. It is important for governments to strike a balance between security and the privacy of citizens (40). Conclusion Biometric is a scientific approach to the process of individual identification on the basis of behavioral or biological attributes. There are diverse motivations in the use of biometric systems which in most cases overlap. These include the reduction of the rate of fraud while at the same time improving on the public and state security. The formulation of polices in the process of selecting and deploying biometric technologies also have different effects on privacy concerns. For instance in different cultures, varies technologies have continuously been associated with requirements considered to be invasive on privacy References (1). A. K, Jain, A. Ross & S. Pankanti. Biometrics: A tool for information security. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Security, vol. 1, no. 2: 125-143, 2006 (2). Y. J. Lee, K. Bae & S. J. Lee. Biometric key binding: Fuzzy vault based on iris images. Proc Intl Conf Biometrics, Seoul: 800-808, 2007 (3). A. Ross, K. Nandakumar, and A. K. Jain. Handbook of Multibiometrics. Springer. 2006 (4). A. K. Jain, K. Nandakumar & A. Nagar. Biometric template security. EURASIP J Advances in Signal Processing, Special issue on Biometrics, 2008 (5). S. K. Dewan. Elementary, Watson: Scan a Palm, Find a Clue. The New York Times. 2003 http://www.nytimes.com. (6). A. J. Joshi, S. Chandran,V. K. Jayaraman, and B. D. Kulkarni. Arterial Pulse Rate Variability Analysis for Diagnoses. Proc ICPR, Tampa, Florida: 1-4, 2008 (7). M. K. LaCous. Match template protection within biometric security systems. US Patent No.7454624, 2008 dfgh (8). Y. Feng and P. Yuen. Protecting face biometric data on smartcard and Reed-Soloman Code. Proc CVPR Workshop on Biometrics, New York: 29, 2006 (9). S. Pankanti, S. Prabhakar and A. K. Jain. On the Individuality of Fingerprints. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, vol. 24, No. 8: 1010-1025, 2002 (10). J. R. Falguera, F. Falguera and A. N. Marana. Frontal sinus recognition for human identification. Proc SPIE, vol. 6944, Orlando, Florida: 69440S, 2008 (11). L. Shamir. S. Ling. S. Rahimi. L. Ferrucci and IG. Goldberg. Biometric identification using knee X-rays. Int J Biometrics, vol. 1, no. 3: 365-370, 2009 (12). A. Uhl and P. Wild. Footprint-based biometric verification. J Electronic Imaging, vol. 17, 11016, 2008 (13). S. C. Draper. A. Khisti & E. Martinian. Using distributed source coding to secure fingerprint biometrics. Proc ICASSP, Hawaii: 129-132, 2007 (14). J. Feng and A. K. Jain. FM Model Based Fingerprint Reconstruction from Minutiae Template. Proc. ICB 2009, Alghero, Italy: 544-553, 2009 (15). J. M. Irvine. S. A. Israel. W. T. Scruggs and W. J. Worek. Eigenpulse: robust human identification from cardiovascular function. Pattern Recognit, vol. 41, no. 11: 3427-3435, 2008 (16). A. Jules and M. Sudan. A fuzzy vault scheme. Proc IEEE Intl Symp Inf. Theory, Lausanne, Switzerland: 408, 2002 (17). A. Kumar and A. Kumar. Development of a new cryptographic construct using palmprint based fuzzy vault. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, ASP/967046, 2008 (18). N. Ratha. J. H. Connell and R. M. Bolle. An analysis of minutiae matching strengths. Proc Intl Conf Audio and Video-based Biometric Authentication, Halmstad, Sweden: 223-228, 2002 (19). S. Song. K. Ohnuma. Z. Liu. L. Mei. A. Kawada & T. Monma. Novel biometrics based on nose pore recognition. Optical Eng, vol. 48, no. 5, 2009 (20). H. Drira. B. B. Amor. M. Daoudi and A. Srivastava. Nasal region contribution in 3D face biometrics using shape analysis framework. Proc. 3rd IAPR/IEEE International Conference on Biometrics: 357-366, 2009 (21). A. Ross. J. Shah and A. K. Jain. From templates to Images: Reconstructing fingerprints from minutiae points. