Building upon its recent report, Members’ Viewpoints: The Use of Facial Recognition in Policing, the Biometrics Institute convened a pivotal On the Pulse Conversation to examine the broader application of facial recognition technology (FRT) across publicly accessible spaces, including retail, clubs, stadiums, and policing. The session, titled Facial Recognition in Retail, Clubs, Stadiums, and Policing – Should the Same Standards Apply?, brought together members, policymakers, and industry experts to address the mounting concerns surrounding FRT, including live facial recognition (LFR), in both public and private sectors. With specific attention paid to the police use of this technology and adoption by commercial users.

The conversation led by Biometrics Institute Expert Group members and guests included: 

• Roger Baldwin, Advisory Council Member, Biometrics Institute (moderator)
• Brett Feldon, Head of Digital Identity Group
• David White, Member, Technology and Innovation Expert Group
• Martin George, Member of Digital Identity Group
• Mick O’Connell, Advisory Council Member
• Terry Aulich, Head of Privacy Expert Group
• Terry Hartmann, Member of Future Direction Group
• Jason Zhou, National Solutions Manager, Digital ID & Biometrics, NEC Australia

Discussions kicked off noting that the use of FRT is on the increase and public concern over the collection, storage, sharing and deletion of their data is a key concern that the biometrics community needs to address. Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute, summarised the conversations by saying:

We need firm guidance on how to achieve a successful and positive implementation that will stand up to third party scrutiny. What should a Privacy Impact Assessment for FRT use in publicly accessible spaces look like to meet regulatory challenges? When is the use proportionate and how do you explain to citizens how their data is managed? How do you handle the issue of obtaining consent in a commercial environment?

The meeting debated in detail the complexities of obtaining informed consent in publicly accessible spaces, where continuous monitoring raises significant privacy concerns. Members discussed how a better understanding of FRT operation could be achieved, and some of the proposed ideas will be explored further at the next member meeting.

A significant point of discussion was the lack of mandatory independent testing, not only of the technical accuracy of FR systems but also of the surrounding infrastructure and policies. Participants noted the current fragmented regional approaches to FRT regulation and explored the potential benefits of more consistent, national and international approaches.

The panel noted the growing use of FRT in retail for loss prevention as well as staff protection, and in entertainment venues for access control and security. These commercial applications, although potentially beneficial, presents unique challenges regarding data privacy and consent, as customers often unknowingly have their biometric data captured. The need for clear guidelines and regulations in these private sector deployments was strongly emphasised.

Key points raised during the conversation included:

• The importance of clearly defining the purpose of FRT deployment, which may vary across different circumstances
• Significant variations in Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) practices across different jurisdictions underscores the need for global standards
• Fair and transparent processes are necessary to correct misidentification, along with clear guidelines for individuals to seek redress
• Potential for legal challenges from offenders and their legal representatives if basic standards are not established
• The known gender and racial bias in facial recognition technology, and the importance of trained personnel to review the FRT outputs in context
• The importance of technical testing, and the need to also test the infrastructure and policies

The Biometrics Institute will continue this critical discussion at its upcoming Asia Pacific Conference in Sydney in May and its Congress in London this October. These events, underscore our members’ commitment to responsible biometrics practices, and the Three Laws of Biometrics – policy, before process and technology, proving the need, and applying proportionality to build trust – as principles for all discussions and future policy recommendations.

Understanding the challenges of securing consensus for biometric data usage, particularly in widespread public applications, the Institute is actively developing new proposals and further details on these initiatives will be shared as they evolve.

ENDS

About the Biometrics Institute

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. It has offices in London and Sydney.

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institution. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics.

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post Members call for consistent approach to facial recognition appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

The Biometrics Institute, the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometrics users, is set to host a pivotal On the Pulse (OTP) Conversation, addressing the complex and rapidly evolving landscape of facial recognition (FR) technology in public spaces. Titled Facial Recognition in Retail, Clubs, Stadiums, and Policing – Should the Same Standards Apply?, this online event will closely examine the critical distinctions between private and public sector FR applications, offering crucial insights for regulators, enforcers, and the wider public.

With increasing deployments of FR in retail environments, entertainment venues, and by law enforcement, the need for clear, consistent, and responsible guidelines has never been more timely. The OTP will examine the varying risks associated with different use cases, from retrospective criminal investigations to live facial recognition (LFR), and explore the public’s growing concerns surrounding privacy and data security.

