Iris Recognition Immigration Systems

A Presentation by: Quad King Š

Management Information Systems The University of Nottingham March 26, 2012

Is Biometrics the Future or Now?

Presentation Outline

• • • • • • Unique approach - Recent UK case study on Iris Recognition Immigration Systems Analyze the IRIS project using different aspects of MIS theory Consider multiple topics of IT Project failure within the module Developed our project failure framework for IRIS Comparisons with similar biometric projects The future of border control in the UK

•

What is IRIS?

Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS) is an initiative to provide automated clearance through UK immigration for certain frequent travelers .

• It works by photographing patterns and storing a registered passenger's iris the information in a database together with their passport details • IRIS relies on biometric technology to identity and is part authenticate of the e-borders initiative of the UK Government.

Testing Phase of IRIS

• • • Trial run began in 2002 of the EyeTicket JetStream system The trial allowed a total of 2,000 frequent travellers from North American to London Heathrow Airport to enrol their IrisCodes and thereby to bypass Immigration control upon arrival, passing instead through an automated iris recognition gate.

The trial was deemed fully successful and led eventually to a large-scale system deployed by the UK Home Office, called IRIS centralized database of enrolled IrisCodes.

Without “C’ing” a ‘Q’ ??

Launch of IRIS

• • • • • When the then immigration minister, Des Browne , unveiled IRIS in 2004, he claimed it would provide a ‘watertight’ check of identities as well as cutting queues It was initially targeted frequent flyers resident in the UK who regularly travel here and wanted to avoid lengthy queues. They had to undergo a free 15-minute registration to record the unique pattern of their iris every two years.

The Iris system is understood to have cost a total of £4million to run , on top of its development price of £4.9million

. The contract was given to a French firm, Sagem.

..Politics has ruined my good looks….  … Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke tries out one of the new scanners in 2005 as they were hailed by Ministers as a key weapon in the fight against terrorism and fraud.

Where is IRIS?

• Enrolment takes place in the airport departure lounge alongside their personal details.

where an Immigration Officer assesses eligibility and enrolls qualifying persons. Those who qualify to participate in the scheme have both their eyes photographed in order to capture their iris patterns. This data is then stored securely • • • • As of June 2010, IRIS was available at: Birmingham Terminal 1 Manchester Terminals 1 and 2 Gatwick Terminals North and South Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Advantages of IRIS

• • • • • • • • Method of authentication Uses Morphogenesis (at 7th months) giving the uniqueness of the iris Randomness in irises - very difficult to forge Not very intrusive - no direct contact between the subject and the camera technology Non-invasive - does not technology) use any laser technology (simple video Easily enrolling people with glasses or contact lenses Scalability and speed No need for other forms of I.D

‘ Accurateness ’ - error rates being very low, highly reliable system

Accuracy of IRIS

(Daugman, 2004)

Disadvantages of IRIS

• • • • • • • • • • Very small organ to scan from a distance eyelashes can be obscured moving target, eyelid and Poses challenges to individuals: blind or have cataracts Needs correct amount of illumination for accurate image Moreover: problem with reflective surfaces Only monochrome format - the limitations of greyscale difficult to distinguish the darker iris colourations Cooperation from subjects to enrol in the system Inadequate training of users at the initial enrolment period will cause problems Frustrated users will not help make the system any easier to use – “Communication plays major part in successful systems” System, power, network and software failures Additional pressure database is properly secured

16 th February 2012

“Iris eye scanners at two airports scrapped”

Daily Mirror

“UK Border Agency puts multimillion-pound system under review after Manchester and Birmingham airports scrap the technology”

Guardian

“Eye scanners at England airports turned off”

BBC News

“£9million down the drain as airports SCRAP iris passport scanners which were meant to speed up queues... because they are SLOWER than manual checks”

Daily Mail

“Hailed as the way of cutting immigration queues at airports the Iris machines have been a source of frustration for passengers for years”

Daily Telegraph

Causes of IT Project Failures

• • • • POOR DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES- such as poor testing of program, making incorrect assumptions with regard to system requirements END USER OR ENTITY PROBLEMS- These are failures caused primarily by errors on the part of either the end user or the entity that are using requesting the system.

IMPLEMENTATION OR HARDWARE ERRORS- caused by hardware faults, for example, damaged hardware or badly designed hardware A STRICT TESTING POLICY FOR THE MODLIFIED SOFTWARE- In a report on the Ballista project undertaken at Carnegie Mellon University it is reported that “more than half of software defects and system failures may be attributed to problems with exception handling.” (Perry, 1989)

Causes of IT Project Failures

•

INFREQUENT CONSULTATION BETWEEN RELEVANT PARTIES AND THE

SYSTEM - the open interchange of information encourages people to highlight any problem areas with which they are concerned • MANAGEMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION- Costs? Time? Technical shortfalls? Failure to obtain anticipated benefits ?

