Welcome to I-Cube: South Africa's leading provider of License Plate Recognition; Facial Recognition & Image Analysis   Products      News     Feed Back     Contact Us    Support      Where to Buy   
I-Cube advantage
I-Cube Biometric Selector
facts, features and benefits of Face recognition
Biometric Concepts
Face Recognition System Description
Facial ID
Card linked to Facial
System Design
       ID Verification
Value Prop.
Access control
   Technical SPEC
   Start UP Guide
Solutions Roundup
Facial USES
Request Facial CD
Vertical market application (Casinos, Stadiums, Retail and Mines)
Proactive early warning crime prevention
Business Park
Shopping Centres
Casino Access Control
CASINO I-CUBE Face Recognition Solution
Perimeter Solutions: Facial linked to Domes 
STADIUM I-Cube Face Recognition Solution
Selling biometrics to the retail sector
Where to Buy

Face Recognition user manual

Face Recognition FID user manual

Quick Start up guide

Installation & user manual 
FRS Discovery System OCX Control Reference Manual
Step by step technology guide to using face recognition


Contact Us
\Feed Back
I-Cube Intro Brochure

Boffins tout 3-D facial recognition as password replacement


University of Houston team claims radically new approach to biometrics

Robert Jaques, vnunet.com 01 Aug 2007

Passwords could be a thing of the past if three-dimensional facial recognition technology research comes to fruition, US boffins claimed today.

University of Houston Eckhard Pfeiffer Professor, Ioannis Kakadiaris and his Computational Biomedicine Lab (CBL) report that they have taken “a radically new approach” to biometics.

The team has developed face recognition software, dubbed URxD, that uses a three-dimensional snapshot of a person’s face to create a unique biometric identifier.

The scientists report that URxD can be used for everything from gaining access to secure facilities to authorising credit card purchases. The identification procedure is as effortless as taking a photograph, according to the team.

“Accuracy is the name of the game in 3-D face recognition,” Kakadiaris said. “What makes our system so accurate is the strength of the variables that we use to describe a person’s face.

“Remembering dozens of personal identification numbers and passwords is not the solution to identity theft. PINs and passwords are not only inconvenient to memorise, but also are impractical to safeguard. In essence, they merely tie two pieces of information together; once the secret is compromised, the rest follows. The solution is to be able to tie your private information to your person in a way that cannot be compromised.”

FaceIt: Top Performer in FRVT 2002

The Facial Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) 2002 was an independent evaluation conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Counterdrug Technology Development Program Office, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NAVSEA) in July and August of 2002.

The test methodology involved two main tests, High Computational Intensity Test (HCInt) and Medium Computation Intensity Test (MCInt), which analyzed the facial recognition performance in three large-scale, real-world application areas: verification, identification and watch list recognition performance. In every test, Identix facial recognition technology was one of the top three performers . More specifically, Identix was distinguished as the top public company technology by a wide margin.

The above charts summarize results for two of the tests as noted. For complete test results including technical appendices, see http://www.frvt.org/


Biometrics used to trace visa cheats

August 8, 2007 - 5:39PM
Advertisement Advertisement

The government said it had traced 6,000 potential immigration cheats through a new scheme to take fingerprints from visa applicants.

Since the system came into force last year, the government's directorate UK visas said more than half a million sets of fingerprints had been taken from applicants.

That had led officials to match over 6,000 sets of prints "to individuals who are of concern".

"New fingerprint visas are fast becoming our first line of defence against illegal immigration," said home office minister Liam Byrne.

"By collecting fingerprint information on foreign nationals coming to the UK in advance of their journey, we are building a new overseas border control which is flushing out the false visa applicants."

Fingerprinting is compulsory for British visa applicants from just under half of the countries of the world.

The prints are checked against government records to see if the individual is already known to the immigration authorities.

UK visas said fingerprint checks had shown that one Sudanese businessman who applied for a visa to go shopping and holiday in Britain had been a failed asylum seeker in 2004 using a different identity.

Another Albanian applicant, who said he had never been to Britain before, was also found to be a failed asylum seeker after biometric checks were made.

By April 2008, the system will apply to all visa applicants covering three quarters of the world, the government said.

Controlling immigration has been a major political issue in recent years and a poll in April found that 82 per cent of Britons did not think the government was in control of the situation.


The basics of biometrics
RFP Essentials | Biometrics done right can improve security and make life easier for users

By Edmund X. DeJesus, Special to GCN

If you doubt your employees have strong opinions about their computers, just watch the number of complaints to your help desk spike when you add layers of security. It’s understandable: Passwords are a pain, especially if you have to change them often.

Biometrics, if properly implemented, offers a win-win solution. Biometric security — which uses measurements of human characteristics to confirm identity — can at once enhance security and free users from the plague of passwords.

