Tag Archives: NGI

Help Me Stop Mandatory Biometric ID!

Facial Recognition black white

Kaye Beach

Dec. 9, 2013

My name is Kaye Beach.  If you don’t know me, here is the short story;  I’m an ordinary woman, a Christian, a mom, and a wife.  I was a small business woman for about 20 years but for the last six years I have been an activist with one mission – to stop mandatory biometric ID.

I have filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma to challenge the requirement of my biometric data in exchange for a state driver’s license.  I believe that this requirement is a violation of my right to religious freedom and my right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures both of which are protected under Oklahoma law.  (You can read my Motion for Summary Judgment here)

Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.

The simple truth is that all of us are being enrolled into a single, global system of identification and control that links our bodies through biometrics to our ability to buy sell and travel (and more!)

My lawsuit is based on the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and Article II Sec. 30 of the Oklahoma constitution, our state’s reiteration of the Fourth Amendment which says we have a right to be free of searches and seizures without just cause. When it comes to biometric ID, It makes no difference whether you are a Christian who is preaching the Gospel, an activist protesting injustice, or merely an ordinary person trying to work and feed your family – mandatory biometric ID means ultimate control by government.

Information is power.

As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.

In the US, enrollment is being accomplished largely through state driver’s license and ID cards.  For example, the current Immigration reform bill seeks to build upon the existing DMV biometric databases and use our biometrics to control our ability to work for a living.

And as Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has testified,

‘The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) database represents the most robust effort to introduce and streamline multimodal biometrics collection.  FBI has stated it needs “to collect as much biometric data as possible . . . and to make this information accessible to all levels of law enforcement, including International agencies.” Accordingly, it has been working “aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.”’

The state biometric DMV databases are the foundation for corporate and government tracking and control. This is why I am fighting the state’s mandatory biometric ID but I need your help in order to win.

The Constitutional Alliance writes, “Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”

My lawsuit is challenging the compulsory nature of biometric ID.  I want to know – do we have the right NOT to be enrolled?  That is the question that has not been asked, that must be asked in a court of law, and this is why I am asking for your help.  We have one more deposition to complete and then the case should proceed on to the courtroom.  My legal representation is not free and my case will only go forward if people are willing to support it.  I need to raise $20,000 for my legal fees in order to keep my agreement with my legal team and keep my case moving forward.

There are no longer any technical or political barriers to implementing this unprecedented system of global identification and financial control. The only obstacle now is you and I. 

If you want to help me win this first, crucial fight against mandatory biometric enrollment I ask you to please consider contributing whatever you can, to my legal fund.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Kaye Beach

Follow the developments in my legal case at http://constitutionalalliance.org

Contact me at AxxiomForLiberty@gmail.com

Friday on AxXiom For Liberty Live! Miles Kinard, Author, American Stasi: Fusion Centers and Domestic Spying.

a4l 55

Kaye Beach

****Show Notes Posted Below*************

March, 21, 2013

This Friday on AxXiom For Liberty with Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen 6-8pm Central – Miles Kinard author of the magazine exposé, American Stasi: Fusion Centers and Domestic Spying.

Listen Live-LogosRadioNetwork.com  click ‘Listen’ then choose your Internet speed.  Logos Radio Network is a listener supported, free speech radio network and your contributions are vital but you do not have to be a subscriber in order to hear the show.
american stasi

“This is no longer just a ‘surveillance state.’  We are on the fast track to a police state.” -Miles Kinard, interview with the Spingola Files, Dec. 2012

We are very excited to introduce you to Miles Kinard, researcher and author of the magazine exposé, American Stasi: Fusion Centers and Domestic Spying.

What is a Fusion Center?