• On average, private sector projects are underestimated by one-half in terms of budget and time required to deliver the complete system promised in the system plan (Dowcro, 2002) • • • • USER INVOLVEMENT ** PROJECT ESCALATION ** STRATEGIC ALLIGNMENT ** POLITICAL INFLUENCE **

USER INVOLVEMENT “Computerized systems are more likely to have problems if they are ambitious and complex, and if they fail to engage their users or understand their needs.”

Shaw et al. (2009 )

User involvement

• POOR USER INTERFACE - A poor user interface may cause significant problems for users of the system and thus greatly increase the likelihood of system failure • INADEQUATE USER TRAINING/ERROR-training is one of the factors highlighted by (Choe, 1996) which will reduce chaos in implementing computer systems • • • END USER OR ENTITY PROBLEMS- These are failures caused primarily by errors on either the end user or the entity that are using the system, such as: Providing incorrect specification for the system, Not providing training for the end user.

Lack of User Involvement - IRIS

• • • As the Iris eye scanner has a poor interface lack of training to end user, and the many travellers used the

scanners incorrectly

Due to improper signs and lack of awareness of IRIS, travellers not registered for IRIS would sometime queue up for the eye scanners Some staff were not properly trained, therefore could not show travellers how to use the eye scanners and other staff were frustrated

from at having to repeat instructions

What is Project Escalation?

• • • •

“The continued commitment of resources in face of negative information”

(Keil, 1995)

Study found that 35% projects not abandoned until implementation stage of life cycle

(Ewusi-mensah & Przasnyski, ’91)

Managers are doing as poor job of terminating projects which are likely to fail Did IRIS experience project escalation?

Factors of Project Escalation - IRIS

• • • • Project Factors – IRIS was prone to escalation when large potential payoff – high potential time & cost savings.

Psychological Factors - IRIS managers convince themselves things don’t look that bad - investment increased (emotion,

over-attachment feedback to be discounted, impulse to continue at all costs) causing negative

Social Factors – Social norms – successful other airports have been Organizational Factors – Strong political influence surrounding project launch – (Once project commenced

head of UKBA thought there was no turning back so it doesn’t look bad.)

Political Influence

• • • • “Political decision makers tend to believe that ICT is the ideal solution to any policy problem” (Leydesdorff, 2007).

A minister who takes decisions without seeking adequate advice runs the risk that the project becomes unrealistic from the start. The political environment is highly dynamic . Political changes with considerable consequences for the project could lead to a reconsideration of the project. IRIS was introduced by Labour and closed down by the Conservatives .

Also, it is not uncommon for a project deadline to be the outcome of a political debate or the statement of an ambition instead of a realistic planning result.

Strategic Alignment

What is Alignment? • “Applying IT in an appropriate and timely way and in harmony with business strategies, goals and needs .” (Luftman & Brier, 1999) Why is Alignment of an IT project important?

• The outcome of a project is directly related to alignment. Even a good IT system may not be beneficial to an organisation if it is misaligned with business goals and needs • • What happens when IT Projects are misaligned?

It leads to the IT project failing Health Secretary Andrew Lansley : "Labour's IT programme let down the NHS and wasted taxpayers' money by imposing a top-down IT system on the local NHS, which didn't fit their needs.”

Strategic Alignment - IRIS

• • •

One of the IRIS goals was

checks reduce queues

control quicker and safer – but for

in

immigration, allowing travellers to pass border

many travellers this wasn’t true as it took longer than manual

Did the project link with other departments? (i.e. lack of

advertising

) – The system required

registration

, but without advertising this is

impossible

Did they look at the long-term alignment of the project in regards to costs? - IRIS was

very expensive

to run, yet was

free to register

Case Study: Netherlands

Iris Recognition Scanner at Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam, NL)

Case Study: Netherlands

• • • • • Privium is the name of the exclusive programme for frequent and/or business travellers who wish to use its fast and safe automated border passage at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport , by means of a biometric pass that employs iris recognition • According to Privium, border passage with iris scan can take between 10 and 15 seconds . There are currently around Unlike the UK IRIS system, membership to yearly subscription fee 50,000 members Privium requires Basic membership costs 119 Euros The Biometric data of your Iris is membership card per Year stored on a Privium rather than a central database.

Case Study: UAE

Travellers are screened against a watch-list of expellees, or persons deemed to be a security risk, before being allowed to enter the Emirates

Case Study: UAE

• Iris recognition border-crossing in the UAE is the largest deployment of iris recognition today . Known as the

Expellee Tracking and Border Security Iris System Verification

- the purpose and objectives of iris deployment is entirely different to the British IRIS program and the Dutch Privium. • As the UAE has around 5.4 million residents, which about 85% are foreign nationals on work permits.

This means border-crossing volume of migrant workers whose homeland roots are elsewhere is very high (some 12,000 per day). Therefore, their security concerns and priorities in regards to border security are very different to other nations.

Along with a manual passport check , iris recognition be screened against a watch-list database is used so that arriving passengers may recording the irises of persons deemed dangerous, or of expellees excluded from entering a country.