And biometrics can be applied to more than just computers. It can be used to control access to buildings, rooms, networks and other resources. Proponents of the technology say simply using any kind of biometrics sends a powerful psychological message that your agency takes security seriously, which can produce an important mood of vigilance.

Finally, increased security may be the primary goal of biometrics, but don’t let it be the only one. “Agencies narrow themselves out of solutions,” said Vic Berger, a technologist at reseller CDW.

By deciding too quickly what you want, you may be missing more complete solutions that offer additional benefits. For example, placing video cameras in a corridor may give you all the security you need, but facial-recognition and tracking software can add significant information, including insights into traffic patterns, behavior and resource usage.

“Don’t jump into a request for proposals if a request for information is more appropriate,” Berger said.

Put your finger on biometrics
Once the province of James Bond-style movies with futuristic facilities, biometrics is becoming commonplace — even showing up as standard equipment on Dell laptop PCs. The list of available biometric modes is growing all the time:

  • Eye, including iris and retina.
  • Hand, including fingerprint, palmprint and hand shape.
  • Head, including face, earlobe and lips.
  • Biochemistry, including DNA and odor.
  • Behavior, including voice, signature, keystroke and gait.
Although hand readers and fingerprint readers are employed in about 80 percent of biometric access applications, any of those modes can verify your identity. They differ, however, in many characteristics, including:
  • Ease of enrolling individuals.
  • Accuracy in distinguishing individuals.
  • Speed of identification.
  • Size of reader.
  • Operation in various environments.
  • Cost.
Each mode — and, in some cases, each product — differs greatly in approach and installation, so direct comparison is difficult during a typical bid process. Moreover, each mode involves some trade-offs. For instance, iris identification is accurate but can be slow and requires more cooperation from users than some other types of biometrics.

There are a number of other major issues to consider in selecting the best biometric mode.
  • Ease of enrollment. You need to enroll new individuals quickly and simply, not just to save time but to maintain staff goodwill — and make no mistake, biometrics depends on goodwill just as any other type of security does.

    You are asking people to expose their eyes, allow themselves to be fingerprinted or permit other essentially intrusive procedures. Expect resistance for religious or political reasons but also simply because bodies are private, and people aren’t comfortable exposing body parts, even for excellent reasons.

  • Error rates. Error rates are not a big problem with small populations, but a high error rate with a large population is a recipe for disaster because user patience tends to decrease as error rates increase.

  • Recognition speed. Speed of identification can play a similar role. For example, fingerprint identification is relatively slow and most suitable for low-volume applications, not for hundreds of workers waiting impatiently to check into the facility each morning.

  • Device size. Size of the sensor device is most important in small areas, such as next to doors.

  • Environment. The environment can affect the choice of modes in subtle ways. For example, if you’re protecting a lab where the staff wears gloves, fingerprint readers probably aren’t a good choice. “Voice recognition — or a combination of modes — might make more sense,” said Gregory Zekster, an associate at consultant Booz Allen Hamilton.

  • Cost. Especially for low-volume operations, cost is a key consideration. Biometrics saves the burden and expense of a card-based system, not to mention eliminating the headache of lost or stolen cards. People don’t often forget their hands.

  • Multiple-factor authentication. What if other constraints push you to biometric solutions that are comparatively less secure? “Multimodal solutions using two or more different biometrics are becoming more common,” Zekster said. Multimodality can also be more flexible, with certain kinds of access requiring only one mode and others requiring more.
Hurdles to clear
First and foremost, don’t let a biometric solution lull you into a false sense of security. Don’t abandon your firewalls, encryption, passwords and other security precautions just because you have biometrics. The measurements for comparison reside in a database, which must be encrypted and subject to security. “Always save the raw data of each measurement,” said Chris Crooks, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton. As capacity for detail improves, you’ll find uses for it, and keeping that data in a standard format makes data sharing across agencies possible.

You may want to avoid large, centralized databases of biometric information. Self-contained, individual fingerprint readers, for example, can verify identity and keep the biometric data out of the centralized database. Users also feel more comfortable knowing that their fingerprints aren’t in some massive repository. But losing a reader can be expensive and annoying.

And bear in mind that biometric technologies have limitations. Some portion of the population will always be physiologically unable to use certain modes. It’s not just that one-armed man, either: Approximately 4 percent of people can’t use fingerprint technology because of dry skin.

Psychological and political issues are no less important. “Most Europeans — and many Americans — are unwilling to entrust their fingerprints,” Crooks said. Others are squeamish about exposing their eyes to scanners, no matter how harmless they are. Even the chance of infection from a fingerprint scanner is objectionable to some people.

Biometric systems can also be costly and complicated to deploy. That makes it all the more important to work carefully with vendors. “Focus on the overall solution, not just the product or even the specific technology,” Berger said. “Stretch your goals. Ask for a lot from vendors: ideas and possibilities, not just products.”