The principal role of the fusion center is to compile, analyze, and disseminate criminal/terrorist information and intelligence and other information (including, but not limited to, threat, public safety, law enforcement, public health, social services, and public works) to support efforts to anticipate, identify, prevent, and/or monitor criminal/terrorist activity.   http://www.scribd.com/doc/19251638/Fusion-Center-Guidelines-Law-Enforcement

I jumped on Mr. Kinard’s work on fusion centers last year when it was released and found his writing on the subject to be extremely lucid and his research, impeccable.  You can get it for a song and instant download at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/American-Stasi-Centers-Domesitc-ebook/dp/B006YZQFL8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327104356&sr=8-1

Miles Kinard’s work explores these secretive 9/11 domestic intelligence units that are considered key by the Department of Homeland Security in its quest to know everything about everybody all the time.

There is at least one of these relatively new intelligence centers located in every state (74 78 total) and precious little attention has been given to them by the mainstream media.

Secrecy, the waste of taxpayer dollars and especially the potential civil liberties violations were highlighted by Kinard’s work.  All of this and more was subsequently confirmed by a two-year bipartisan investigation by the U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which released a 107 page report last October.

Tonight we will get a chance to talk to Miles about the state fusion centers as part of what he refers to as the “Surveillance Industrial Complex” in general and discuss the implications of these state-based (but federally controlled) spy centers that he identified in his exposé .

Join us – Your questions or comments are always welcome!

CALL IN LINE 512-646-1984

 *******************SHOW NOTES**************************

Events:

common core not ok

Restore Oklahoma Public Education (R.O.P.E.)

Common Core is NOT OK!” Events

  • Wed., March 27th:   Common Core is NOT OK! Rally State Capitol, 2nd floor rotunda (Supreme Court hallway), Noon  Click here for rally info.
  • Thurs., March 28th:  State Board of Education meeting Oliver Hodge Educ. Bldg., room I-20, 9:30 a.m., Meeting instructions.

“The Common Core State Standards present a takeover of public education by a small group of individuals. This takeover will change the way that teachers teach, parents interact with their schools due to loss of local control, and present students with a narrow range of studies and increased standardized testing. Oklahomans must maintain local control over public education, therefore, we reject the Common Core State Standards.”  Read More from ROPE

FERPA, Amendemnts

rosakoare

April 5 & 6, 2013, Tulsa 9.12 will host a symposium on “Understanding Agenda 21.” Rosa Koire, author of “Behind the Green Mask” and founding member of Democrats Against Agenda 21, will be one of our many speakers. If you would like to learn more about Agenda 21 and how it affects you, please plan on joining us.

Understanding Agenda 21 – A Symposium  (You can RSVP on Facebook but Registration must be received by April 1st  REGISTER HERE

Referenced:

Testimony of Jennifer Lynch,  Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF), Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, July 18, 2012

What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties 

The Militarization of U.S. Domestic Policing

 Abigail R. Hall and Christopher J. Coyne
Abstract
This paper develops the political economy of the militarization of domestic policing.
We analyze the mechanisms through which the “protective state”—where the government utilizes its monopoly on force to protect citizens’ rights—devolves into a “predatory state” which undermines the rights of the populace. We apply our theory to the U.S.,where we trace the(failed) historical attempts to establish constraints nto separate the military functions and policing functions of government.
In doing so we emphasize the role of crises in the form of perpetual wars—the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror”—in the accelerated militarization of domestic policing.

Miss a show?  Get the Podcast!  Archives here

Other ways to listen;

Listen to Logos Radio Network on SHOUTcast

iTunes-AxXiom For Liberty and other great Logos Radio Network shows can be accessed by iPhone and iPad on iTunes!  Just search iTunes for “AxXiom For Liberty” or “Logos Radio Network”

The FBI is Aggressively Building Biometric Database, International in Scope

fbi ngi

Kaye Beach

Dec. 26, 2011

FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI)

According to the FBI it is official FBI policy to collect “as much biometric data as possible within information technology systems” and to “work aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.” link

“We need to recognize the change that is occurring in society, Society is taking away the privilege of anonymity.”  – Morris Hymes, Head of the ID Assurance Directorate at the Defense Department.

