Surprised?
Biometrics are even less accurate than we thought
Are you surprised? — We aren’t.
Presumably that’s why biometrics vendors have been so reluctant to talk about the EMPIRICAL (*1) False Acceptance Rates and the corresponding False Rejection Rates (*2)
Well, the report reads “Biometrics is supposed to be one of the underpinnings of a modern authentication system. But many biometric implementations (whether that be fingerprint scans or face recognition) can be wildly inaccurate, and the only universally positive thing to say about them is they’re better than nothing.
Also — and this may prove critical — the fact that biometrics are falsely seen as being very accurate may be sufficient to dissuade some fraud attempts.”
Both are no more than wishful thinking. The facts are -
1. They’re worse than nothing where security matters (*3)
2. The report is very helpful to bad guys by spreading a kind of false sense of security among the public and, more worryingly, among the tech reporters
- Criminals should be supposed to be at least as knowledgeable as the media reporters and the general public. This is ABC of security, whether in the real world or in the cyber space.
*1 Actually measured in the real use environment, both indoor and outdoor.
*2 “Get graphs to talk the nature of probabilistic biometrics”
*3 “Biometrics in Cyber Space (2-minute video) https://youtu.be/wuhB5vxKYlg
…………………………………………………………
Our overall assessment of biometrics is offered here — “I support Biometrics as a Technology”
Website — https://www.mnemonicidentitysolutions.com/
Digital identity blogs collected at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/collection-digital-identity-comments-hitoshi-kokumai-posted-kokumai/
