Biometric Outlook	Back to Homepage
Over the last several years, biometric devices and applications have experienced substantial growth in the United States and abroad. Total sales of biometric hardware, excluding sales to law enforcement and hardware integration revenue, amounted to $16.2 million in 1996. Sales are expected to hit $50 million in 1999 (Moylan, M. 1997). Furthermore, according to the report entitled, World Biometrics Identification Markets, the compound annual growth rate for the 1996 to 2003 period is projected to reach 7.5 percent, meaning the biometric equipment and software markets are expected to generate $170 million by 2003 (Security Management, 1998). Propelling the expansion and use of applied biometrics is a combination of the falling cost of biometric devices, increasing sophistication of the technology, development of biometrics as a peripheral to common computer platforms, and efforts by the United States government (Stevens, T. 1998). For instance, United States biometric identification and verification device sales are expected to total an estimated 50,000 units in 1999, versus 13,500 units in 1997 and 2,000 units in 1992, according to Bethesda, Maryland based CardTech/SecurTech Incorporated. Furthermore, the average end-user price for a standalone physical security device utilized for identity verification, without installation, was estimated at $1,600-1,700 in 1997, versus $1,900 in 1996 and $5,100 in 1990 (Stevens, T. 1998). Donna Gustafson, director of marketing for The National Registry, which develops fingerprint-imaging technology, states, "In order to get biometrics to the public, we had to bring the price down." (Burnell, J. 1997). In addition, advancements in computer technology have meant more personal computers have the processing power required to run biometric applications. Biometric Perceptions Wide spread usage, implementation, and public acceptance of biometric technology still awaits a foothold in corporate America. Ben Miller, publisher of the Personal Identification Newsletter and biometrics consultant, puts the implementation of biometrics into perspective by stating, "I think the Feds love it, they think it's cool, whereas if you tried to impose biometrics in a creative workplace, like Apple Computer, they might see it as Big Brother." (O'Sullivan, O. 1996). Biometrics introduces not just financial concerns but psychological issues as well. In a day and age were most people feel that they are monitored for one reason or another, biometrics can be seen as an invasion of privacy by some. Providing the neighborhood bank with a Social Security number and a password is accepted by nearly all of us, but providing a retinal pattern or computerized fingerprint to an international credit card company might seem too Orwellian for comfort. An example of people's perceptions of biometrics being altered by false claims and data occurred several years ago. It was reported that military pilots refused to use a retina scan system, believing that it might impair their visual acuity. Although no evidence that system affected eyesight existed, the system was removed. In other reported cases, retina scan users with watery eyes sometimes left data collection sensors moist, leading to concerns about eye diseases, transfer of body fluids, and AIDS. Although there is no known, or even alleged, case of injury or disease resulting from such a system, user concerns became so great that it was withdrawn from the market (Richards, D. R. 1995). According to Peter Hawkes, executive responsible for automatic identification at British Technology Group, states, "Using a hand for identification might be far more socially acceptable than an iris because people don't like the idea of repeatedly exposing an eye close up to a camera" (Smith, S. 1997). Likewise, many people could also be adverse to the criminal connotations of having their fingerprint taken. There have been studies conducted that report positive findings towards the acceptance of biometrics. Banks and financial institutions have been pioneers in implementing biometric applications for their customers. Subsequently, banks and other financial institutions that have tested biometric-based security on their clientele say consumers overwhelmingly have a pragmatic response to the technology. Anything that saves the information-overloaded citizen from having to remember another password or personal identification number comes as a welcome respite. Adding a statistical footing to this anecdotal evidence, a nationwide survey by Columbia University reported that 83 percent of people approve the use of finger imaging, and don't feel it treats people as criminals (O'Sullivan, O. 1997). Furthermore, a survey conducted in July 1996 for St. Petersburg, Florida based biometrics company, The National Registry Incorporated, found that 55 percent of the 1,011 adult respondents had been fingerprinted for a job, government license or other identification purpose. Seventy-five percent of the group that had experience fingerprinting felt "comfortable" or "very comfortable" with the process as a way of preventing benefits fraud, and 76 percent felt it was justified as a way to prevent credit card fraud on major purchases. Moreover, The National Registry survey found that fingerprint acceptance was also favorable among groups researchers thought might be resentful of the process. The results crossed demographic lines, with high acceptance among such groups as: African-Americans (91 percent); 65 and older (96 percent); lower income ($15,000 to $25,000 at 90 percent); highest income ($50,000 and up at 90 percent); lowest education or non-high school graduate (91 percent) (Zbar, J. D. 1997). The fundamental fear behind biometrics is the fear of the unknown. Raj Nanavati of the International Biometric