Pseudo Identities Based on Fingerprint Characteristics

This paper presents the integrated project TURBINE which is funded under the EU 7th research framework programme. This research is a multi-disciplinary effort on privacy enhancing technology, combining innovative developments in cryptography and fingerprint recognition. The objective of this project is to provide a breakthrough in electronic authentication for various applications in the physical world and on the Internet. On the one hand it will provide secure identity verification thanks to fingerprint recognition. On the other hand it will reliably protect the biometric data through advanced cryptography technology. In concrete terms, it will provide the assurance that (i) the data used for the authentication, generated from the fingerprint, cannot be used to restore the original fingerprint sample, (ii) the individual will be able to create different "pseudo-identities" for different applications with the same fingerprint, whilst ensuring that these different identities (and hence the related personal data) cannot be linked to each other, and (iii) the individual is enabled to revoke an biometric identifier (pseudo-identity) for a given application in case it should not be used anymore

Transparent Face Recognition in the Home Environment

The BASIS project is about the secure application of transparent biometrics in the home environment. Due to transparency and home-setting requirements there is variance in appearance of the subject. An other problem which needs attention is the extraction of features. The quality of the extracted features is not only depending on the proper preprocessing of the input data but also on the suitability of the extraction algorithm for this problem. Possible approaches to address problems due to transparency requirements are the use of active appearance models in face recognition, smart segmentation, multi-camera solutions and tracking. In this paper an inventory of problems and possible solution will be give

Enhancing the Senses: How Technological Advances Shape Our View of the Law

This memorial lecture was given at West Virginia University, which houses, among other relevant programs, the Biometric Knowledge Center. The lecture surveys the application of a variety of legal topics to biometrics. Covered areas include basic research funding choices, freedom of speech, association and religion, search and seizure, and informational privacy

Binary Biometrics: An Analytic Framework to Estimate the Bit Error Probability under Gaussian Assumption

In recent years the protection of biometric data has gained increased interest from the scientific community. Methods such as the helper data system, fuzzy extractors, fuzzy vault and cancellable biometrics have been proposed for protecting biometric data. Most of these methods use cryptographic primitives and require a binary representation from the real-valued biometric data. Hence, the similarity of biometric samples is measured in terms of the Hamming distance between the binary vector obtained at the enrolment and verification phase. The number of errors depends on the expected error probability Pe of each bit between two biometric samples of the same subject. In this paper we introduce a framework for analytically estimating Pe under the assumption that the within-and between-class distribution can be modeled by a Gaussian distribution. We present the analytic expression of Pe as a function of the number of samples used at the enrolment (Ne) and verification (Nv) phases. The analytic expressions are validated using the FRGC v2 and FVC2000 biometric databases

THE DANGERS OF FIGHTING TERRORISM WITH TECHNOCOMMUNITARIANISM: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF FREE EXPRESSION, EXPLORATION, AND UNMONITORED ACTIVITY IN URBAN SPACES

Part I of this article examines how some commentators can plausibly argue that constitutional liberty and privacy protections do not protect the individual liberty and privacy that modern individuals have come to expect in many public spaces, particularly in urban environments. Constitutional liberalism, this section points out, makes this question a difficult one, because it is marked by scrupulous neutrality towards different visions of “the good life.” In other words, the constitutional order does not condemn those who choose a communitarian way of life and favor those who prefer individualism. Rather, it tolerates both of these (and other) preferences about one’s social and cultural environment, and leaves citizens free to opt for the life of their choice. Part II suggests that it is difficult to make sense of our modern jurisprudence of First Amendment rights, especially as they relate to anonymous communication and association on the Internet and elsewhere, unless one allows room in our constitutional law for a jurisprudence that “captures” and preserves social incarnations of liberty and privacy that were not yet in existence when theConstitution was drafted. Therefore, it is possible for for courts and others to find that freedom-enabling institutions that did not exist earlier in American history, and might cease to exist in the future, deserve certain constitutional protection while they are here. Part III explains that like the virtual liberation offered by the Internet, city life offered and continues to offer an invaluable refuge for substantial expressive activity and intellectual exploration that would be far more elusive without this type of urban existence. It provides individuals with an incredibly rich bazaar of ideas, and allows them to browse among these deas, substantially free from outside monitoring or control. While First Amendment law does not single out urban environments for protection, it protects such environments indirectly by preserving certain opportunities that are characteristic of modern urban life: opportunities for giving speeches to large crowds, for confronting strangers with ideas they may find unfamiliar or provocative, or for speaking or gathering information in the anonymity of the crowd

Algorithmic Jim Crow

This Article contends that current immigration- and security-related vetting protocols risk promulgating an algorithmically driven form of Jim Crow. Under the “separate but equal” discrimination of a historic Jim Crow regime, state laws required mandatory separation and discrimination on the front end, while purportedly establishing equality on the back end. In contrast, an Algorithmic Jim Crow regime allows for “equal but separate” discrimination. Under Algorithmic Jim Crow, equal vetting and database screening of all citizens and noncitizens will make it appear that fairness and equality principles are preserved on the front end. Algorithmic Jim Crow, however, will enable discrimination on the back end in the form of designing, interpreting, and acting upon vetting and screening systems in ways that result in a disparate impact

CHORUS Deliverable 2.2: Second report - identification of multi-disciplinary key issues for gap analysis toward EU multimedia search engines roadmap

After addressing the state-of-the-art during the first year of Chorus and establishing the existing landscape in multimedia search engines, we have identified and analyzed gaps within European research effort during our second year. In this period we focused on three directions, notably technological issues, user-centred issues and use-cases and socio- economic and legal aspects. These were assessed by two central studies: firstly, a concerted vision of functional breakdown of generic multimedia search engine, and secondly, a representative use-cases descriptions with the related discussion on requirement for technological challenges. Both studies have been carried out in cooperation and consultation with the community at large through EC concertation meetings (multimedia search engines cluster), several meetings with our Think-Tank, presentations in international conferences, and surveys addressed to EU projects coordinators as well as National initiatives coordinators. Based on the obtained feedback we identified two types of gaps, namely core technological gaps that involve research challenges, and “enablers”, which are not necessarily technical research challenges, but have impact on innovation progress. New socio-economic trends are presented as well as emerging legal challenges