With the FBI’s continuance of their Next Generation Identification project, the United States is rushing headlong into Mr. Hymes’ vision.

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S.334 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=514&invol=334), 357 (1995)

Biometrics is enables mass surveillance systems to become unbearably intimate.

“As we learn to link biometrics to biographic, geospatial, social networks and other forms of data, we can develop patterns of activities for both individuals and organizations resulting in tactical and strategic situational awareness and intelligence advantage.”

Biometric Enabled Intelligence- The New Frontier in Biometrics by Kimberly Del Greco, 2009 Biometrics Consortium Conference.

Mrs. Del Greco initiated two high profile, multi-million dollar development efforts: “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), which will expand biometric and criminal history capabilities; and “Biometric Interoperability”, which will ensure information sharing between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other key biometric-based systems within the Federal Government and international partners. more

FBI Next Generation ID overview ppt

Facts about NGI

-In 2008 Lockheed Martin won a 1 billion dollar contract for the NGI.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aU8dsjtMXgdo

-NGI will be fully operational in 2014

-This database is international in scope.  Biometrics collected by government officials from is already done so using international standards for the purpose of international sharing.

-The FBI will share data with more than 18,000 local, state, federal, and international agencies. link

-State DMV databases are one of the desired sources of biometrics for the FBI.

FBI Facial Recognition Initiatives

-The database is NOT being built from the biometrics of just criminals or legitimate suspects.  The NGI consolidates two existing databases of biometric information (one from the FBI and one from the Dept. Of Homeland Security) both of which were designed to be independent of each other and not interoperable. The FBI database, IAFIS, being merged with NGI, contains biometric data obtained from civil sources such as attorney bar applications, federal and state employees, and from people who work with children or the elderly so perfectly innocent if not model citizens also are included in the mix.   link

Link

-The FBI intends to supplement the biometric data is already has access to with biometric data from “seized systems” and “open sources”.  That means pictures that are on the internet or ones collected by existing CCTV surveillance cameras.

-The NGI currently contains palmprints, scars, marks, tattoos, voices, irises, and facial measurements but designed to collect even more types of biometrics, such as DNA, in the future.  (Can you imagine being stopped for a traffic violation and on the spot having a DNA sample taken, tested and used to pull up volumes of information about you?  Well, they can. )

-The FBI’s Next Generation ID violates the 1974 Privacy Act provisions which require that federal agencies maintain the records accurately and sets limitation on how and with whom the records can be shared.  The FBI claims that it is exempt from these provisions.

-The FBI has already deployed handheld biometric collection devices to police officers to help build the NGI database.

 And a mobile tool – the Biometric Identification (B-iD) Tools Program – will allow FBI agents to capture and access database photos, fingerprints, iris prints and other biographical data in the field.http://animetrics.com/the-fbis-next-generation-identification-program-helping-law-enforcement-track-and-share-suspect-information-across-state-lines/

March 21, 2011

FBI center takes on $1 billion ID project

Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects’ fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center.

“It’s a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody,” Morris said.

http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/201103211014

Secure Communities, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program collects the biometrics of any person any time that a criminal background check is done.  The purpose, we are told, is to identify those immigrants that are in the U.S. illegally.   That information goes into the  the FBI’s NGI database.  Secure Communities serves the greater goal of the FBI to collect the biometric and personal data of as many individuals as possible in order to populate their growing Next Generation ID database.

“The FBI describes S-Comm as “the first of a number of biometric interoperability systems” that merge into NGI.3 The FOIA documents show that the FBI, and not DHS, was the first federal agency to call for mandatory implementation of S-Comm. The documents further reveal the FBI’s fear that any opt-out for SComm might lead states to rightfully question their participation in NGI.”

“. . .newly disclosed documents expose the FBI’s goal to accumulate a large biometric database that far exceeds its current fingerprint collection, extending to the collection and retention of iris scans and digital photographs to support automated facial recognition scans in real-time.1 NGI aims to impose an automated process linking state and local databases with a federal government biometric data warehouse.”

