Sponsor's Message

Why you fire up your web-browser and do a quick search for reviews, opinions and comments from people already using such items don't you?

So you'd expect that those departments which are charged with the responsibility of using taxpayer's money in the most efficient manner would do the same before acquiring new technologies -- right?

Well if you're the NZ Customs Service, maybe not.

As you're probably aware, there's a global move towards introducing biometric identification systems as part of border control and the war against terrorism.

However, while some systems, such as fingerprint and retinal scans, are very accurate, other much-touted technologies are not and have been widely discredited during trials around the world.

It was with some concern however, that I read this story in the NZ Herald recently.

According to the story, the Customs Department at Wellington Airport is using "a hi-tech camera that can spot faces in a crowd" and "which recognises people from facial characteristics.".

Now I don't know whether the hardware/software was a freebie provided on appro or not but even if it is, many thousands of our tax dollars (by way of employee hours) are apparently being invested in trialing this technology which, according to The Herald, "is part of a system becoming widely used to secretly screen for terrorists".

Oh dear -- don't our friends at Customs, or at least those who sign off on such expenditure, read the news or know how to use Google?

I refer of course to the growing list of airports and other locations that have already trialed these types of facial recognition system and thrown them out because they have proven to be more hassle than they're worth.

One must ask therefore, why we're taking money out of the mouths of hard-working Kiwis in order to have a play with something that the rest of the world has already decided is a non-starter?

For instance, the facial recognition system being trialed at Sydney airport completely failed to detect the fact that two visiting Japanese officials had swapped their passports as a joke.

In the wake of that fiasco, the technology has been described by experts as "atrociously bad" and "categorically not an answer for airport security and identity checking".

In the USA, the American Civil Liberties Union was also able to show that factors as simple as a pair of glasses, imperfect lighting, or head-movement can totally throw the ability of these systems to recognise a face -- even under otherwise perfect conditions.

Two other high-profile US-based trials of the technology have resulted in failure.

Palm Beach Airport in Florida has already tossed out the facial recognition system they were trialing after it flagged too many false alarms and failed to accurately detect genuine matches.

The system trialed at Boston's Logan International Airport couldn't even recognise the faces of a test-group of employees 38 percent of the time and the CEO of the company supplying the gear admitted to the problems and told the media "The hype of this technology got way ahead of the capabilities of it".

According to another security expert, the performance of current facial recognition technology is so poor that for every suspect identified, there is likely to be some 1,000 false alarms.

Now I'm sure these are great toys and the Customs boys are having a ball with them -- but is it really a sensible use of taxpayer funds and Customs' resources at this stage in the technology's evolution?

And just in case the relevant bureaucrats missed all these reports, here's a little light reading on the subject:

• Identity software a 'failure' (Aust IT)
• Face recognition fails test Aust IT
• vnunet.com Facial recognition scanner outwitted by spectacles Vnunet
• Face recognition devices failed in test at Logan BostGlobe
• Red-Faced Over Facial Technology?
• Hi-tech security flaws exposed BBC

Come on folks -- surely it's better to spend a few hours on the Net doing some basic research than it is to blow many thousands of dollars of other people's money on hardware, software and wasted time -- simply so you can say "yep, they were right -- doesn't work!"

If any Aardvark readers want to share an opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!