Source:
http://www.metamotion.com/mocap/
Gypsy-motion-capture-system.jpg
Neural waves emanate from the brain in the form of brainwaves or bioelectrical impulses. To further iterate read this article called “Monkey Thoughts Control Computer” published on the BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1871000/1871803.stm). This is not the first article or paper of this type, to promote the abilities of a neural control interface. On the contrary there have been countless papers and articles released from multiple universities, colleges, and companies in an attempt to document their research. However, IBVA (www.ibva.com) is on the cutting edge, and the first website to commercialize the distribution of neural control interface devices.
I
mage 27: Example of Neural Interface
Source: Image is from the IBVA Technologies, Inc website (www.ibva.com)
Per question 2, 4, and 7 of Appendix 4, an average of 75.0075 percent of all those surveyed agreed to a certain extent that this technology was feasible and could be of benefit to people of variable abilities. Additionally, Appendix 4 also demonstrates that 89.78 percent would agree to be a recipient of a neural implant (question 1).
Implementation Strategies
If a biometric authentication system is properly implemented and managed effectively the cost savings benefits, related to the help desk, administration, increased convenience, productivity of users, decreased fraud, reduction of stress, and increased security can far out weigh the cost of implementation (Biocentric Solutions Inc., n.d.).
When implementing a biometric authentication system, the managers of a company must take into account many elements related to the company’s infrastructure. Some of these elements will be easily identifiable, while others may be as illusive as the fountain of youth. The easiest elements of the infrastructure to identify are those that are heavily used and would most likely have been a commercially purchased product, such as the hardware and software of the biometric authentication system itself. Whereas the illusive elements of the company’s infrastructure may be seldom used and may or may not have been commercially purchased. For example, a legacy system may have been purchased commercially, yet seldom used. We must also take into account issues related to the environment in which the system will be deployed (logical, physical or both), system integration, platform, distributed systems, biometric trait, front-end devices, front-end processing, back-end devices, back-end processing, level of security required, user education, remote access users, initial productivity losses, scalability, and exception processing (Ashbourn, 2000).
The BioNetrix Corporation (2001) has composed a paper in which it has cited reports from the Gartner Group, META Group, Network Applications Consortium (NAC), Security Industry Association, Computer Security Institute (CSI), and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The report from the Gartner Group proclaims that it will cost from $14 to $25 for a corporate helpdesk to reset an employee’s password, further more an employee is most like to forget his/her password an average of four times in a year. When the cost of resetting a password is applied to thousands of employees it becomes astronomical is combined with notion that on the average, a user spends 12.5 hours a year logging onto just one application a day. When you multiple these by the total number of application access by a user it is easy to see the cost savings. A welcomed side effect is increased user convenience and productivity (BioNetrix Corporation, 2001). The increased security of a biometric authentication system will directly contribute to the reduction of financial losses due to fraud and security breaches. CSI reported in a survey they conducted that 50% of the 186 companies that responded claim to have 10-20 incidents per year, with an average per year cost of $142 thousand per incident (BioNetrix Corporation, 2001).
Risk Assessment Methodology (RAM)
Before implementing a biometric solution the implementer does not just need to know what benefits the solution will bring, but also what potential risks the solution will bring to their organizations. To identify potential risk many integrators (i.e. ComGuard.net, RSASecurity.com) recommend that a risk analyze be conducted. You will notice a trend. The trend is that all of the risk is associated to the acceptance of the solution by the users.
At the top of the list of risk are privacy concerns that an organization maybe inclined to distribute a user’s identity sensitive data or misuse the data for purposes other than the purpose for which it was originally intended. And, there is still the issue of the individual anonymity that is of concern. The common factor here is not necessary one of trust, but one of user control.
When choosing a biometric you must take into account concerns about hygiene, disease (i.e. SARS), and religious taboos (i.e. exposure of face) that may inhibit the use of select biometrics.
The system must be accessible to people of all ability levels as certain groups (i.e. the disabled) many not have the body needed the ability (i.e. the disabled and/or elderly) to present the biometric in order to access the system. If users do not voluntarily accept the solution, then it is doomed to collide with reality of consumer confidence.
Integration Concerns
The integration concerns are fairly simple and intuitive. Implementers should require the solution to be convenient to use, delivered and installed fast, compatible with existing infrastructure and/or network systems, interoperable with other IT security solutions, and to promote a cost savings.