Don’t forget about scalability. Depending on the intent of the biometric implementation, the number of people using it will probably grow, sometimes rapidly. For example, biometric-controlled access may be mandatory first for one group working on a network, then for another and another until all users must be enrolled. Your biometric solution should be scalable to handle increases in users and locations.

Finally, although standards for biometrics are just emerging, you should ensure that your solutions are based on existing standards and not dependent on a vendor’s proprietary technology. For one thing, using standards-based components permits a wider range of possible solutions and vendors for each component.

Furthermore, standards-based technology lets you upgrade more easily when newer, better, faster widgets come along — and they will. The field of biometrics is far from mature, and new modes and implementations come along each year. “Fingerprints are already being replaced by other modes,” Zekster said. Try to select a vendor with a reputation for keeping up with evolving standards.

Weighing the options
When comparing solutions, you’ll likely need to do some probing to get the information you need.

Suppose you want to know how fast a prospective biometric solution can handle people waiting for access. The vendor may quote the verification time for the reader, which is the elapsed time from the user presenting themselves at the device until identity verification. This is certainly part of the total time you’re looking for, but it’s not the whole story. What you need is the total time it takes for a person to use the device.

Depending on environmental conditions at your location, you may also need to look closely at each solution’s durability. Does your environment include abrasive sand, electrostatic shock, high or low temperatures, direct sun or radiation, chemicals, rain or snow, wind-driven grit, or other difficult circumstances? If so, make sure the mode and its implementation match the need.

Biometric solutions must also integrate with existing systems. Products that are interoperable will have a longer useful life and greater flexibility. Choose solutions that are independent of operating system and hardware. The ability to acquire hardware from one vendor and software from another can be crucial for creating best-of-breed solutions.

If you need to do special application development, a software development kit can simplify things. You may also require remote enrollment or management capabilities for facilities in multiple locations.

Finally, be aware that the biometrics business is pretty wild these days. Companies merge or acquire one another and sometimes go out of business entirely. This has its advantages: One company may offer many technologies. But there are also potential downsides. For example, long-term product support may be unpredictable and unstable. Working collaboratively with knowledgeable and imaginative systems integrators is vital in a technology that is so complex. Biometrics is one technology where government agencies have the advantage over businesses.

The government is by far the biggest customer for biometric security, so government agencies get to see the newest and best ideas first. “Government agencies have a moral responsibility to pioneer and shape biometric solutions,” Berger said. Use this advantage to create a biometric solution that’s perfect for your agency.

Implementing a biometric solution to secure access is a major project that will affect many aspects of your organization. Here are the questions you should consider before committing resources to a particular solution.

Before exploring an isolated biometric solution, consider how it might also apply to other areas, such as single sign-on, tracking, scheduling and so forth. Try to get as much utility as possible.

Seek vendors — or vendor-independent integrators — who can come up with imaginative solutions that combine hardware, software and supporting components. They should have customer references in the government area.

What kinds of biometric modes will your employees accept? Are they willing to be fingerprinted or give their DNA? Will they permit iris or retina scans? Does it make sense for them to carry individual biometric tokens? Do vendors poll workers to identify their concerns? Can vendors educate staff to help them understand and accept possible biometric solutions? How will you handle security for those who cannot or will not use the biometric solution?

What constraints of the work environment — such as required gloves, masks or hats that hide fingerprints, faces or eyes — affect biometric choices? Do vendors offer a variety of modes to suit these restrictions?

What other environmental factors affect the possible biometric solution? This might be as simple as a reader that must fit next to a door. But consider extremes of heat and cold, rain or snow, sunlight, radiation, chemicals, vibration, dust and sand. Can vendors provide biometric devices hardened for the necessary environments?

How much security do you need this solution to provide? Which biometric modes provide the level of security you need? If environmental restrictions preclude the most secure modes, can a combination of less-secure modes fill the bill? Can your vendors provide all modes and the means to tie them together logically?

How easy is it to enroll individuals? How accurate are the modes in distinguishing individuals?

How fast can the system identify individuals and grant access? Is that fast enough to handle the expected number of users? Is the error rate so high that employees and administrators will become frustrated with the system?

What is the cost of possible solutions? Because biometric devices can break down at the worst possible times, can you get spares?

How many locations will the biometric security apply to? Is this likely to increase? Do some locations need to be managed remotely? How easy is that to do? How many people will be using the solution? Is that likely to increase?

How and where will biometric data be stored? How will that data be secured? Is the data in formats that support data sharing across agencies?

How will the biometric solution integrate with existing security, physical infrastructure, computer infrastructure and applications? Is the solution standards-based? How does software interoperate with existing platforms, operating systems and applications?

How stable are the vendors? Will they be around in five years? How easy would it be to acquire and integrate similar components from alternate vendors?

I-Cube.   All rights reserved.  Revised: February 18, 2008 .