Experts will lead the conversation, and viewpoints will address:

• Differentiating between private sector FR use (retail, clubs, stadiums) and public sector (policing, law enforcement), and the need for a consistent approach to FR technology, driven by well-constructed policy and process
• Policy defining appropriate and proportionate use cases, including staff and customer safety in retail settings, and specific applications like detecting shoplifters and protecting problem gamblers
• The application of robust quality management procedures (ISO/IEC 17025:2017) to FR in law enforcement, particularly for retrospective investigations, with standards comparable to those used for DNA analysis
• Process development and informed consent in practice, including adequate signage in public spaces
• Image and data management, including data storage duration, deletion policies, and access control, and match management, including human verification (human-in-the-loop), training requirements, and associated risks
• Public concerns surrounding LFR including its perception as a continuous police line-up and the associated anxieties about AI and privacy
• Technology and performance, including the use of centralised versus localised image databases for FR and governance structures, including data quality and testing procedures
• Defining best practices for consumer engagement and transparency

How regulators and enforcers can attend

Recognising the vital role regulators and enforcers play in shaping ethical biometrics frameworks, the Biometrics Institute facilitates informed dialogue. This On the Pulse Conversation offers direct engagement with experts, insights into latest developments, and a chance to influence future policies. We understand the challenges of balancing innovation, public safety, and privacy. Your participation is invaluable for responsible and transparent facial recognition deployment, fostering public trust and safeguarding rights. To register, regulators and enforcers should email penny@biometricsinstitute.org on, or before Friday, 28 March 2025.

It is recommended that participants read the Biometrics Institute’s Members’ Viewpoints: The Use of Facial Recognition in Policing, paper, which provides crucial context for the discussion.

ENDS

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institution. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post Facial Recognition Standards: Regulator Invitation appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

The report explores present and future applications while providing practical approaches to navigating biometrics technology. It emphasises the growing demand for transparency and accountability in biometric systems, showcasing how responsible development and deployment can achieve this. Real-world use cases highlight the importance of rigorous testing and offer valuable perspectives on ensuring biometric technologies respect privacy and build public trust.

The report draws on expertise and insights from Biometrics Institute members

• Next-generation biometric solutions for the masses: The transformative potential of biometric solutions for identity management, driven by the rapid advancement of AI is on the horizon. Members emphasise the need for close collaboration between industry, research, and policymakers to ensure the development and deployment of trusted and legally compliant solutions.
• Human expertise is not a backup, but an essential component: Members call for investment in training and collaboration between humans and AI to build systems that are not only efficient but also fair, inclusive, and trustworthy. The emphasis is on reinforcing, not replacing, human capabilities.
• The future of travel: While passports remain essential for now, use cases explore how biometrics are paving the way for seamless, contactless travel experiences. The increasing adoption of biometrics, coupled with initiatives like the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) focus on automating travellers experiences, suggests a future where travel is more efficient and secure. Members emphasise the importance of interoperability between biometric identity systems, particularly for international travel, ensuring smooth collaboration between airlines, airports, border agencies, and governments. It also highlights the need for seamless integration with existing systems to avoid friction and protect traveller data.
• Multimodal biometrics for enhanced security: The pursuit of enhanced security, accessibility, and public trust is driving the rise of multimodal biometrics, which combines technologies like facial recognition, voice and behavioural biometrics. Members highlight that this approach offers increased accuracy and fraud prevention, particularly in sectors like government services, financial institutions, and border control.
• Industry collaboration for seamless travel: The report highlights the strong alignment among governments, airlines, airports, and other industries to make secure, reliable, and ethical biometrics a practical reality. This collaborative effort is crucial for shaping the future of travel, making it easier, faster, and more secure.
• Facial recognition’s pivotal role: Facial recognition, alongside other biometric technologies, is recognised as a foundation for secure and seamless travel. Members emphasise that biometrics, particularly facial recognition, are here to stay and will redefine industry standards. However, this widespread adoption necessitates careful consideration of privacy and fairness. Biometric data, such as facial images, requires robust protection against misuse and unauthorised access to maintain public trust. Furthermore, addressing demographic differentials in biometric algorithms, particularly facial recognition, is crucial.  The report highlights ongoing efforts to create more inclusive models through diverse datasets, the use of generative AI for data augmentation, and the importance of standardisation and validation. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through programmes like the Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT), plays a vital role in this effort, conducting rigorous biometric testing to identify top-performing algorithms. Continuous auditing and inclusive design practices, along with NIST evaluations, are essential to minimise discrepancies in error rates across demographic groups and promote the responsible adoption of biometrics.