Nevertheless, before biometric products can embark on widespread solution deployment, developers of biometric products must wait for representatives of dozens of companies to work out the details of a generalized biometric application-programming interface (API). This work requires the cooperation of biometric vendors, operating-system vendor, add-on security-hardware vendors, and developers of applications that must recognize the security features. Currently, in the biometric technology industry, at least four efforts are under way to develop biometric APIs (BioAPI Consortium, 2001).
Enrollment/Administration Practices
The largest purchasers of the new technologies are IT managers of medium and large companies. An important consideration of a purchase is easy of enrollment and administration. Although some devices, such as IC fingerprint sensors, may eventually cost less than $5 in quantity, the total cost of installing biometric sensing is several times the sensing unit's cost. Moreover, much of the initial crop of sensing units uses USB interfaces. As a result, biometric sensing on PCs may become cost-effective only when IT managers replace the installed base of computers with USB-compliant PCs.
The essential element to the enrollment/administration process is to establish protocol that can be easily adapted to cover any situation.
Training/Education
Currently, there exist a gap between the number of feasible biometric projects and knowledgeable experts in the field of biometric technologies. The post September 11th, 2002 attack (a.k.a. 9-11) on the World Trade Center has gave rise to the knowledge gap. Post 9-11 many government agencies has recognized the need for increased security and identification protocols of both domestic (U.S.) and international fronts.
This is however, changing as studies and curriculum associated to biometric technologies are starting to be offered at more colleges and universities. One of the most predominant universities to offer biometric curriculum is the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (www.UCLA.edu). A method of closing the biometric knowledge gap is for knowledge seekers of biometric technologies to participate in biometric discussion groups and biometric standards committees.
The solutions only needs the user to possess a minimum of require user knowledge and effort. A biometric solution with minimum user knowledge and effort would be very welcomed to both the purchase and the end user. But, keep in mind that at the end of the day all that the end users care about is that their computer is functioning correctly and that the interface is friendly, for users of all ability levels.
Alternative Authentication Methods
Alternative methods of authenticating a person’s identity are not only a good practice for making biometric systems accessible to people of variable ability level. But it will also serve as a viable alternative method of dealing with authentication and enrollment errors.
Auditing
Auditing processes and procedures on a regular basis during and after installation is an excellent method of ensuring that the solution is functioning within normal parameters.
Accountability
A well-orchestrated biometric authentication solution should not only prevent and detect an impostor in instantaneous, but it should also keep a secure log of the transaction activities for prosecution of impostors. This is especially important, because a great deal of ID theft and fraud involves employees and a secure log of the transaction activities will provide the means for prosecution or quick resolution of altercations.
Above is one meaning of accountability. The other meaning of accountability is to ensure that guidelines are well documented for an oversight committee.
Oversight
Oversight refers to a method of ensuring that all aspects relative to auditing and accountability have been correctly enforced. Those with responsibility of overseeing that accountability guidelines and protocols have not been violated.
Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions
Chapter 5
It is the general conclusion of the researcher that the adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities would absolutely feasible. The following will aid to reinforce the researchers theory and conclusions. Additionally, the chart of Appendix 5 also demonstrates that 83.95 percent overall would agree to that the adaptation of biometrics is feasible.
Mainstream Biometric Technology Summary
Passwords and PINs can be hacked, shared, or guessed; and secure tokens can be lost (Corcoran, Sims, & Hillhouse, 1999). It is therefore not uncommon for employees of large companies to have numerous, long, and unbelievably complicated passwords to remember. Many times the passwords are so ambiguous that the employees become stressed and the passwords are easily forgotten. To add to the frustration, an employee must then contact the helpdesk or network administrator to have the encrypted password reset or changed (Quintanilla, 2000).
While some biometrics may be technical sound in theory, they may not be sound in application. For instance the use of a footprint biometric is not practical, image having to take of your shoes off in a restaurant to pay for dinner or at an ATM machine to conduct a financial transaction.
Emerging Biometric Technology Summary
Biometrics is an emerging and ever changing field of technology that can be implemented into just about anything that requires a security protocol. While the initial cost of implementation is high the benefits of increased security, peace of mind, lessening of man-hours, and of course the increase of accessibility by people of variable abilities may justify the cost.
Indeed, the reliance on the latest technology may make a company even more vulnerable by creating the illusion of security. This is why governmental agencies and commercial companies must remain eternally vigilant and continually seek out the most up-to-date method of securing the technological assets of an enterprise. But, let us not forget that as we seek to secure, hackers seek to invade.
