Through the theoretical adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities
Download 2.12 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Historical Documentation
- Quantitative Research Tools
- Table 1: Twelve Known One-on-One Interview Participants
- Qualitative Research Tools
- Table 2: List of Teleconferece Sponsoring Organizations
- Electronic Mail Exchanges
- Communication Participants
- Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity of Data
- Originality and Limitation of Data
- Contrasting Authentication Methods
- Contact Biometric Technologies
- Fingerprint Identification
- Image 1: Depiction of Fingerprint Patterns and Minutiae
Data Gathering MethodsThough regression-discontinuity of the mixed-method research strategy is strong in internal validity and can parallel other non-equivalent designs in terms of validity threats, interpretation of results might be difficult. Outcomes might be the result of combined effects of factors that are not exactly related. Per Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) here are five major reasons to use the mixed-method: Triangulation - will increase chances to control, or at least assess, some of the threats or multiple causes influencing our results. Complementarily - clarifies and illustrates results from one method with the use of another method to add information and qualify results (i.e. committee involvement). Development - partial results from the results might suggest that other assessments should be incorporated. Initiation - stimulates new research questions or challenges results obtained through one method (i.e. in-depth interviews). May provide new insights on how focus study. Expansion - integration of procedures will expand the breadth of the study and likely enlighten the study. Historical DocumentationApplying historical documentation (a.k.a. lessons learned) to this research paper is not only practical; it would have been negligent not to do so. Historical documentation will help to establish the concept of commonalities, identify concerns, link data to propositions, and lead to the unveiling of potential solutions. Historical documents for the research paper are derived from both printed and electronic online sources and are of domestic and international origin. The documents are comprised of published books, news articles, government publications, white papers, university websites, corporate websites, and the websites of not-for-profit organizations. Quantitative Research ToolsThe research tools consist of a combination of web-based survey (questionnaire) and one-on-one interview. Both the web-based survey and the one-on-one interview were conceived as quantitative research methods and are were administered to a diverse demographic of participants. There are one hundred and thirty-seven participants of the web-based survey. Participants of both the web-based survey and the one-on-one interviews are individuals that span all age groups, gender, economic status, ability level, race, and experience level, no one group was excluded. The one-on-one interview participants consist of thirty-five individuals of which, twelve out of the thirty-five participants are known to the researcher. The remaining twenty-three are of random occurrence and remain totally unknown to the researcher. A list of the twelve known participants is included in Table 1. Table 1: Twelve Known One-on-One Interview Participants
Web-Based SurveysA descriptive survey method was administered via the World Wide Web with the cooperation and support of the International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (www.ICDRI.org). The goal of the survey was to better understand how people viewed the adaptation of biometrics to other emerging technologies. The participants were engaged via the telephone and multiple email requests that were distributed via reflector sites and group lists. It is important to note that confidentiality is intact, as the identity of the participants has remained totally obscured. The complete survey consists of an explanation paper entitled “To Be Or Not To Be (http://www.icdri.org/biometrics/to_be_or_not.htm)” and a detailed survey (questionnaire) (http://www.icdri.org/biometrics/ survey_biometric.htm). The explanation paper served as an introduction to the survey. The explanation paper is included as Appendix 1 and the detailed survey is Appendix 2. The hope was that the survey would provide assistance in determining if the international citizenry were accepting of emerging technologies. For example, were they accepting of adapting biometrics and/or neural implants as an assistive technology, or did they just fear the unknown? One-on-One InterviewsThe interviews averaged thirty minutes in length and were administered from January 15, 2002 to January 15, 2003. As many of the subjects were extremely busy people, their convenience and availability were the major factor that determined the length of the interviews. A few of the interview subjects, however, had quite a lot to say, and these interviews were longer. The interviews were semi-structured, and subjects were encouraged to express their thoughts freely. At the beginning, the researcher briefly explained the purpose of my study to each subject. The researcher then, told the subject that he was exploring the possibility of adapting biometric technologies to people of variable abilities (disabled & elderly). Usually, the subject immediately replies with the question, why? The researcher would then explain in further detail, that it is believed that by fusing biometric technologies with other established and emerging technologies that it would be theoretical possible to breakdown the vast majority of access barriers. The end result is that people would become more self-sufficient thereby causing a cultural paradigm shift; hence there would be scores more of qualified people available for employment. The absolute majority of the interviews were conducted face-to-face. However, five of the interviews were conducted via telephone and three were conducted via electronic mail (total of eight). Interviews were conducted until it became apparent in the researcher’s judgment that the incremental new information from each additional interview was minimal. A sampling of typical and scripted open-ended questions that were discussed has been included as Appendix 3. The hope was that the interview would yield that which first-line supervisors, middle-level managers, and senior executives believed to be productivity barriers, attitude towards assistive technologies, perceived technology barriers, and general management issues they have encountered when seeking people of variable abilities for employment. It is important to make mention that many of the one-on-one interview participants are extremely intelligent and of high prominence within the international community at large. In most cases they are published authors in their own right.