The future of biometrics is bright

The Biometrics Institute encourages industry stakeholders, policymakers, and the public to engage in the ongoing conversation about responsible biometrics. The report serves as a valuable resource for understanding the current landscape and shaping the future of this transformative technology. This future must be guided by the principles of responsible biometrics, adhering to the Three Laws of Biometrics: Policy before process before technology. This ensures that ethical considerations and robust policies are in place to guide the development and implementation of processes and technologies, safeguarding individual rights and promoting public trust.

The Biometrics Concepts and Solutions Report: The future of responsible biometrics is freely available to download from the Biometrics Institute’s website.

For further thought leadership and deeper insights into biometrics trends, explore other resources available from the Biometrics Institute, including the State of Biometrics Report and the Annual Industry Survey.

ENDS

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institution. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post The future of responsible biometrics is here appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

Defending against deepfakes

The conversation addressed key questions surrounding the increasing adoption of multimodal biometrics, driven by the rise of digital identity and ongoing concerns about deepfakes. Participants discussed how to move forward responsibly, ethically, and effectively, stressing that multimodal biometrics offer a crucial solution to strengthen protections as it will be nearly impossible to prevent deepfakes. The discussion highlighted the Three Laws of Biometrics – policy before process before technology – underscoring the need for robust policies and well-defined processes to guide the implementation and use of biometric technologies, to ensure ethical considerations and data privacy are prioritised.

Technology is just one piece of the puzzle

Members discussed how much biometric technology has improved and what a critical role it has for example to solve crime.

“As problems continue to occur with misidentification, we need to remind ourselves of the Three Laws of Biometrics.” said Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute. “The problem with biometrics doesn’t lie with the technology but rather with the human e.g. a detective not following process. A facial recognition output is just a lead, and it needs to be put in context. People need to be better trained and follow the right policies and procedures that are in place. There is a lack of standards for verifying leads.”

Smarter attacks require smarter solutions

Multimodal biometrics offer a powerful solution for securing digital identity. However, implementation requires prioritising ethical considerations, data privacy, and robust security while maintaining user trust and convenience. Biometrics are tools, not silver bullets. We must avoid over-reliance on any single technology and instead embrace responsible innovation through ongoing dialogue and collaboration within the biometrics community.

Next generation multimodal solutions

A solutions insights session showcased cutting-edge developments in multimodal biometrics, with presentations from:

• Joseph Courtesis, Founder and President of JCour Consulting and member of the Biometrics Institute’s Technology Innovation Group

• Javier Barrachina, R&D Director, FacePhi on multi-biometrics for secure and ethical solutions and on applying the most suitable technologies for a user-centric multi-biometric approach that ensures compliance while enhancing privacy and reducing bias.

• Orly Shechtman, Director of Product Management, Corsound AI on voice intelligence technology and how multimodal biometrics can prevent generative AI deepfake fraud.
• Norman Poh, Chief Science Officer, Trust Stamp on multimodal biometrics that are privacy preserving and why multimodal biometric fusion works.
• Daniyal Chughtai, CTO, Facia on the role of multimodal biometrics in face liveness and deepfake detection for stronger identity verification. 

Addressing the challenges and opportunities of generative AI

Members provided valuable perspectives on the diverse applications of multimodal biometrics, ranging from enhancing security and ethical considerations to combating fraud and GenAI deepfakes. The event underscored the importance of collaboration and knowledge sharing within the biometrics industry to address the complex challenges and opportunities presented by this rapidly evolving technology. Discussions included the use of AI to strengthen biometric systems against increasingly sophisticated deepfakes, the critical nature of privacy and data protection, and the need for laws to protect individuals from the misuse of deepfakes. The discussions showed that combining various biometric modalities, such as face, voice, fingerprint, behavioural, and other biometrics, holds significant potential for countering fraud, even in challenging environments.

The event concluded with an interesting proposal: Deepfakes exist, we won’t be able to prevent them. What is the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens from being “deepfaked”? Should they mandate protections and could these include biometrics as a tool for mitigation.

The Institute will continue to debate what good practices, policies and regulation for biometrics should look like. A next On the Pulse Conversation has already been confirmed asking the question: Facial Recognition in a Retail Environment, Clubs, Stadiums and Policing – Should the Same Standards Apply?

Industry trends and insights

The Biometrics Institute’s Annual Industry Survey highlighted the increasing prevalence of multimodal biometrics as the industry seeks enhanced security. The State of Biometrics Report, also delves into these trends, exploring the potential of artificial intelligence as both a fraud enabler and detector.

The Biometrics Institute remains committed to fostering responsible and ethical development and implementation of biometric technologies. To learn more about the Institute’s work and upcoming events, please visit the Institute’s event listing.