Summary of Cultural Barriers
In order for employers to capitalize on the ability differences of employees with disabilities in the workforce they have sought out solutions from many sources. Some of the solutions are complex and other are simple, they may require a shift in the workplace paradigm, the use of assistive technologies, the development of management strategies, or a change in work location philosophies. The overwhelming justification is that it is the most beneficial, ethical and humane thing to do Hagner & DiLeo (1993).
The work of authors such as Szymanski and Parker (1996) have alluded to the fact that before people with disabilities could not be fully integrated into the workplace until the culture of the workplace becomes more welcoming. This is because the medical model did not perceive people with disabilities as potential workforce asset. Hence, not much emphasize had been placed on resolving the workplace barriers. The shift of paradigms from that of the medical model to the disability model has fostered a change in the perceptions of society and the workplace culture. Additionally, the National Council on Disability believes that the only way to shift the culture is to establish legislation (NCD, 2001). Still Hagner and DiLeo (1993) advocate a middle ground approach.
Workplace strategies can vary from company to company and can potentially consist of thousands of concepts or notions. The basic objective of workplace strategies as applied to employees of variable abilities is to promote productivity (Hagner & DiLeo, 1993). There are many strategies available to ponder from many sources (Hagner & DiLeo, 1993; Heldrick, 1999; Szymanski & Parker, 1996; United States Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy [USDOL/ODEP], 2002; USDOL, 2002; NCD, 2001). Hagner and DiLeo (1993) have suggested a few strategies that managers can implement or modified to make the workplace culture more positive, nurturing, and accommodating to people with disabilities or new employees. Managers could reexamine or modify their leadership style to include, but not limited to their tone of interaction, vary gathering (meeting) places, celebrate special events, educate the staff on disability, form a disability support group, keep in touch with employees, create pride by reinforcing the company image, and standardize required task (USDOL/ODEP, 2002). A required task could be as simple as standardizing the location of a stapler for the vision impaired or as complicated as the standardization of a password authentication system (Hagner & DiLeo, 1993).
Effective planning strategies for diverse employees with disabilities may consist of a detailed strategic business plan for the near and distant future. The plan must be accurate, timely, easy to find, identify information sources, communicate with other employees who do similar work, talk to the employee, examine job descriptions, or call the Job Accommodation Network at 800-JAN-7234 (USDOJ, 2002). Plans are frequently threatened with obsolescence of technology changes and economic turbulence before the ink on the paper is even dries. The reality is that even the best-laid business plan may still go astray, especially as managers try to predict a company's technology requirements, staffing needs, and work processes (Szymanski & Parker, 1996).
Nonetheless, a good business plan can effectively communicate the company’s vision, provide direction, establish time management procedures and facilitate methods of control to all employees, whether disabled or not.
For additional examples, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 refers to strategies, as principles of which there are seven (Heldrick, 1999). From the seven principles, there are only two that apply to diverse employees with disabilities (p. 6):
Services must be streamlined, by coordinating multiple employment and training programs, must be accessible to people with disabilities.
The system should empower individuals with the information and resources they need to manage their own careers.
Assistive Technology Summary
There are many types of assistive technologies available for many types of disabilities. Flippo, Inge, & Barcus (1995) have authored a book that details the many different types of assistive technologies available to employers and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the results of question 2 of Appendix 6 only ten of the thirty-five one-on-one interview participants had knowledge of assistive technologies.
Hence, Flippo, Inge, & Barcus (1995) have outline adaptation strategies for the workplace, such as career planning, education, redesign, mobility assistance, universal design of low-tech and high-tech devices, to name a few. The use or deployment of assistive technologies is not just a feasible resolution strategy. It may be also allow the employer to remain in compliance with rehabilitation and assistive technology legislation of the past century. For example the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), to include the 2002 amendment of Section 508 to the ADA (USDOJ, 2002). The assistive technologies of today can help people with visual impairments or blindness, hearing impairments or deafness, mobility impairment or paralyze, or a combination of multiple impairments at varying levels of severity (Flippo, Inge, & Barcus, 1995).
It has been recommended via the United States Department of Labor website that managers become familiar with the various type of assistive technologies that are available for people with disabilities. Here is a brief list of possible assistive technologies (USDOL, 2002):
Vision (sight) – screen readers, speech synthesizers, Braille systems, scanner systems, TeleBraille, and large format displays.