SymposiumsFrom May 2001 to January 2003, the researcher has participated in three symposiums. The first symposium was the User Experience Symposium 2001 that was sponsored by AT&T Labs at the Red Bank Inn, Red Bank, New Jersey. The researcher’s contribution to the symposium was a paper titled “Biometric Technologies”. At this stage the assistive qualities of biometric technologies were still in it infancy and had not been fully explored by the researcher. Overall the paper was well received and sparked the interest of the International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet. By the second symposium the researcher was better prepared to explain and answer questions pertaining to the assistive aspects of biometric technologies. The researcher made a presentation to three hundred plus members of the Internet Society at the INET 2002 Symposium, Washington D.C. The paper entitled “The New Wave” was published at http://www.icdri.org/biometrics/new_wave.htm by ICDRI. The presentation was extremely well received and was praised by members of he international community. According to Jose Luis Pardos, Ph.D. the Ambassador at Large for Spain, the techniques profiled in the ISOC presentation were influential in the implementation of several projects that the University Murcia is working on in Spain at them moment. Below is a direct quote from Dr. Pardos whose work is profiled at: Universidad Y Discapacidad (http://www.um.es/undis) at the University of Murcia: It happens that I was in Washington DC. last 19th of June for INET'2002 and I had a Panel on Disabilities and beyond on Web accessibility with my long standing good friends Mike Burks, Mark Urban, and some others. I did have the chance of hearing Bill Lawson *important* contribution to our Panel on Biometrics. I think he is an outstanding thinker and innovator. I have read and listen to his Presentation and I am deeply thankful for the many ways he has enlightened me with his many writings and deep thoughts. I also think Bill well deserves any kind of official recognition and I am strongly supporting it. The 10th Plenary of the InterNational Center for Information Technology Standards, Information Technology Access Interfaces Standards Development Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) was the third symposium. The symposium was held at the Radisson Hotel in Orlando, Florida from January 19-20, 2003. The work of the researched came to the attention of the Co-Chairman of the Biometric Consortium/M1 and Chairman of INCITS/V2. Consequently the researcher was invited to present at the symposium. It was the intent of the researcher to make a persuasive presentation to the plenary that a sub-committee must be established in order to develop technology access standards for biometrics that embodied the aspects of security, accessibility, and privacy. The presentation was a huge success and the researcher is now the Chairman of the INCITS/V2.1 Sub-committee. The researcher expects to have a fused biometric prototype available within the next two years. Furthermore, it is the intent of the researcher to elaborate on the elements of the fused biometric prototype as part of another doctoral dissertation in the very near future. TeleconferencesThe researcher has participated in dozens teleconferences related to all aspects of biometric technologies, smart card technologies, civil rights/bio-privacy initiatives, assistive technologies, and standards. The teleconferences were conducted over a period of eighteen months and included participants from the international community. Of the dozens of teleconference, the same small group of organizations repeatedly sponsored the majority of the teleconferences. A listing of the small group of sponsoring organizations numbering at seven can be viewed in Table 2: Table 2: List of Teleconferece Sponsoring Organizations
Technical CommitteesThe researcher has participated as a contributing member in the creation of Section 508 amendment to the American with Disabilities Act from November 2001 to March 2002. From September 2001 to July 2002 the research worked with the Biometric Consortium (http://www.biometrics.org) (a.k.a. INCITS/M1) to craft the first biometric template format. The biometric template format is known as the Common Biometric Exchange File Format (CBEFF) V1.0, which was later revised to version 1.1. Current the researcher is working with the International Center for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), V2 (http://www.incits.org/tc_home/v2.htm), B10 (http://www.incits.org/tc_home/b10.htm), T4 (http://www.incits.org/tc_home/t4.htm), and M1 (http://www.incits.org/tc_home/m1.htm) as the Chairman of the INCITS/V2.1 Subcommittee to develop technology standards for the adaptation of biometric to people of variable abilities. The standards that come from this venture will be released as part of a new component (field) within CBEFF V2.0. Electronic Mail ExchangesGiven that the adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities is theoretical in nature and in many cased consider by some to be an emerging technology this research method was absolutely critical to the research paper. This method allowed the researcher to communicate with some of the foremost experts of biometric technologies, privacy concerns, legal issues, security