Group, a consulting firm in New York City, states that much of the wariness [of biometrics] may come from the strangeness of a new technology. A poll conducted by the International Biometric Group asked approximately 100 people how they would react to a finger scan at a bank. According to Nanavati 60 percent of the people who only heard a description of the procedure reacted positively toward the idea, but once they tried it, favorability shot up to 90 percent (Corinna, W. 1998). Biometric Standards A critical element that has been absent in the world of biometrics has been the lack of standards. There are virtually no standards in place for automated biometrics, including minutiae analysis, the method used by human experts to analyze fingerprints (Markowitz, J. 1997). Cynthia Way, Associate Consultant at Higgins & Associates, states, "While there are ANSI-NIST (American National Standards Institute – National Institute of Standards and Technology) fingerprint minutiae standards, they don't seem to be of sufficient information density to be usable for all automated biometrics; thus vendors typically use proprietary minutiae algorithms" (Markowitz, J. 1997). However, it now seems that the first step in forming some kind of environment of standards has been initiated by leading computer and software vendors including Compaq Computer Corporation, IBM Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and Novell Incorporated. During the CardTech/SecureTech Conference in April 1998, it was announced that the newly formed BioAPI Consortium would leverage work done by several companies to create a common application programming interface (API) for existing and emerging biometric technologies. The resulting new API standard will free system designers and integrators from developing different programs for each vendor's biometric hardware (Costlow, T. 1998). According to Thomas Rowely, chief executive officer at Veridicom Incorporated, a Lucent Technologies spin-off that creates fingerprint sensors, peripheral devices and software, "Standards are very important for this business [biometrics] to take off. We want VAR's (value added resellers) and VAD's (value added dealers) to get comfortable with an API so they can adopt our products more easily. Without a proven reliable API, it's very risky for them to design around." (Costlow, T. 1998). In combination with the announcement at CardTech/SecurTech 1998 of a common API standard for biometrics, the International Computer Security Association (ICSA) also announced the first six biometric products to meet its new certification standards. The ICSA tested more than 100 biometric products before certifying six that performed as advertised with real humans in real-world environments. The certifications went to Hi-Key Technologies, Mytec Technologies, National Registry, and SAC Technologies for fingerprint recognition systems. In addition, Intelitrak Technologies was certified for voiceprint recognition and a Miros product was certified as able to recognize faces. Dr. Peter Tippett, ICSA president declared, "We're here today to announce that biometrics is real. It is here and now." (Menefee, C. 1998). Frost and Sullivan, a Mountain View, California based market research firm, asserts that bearing the ICSA's stamp of approval gives the six manufacturers a marketing advantage in a global market that is expected to surpass $100 billion by next year (1999) (Guly, C. 1998). Standards are a key facet in making biometrics a widespread technology. Standards reduce the differences between products. This decreases the risk of using automated biometrics. By reducing the risk of development, standards help grow the market, which benefits vendors. Standards also promote an aura of stability and maturity attractive to investors (Markowitz, J. 1997). Proponents of biometric standards include a number of corporations and organizations. Standards for Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) has been a leader in establishing fingerprint standards. They are responsible for two standards: for the interchange of finger image data and for finger image compression (ICSA Biometric Buyer's Guide, 1998). The Biometric Consortium has led United States government-coordinated biometric efforts since 1993. Their main push has been the development of the Human Authentication Application Program Interface (HA-API). The first HA-API specification was announced in late 1997. The project itself is essentially divided into two parts: the creation of a generic biometric API and a proof of concept implementation, integrating the API within a commercial network authentication system (ICSA Biometric Buyer's Guide, 1998). International Business Machines (IBM) has also taken an interest in instituting biometric standards. International Business Machine's staff in Great Britain developed the Advanced Identification Services (AIS) API, based on a number of biometric applications using IBM solutions. The API was first announced in November 1997. Version 1.01 of AIS supports the C programming language and essentially provides programming calls, which support the capture, storage, query and retrieval of biometric data. Finally, the United States National Biometric Test Center (NBCT) was established by the United States Department of Defense's Biometric Consortium in the second quarter of 1997. The NBTC is situated at San Jose State University under the directorship of Biometric Identification Research Director, Jim Wayman. The main goal of the NBTC is to further the United States government's efforts in standardizing biometric testing procedures and focusing on the 'real world' performance standards. The NBTC is particularly focused on developing standard testing methodologies so that biometrics can be compared (ICSA Biometric Buyer's Guide, 1998).