Hearing/speech – visual redundancy systems, telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), speech amplification device, telephone signaling device, and caption systems.
Mobility – keyboard macros, sequential keystroke input, alternative keyboards, infrared pointing device, and a speech recognition system.
Telecommuting, which is sometimes referred to as teleworking, can be a highly effective and extremely flexible solution for employees of all ability levels. For those employees who cannot easily make it into the traditional workplace because of physical disabilities, as telecommuting eliminates the need to commute and may be the only viable alternative (Joice, n.d.). As stated in a report from the United States Department of Labor (2002, July 26), “telecommuting can be useful in solving business problems by decreasing certain overhead costs, satisfying fluctuating demands for additional office and parking space, and increasing employees’ loyalty, productivity, and retention by helping them balance work and family demands” (p. 43).
Universal Design Summary
Universal design of biometric technologies will do for the biometric industry what the Universal Serial Bus (USB) has done for the computer industry. Accordingly, to successful accomplish universal design of biometric technologies developers must also consider factors related to but not limited to economics, engineering capabilities, cultural stigmas, politics, age, gender, market, environmental issues and abilities.
Recommendation for Universal Standards
To foster universal standards the principles and guidelines located on The Center for Universal Design website (
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/ cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm) are excellent and should be adapted to overcome the barriers of logical and physical realms.
To further demonstrate the need for a universal standard, let's say that a government issued universal biometric identification (UBID) contactless smart card is issued to the public. The UBID would ultimately become the standard means of proving your identity, when using an ATM, purchasing goods, buying services, and gaining access to facilities. Furthermore, the CBEFF would comply with legal statues/laws throughout the international communities (i.e. sections 504 & 508 of the ADA).
If the ALF were not established as a universal international standard, then the adaptation of biometrics as a fused solution to people of variable abilities will not be possible.
Recommendations for Adaptation of Biometrics
Implementing a biometric authentication system is a very efficacious method of galvanizing the technological assets and data against the fanatical onslaught of internal and external threats. When implementing a biometric authentication system enterprises must be ecologically aware that as the required level of authentication increases, so does the cost. In short too much security can be just as hazardous as too little security, choose the right biometric to accomplish the task and avoid overkill.
While many of those in the biometric industry would take exception to the forthcoming statements, the evidence nevertheless supports it.
The strategy for deploying a biometric authentication system should almost always be deployed with a one-to-one or one-to-a-few matching methodology in mind.
Biometric manufactures should make every attempt to address concerns and/or issues related to cultural diversity, hygiene, privacy, usability, and of course accessibility.
Recommendations for Storage Methodologies
All things considered (evidence), the only storage method (platform) that would even remotely embody the elements of s
ecurity, accessibility, and privacy would be the smart card. While it is true that biometric templates can be deployed on all storage platforms, the smart card would have the best chance of been accepted by all parties of advocates and opponent.
The only exception to this would be use of centralized criminal database in high treat areas, such as ports-of-entry. However, deploying such a database would meet resistance by the ACLU and other privacy organizations. To counter such resistance the purpose of the database must clearly established and a legal strategy to ensure that database is not misused by official must be established to police the police. Additionally, TTP should never be allowed to store biometric templates of any form. A TTP only need to verify the authenticity of the card to ensure that tampering has not occurred.
Recommendations for Fused Biometric Solutions
Although there are twelve available hexadecimal digits available for use from the Payload Field, it is the assumption of the researcher that only two hexadecimal digits from the Payload Field would be required to identify an individual’s ability limitations and/or access requirements and two hexadecimal digits from the Challenge-Response Field to determine which biometric out of the biometrics available to the individual would have priority. What's more, given that the recommendation calls for the ALF to be incorporated into the CBEFF it would therefore automatically be part of the biometric template.
Additionally, I would recommend that a two-stage interface process be adopted. What is meant by a two-stage interface process? Stage one is that the individual’s access requirements are established by the logical or physical barrier that user is attempting access. Stage two is that the proper biometric authentication challenge or response is presented to the person requesting access.