ENDS

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institution. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post Securing digital identity with multimodal biometrics appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

Amidst growing concerns about the use of facial recognition technology (FRT), including live facial recognition (LFR), by police and private sector organisations, the Biometrics Institute has released a timely paper, Members’ Viewpoints: The Use of Facial Recognition in Policing.

Arising from the absence of a single law governing police use of LFR in the UK, this paper reflects viewpoints gathered by the Institute from its diverse membership regarding the use of LFR. An urgent need exists for a clearer, consistent framework governing FRT use in public places. Members argue that because public perception links police and private use of FRT, the standards and policies governing their use should be aligned. As the paper highlights “Private sector usage of facial recognition influences public perception. It should match the same standards and policies as police and law enforcement use, as citizens will see the two use cases in the same light.”

The paper also highlights the risk of rejecting FRT outright due to perceived risk, rather than strategically evaluating its potential benefits through robust policy and process development, as illustrated by the Institute’s Three Laws of Biometrics.

Public trust: The cornerstone of responsible FRT

Recognising the transformative potential of FRT, particularly LFR, and acknowledging its inherent risks, the Institute members emphasise the critical need for a balanced approach that prioritises public trust, individual rights, and societal well-being. Missteps in FRT deployment, both domestically and internationally, can erode this trust. The paper highlights members’ viewpoints on the crucial role of informed decision-making, clear communication, and transparency in the development and deployment of this technology. Institute members also note that police have always engaged in facial recognition, albeit through human observation, raising questions about how this compares to machine-assisted facial recognition in terms of accuracy and potential bias.

“Facial recognition technology presents both significant opportunities and complex challenges,” says Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute. “Its potential to enhance security, improve efficiency, and address societal issues is undeniable. However, it is crucial that the deployment of FRT and live facial recognition (LFR) is guided by a strong ethical framework, robust regulatory oversight, and a commitment to transparency and accountability.”

Effective use requires policy: Applying the Three Laws of Biometrics

The Institute’s Three Laws of Biometrics – Policy, Process, and Technology – provide a framework for responsible implementation of biometric systems. Public and private sector organisations considering the use of FRT should develop robust policies to guide its application, adhering to these Three Laws.

Responsible use of biometrics depends on informed decision-making, clear communication, and transparency. Therefore, operations involving FRT, including LFR, should be fully transparent and developed in accordance with the Institute’s Three Laws: Policy must always precede process and technology. Our members have raised the important question of whether private sector facial recognition deployments (e.g., in retail, clubs, and stadiums), which no doubt influence public perception, should adhere to the same standards and policies as law enforcement LFR. This is particularly relevant given the likelihood that citizens will see the use cases in the same light.

The Good Practice Framework also serves as a comprehensive risk management tool, guiding organisations through the strategic planning, procurement, and operation of biometric systems. This framework emphasises a holistic approach that carefully considers ethical, legal, and societal implications alongside technological considerations. It has been developed by Biometrics Institute members including experts and practitioners that bring together hundreds of years of experience with biometrics.

Transparency and accountability necessary to building confidence in FRT

Open and honest communication about how FRT is used, including transparent information on data collection, storage, usage, and safeguards, is crucial. FRT deployment must adhere to strong ethical principles, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and respect for human rights. Rigorous measures must be in place to address algorithmic bias and the potential for discrimination. Robust data protection measures are essential to safeguard individual privacy and prevent unauthorised access or misuse of biometric data. Data minimisation principles should be strictly adhered to, and data retention policies carefully considered. Independent oversight mechanisms, including regular audits and evaluations, are crucial to ensure accountability and address potential misuse of FRT systems.

Focus must extend beyond compliance

Global collaboration is crucial to establish common standards and best practices for FRT deployment. International cooperation can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, best practices, and regulatory frameworks.

Organisations using or planning to use facial recognition technologies should actively engage with the Biometrics Institute and leverage its expertise. This includes embracing independent testing and evaluation to ensure systems are fit for purpose and meet the highest standards of accuracy and fairness, including addressing potential demographic differentials. Members point out that as noted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), top-performing algorithms exhibit minimal such differentials. By prioritising transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement, we can harness the potential of FRT to support law enforcement while upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms. The paper notes ‘Considering algorithm accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. There are many variables that must be considered…. With few exceptions, humans are far more error-prone, and exhibit far more real bias, than the best algorithms.’

The Biometrics Institute is committed to fostering a global dialogue on the responsible use of FRT. Through its engagement, education, and advocacy efforts, the Institute aims to empower stakeholders with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the complexities of FRT deployment and ensure that this powerful technology is used for the benefit of society.

