Challenges in Introducing New Identity Technologies

Moderator – Rick Lazarick (CSC)

Panelists Tom Buss (Integrated Biometrics)

Tim Cleland (Retina Biomterix)

Reza Derakhshani (EyeVerify)

Welcome to the participating workshop attendees

Workshop Purpose (Lazarick)

Overview (Cleland)

Case Studies Mature (Buss)

Emerging (Derakhshani)

Promising (Cleland)

Audience Participation Adjourn at 10:25

CHALLENGES

IDENTITY TECHNOLOGIES

Obstacles or challenges to new identity technology

• Technology proof of concept, performance

• Familiarity/Acceptance

• Robustness

• Patents/IP

• Perception/Education

• Accepted Standards

• Cost or Return on Investment

• Funding

• Privacy

Timothy Cleland, MD, MSE Retina Biometrix

• Many established modalities

• Universally implemented and accepted into the world marketplace

• Good science and statistically robust

• Drawbacks?

• De novo

• Multimodal

• Must be valid and reliable

• Must be usable and practical

• Other considerations

Two Broad Categories:

• Short term/practical considerations

• Long term/philosophical considerations

• Funding

• Patents/IP

• Prototyping/Proof of Concept

• Regulatory/Governmental hurdles

• Private sources • Friends and family /referrals- 85% of start-ups

obtain seed funding this way

• Crowd funding

• Angel Investors: gust.com

• Technology Incubators • University – Texas Venture Lab UT Austin

• Venture Capital • After seed funding/start up costs

• Usually during early sales/manufacturing

• A “good idea” will not generate investment

• Process is very expensive! • Patent search

• Patent lawyers-proper background

• USPTO-registered

• 95 % of first time applications are rejected—expect to rewrite!

• Must be new, nonobvious and useful (United States Patent and Trademark Office): • Process

• Machine

• Articles of manufacture

• Composition of matter (new drugs)

• Improvement of any of the above

• Inventions which are not useful or offensive to the public morality • Laws of nature

• Physical phenomenon

• Abstract ideas

• Works of art

• Must be novel

• Must be nonobvious • Thought to be the greatest hurdle

• Invention cannot be patented if it is achieved by combining known methods, techniques improvements or solutions to produce predictable results

• Adequately described

• Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

• “Off-the-self” as much as possible

• Outsource only when necessary

• Human subject testing requires IRB approval • Institutional

• Central

• Depending on modality, may require FDA clearance:

• A 510(k) is a premarket submission made to FDA to

demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device.

• Consultants can be helpful

• Acceptance by the biometric community

• Acceptance by the general public

• Get the word out! • Papers in scientific journals

• Web

• Press

• Clearly communicate intended application • Advantages/disadvantages

• Advisors/Mentors- NDA

• Partnerships with other biometric companies

Tom Buss

Integrated Biometrics

LES fingerprint sensor Technology

Outline 1. What is LES fingerprint sensor technology? 2. What was motivation for it (why do it?)

a) What is the need b) Is there a customer to project ROI c) Why we succeeded

3. Current status, results 4. Technical challenges

a) LES film development b) Image processing algorithm development c) FBI certification to appendix F standard

i. Educate and explain physics of LES ii. Develop new measurement tools and convince MITRE iii. Verify via pixel by pixel comparison to certified technology

5. Market Acceptance Challenges a) Natural suspicion & resistance to NEW unproven technology b) Overcome belief that only “Optical” technology can achieve

highest image quality c) Educate and demonstrate to end users to allow LES in RFP’s

Case

Light Emitting Sensor (LES):

“electro-luminescent technology”

LES FILM

Circuit Board

CIS CAMERA

Lens Set

LES (Light Emitting Sensor) Technology is a smaller, lighter, lower cost, more forgiving alternative to Prism based Optical Technology which still achieves FBI appendix F image quality in a Form factor advantageous to Mobile biometric platform applications

Luminescence Layer

(5-15) Microns

Protective

Layer

Transparent Layer

(400 Nanometer ITO)

Volts AC

Fingerprint Ridge Valley

400-450 Microns

AC

Replace the Prism with LES film

Replace the Optics (lens) With TFT camera And ASIC pcb

Camera sensor PCB USB output

Camera sensor PCB USB output

USB output

Impact of LES on Size of FAP 45 devices

Watson

Sherlock

Dermalog Smallest FAP45 Optical device

Motivation for the creation of LES technology: 1. US DOD end users demanded alternative to mobile Certified FAP45

“optical” scanner technology to address their known weaknesses 2. Rapid move to “Mobile” applications required smaller, lighter, better,

lower power fingerprint scanner technology 3. We found an integrator/Solution Provider in need of the technology to

help fund the initial investment which reduced the financial risk.

Significant Advantages of non-optical LES technology as it applies to Certified Mobile Fingerprint scanning applications: 1. LES is un-affected by sunlight 2. LES does not require constant cleaning of latents on the platen surface 3. LES does not require a silicon membrane or messy moisturizers to

capture dry fingers, the biggest challenge in mobile fingerprint capture today.

4. LES is significantly lighter, thinner and lower in power consumption than optical equivalents.

Why do It?

What is current state of Acceptance?

WE have seen wide spread acceptance in certified mobile biometric applications. Watson Mini is currently being bid in a number of significant opportunities worldwide. Recent Large scale acceptance in Brazil of our two finger desktop scanner for a Brazilian Voter registration program consisting of 14,000 + Biokits being provided which include a Watson Mini for fingerprint enrollment and identification purposes.

