Entries Tagged "biometrics"
Page 6 of 17
Face Recognition by Thermal Imaging
New research can identify a person by reading their thermal signature in complete darkness and then matching it with ordinary photographs.
Research paper:
Abstract: Cross modal face matching between the thermal and visible spectrum is a much desired capability for night-time surveillance and security applications. Due to a very large modality gap, thermal-to-visible face recognition is one of the most challenging face matching problem. In this paper, we present an approach to bridge this modality gap by a significant margin. Our approach captures the highly non-linear relationship be- tween the two modalities by using a deep neural network. Our model attempts to learn a non-linear mapping from visible to thermal spectrum while preserving the identity in- formation. We show substantive performance improvement on a difficult thermal-visible face dataset. The presented approach improves the state-of-the-art by more than 10% in terms of Rank-1 identification and bridge the drop in performance due to the modality gap by more than 40%.
Yet Another New Biometric: Brainprints
New research:
In “Brainprint,” a newly published study in academic journal Neurocomputing, researchers from Binghamton University observed the brain signals of 45 volunteers as they read a list of 75 acronyms, such as FBI and DVD. They recorded the brain’s reaction to each group of letters, focusing on the part of the brain associated with reading and recognizing words, and found that participants’ brains reacted differently to each acronym, enough that a computer system was able to identify each volunteer with 94 percent accuracy. The results suggest that brainwaves could be used by security systems to verify a person’s identity.
I have no idea what the false negatives are, or how robust this biometric is over time, but the article makes the important point that unlike most biometrics this one can be updated.
“If someone’s fingerprint is stolen, that person can’t just grow a new finger to replace the compromised fingerprint—the fingerprint for that person is compromised forever. Fingerprints are ‘non-cancellable.’ Brainprints, on the other hand, are potentially cancellable. So, in the unlikely event that attackers were actually able to steal a brainprint from an authorized user, the authorized user could then ‘reset’ their brainprint,” Laszlo said.
Presumably the resetting involves a new set of acronyms.
Author’s self-archived version of the paper (pdf).
Microbe Biometric
Franzosa and colleagues used publicly available microbiome data produced through the Human Microbiome Project (HMP), which surveyed microbes in the stool, saliva, skin, and other body sites from up to 242 individuals over a months-long period. The authors adapted a classical computer science algorithm to combine stable and distinguishing sequence features from individuals’ initial microbiome samples into individual-specific “codes.” They then compared the codes to microbiome samples collected from the same individuals’ at follow-up visits and to samples from independent groups of individuals.
The results showed that the codes were unique among hundreds of individuals, and that a large fraction of individuals’ microbial “fingerprints” remained stable over a one-year sampling period. The codes constructed from gut samples were particularly stable, with more than 80% of individuals identifiable up to a year after the sampling period.
Ears as a Biometric
It’s an obvious biometric for cell phones:
Bodyprint recognizes users by their ears with 99.8% precision with a false rejection rate of only 1 out of 13.
Grip, too.
News story.
EDITED TO ADD: I blogged this in 2011.
Identifying When Someone Is Operating a Computer Remotely
Here’s an interesting technique to detect Remote Access Trojans, or RATS: differences in how local and remote users use the keyboard and mouse:
By using biometric analysis tools, we are able to analyze cognitive traits such as hand-eye coordination, usage preferences, as well as device interaction patterns to identify a delay or latency often associated with remote access attacks. Simply put, a RAT’s keyboard typing or cursor movement will often cause delayed visual feedback which in turn results in delayed response time; the data is simply not as fluent as would be expected from standard human behavior data.
No data on false positives vs. false negatives, but interesting nonetheless.
Fidgeting as Lie Detection
Sophie Van Der Zee and colleagues have a new paper on using body movement as a lie detector:
Abstract: We present a new robust signal for detecting deception: full body motion. Previous work on detecting deception from body movement has relied either on human judges or on specific gestures (such as fidgeting or gaze aversion) that are coded or rated by humans. The results are characterized by inconsistent and often contradictory findings, with small-stakes lies under lab conditions detected at rates only slightly better than guessing. Building on previous work that uses automatic analysis of facial videos and rhythmic body movements to diagnose stress, we set out to see whether a full body motion capture suit, which records the position, velocity and orientation of 23 points in the subject’s body, could yield a better signal of deception. Interviewees of South Asian (n = 60) or White British culture (n = 30) were required to either tell the truth or lie about two experienced tasks while being interviewed by somebody from their own (n = 60) or different culture (n = 30). We discovered that full body motion—the sum of joint displacements—was indicative of lying approximately 75% of the time. Furthermore, movement was guilt-related, and occurred independently of anxiety, cognitive load and cultural background. Further analyses indicate that including individual limb data in our full bodymotion measurements, in combination with appropriate questioning strategies, can increase its discriminatory power to around 82%. This culture-sensitive study provides an objective and inclusive view on how people actually behave when lying. It appears that full body motion can be a robust nonverbal indicator of deceit, and suggests that lying does not cause people to freeze. However, should full body motion capture become a routine investigative technique, liars might freeze in order not to give themselves away; but this in itself should be a telltale.
This is a first research study, and the results might not be robust. But it certainly is interesting.
Surveillance in Schools
This essay, “Grooming students for a lifetime of surveillance,” talks about the general trends in student surveillance.
Related: essay on the need for student privacy in online learning.
Detecting Robot Handwriting
Interesting article on the arms race between creating robot “handwriting” that looks human, and detecting text that has been written by a robot. Robots will continue to get better, and will eventually fool all of us.
People Are Not Very Good at Matching Photographs to People
We have an error rate of about 15%:
Professor Mike Burton, Sixth Century Chair in Psychology at the University of Aberdeen said: “Psychologists identified around a decade ago that in general people are not very good at matching a person to an image on a security document.
“Familiar faces trigger special processes in our brain—we would recognise a member of our family, a friend or a famous face within a crowd, in a multitude of guises, venues, angles or lighting conditions. But when it comes to identifying a stranger it’s another story.
“The question we asked was does this fundamental brain process that occurs have any real importance for situations such as controlling passport issuing and we found that it does.”
The ability of Australian passport officers, for whom accurate face matching is central to their job and vital to border security, was tested in the latest study, which involved researchers from the Universities of Aberdeen, York and New South Wales Australia.
In one test, passport officers had to decide whether or not a photograph of an individual presented on their computer screen matched the face of a person standing in front of their desk.
It was found that on 15% of trials the officers decided that the photograph on their screen matched the face of the person standing in front of them, when in fact, the photograph showed an entirely different person.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.