Business Consultancy Services Ltd
|
|||
Open letter Andrew
Potter Chief
Executive Officer National
Car Parks Limited |
17
August 2010
|
||
Dear
Mr Potter Biometrics – facial recognition and CCTV
I refer to the Daily Mail article[1]
published on 7 August 2010, ‘Big Brother facial recognition cameras being
rolled out in NCP car parks’. Biometrics based on facial geometry have a long history
of uninterrupted failure[2].
When the UK Passport Service[3]
tested these biometrics back in 2006, 31% of able-bodied participants
in the trial could not be recognised by the computer and, for the
disabled, that figure rose to 52% – everyone would have done better
to toss a coin. Those were the failure rates about five minutes after
the participants’ photographs were taken and registered on the database.
According to the national Physical Laboratory[4],
once a picture is more than two months old, “even under relatively
good conditions, face recognition fails to approach the required
performance”. The UK Border Agency have been testing smart gates
at airports to see if biometrics systems can match people to the
photograph in their ePassport. UKBA have not published any results
from their tests. The BBC[5]
have, though, and so have the Daily Telegraph[6],
[7],
who found that in the opinion of one expert, this technology could
not distinguish between Osama bin Laden and Winona Ryder. The tests above have all been conducted using high
quality cameras in well-lit areas with co-operative subjects. When
it comes to CCTV in a car park, of course, or in a high street,
the situation is quite different, as the police found in the London
Borough of Newham[8]
back in 1998: Airport security isn't
the only use for face-recognition software: it has been put through
its paces in other settings, too. One example is “face in the crowd”
on-street surveillance, made notorious by a trial in the London
Borough of Newham. Since 1998, some of the borough's CCTV cameras
have been feeding images to a face-recognition system supplied by
Visionics, and Newham has been cited by the company as a success
and a vision of the future of policing. But in June this year, the
police admitted to The Guardian newspaper that the Newham system
had never even matched the face of a person on the street to a photo
in its database of known offenders, let alone led to an arrest. 1998 is a long time ago now. More recently, in 2007,
the German federal police investigated facial recognition using
CCTV. According to their report[9]: The German Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) found biometric visual-image search
systems not
advanced enough
to be used by the police to search for persons.
BKA presented research results of its visual-image search systems
project. Given the present state of the technology the system was
unfit to be deployed, they concluded.
“... not advanced enough, ... unfit to be deployed,
... not a suitable system, ... immature technology, ...” – it is
likely that the results of NCP’s trial will show that the technology
doesn’t work well enough to increase security in car parks. So what? In that case, you could either thank the biometrics
suppliers, recommend that they get the product right before wasting
any more of NCP’s time and money, and keep the results quiet. Or
you could perform a public service and publish your trial results
through the Daily Mail, or whoever. That might stop the Home Office wasting any
more of our money on this laughably unreliable technology. And that
could mean good publicity for NCP and warm feelings for the brand
from a grateful public. Yours sincerely David Moss cc Jaya Narain, Daily Mail [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300810/Big-Brother-facial-recognition-cameras-rolled-NCP-car-parks.html [4] http://dematerialisedid.com/PDFs/feasibility_study031111_v2.pdf,
please see p.15 [7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5110402/Airport-face-scanners-cannot-tell-the-difference-between-Osama-bin-Laden-and-Winona-Ryder.html
|