For a deeper dive into the broader implications of facial recognition and LFR, readers are encouraged to participate in upcoming Institute events and to access the full paper, Members’ Viewpoints: The Use of Facial Recognition in Policing which is publicly available on the Biometrics Institute website. Further discussion on the use of FRT among Institute members will continue online at the On the Pulse: Facial Recognition in Public Places meeting on 3 April 2025.

ENDS

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institution. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post Biometrics Institute calls for consistent facial recognition guidance appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

Unprecedented disagreement has emerged within the global biometrics community regarding the intricate relationship between biometrics and artificial intelligence (AI). A new paper from the Biometrics Institute, “Members’ Viewpoints: The Relationship Between Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI)” explores the conflicting perspectives gathered throughout 2024 from members and other experts across the globe. This highlights the complex connections between these two rapidly evolving technologies, revealing a landscape of contrasting views within the field.

Opinion between AI and biometrics is divided

The paper highlights significant disparities in member opinions regarding the relationship between biometrics and AI.

Some members argue that biometrics are inherently intertwined with AI, while others emphasise that many biometric applications exist independently.

“Rarely has the biometrics community disagreed on an issue at this level before,” says Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute, “This paper reflects the conflicting perspectives of our global community on an evolving topic that is critical technology for biometric success. Understanding the relationship between biometrics and AI is essential for responsible innovation and the development of ethical guidelines for their use.

While ISO definitions for both biometrics and AI exist, other important but sometimes non-aligned definitions are prevalent in the public domain. A diverse range of stakeholders, including major technology corporations, civil society organisations, also seek to define AI. The Biometrics Institute offers its own perspective to address this, and the paper resulted in a new entry for “Artificial Intelligence” in the Institute’s Explanatory Dictionary of Biometrics, providing a resource that reflects these various viewpoints for the benefit of members, policymakers, and the general public.

Bridging the gap: Defining biometrics and AI

Defining biometrics and artificial intelligence (AI) presents significant challenges. Existing definitions, such as those from ISO and some governments, are for some audiences too technical, complex, or inaccessible, affecting broader understanding. The Biometrics Institute’s Explanatory Dictionary aims to bridge this gap by capturing the nuances of these terms, considering both formal definitions and how they are perceived by the public – for example, how someone might explain biometrics or AI to a friend. However, there are no universal definitions of biometrics or AI and public perception of these technologies remains unclear, influenced by often-confusing social and traditional media portrayals that frequently fail to distinguish between different types of biometrics and AI, creating a sense of technological ambiguity.

AI’s impact: Enhancing or endangering biometrics

Determining which biometric applications “have” AI can be challenging, as there are many ways that AI interacts with biometric technologies, from aiding in processing as a threat vector to enhancing security measures and general processes. However, AI also presents potential risks, such as vulnerabilities that could be exploited. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into all aspects of technology, identifying and assessing these risks will become more crucial. Ultimately, the increasing complexity of AI integration may make it difficult to distinguish AI components from other elements within a given system.

The relationship between biometrics and AI: Complex and multifaceted

While some argue that biometrics are inherently intertwined with AI, others emphasise their potential for independent use. The inclusion of AI in a specific biometric system is often determined by the application’s requirements, rather than the type of biometric data used. Furthermore, the role of human operators within biometric systems highlights the ongoing debate surrounding human error versus machine error and the varying levels of acceptance for each. This debate is further complicated by differing legislative and liability frameworks.

Regulation and innovation: Challenges will persist

Existing regulations often conflate these two distinct technologies, particularly in the case of face recognition, where the term “AI” is frequently used interchangeably. This ambiguity can lead to overly broad regulations that may inadvertently restrict the development and deployment of beneficial biometric applications. While concerns regarding the potential impact of remote biometric surveillance on civil liberties are valid, some argue that excessive regulation could stifle innovation and hinder the ability to address pressing societal challenges through the use of cutting-edge technological solutions.

The paper’s key findings provide many more insights into the definitions of biometrics & AI, the impact and influence of AI on biometric processes, the relationship between biometrics and AI and regulatory oversight of biometrics and AI.

See Addendum below

For a deeper dive into the broader implications of AI on biometrics, readers are encouraged to consult the Institute’s State of Biometrics Report. The report explores key themes including “To AI or not to AI?” And “Is AI outsmarting us?” With a strong focus on responsible use, and the need to put people first to build public trust in biometrics, the report also explores critical considerations such as the importance of privacy and security and offers a comprehensive perspective on the evolving landscape of these technologies.