For example, if a vision impaired individual were attempting to gain access to a public facility. He or she would approach the entrance of the facility where a series of strategically placed proximity sensor would acquire the Accessibility Level Field (ALF). If at this point authentication would not be required, hence the doors would automatically open and the individual may be presented with an audible greeting (i.e. Welcome to the public court house). This would be the completion of stage one. To continue with the scenario, as the individual transverses through the facility he or she may come upon an entry point where authentication of a persons identity is required. At this point stage-one will be repeated whereas the Accessibility Level Field (ALF) would be acquired. In stage-two the Challenge-Response Field will trigger the appropriate biometric application. For this scenario a vision impaired individual could be issued an audible challenge and the user could then reply in the same fashion (voice verification biometric). There are many more scenarios and a multitude of other biometric applications.
Chart 5: Fused Biometric Solution Decision Flow Chart
Conclusions
Presently, policies and/or concepts such as the concept of workplace accommodations, assistive technology concept, organizational concept of culture, and the concept of establishing solid management functions are not well defined within the structure of companies. In fact policies and/or concepts are for the most part dictated to society by federal and state laws or regulations (Barnartt & Altman, 2001; Hagner & DiLeo, 1993; Swanson & Fouad, 1999; Szymanski & Parker, 1996).
The fused solution combines the benefits of biometrics, ALF, other versatile technologies, and implementation strategies will result in a secure, accessible, and privacy promoting solution that can be applied to people of all ability levels. The fused solution is a universal key that can open physical doors, provides logical security to data, and keep others out. It is a key that can be customized to an individual’s access needs or it can be used to invoke a customized profile to aid physically challenged individuals. The fused biometric solution must be implemented whenever and wherever possible.
I would like to close with a quote from Microsoft’s Bill Gates’ in PC WEEK Online October 8, 1997 stated, “Biometric technologies – those that use human characteristics such as fingerprint, voice and face recognition – will be the most important IT innovations of the next several years”.
References
Accenture. (2001, November 16). White paper: Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID). Retrieved December 3, 2002 from http://
www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/services/technology/vision/
RFIDWhitePaperNov01.pdf
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
(2000, June 30). AAMVA national standard for the driver license/
identification card. Retrieved December 3, 2002 from http://www. aamva.org/Documents/stdAAMVADLIDStandrd000630.pdf
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2002,
December 21). Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
Standards. Retrieved December 20, 2002 from http://www.access-
board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
Ashbourn, J. (2000). Biometrics: Advanced identity verification.
London: Springer-Verlag London Limited.
Barnartt, S. N., & Altman, B. M. (Eds.). (2001). Exploring theories and
expanding methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go.
London: Elsevier Science Ltd.
BioAPI Consortium. (2001, March 16). BioAPI specification version 1.1.
Retrieved July 19, 2002 from http://www.bioapi.org/bioapi1.1.pdf
Biocentric Solutions Inc. (n.d.). White paper: Why use a biometric and a
card in the same device?. Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://www.
biocentricsolutions.com/media/whitepaper.pdf
BioControl Systems, http://www.biocontrol.com (October 10, 2001)
Biometrics ID issued to 4 million military. Washington Post
Online, October 29, 2001. http://www.washintonpost.com/wp.srv/
aponline/20011029/aponline173744_000.htm (November 5,2001).
Biometric Consortium. http://biometrics.org
BioNetrix Corporation. (2001, June 18). BioNetrix authentication suite:
Cost justification for implementing an enterprise-wide authentication
management infrastructure. Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://
www.bionetrix.com
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News. (2000, November 15).
Monkey brain operates machine. Retrieved March 14, 2002 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1025000/
1025471.stm
Carreira-Perpinan, M., & Sanchez-Calle, A. (1995): A connectionist approach to using outer ear images for human recognition and Identification. The
University of Sheffield Website: http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~miguel/papers/
ps/ear-abstract.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology, Inc., http://www.cast.org
Charness, N., Parks, D., & Sabel, B. (Eds.). (2001). Communication,
technology and aging: Opportunities and challenges for the future.
New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Corcoran, D., Sims, D., & Hillhouse, B. (1999, March 1). Smart cards
and biometrics: Your key to PKI. Linux Journal. Retrieved July 3,
2002 from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3013
Corum, C. (2002, December 1). Why RFID is the right choice for
personal ID. ContactlessNews. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from
http://www.contactlessnews.com
Daugman, J. (n.d.). Iris Recognition. The International Center for Disability
Resources on the Internet (ICDRI). Retrieved December 12, 2002, from
http://www.icdri.org/biometrics/iris_biometrics.htm
EEG Spectrum, http://www.eegspectrum.com (November 21, 2001)
Everett, D. (n.d.). Smart card technology: Introduction to smart cards.