techniques, universal design and accessibility for all methodologies. Communication ParticipantsThe participants were representative of all diversity factors to include age, race, ability level, gender, culture, religion, etc… and representative of the international community. In some case the participant’s identity were known to the researcher and in other cases the participant’s identity was and still remains anonymous. The participants were as diverse as the universe and as worldly as any great explorer. Database of StudyExploring prior case studies can reduce the need to test theoretical boundaries or concepts. Furthermore, the exploration of biometric, smart card, assistive technology, and public opinion case studies has allow the research to gain a valuable non-bias insight into thought process and implementation strategies that have been completed. Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity of DataTypically the value of research is evaluated based on its accuracy, reliability, and validity, which for all meticulous purposes equates to the notion of trustworthiness. In the quest to gain a better understanding of the barriers relevant to the adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities, special attention was paid to the issue of trustworthiness. For all one-on-one interviews the participant determined the course of his or her interview, while the researcher asked follow-up questions in an effort to clarify and explore certain details more thoroughly. Allowing the participants to determine the direction of the interview minimized the researchers bias and increased the extent to which the data represented the opinions of the participants. To check for saturation, after the first fifteen participants were interviewed and data was analyzed for commonalities, two additional interviews were conducted with someone that had not previously been interviewed. The identities of the participants were and are still unknown to the researcher as the participants were approached in a hospital waiting room and a coffee shop. What is known of the participants is that they represent the different generational views. The formats of the interviews were similar to the previous interviews that have been conducted, in that they were of an open forum. After the participants had free shared their opinions, the researcher shared the thoughts and opinions that have been identified from the other interview and survey participants. Originality and Limitation of DataGiven that the focus of the research study is conceive on the adaptation of emerging technologies to a rapidly shifting culture it is fair to conclude that the over whelming majority of the source material and data is of original content. Limitations of data with respect to research methodologies and the availability of employed tools to conduct this study are riddled with intrinsic limitations. Creep of the researcher’s bias and bias of other assistive technology supporter were an extremely limiting factor during the collection and analysis phase of the study. The reason for this phenomenon as perceived by the researcher is that there are many advocates of assistive technologies and no opponents. With respect to this study the only opponents are those of biometric technologies, not assistive technologies in general. Methodological SummaryWhen exploring management and adaptation of information systems the mixed-method approach is the best method to utilize (Greene & Caracelli, 1997). The methods and tools that were used allowed the researcher conduct a predominately qualitative analysis of each study unit and at same time the study was of a predominately interpretative nature with some aspects of positivist influences (Yin, 1994). Analysis of DataChapter 4 Pattern matching of all evidence relative to the theoretical adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities will be the dominant mode of analysis to be employed by this study (Yin, 1994). An additional consideration is that the study will borrow a small number of the research concepts and/or methodologies from chapter 3, in order to wholly accomplish the analysis phase for this chapter. Even though it was the intent of Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) for the following approach to be applied as a research concept and/or methodologies. The researcher has endeavored to transition a prominent research approach of Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) into an analysis approach in order to identify the element of the evidence that embody the constructs of triangulation, complementarily, development, initiation, expansion and last but not least to aid in the unbiased presentation of the evidence. To help ensure validity of the analysis phase, there are four principles that should be adhered to in order to achieve a high-quality analysis of the evidence. As stated by Yin (1994), the analysis ought to rely on “all relevant evidence”, “include all major rival interpretations”, “address the most significant aspect” of the case study, and bring to bear the researcher’s “prior experience, expert knowledge”. Whilst conducting the analysis phase of this study, it will be the intent of the researcher to adopt the recommendations of Yin and other research experts as fact and endeavor to adhere to such guidance.