Read more about Secure Communites and Next Generation ID

States were told they could ‘opt-out’ of the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities but in reality states were only allowed to “opt-out” of receiving information back from federal agencies.  They are still required to send the information collected on individual to the federal government.   The states are being forced to funnel this personal information to DHS and the FBI to be used for purposes entirely out of the scope of Secure Communities.

States can’t opt out of Secure Communities program

The Obama administration has told governors the fingerprint-sharing program that targets criminals in the country illegally does not need their approval to operate in their states.

In Aug. of 2010 the state of Minnesota asserted that the personal and biometric data collected by the state was the property and responsibility of the state and that it was not to be used by the federal government for purposes not expressly permitted by the submitting law enforcement agencies.  The Department of Homeland Security in response to Congressional Questions for the Record that states have no choice about how personal biometric data was used or shared once they shared that data with the federal government.

If it is not somehow perfectly obvious how threatening NGI is to ordinary, law abiding individuals, everyone that has an encounter with law enforcement (as well as those who don’t!) and have their biometric data is collected (not necessarily just those who are arrested) will be included in this grand database which will enable the creation of incredibly detailed dossiers on the population and at a distance tracking and monitoring of individuals not accused or suspected of any crime.  We can expect increasing numbers of  encounters, such as on the street or traffic stops with police using handheld biometric devices for the purpose of feeding the federal government’s insatiable appetite for more and more personal information.

Facial recognition – Jokesville says UK’s “Great Bane”

Kaye Beach

Oct 10, 2011

Facial Recognition-“The technology doesn’t work”

David Moss, in response to my info dump on the FBI and their plan to unleash facial recognition on a national scale, provides us with some absolutely critical information and some invaluable advice as well.

In case you are wondering, David Moss is an IT Specialist, Researcher and longtime campaigner against the UK’s biometric ID scheme.  He was a guest on AxXiom For Liberty last April when he detailed for us some BIG problems with biometric identification that we often overlook in our outrage over the loss of our privacy and freedoms.  (Listen to that show here.)

He is the “Great Bane” of government waste and corruption, in my estimation and I have to confess that when I grow up(figuratively speaking, of course) I want to be just like David Moss.

David’s work proved that India’s plan to bio metrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people is bound to fail.  India’s ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives

David says;

“Once your students have finished Facial Recognition 101, the better ones will have understood that the technology doesn’t work.”

And

“This roll-out is an opportunity. Not a threat. Grab it with both hands, embrace it and enjoy it”

This information was too important to leave parked in the comments section so I am re-posting his comments in their entirety.  Take note activists, this is a priceless lesson from a real pro!


Facial recognition – Jokesville 1

Kaye, thank you for the refresher course.

Please find herewith further material for the refresher course.

Once your students have finished Facial Recognition 101, the better ones will have understood that the technology doesn’t work.

Let’s be clear. Don’t let’s mix up our biometrics. They’re not all the same.

DNA, irisprints, traditional fingerprinting – they’re all biometrics worth worrying about from the point of view of privacy. But two-dimensional facial recognition? That’s what Aliya Sternstein’s article is about. That’s the new service being launched nationwide. Forget it. It doesn’t work. It’s jokesville.

At last the suppliers of 2-D facial recognition technology have been lured into a very public demonstration of the reliability or otherwise of their wares. They’ve never had to submit to this discipline before. They’ve never provided any warranties. Now they may find themselves twisting in the wind, hung out to dry, publicly humiliated and exposed as charlatans, mountebanks, snake oil salesmen, astrologers who convince only the simple-minded.

This roll-out is an opportunity. Not a threat. Grab it with both hands, embrace it and enjoy it.

continued …

Facial recognition – Jokesville 2

May I suggest a five-point plan to take advantage of the FBI’s proposed NGI trial?