The full paper, “Members’ Viewpoints: The Relationship between Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI),” is publicly available. The Institute will continue to discuss this crucial relationship at upcoming events, including the Asia-Pacific Conference in Sydney in May, its US Strategy Forum, and The Impact of AI on Biometric Vulnerabilities Workshop in New York in June.

ENDS

Addendum – Headline Takeaways

Definitions of biometrics & AI

• There are no universal definitions of biometrics or AI and those put forward by ISO and some governments are either too technical, obtuse or are not fully aligned with one another or are hidden behind paywalls and not accessible to the majority of the general public
• The role of the Biometrics Institute’s Dictionary is in capturing the shades of meaning and the different perspectives of key terms such as biometrics and AI – the definitive meaning and the general perceptions e.g. explaining the terms to a neighbour at a BBQ
• Therefore, what is the public’s perception of biometrics and AI? Good, bad or ugly?
• The media (social and traditional) struggle to define, explain and differentiate between biometrics, in all its forms, and AI, in all its forms. A technological soup…

Impact and influence of AI on biometric processes

• Which biometric applications ‘have’ AI? What do we mean by that?
• There are many ways that AI interacts with biometric technologies, to aid processing, as a threat vector, as a protective measure or as an enhancement to general processes. Therefore, do they all present a serious risk, or just some?
• As AI becomes more pervasive in all technologies how will we identify and assess the various risks? Eventually, will we even be able to separate ‘AI’ components from any other element in a system?

 Relationship between biometrics and AI

• There are conflicting opinions among members regarding the relationship between AI and biometrics
• Some say that biometrics are an adjunct to AI technology and as a consequence are always an integral part of it
• Others point out that while biometrics and AI can be used together, in a variety of applications, it is also the case that some biometric applications exist quite separately from AI
• The inclusion of AI in any biometric process is dependent on the use case and not necessarily the biometric modality. Systems using the same biometric modality may or may not employ AI technology subject to the operating requirements
• Human operators working within biometric systems have also been cited as examples of non-AI processing but their continued existence and contribution ​​​​depends heavily on their ability to exceed or even match the future performance of AI software.  There is a heavy dependence on legislative and liability treatment – the criteria appear to be different. There seem to be one set of views around humans making mistakes versus another set that are overly critical of mistakes made by machines.

Regulatory oversight of biometrics and AI

• The terms biometrics (especially the use of live and remote biometric surveillance) and AI have become conflated in some regulation e.g. the EU AI Act
• ‘Face recognition’ and ‘AI’ ​​​​are virtually interchangeable in some contexts. The blanket term “AI” is frequently used when “face recognition” would be the correct term. This might also be applied to other biometrics, especially speaker authentication
• Some regard all remote biometric techniques as restrictive of civil liberties and a threat to basic human rights
• Others consider some aspects of regulation to be excessive because it potentially constrains innovation, entrepreneurship and the ability to deploy cutting edge technological solutions to current societal problems and challenges

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 41 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 18 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institutions. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post The complex relationship between biometrics and artificial intelligence appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

In the wake of the investigation by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) initiated yesterday into the Australian retailer Bunnings using CCTV footage utilising facial recognition technology, the Biometrics Institute emphasises the need for a balanced approach to security solutions in the retail sector. While protecting customer privacy is paramount, retailers also grapple with significant challenges related to theft and staff safety.

Striking a balance between privacy and security

“The Bunnings case underscores the critical importance of data privacy,” says Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute. “However, retailers also have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees and customers. Biometrics can play an important role in helping achieve this, but only if implemented responsibly and in accordance with data protection regulations.”

A question of consent and meaningful stakeholder consultation

The Bunnings use case demonstrates once again the challenge of what consent should look like. Different people will have different views on whether a sign at the entrance of the store is sufficient or big enough. What would be a reasonable alternative that would have the same positive result of protecting staff? Would armed security guards be a better approach?

Meaningful stakeholder consultation, openness, transparency, data security and testing are approaches the Institute promotes as critical factors in whether the use of biometrics is proportionate.

This aligns with the Three Laws of Biometrics, and addresses concerns around misidentification due to potential machine errors and privacy due to the sensitive nature of biometric data.

“Our Good Practice Framework and Privacy Guidelines offer valuable guidance for retailers navigating the complexities of biometrics,” said Moeller. “We encourage retailers to engage with testing laboratories, the Institute, and its diverse community of experts to ensure responsible, ethical, and effective use of biometrics.”