Smart Card News Ltd. Retrieved January 1, 2003 from http://www.
smartcard.co.uk/resources/articles/intro2sc.html
Flippo, K. F., Inge, K. J., & Barcus, M. (1995). Assistive technology: A
resource for school, work, and community. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brooks Publishing Co.
Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). http://www.gtri.gatech.edu
Gill, J.M. (2003). eEurope smart card Trailblazer 8 on user
requirements: User requirements for cardholder identification,
authentication and digital signatures. Retrieved February 3, 2003
from Royal National Institute for the Blind. http://www.tiresias.org/
reports/user_requirementsv2-2.htm
Gill, J.M. (2002). Design of smart card systems to meet the needs of
disabled and elderly persons. Retrieved January 3, 2003 from Royal
National Institute for the Blind. http://www.tiresias.org/reports/
ecart.htm
Gill, J.M. (1994) (Ed.). Proceedings of the COST 219 seminar on smart
cards and disabilities. Retrieved January 3, 2003 from Royal
National Institute for the Blind. http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/
smartc94.doc
Gill, J.M. (2002). Smart cards: Interfaces for people with disabilities.
Retrieved January 3, 2003 from Royal National Institute for the
Blind. http://www.tiresias.org/reports/urcai.htm
Gindin, S. E. (1997). Lost and found in cyberspace: Informational
privacy in the age of the Internet. Retrieved August 28, 2002 from
http://www.info-law.com/lost.html
Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). (Eds.). Advances in mixed-method
evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse
paradigms. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 74, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255-74.
Hagner, D. C., & DiLeo, D. (1993). Working together: Workplace
culture, supported employment, and persons with disabilities.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Heldrick, J. J. (1999). The Workforce Investment Act of 1998: A primer
for people with disabilities. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
University of Iowa Website: http://www.its.uiowa.edu/law/lhpdc/
rrtc/workforce.html
Huff, C. (n.d.). An escort memory system case study: RFID in the textile
industry. Retrieved January 12, 2003, from The Association for Automatic
Identification and Data Capture Technologies (AIM) Global website:
http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/rfid/casestudy/MaldenMillsEMS.pdf
IBVA Technologies, Inc. http://www.ibva.com. (April 21, 2002)
INCLUsion of Disabled and Elderly people in telematics (INCLUDE).
(n.d.). SATURN Case Study. Retrieved January 3, 2003 from
http://www.stakes.fi/include/cases.html
Individuals with Disabilities: Enabling Advocacy Link (IDEAL). (n.d.).
Statistics on disabilities. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from
http://www.attideal.org/Statistics.asp
International Biometric Group LLC: BioPrivacy Initiative.
http://www.bioprivacy.org
International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI).
http://www.icdri.org
International Journal of Biometrics. http://www.optel.com.pl/avanti/avanti.htm
Jacobs, S. (2002, November 22). Business benefits of access-for-all
design. Retrieved November 27, 2002, from http://www.
biometricgroup.com/a_press/office/office.htm
Joice, W. (n.d.). Federal telework topics. United States General Services
Administration. Retrieved September 14, 2002, from
http://www.gsa.gov/attachments/GSA_PUBLICATIONS/extpub/
DOL_Paper_Final.doc
JUSTNET. Justice Technology Information Network.
http://www.nlectc.org/justnet.html
LaPlant, W.P. (n.d.). Disability Statistics & Policy in the United States of
America and the World. Retrieved January 3, 2003 from
http://www.icdri.org/Statistics/mainstats.htm
Nanavati, S., Thieme, M., & Nanavati, R. (2002). Biometrics: Identity
verification in a networked world. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
National Council on Disability. (2001, June 21). The accessible future.
Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/accessiblefuture.html
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Technology
Laboratory (NIST-ITL). http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/biometrics/
standards.html
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (n.d.). Common
Biometric Exchange File Format (CBEFF) Website. Retrieved July 23,
2002, from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/isis/bc/cbeff
National Organization on Disability (NOD). http://www.nod.org
(November 20, 2001)
National Security Agency (NSA). (2002, September). Information
Assurance Technical Framework (IATF). Retrieved December 15,
2002 from http://www.iatf.net
O’Brien, D. (2003, May 5). Scanning for security: Biometrics: Fraud, terror
attacks and privacy laws have many seeking more foolproof ways to
identify people. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved May 5, 2003 from
http://www.sunspot.net/news/printedition/bal-te.biometrics05may05,0,
7980825.story?coll=bal%2Dpe%2Dasection
Office of Homeland Security. (2002, July). National strategy for
homeland security. Retrieved July 17, 2002 from http://www.
whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf
O’Hanlon, M., Orszag, P., Daalder, I., Destler, I., Gunter, D., Litan, R.,
& Steinberg, J. (2002). Protecting the American homeland: A
preliminary analysis. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Retrieved May 5, 2002 from http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/
projects/homeland/fullhomeland.pdf
PosID, Inc., http://www.posidinc.com.