The idea is to get the trial results widely published so that everyone can see whether they should share the vendors’ confidence in their own products. If not, the FBI can safely drop the technology, without impugning crime-fighting, and public money can be better invested elsewhere (or left with the public, who probably know better how to invest it).

1. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “FBI officials would not disclose the name of the search product or the vendor”. Time for a freedom of information (FOI) request. This is public money being spent here. No doubt the FBI and the vendor have a mass of confidentiality agreements protecting intellectual property and future commercial interests. Fine. But the public have rights, too. Step #1. Get the names of the vendor and the product being used. There are a lot of people involved in this trial. The FBI, NIST, law enforcement in Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina, Lockheed Martin and, no doubt, others. If FOI doesn’t succeed in getting the names, they’ll leak out from one of those sources.

2. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “NGI’s incremental construction seems to align with the White House’s push to deploy new information technology in phases so features can be scrapped if they don’t meet expectations or run over budget”. Good. So this roll-out is in the nature of a technology trial. Technology trials can fail. That’s the whole point. That’s scientific method. And if the trial fails, the “features can be scrapped” – that’s what the White House wants. In line with that, step #2, pressure must be brought to bear on the FBI/NGI to run this like a proper trial. The protocol must be published. The trial will be run like this … these are the acceptance criteria … results will be collated like so … and if they don’t meet the criteria, the “features” have failed and will be dropped and no more public money will be wasted on them. This is the upright, responsible, businesslike way to assess the technology. You won’t be putting the FBI on the spot, they won’t have their back to the wall. Having met James A. Loudermilk II of the FBI, I have no doubt that this is exactly the way the FBI would expect to run this trial.

3. Aliya Sternstein’s article says the FBI “gained insights on the technique’s accuracy by studying research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology”. Good. Step #3 – get on to NIST. A long time ago, NIST produced a report on the Face Recognition Vendor Test 2006, NISTIR 7408. They must have more up to date reports, but you could start with this one.

3.1 NISTIR 7408 gets you a list of people to contact – P. Jonathon Phillips, W. Todd Scruggs, Alice J. O’Toole, Patrick J. Flynn, Kevin W.
Bowyer, Cathy L. Schott, Matthew Sharpe. These people are proper academics. They trade on their reputation. They protect their reputation. They speak the truth.

3.2 It gets you a list of vendors – Cognitec, Identix*, Neven Vision, Rafael, Sagem*, SAIT, Toshiba, Tsinghua U(niversity), Viisage* (p.9).

3.3 It gets you a list of the test databases used (p.35). There are five for 2-D facial recognition. Four of them have less than 350 people on them. Those samples are too small to tell anything.

3.4 So we’re only interested in the results of the database with 36,000 people on. The low-resolution images there were gathered under controlled conditions. You can do that with prisoners (which is who NIST and others tend to get their large volume data from). You can’t with mugshots of non-cooperative suspects. The results are in Figure 20 (p.46). Figure 20 measures reliability at three levels – 1 false accept in 100, 1 in a 1,000 and 1 in 10,000. Given that the word is “this is not something where we want to collect a bunch of surveillance film and enter it in the system … that would be useless to us. It would be useless to our users”, presumably the FBI will use 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 10,000. At those levels, false rejects vary between about 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. Jokers love quoting that bit on p.2 where it says “The FRVT 2006 results from controlled still images and 3D images document an order-of-magnitude improvement in recognition performance over the FRVT 2002″. Some technologies saw an improvement. But not 2-D low resolution facial recognition, that’s shown no improvement at all.

4. Back in 2009, NIST advised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on the biometrics to use for their Aadhaar scheme. As a result, India has adopted flat print fingerprints and irisprints to identify their 1.2 billion people. Not facial recognition. That has been dropped. It isn’t good enough. And if it isn’t good enough for India, how can it be good enough for the US? Step #4 – get on to NIST again, and maybe the UIDAI.

