Ann Cavoukian and Alex Stoianov have sent me a further explanation of the difference between the “glass slipper effect”, which seems to be a property of all biometric systems, and the much more sinister use of biometric templates as an identifying key.
Kim raises an interesting point, which we would like to address in greater detail:
â€œThis is a step forward in terms of normal usage, but the technology still suffers from the “glass slipper” effect. A given individual's biometric will be capable of revealing a given key forever, while other people's biometrics won't. So I don't see that it offers any advantage in preventing future mining of databases for biometric matches. Perhaps someone will explain what I'm missing.â€
Let us consider a not-so-distant future scenario. When the use of biometrics grows, an ordinary person will be enrolled in various biometrically controlled databases, such as travel documents, driver licenses, health care, access control, banking, shopping, etc. The current (i.e. conventional, non-BE) biometric systems can use the same biometric template for all of them. The template becomes the ultimate unique identifier of the person. This is where the biometric data mining comes into effect: the different databases, even if some of them are anonymous, may be linked together to create comprehensive personal profiles for all the users. To do this, no fresh biometric sample is even required. The linking of the databases can be done offline using template-to-template matching, in a very efficient one-to-many mode. The privacy implications explode at this point.
Contrast that to BE: it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to engage in the linkage of biometric databases. BE does not allow a template-to-template matching — the tool commonly used in conventional biometrics. In each BE database, a user has different keys bound to his biometric. Those templates cannot be matched against each other. You need a real biometric sample to do so. Moreover, this matching is relatively slow and, therefore, highly inefficient in one-to-many mode. For example, running a single image against 10,000,000 records in just one BE database could take 0.1 sec x 10,000,000 = 1,000,000 sec = 11.5 days.
Kim is basically correct in stating that if an individual's real biometric image was somehow obtained, then this “glass slipper” could be used to search various databases for all the different PINs or keys that “fit” and, accordingly, construct a personal transaction profile of the individual concerned, using data mining techniques. But you would first have to obtain a â€œsatisfactoryâ€ real image of the correct biometric and or multiple biometrics used to encrypt the PIN or key. All of the PINs or keys in the databases can and should be unique (the privacy in numbers argument) — as such, if an individual's actual biometric could somehow be accessed, only an ad hoc data mining search could be made, accessing only one entry (which would represent an individual privacy breach, not a breach of the entire database).
However, with BE, the actual biometric (or template derived from that biometric) is never stored â€“ a record of it doesnâ€™t exist. Without the actual biometric, data mining techniques would be useless because there would be no common template to use as one's search parameter. As mentioned, all the biometrically encrypted PINs or keys in the databases would be unique. Furthermore, access to the individual's biometric and associated transaction data would be far more difficult if a biometrically encrypted challenge/response method is employed.
In contrast, current biometric methods use a common (the same) biometric template for an individualâ€™s transactions and, accordingly, can be used as the search parameter to construct personal profiles, without access to the real biometric. This presents both a privacy and security issue because not only could profiles be constructed on an ad hoc basis, but each template in a database can be used to construct profiles of multiple individuals without access to their real biometric. We thus believe that this alone makes biometric encryption far superior to standard current biometric methods.
Ann Cavoukian and Alex Stoianov
I had not understood that you can so easily correlate conventional biometric templates across databases. I had thought the “fuzziness” of the problem would make it harder than it apparently is. This raises even more red flags about the use of conventional biometrics.
Despite the calculation times given for BE matching, I'm still not totally over my concern about what I have called the glass slipper effect. It would be a useful area of research to find ways of making the time necessary to calculate the BE match orders of magnitude longer than is currently the case. If today it takes 11.5 days to search through 10,000,000 records, it will only take 4 hours in ten years. By then the kids we've been talking about will be 16. Won't that make it less than a minute by the time they are 26? Or a quarter of a second when they're in their mid thirties?