Quintanilla, F. (2000, July 5). Fingerprint as password: Your fingerprint
could be your one password for life. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from
http://www.biometricgroup.com/a_press/office/office.htm
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Journal.
http://www.rfidjournal.com
Richter, C. (1999, September 13). RFID: An educational primer.
Retrieved December 12, 2002, from Intermec Technologies
Corporation website: http://epsfiles.intermec.com/eps_files/eps_wp/
rfid_wp.pdf
Schaie, K., & Schooler, C. (Eds.). (1998). Impact of work on older
adults. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Smart Card Alliance. http://www.smartcardalliance.org.
Stapleton, J. (2001). Biometrics. PKI Forum. Retrieved January 6,
2003, from http://www.pkiforum.org/pdfs/biometricsweb.pdf
Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Career theory and practice:
Learning Through case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (Eds.). (1996). Work and disability:
Issues and strategies in career development and job placement.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
The Biometric Foundation. (n.d.). Why Biometrics? Retrieved January
10, 2003 from http://www.biometricfoundation.org/
whybiometrics.htm
Thieme, M. (n.d.). Biometric usage on a privacy continuum. International
Biometric Group LLC. Retrieved January 10, 2003 from
http://www.bioprivacy.org/continuum.htm
Thieme, M. (n.d.). Privacy concerns and biometric technologies.
International Biometric Group LLC. Retrieved January 10, 2003 from
http://www.bioprivacy.org/privacy_fears.htm
Toren, P. J. (2003, March 20). From the mind of a hacker. New York Law
Journal. Retrieved March 20, 2003 from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?
id=1046833592378
TRACE Center. http://www.trace.wisc.edu. (December 6, 2002)
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability
Rights Section. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm.
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (1998).
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). Retrieved September 24,
2002 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html
United States Department of Labor. (2002, July 26). People with
disabilities: Strengthening the 21st Century workforce. Retrieved
September 23, 2002 from http://www.dol.gov/sec/programs/
ptfead/2002rpt/ 2002_PTFEAD_Report.pdf
United States Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment
Policy. (2002). New freedom initiative 2002: Independence through
employment. Retrieved September 24, 2002, from http://www.dol.
gov/odep/pubs/nfi02/finalnfi_71802.pdf
Van Impe, M. (2002, September 5). New Voice Biometric Security for mobile
phones. Mobile CommerceNet. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from
http://www.mobile.commerce.net/print.php?story_id=2129
Voice Security Systems. http://www.voice-security.com/flash/index.html.
(November 3, 2002)
Walder, B. (1997). Smart cards: The use of “intelligent plastic” for
access control. Bedford, England: NSS Group Network House.
Westin, A. (2002). Public attitudes toward the uses of biometric
Identification technologies by government and the private sector:
Summary of survey findings. Opinion Research Corporation (ORC)
International. Retrieved January 9, 2003 from http://www.search.
org/policy/bio_conf/Biometricsurveyfindings.pdf
Wilkie, D. (2003, May 17). White House may put less value on seniors,
disabled. Copley News Service: Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Retrieved
May 17, 2003, from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/sat/
news/news_1n17value.html
Winter, C. (2000, October 29). Biometrics: Safeguard or invasion of
privacy. Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://www.
biometricgroup.com/a_press/SunSentinelarticle_Oct2000.htm
Woodlands Online. (n.d.). Biometric emerges as a solution for security.
Retrieved July 3, 2002, from http://www.biometricgroup.com/
a_press/woodland.htm
Woodward, J., Orlans, N., & Higgins, P. (2003). Biometrics: Identity
assurance in the information age. Berkeley, CA: McGraw-
Hill/Osborne
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied
social research methods (Vol. 5, 2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Zunkel, R. (1998). Hand geometry based authentication in biometrics:
Personal identification in networked society. New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