5. The business schools of the world also tested facial recognition to try to stop “plants” taking exams on behalf of less gifted students. They dropped it. They tested flat print fingerprinting and dropped that. It doesn’t work well enough. Now they’re testing palm veinprints. If facial recognition isn’t good enough for the business schools, how can it be good enough for the FBI? Step #5 – get on to GMAC.

———-

* all now owned by Safran Group under the umbrella of Morpho.

Facial recognition – Jokesville 3

Some miscellaneous points:

1. The false accept rates mentioned above range from 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000. What does that mean? It means that the mugshot submitted by Florida law enforcement, or whoever, will falsely match between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000 of the 10 million mugshots on the FBI’s database. That means the enquiry will return between 1,000 and 100,000 possible matches. The number can be reduced by excluding the dead people still on the FBI database. But Florida’s still going to have an awful lot of mugshots to look through. It may not be worth it.

2. The false reject rates mentioned above range between 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. So between 5% and 18% of the Florida mugshots submitted will be falsely rejected – i.e. there is a match on file but the software doesn’t find it. Again, it may just not be worth it. Especially as those figures (5%, 18%) were obtained in a lab test, doing just a computer run. In the live, operational environment, the false reject rate is likely to be much higher.

3. (A note for students on Facial recognition 102. When you’re doing a lab test, you should speak about “false match rates” and “false non-match rates”. When you’re doing a field trial, voluntary and co-operative subjects in a simulation of the real environment, you should talk about “false accept rates” and “false reject rates”. And when you’re in the live, operational environment, it’s “false positive identification rates” and “false negative identification rates”.)

4. Professor John Daugman, an American working at Cambridge University, England, and the man who invented irisprinting reckons that there’s no hope for facial recognition, not with big populations, and precious little for flat print fingerprinting. “Irises have about 249 degrees-of-freedom, … whereas faces have only about 20 degrees-of-freedom (independent dimensions of variation), and fingerprints have about 35″. There’s just not enough randomness in faces to make facial recognition useful. Don’t let the FBI spend too much money on this trial before calling it a day.

5. There will be objections to the points made in these three posts. Mr Moss doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mr Moss confuses 1-to-1 matching with 1-to-many. Mr Moss knows perfectly well that the job the FBI hope to do with this trial is quite different to the UIDAI’s Aadhaar scheme. These objections sound good. But pursue them before accepting them. The objector may not know what he or she is talking about. Mr Moss, unsurprisingly, thinks he does know what he is talking about.

6. Some traps the FBI may like to avoid.

6.1 Back in 1998, the police in the London Borough of Newham had been testing Visionics face recognition technology, claimed by the vendors to have driven crime off the streets of Newham, yeah right!, and were quoted as follows in New Scientist magazine: “… 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”. Why that word “admitted”? Because the police had been lured into promoting the success of the technology, they got themselves on the hook, and then – quite properly – they had to get themselves off. The FBI will not want to make the same, embarrassing mistake.

6.2 Here in the UK we use ePassport technology at 10 of our airports to try to get people through security quickly. If your face matches the biometric template in your passport, you’re through, otherwise not. Does this facial recognition technology work? Sometimes the UK Border Agency say it does, no qualifications. Other times they say it’s still under trial. In the end, we settled on the latter. Lin Homer, the Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency in February 2010 wrote to me saying: “We plan to evaluate all 10 sites. Evaluation of Manchester gave us enough confidence to proceed to expand the trial. We are aware that different environments may impact the use of facial recognition technology, we therefore wished to determine and compare results from more diverse airport environments to ensure the technology is robust and consistent”. The Independent Chief Inspector of UKBA inspected Manchester Airport in May 2010, three months after that letter, he described a number of problems with the ePassport technology and then said at para.5.29 “We could find no overall plan to evaluate the success or otherwise of the facial recognition gates at Manchester Airport and would urge the Agency to do so soon as possible”. Oops.