To learn more about responsible biometric implementation in retail and other sectors, watch the On the Pulse Conversation “Beyond the checkout”. Join trusted conversations shaping the future of biometrics by attending the Biometrics Institute’s Showcase Australia 2024 in Canberra on 4 December and engage with industry leaders, regulators, and privacy advocates to ensure the ethical and effective use of biometrics.

ENDS 

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 190 membership organisations from 34 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 10 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institutions. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi. 

The post Call for balanced biometrics discussion after Bunnings privacy breach investigation appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

The Biometrics Institute unveiled its much-anticipated sixth State of Biometrics Report at its annual Congress today. This year’s report dives deep into emerging trends, challenges, and predictions shaping biometric technology and calls out important considerations to be better prepared for the future. With a strong focus on responsible use, and the need to put people first to build public trust in biometrics across six themes.

To build trust in biometrics, we must focus on the Three Laws of Biometrics – prioritise people and be transparent and accountable in policy, process, and technology implementation. Artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced new complexities to this equation. While AI continues to be the flavour of the year, the report underscores the ambiguity surrounding its capabilities and terminology. Not everything labelled AI is AI per se, and not all AI systems are created equal. To address this, the Biometrics Institute has debated an AI discussion paper with its members over the past six months that outlines  the relationship between AI and biometrics, aiming to clarify how they relate to each other.

Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute, emphasises the importance of responsible biometrics adoption and that lessons have been learnt from using biometrics that can be transferred to AI, especially where AI interlinks with biometrics. “While AI and biometrics can both enable and detect fraud, the challenge lies in distinguishing between AI threats that could harm people’s lives and AI tools that can improve them. This highlights the need for regulations that adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technology.”

Facing up to biometric technology

The report acknowledges that currently the dominant modality remains facial biometrics, as indicated in the Institute’s 2024 Industry Survey. However, biometric use cases for identification, which are based on a very mature methodology for testing, measuring, and managing accuracy, should be clearly distinguished from newer use cases intended for other kinds of analysis and classification.

Don’t always trust emotions

The report cautions against relying on emotion detection to assess personality or beliefs. Building trust in technologies requires a thorough understanding of related limitations, particularly where this is a risk of causing negative outcomes or applying bias in decisions. The EU AI Act prohibits the use of emotion detection for certain high-risk applications. For example, the Act restricts the use of emotion detection due to the potential for significant consequences for individuals.

Innovation and privacy, it’s a balancing act

The fourth theme emphasises the need to balance technology innovation with privacy rights. Increased data collection for convenience and customer tracking, coupled with cyber threats, surveillance, and AI use, necessitates stronger privacy frameworks. The report advocates for a holistic approach that incorporates the Three Laws of Biometrics for responsible implementation.

Identity sprawl is a growing challenge

The growing number of online transactions and different digital identities in the online ecosystem poses significant risks, including in relation to data breaches and cyber crime. Our sensitive and personal information is truly out there and out of our control. It is more important than ever for us to question the necessity for collecting and often storing so much data, and to acknowledge the potential consequences of information falling into the wrong hands. Collecting only the minimum necessary personal information is crucial to mitigating these risks, and the time has come for a new paradigm that lets us take control of our own information.

Doing DNA

DNA analysis is becoming increasingly efficient, opening new possibilities for applications such as familial verification, child abduction cases, and identification of human remains. While Rapid DNA offers significant benefits, it also presents challenges and risks. These include the potential for unintended consequences, data management concerns, and ethical and privacy considerations.

“The report is looking to the future, highlighting opportunities and risks that we are likely to face sooner rather than later,” says Paul Cross, Director and Head of the Future Direction Group, Biometrics Institute. “DNA is a topic we have not talked about a lot in recent times even though it has been around for decades for forensic investigations. Now people are disclosing their sensitive personal DNA data to find out about their ancestors, and that bears risks that we need to raise awareness about.”

Biometrics is about people, not technology

The future of biometrics hinges on prioritising people’s privacy and security. And being transparent about the technology, so we all understand who has access to our data, how it is stored, and how it is used. By continuing to build privacy into our solutions and by adopting responsible practices and addressing AI and privacy concerns, we can build a world where biometrics are trusted, beneficial and seamlessly integrated into our daily lives.

The full State of Biometrics Report is available to Institute members. To learn more about the report, follow this link.

ENDS 

About the Biometrics Institute 

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney. 

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 200 membership organisations from 34 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 10 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institutions. 

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics. 

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi. 

The post 2024 State of Biometrics Report is about people first appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

Biometric technology has been a cornerstone of identification and verification for decades. Since 2016 the Institute and its members have advocated for the responsible and ethical use of biometrics, discussing how to harness the technology to protect the vulnerable, especially children, from harmful transactions.