• Today this iris watch-list contains 1.2 million Iris- Codes from persons of 156 nationalities . All travellers seeking visa entry into the UAE via any port have their iris images acquired by cameras Tens of thousands of persons have been caught trying to re-enter the UAE under false identities, who are turned away but who often make repeated attempts, and the UAE Ministry of Interior hails the system as a huge success

Case Study: Success Factors

Netherlands

•

Project strategically aligned with its objectives

•

Membership Fees

•

Top Management Support

•

User Involvement

UAE •

Project strategically aligned with its objectives

•

Top Management Support

•

User Involvement

IRIS Replacement: ePassport Gates

• • • ePassport gates introduced in 2009 has recently been announced as the successor of IRIS Some Airports already have e-gates in place where people with from the EEA can use – this does not require registration these gates new biometric chip passports – people with the passports can use The gates are used by scannning the passport and looking into a camera and technology is used to compare the person to the picture in the passport chip facial recognition • New registrations and renewals for IRIS have been halted at several airports – partly, at least, because of staff shortages – and the government acknowledges that its future is under review.

The uncertainty comes amid a political scandal over the loosening of border checks at airports over the busy summer period to reduce long waiting times (Warrel & Jacobs, 2011).

• The government says this is part of “ biometric passports.

a broader strategy of automation at the border

” which has seen resources shifted towards machines which automatically read the new generation of • Plans for e-gates to allow non-EU nationals to register for the gates are also in place, were hoping to bring it out soon and before the Olympics But the plans have been delayed

Conclusions

• • • • • • The system no longer fits border-automation strategy in the UK moving forward. IRIS was replaced to accommodate EU e-Passports holders , whose passports hold an electronic copy of their face photographic.

As innovative as the technology was in 2004, it is now woefully out-of-date. Iris technology has moved on leaps-and-bounds in the 8 years since The initial investment undoubtedly has long since been written off, and the technology needs a refresh .

The initial deployment was meant to be limited, and the contract has undoubtedly been extended numerous times. A complete and

extensive technology

refresh (as is required)

Management Failure?

The business model was never well thought out. It is completely funded by the UK government and can be used completely free of charge.

Thank you

References

• • Leydesdorff (2007) “Why government ICT projects run into problems”. Eefje Leydesdorff and Thomas Wijsman. The Netherlands Court of Audit. p.16.

Daily Mail (2012) “£9million iris recognition scheme introduced to slash queues at airports is scrapped”. Mail Online. 17 th February 2012.

• Jarvis (2007) “Personal Identification by the Iris of the Eye”. Angela Jarvis. Forensic-Evidence.com. • Ross (2010) “IRIS recognition: The Path Forward”. Arun Ross. West Virginia University. IEEE Xplore.

Published by the IEEE Computer Society.

• Daugman (2004) “IRIS Recognition Border-Crossing System in the UAE”. John Daugman.

University of Cambridge. Reproduced from International Airport Review, Issue 2, 2004.

• Warrel & Jacobs (2011)“Airport IRIS scanning system is scaled back”. Helen Warrell and Rose Jacobs. Ft.com. November 15

th 2011.

• BBC (2006) “Heathrow eye scan checks extended”. Accessed from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4792206.stm

as at 26th February 2012.

References

• • • • • • • Perry (1989)“Handbook of Diagnosing and Solving Computer Problems”, William Perry. TAB Professional and Reference Books 1989. pp.105 – 106.

Travis (1999). “Asylum system hit by IT black hole”. Alan Travis. The Guardian. November 1st

1999, pp.7

Dowcro (2002). “Why System Fail?”. Ben Dowcro. Accessed from:

http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/reports/systemfailure as at 19th March 2012.

Espiner (2012) “UK airports to drop £9.1m eye-scanning tech”. Tom Espiner. Zdnet UK. Published

17 th February 2012.

Sasse (2007) “Red-Eye Blink, Bendy Shuffle, and the Yuck Factor: A User Experience of Biometric Airport Systems”. M. ANGELA SASSE University College London. Published by the IEEE

Computer Society.

A.K. Jain, A. Ross, and S. Pankanti (2006), “Biometrics: A Tool for Information Security,” IEEE Trans. Information Forensics and Security, vol. 1, June 2006, pp. 125–143.

Keil, M., (1995) “Pulling the plug: Software project Management and the Problem of Project Esculation,”, MIS Quaterly.

References

• Shaw, I., Bell, M., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P., Mitchell, W., Dyson, Rafferty, J. (2009). An exemplary scheme? An evaluation of the integrated children’s system. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 613-626.

• Ewusimensah, K., & Przasnyski, Z. H. (1991), “On information systems project abandonment - An exploratory study of organizational practices” MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 67-6.8

• Luftman, J and Brier, T. (1999). “Achieving and Sustaining Business-IT Alignment” California Management Review. Vol.42(1), pp.109-122 • Choe, J.M. The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors, and evolution level of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 4 (Spring 1996), 215–239