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, vol. 29, no. 4: 544-560, 2007 (22). Z. Tabor. D. Karpisz. L. Wojnar. P. Kowalski. An automatic recognition of the frontal sinus in x-ray images of skull. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 56, no. 2: 361-368, 2009 (23). M. Freire-Santos. J. Fierrez-Aguilar and J. Ortega-Gracia. Cryptographic key generationusing handwritten signature. Proc SPIE Conf Biometric Technologies for Human Identification, Vol. 6202, Orlando: 225-231, 2006 (24). Z. Sun. A. Paulino. J. Feng. Z. Chai. T. Tan and A. K. Jain. A Study of Multibiometric Traits of Identical Twins. Proc SPIE Biometrics, Florida, 2010 (25). U. Uludag and A. K. Jain. Securing fingerprint template: Fuzzy vault with helper data. Proc. CVPR Workshop on Privacy Research in Vision, New York: 163, 2006 (26). F. Abdullayeva. Y. Imamverdiyev. V. Musayev and J. Wayman. Analysis of security vulnerabilities in biometric systems. IIT of ANAS and San Jose State University. 2009 http://danishbiometrics.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/1-13.pdf (27). K. W. Bowyer. K. Hollingsworth and P.J. Flynn. Image Understanding for Iris Biometrics: a Survey. Computer Vision and Image Underst, 110(2): 281-307, 2008 (28). S. Crihalmeanu. A. Ross and R. Derakhshani. Enhancement and Registration Schemes for Matching Conjunctival Vasculature. Proc. 3rd IAPR/IEEE International Conference on Biometrics, Alghero, Italy, 2009 (29). G. Wood, G. US man ‘stole 130m card numbers’. BBC, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8206305.stm (30). A. Adler. Images can be reconstructed from quantized biometric match score data. Proc. Canadian Conf Electrical Computer Eng, Niagara Falls: 469-472, 2004 (31). A. K. Jain.,P. J. Flynn and A. Ross (eds.). Handbook of Biometrics, Springer, 2007 (32). R. Unger. Lifeprints: Deciphering your life purpose from your fingerprints. Crossing Press, 2007. http://www.handresearch.com/news/lifeprints-richard-unger.htm. (33). A.F. Abate. M. Nappi. D.Riccio and G. Sabatino, 2D and 3D face recognition: A survey.Pattern Recognit Letters, vol. 28, issue 14: 1885-1906, 2007 (34). S. Hirobayashi. Y. Tamura. T. Yamabuchi and T. Yoshizawa. Verification of individual identification method using bioelectric potential of plant during human walking. Japanese J Appl Phys, vol. 46, no. 4A: 1768-1773, 2007 (35). T. Serkan. Women uses tape to trick biometric airport fingerprint scan. CrunchGear., 2009. http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/02/woman-uses-tape-to-trick-biometric-airport-fingerprint-scan (36). P. Tuyls. A. H. M. Akkermans. T. A. Kevenaar. Practical biometric authentication with template protection. Proc 5th Intl Conf Audio- and Video-based Biometric Person Authentication, Rye Town, NY: 436-446, 2005 (37). M. A. Using. S. P. Swabey. A. D. Beeby &J. E. Chad. Otoacoustic emission as biometric. Proc ICBA, LNCS vol. 3072: 1-34, 2004 (38). K. Nakajima. Y. Mizukami. K. Tanka and K.Tamura. Footprint-based personal recognition. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 47, no. 11: 1534-1537, 2000 (39). R. MacManus. Hong Kong's Octopus Card: Utility Outweighs Privacy Concerns. ReadWriteWeb. 2009. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/hong_kongs_octopus_card.php. (40). J. Wickins, The ethics of biometrics: the risk of social exclusion from the widespread use of electronic identification. Sci Eng Ethics, vol. 13: 45-54, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8206305.stm. Read More