During an On the Pulse Conversation, Institute members discussed the latest advancements in face analysis for age assurance. The meeting emphasised the importance of developing privacy-enhancing technology solutions that can determine a person’s age without requiring their identity.

The conversation began with an update on NIST’s Face Recognition Technology Evaluation (FRTE) 1:1 Verification report, presented by Patrick Grother, Testing Lead at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Following this update, member speakers shared their solutions and perspectives on current developments in face analysis for age assurance. These speakers included:

• Anna Convery-Pelletier, CMO, Jumio, UK
• Faouzy Soilihi, COO, Unissey, France
• Fernanda Sottil, Head of Strategy, Incode, USA
• Robin Tombs, CEO, Yoti, UK

“Face analysis technology has the potential to make a significant impact in protecting vulnerable individuals,” said Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute. However, it’s essential to approach this with caution, continuously test the technology across age groups and populations, and prioritise privacy and ethical considerations.” This aligns with the third Law of Biometrics, which emphasises technology and understanding the algorithms used, datasets and operating environments to balance risk with user experience and ensure a positive experience for all.”

Participants advocate for industry collaboration

Experts agree that by working together, the industry can develop more effective and ethical solutions that balance the need for privacy with the goal of protecting minors. Additionally, the meeting emphasised the importance of educating the public about the evolving landscape of age assurance technologies and providing clear, independent use case scenarios.

Safeguarding the vulnerable

The Biometrics Institute Congress in London (22-23 October, 2024) will delve deeper into this topic, with a session dedicated to harnessing technology to protect the vulnerable. Experts from Meta, Ofcom, NIST, and others will discuss the latest threats, best practices, and how biometrics can safeguard children.

Key topics to be covered during this Congress session will include:

• Navigating the changing landscape
• The role of biometrics in safeguarding vulnerable populations
• Privacy perspectives on data sharing
• Age assurance technologies such as facial analysis

To learn more about the Biometrics Institute’s commitment to responsible and ethical biometrics and to register for the upcoming Congress, visit the website event listing.

About the Biometrics Institute:

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible and ethical use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney.

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 180 membership organisations from 34 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 14 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institutions.

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics.

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post Protecting the vulnerable with biometrics appeared first on Biometrics Institute.

Biometrics Institute members and special guests met for an On the Pulse Conversation to continue the global dialogue on the relationship of artificial intelligence (AI) and biometrics. Building upon discussions held at previous in-person events, the Institute asked over 100 members in this online event to define the relationship between AI and biometrics.

The goal of this dialogue is to create a comprehensive statement that reflects diverse perspectives and arguments. This statement will be presented to members for review at the upcoming Biometrics Institute Congress in London (22-23 October 2024) and Showcase Australia in Canberra (4 December 2024). The final statement will serve as a valuable resource for the Institute’s future communications, fostering greater clarity and understanding around AI and biometrics.

“It is becoming clearer that the question of what is AI and what is biometrics depends very much on the context, potentially breaking down the use of biometrics into processes to determine where AI comes into play” said Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute.

There is already consensus that AI is a tool to enhance biometrics. Explaining to the public what the relationship is, remains a challenge as a technical definition given by the International Standards Organisation is unlikely to be the answer. The conversation will continue and we invite our members and other biometrics experts to provide their perspectives and make this more understandable to the general public.

Respected experts from the field that participated in the conversation included:
Dan Bachenheimer, Director, Biometrics Institute
Brett Feldon, Head Digital Identity Group, Biometrics Institute
Martin George, Member Digital Identity Group, Biometrics Institute
Roger Baldwin, Advisory Council Member, Biometrics Institute

Find out more about the Biometrics Institute’s mission and commitment to responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics.

About the Biometrics Institute:

The Biometrics Institute is the independent and impartial international membership organisation for biometric users and other interested parties. It was established in 2001 to promote the responsible and ethical use of biometrics and has offices in London and Sydney.

The member register which represents a global and diverse multi-stakeholder community now lists over 180 membership organisations from 34 countries. It includes banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, academics and 14 Observers representing United Nations agencies, IGOs and European Union institutions.

The Biometrics Institute connects the global biometrics community. It shares knowledge with its members and key stakeholders and most importantly, develops good practices and thought leadership for the responsible, ethical and effective use of biometrics.

For more information, please email Marco Lombardi.

The post The relationship between AI and biometrics is nuanced and complex appeared first on Biometrics Institute.