What is a BiometricWhen this question 3 of Appendix 6 was proposed to the participants of the one-on-one interviews the results were that only six of the thirty-five participants were even familiar with biometrics. A biometric authentication system is essentially a pattern recognition system that establishes a person’s identity by comparing the binary code of a uniquely specific biological (physical) or behavioral characteristic (trait) to the binary code of a stored characteristic. This is accomplished by acquiring a live sample (the characteristic) from a petitioner (individual who is requesting access). The system then applies a complex and specialized algorithm to the live sample; it is then converted into a binary code. Once the live sample has been converted into a binary code, it is compared to the reference sample (previously stored binary code) to determine the petitioner’s access or not. If we were to breakdown the word biometric we would find that ‘bio’ simply means ‘biological (living)’ and that ‘metric’ refers to ‘measurement’. However, it is a little more complex then that. A biometric is a physical body measurement of a biological characteristic or pattern recognition of behavioral traits (i.e. voice, signature or keyboard dynamics). Both the biological characteristic and/or the behavioral trait must be unique to an individual and able to be repeatedly acquired by an electronic device. The function of a biometric is to facilitate controlled access to applications, networks, personal computers (PCs), and physical facilities. Simply put, a biometric is an efficient way to replace the traditional password based authentication system (Ashbourn, 2000). Contrasting Authentication MethodsThere are three methods of resolving a person’s identity. The first is verification, which involves confirming or denying a person’s claimed identity (Am I whom I claim to be?). For now, the consensus is that dynamic signature verification, voiceprint verification, hand geometry, keystroke dynamics, facial geometry recognition, thermo graphic recognition, and vein recognition are generally considered to be verification biometrics and are best suited for a low security area. Identification is the second method of resolving a person’s identity. With this method one has to establish a person’s identity (Who am I?). Identification biometrics commonly include those biometrics which have been thoroughly tested and proven to be near to 100 percent effective in real life environments. A fingerprint identification, palm print identification, retina scan recognition, and iris-scan recognition are considered to be positive identifiers. As technology evolves, the boundary between a verification and identification biometric will be blurred in some cases and in other cases biometrics will traverse the boundary. For virtually unassailable confirmation of an individual’s identity, the third method of a multi-modal hybrid identification method has been highly recommended (Nanavati et al, 2002). An automatic personal identification system based solely on fingerprints or faces is often not able to meet the system performance requirements of the consumer. Facial recognition is fast but not reliable; while fingerprint verification is reliable there are many external factors that can lead to a false rejection of a users authentication (i.e. dry finger, dirt, oil, improper positioning, cut or abrasion). Implementing a multi-modal hybrid strategy will overcome the limitations of face recognition systems as well as fingerprint verification systems. The identity established by the system is more reliable than the identity established by a face recognition system. In addition, the multi-modal fusion schema enables performance improvement by integrating multiple cues with different confidence measures (International Journal of Biometrics). For example, the Pentagon has implemented a fingerprint and facial recognition solution within the military to identify its’ members (Washington Post, October 29, 2001).
An intrusive biometric is usually considered to be one which requires undesirable contact with the subject in order to acquire the electronic data sample of the biological characteristic in question. An example of an intrusive biometric could be retina-scan because of the close proximity to the eye, facial scanning because of cultural or religious reasons (not allow to show face), and fingerprint or palm scanning due to hygiene concerns. Fingerprint IdentificationAccording to Woodward, Orlans & Higgins (2003), “Fingerprints were used as personal marks or signatures in part of Asia as early as the third century B.C.”. The fingerprint is an established biometric and are classified into five categories: arch, tented arch, left loop, right loop, and whorl. The fingerprint classification system was invented in 1892 by Azizul Haque for Sir Edward Henry (Inspector General of Police in Bengal, India). Up until 1926 it was thought that Sir Edward Henry invented the fingerprint classification system. The fingerprint classification system consequently came to be known as the Henry System. A fingerprint image classification is based on the number and location of the detected minutia (singular) point or minutiae (plural) points. The "Henry System" is still used today to categorize fingerprint cards. However, the fingerprint scanners of today are much more capable of identifying more details then just arches, tented arches, left loops, right loops, whorls. As demonstrated by Image 1, you can clearly see the patterns and the depiction of minutiae (Ashbourn, 2000). Image 1: Depiction of Fingerprint Patterns and MinutiaeT  op row (left to right): loop, composite (double loop), spiral, or shell whorl. Middle row (left to right): target whorl, simple arch, tented arch. Bottom row: minutiae.
Source: http://www.hit.co.kr/ehomepage/solution/ Fingerprint%20Identification%20Technology.files/image002.jpg It has been reported by many news source (i.e. The Baltimore Sun) that there are some shortcomings related to the use of fingerprint scanners. Fingerprint scanners work well for fingerprint imaging of many people, but there is a percentage of the population that cannot be adequately imaged. They include senior citizens and laborers because their fingertips are worn down, women and Asian’s because their prints are not well defined (O’Brien, 2003). Finger abrasions, user errors, and maintenance issues are attributed to this rise. In addition, many fingerprint scanners frequently encounter problems when attempting to image: * Very dry finger * Irregular ridge structures * Very oily finger * Contaminated finger * Very low humidity * Contaminated platen * Finger abrasions * Improper positioning All of these problems are the result of the inability of the sensors that are used in those products, to penetrate through air gaps or through contaminant material on the finger or platen. All of these shortcomings can be overcome by way of an ultrasonic scanner. Ultrasonic scanners can easily pass through many materials to include the air gap between the scanner and user. The below images clearly demonstrate that the fingerprint quality of the ultrasonic scanner has been greatly enhanced. Most importantly, while the use of a fingerprint biometric is accessible to the majority of the population it is not accessible to all. Fingerprint scanners require a level of mobility, coordination, dexterity, and accuracy of finger placement that not all people possess, especially those of variable or limited abilities. Download 2.12 Mb. Share with your friends:
|