Cross Match Seek Avenger, uses Sherlock aimed at DOD and Special Op’s; Multi-Modal

Northrup Grumman Bio-Sled: Adaptive boot for Sherlock with Samsung Android Phone; Market is Law Enforcement, DOD, Border Patrol Multi-Modal

LES Design Adopters

Coppernic FAP 30 Columbo – Multi-Modal, android based handheld

NeoScan 45™ Mobile Fingerprint Collection Device , This wireless device uses Sherlock and at 9 oz. is the smallest FAP45 fingerprint collection device in the industry. Target market is Public safety, Border Patrol, Intelligence Agencies

Amrel XP7: Ruggedized with Sherlock; Military, Law Enforcement, First Responder Markets; Android Based

Corvus Unity: Ruggedized Multi-modal device aimed at Military markets and border Patrol; Uses Sherlock ; Windows Based

Credence Trident 1: uses Watson-Mini; in use in Indonesia by Police; Multimodal device; Android based

Customer Design Wins

Booz Allen – Vampire DOD – Sherlock based product Target, Criminal, DOD, Border patrol

Main challenges we had to overcome Technical challenges

1. LES (Light emitting sensor) electroluminescent Film development (Particle chemistry, size, consistency, film construction, manufacturing techniques, environmental and durability performance)

2. Image processing algorithm development a) Calibration mask (compensates for Lens and Film uniformity) b) Dynamic gain/voltage adjust for moist and dry finger capture

3. FBI certification to appendix F standard

a) Educate and explain physics of LES to MITRE b) Develop new measurement tools and techniques and convince

MITRE of their equivalence to optical methodologies c) Verify via pixel by pixel comparison to certified optical technology d) MITRE first approached 7/2011, “F” Cert granted to Watson

7/2012 and Sherlock 1 year later

Market acceptance 1. Natural suspicion & resistance to NEW unproven technology

(people hesitate to try what they are unfamiliar with. Education, hands on demonstrations and establishing early adopters was necessary to bring the market around)

2. Overcome belief that only “Optical” technology can achieve highest image quality. (again, Education, hands on demonstrations and establishing early adoptors was necessary to bring the market around)

3. Educate and demonstrate to end users and government agencies to allow LES in RFP’s (RFP’s were written requiring Optical fingerprint sensors ONLY.)

Main challenges we had to overcome (continued)

New Challenges Ahead for LES

Continue to expand the product line to larger FAP Devices, ie. Ten print, Palm Print, higher resolution, etc…

Kojak, 10 Print Appendix F scanner

Reza Derakhshani

EyeVerify

Sclera Vasculature

Complex and unique patterns, but hard to get to unless...

Hand and finger vein Retinal vasculature

???

2005: Now:

Zero-effort scanning: natural no-gazing solution with front facing cameras in real world scenarios

Front facing cameras have lower quality sensors and optics, but highly acceptable due to popularity of selfies

The most natural interactions with a mobile slate: looking at it, touching it

Mitigation: computational photography Multi-capture SNR boosting (exposure stepping and averaging) followed by sharpening Vesselness/eyevein-tuned filter banks Cascade classification with assistive ocular micro features

Mobile use case imaging artifacts: lighting, motion blur, glare and specularities, eyelid/eyelash/glass occlusions

Mitigation: no reference quality metrics, robust matching/fusion to partial data

37

Top left: iPhone 5 front facing with regular capture, top right: same with added convex lens, bottom: same ROI with back facing camera.

Template security and revocability, entropy

Steganography

Device-bound isometric transforms

Revocable, private, and high entropy private key generation

Stable despite biometric intra-class variations

Always resolves to a private key, but valid sequence only achieved during successful genuine comparison

Market acceptance of a new technology

Statistically significant large dataset (US University)

Independent tests: iBeta, major payment company

Liveness (vs. spoof) detection Viable (though not scalable) attack vectors

Stunts Not a real threat but will leave a bad impression

Harder to prevent, plus the attacker just needs a single success for publicity

Timothy Cleland, MD, MSE

Retina Biometrix

Retina Scanning for Biometric Identification

• Unfamiliar • Poor understanding of eye anatomy • Technologically difficult • History of unsuccessful implementations • Very expensive • Others

• Retinal identification first published in 1935 Drs. Simon and Goldstein1

• Robert Hill: EyeDentify, Inc. 1976 • Based in Beaverton, Oregon

• 53 employees in 1986

• 2001 ceased production of the “Icam” • At that time, only company (world wide) to use

retina scanning in a commercial device

1 C. Simon and I. Goldstein, “A new Scientific Method of Identification,” New York State Journal of Medicine, vol. 35, no. 18, pp. 901 – 906, Sept. 1935.

1 New York State Journal of Medicine, Sep 1935, Vol. 35, No. 18, pp 901-6

• Retinal Technologies, LLC • “System for capturing an image of the retina

for identification” 2007 patent.

• Used green and red LEDS for retinal illumination (visible light)

• No commercially available device

• Retina is known to be the most unique biometric

• Identical twins do not share same retinal vascular pattern1

• Vascularity of retina lends itself to liveness detection

1 P. Tower, “The fundus Oculi in Monozigotic Twins: Report of six pairs of identical twins,” Archives of

Ophthalmology, vol. 54, pp. 225-239, 1955.

• Information on the internet contains many inaccuracies (multiply reproduced)

• Confusion between iris and retina

• Cataract, macular degeneration, glaucoma, astigmatism, contact lens wear make imaging impossible

• Unable to overcome technological challenges

• Intrusive: device must contact the eye

• Dangerous and unhealthy

• Previous devices used 1980s technology • Long image acquisition times

• Visible light for retinal illumination

• No simple end hardware interface

• Operator dependent, not autonomous

• Others

EyeDentify ICAM 2001

Part Number ICAM 2001

Size 9.25 in. wide

6 in. high

4 in. deep

Weight 2 lbs.

Power 12 VDC

1.8 amps peak . 900 ma nominal

Verification time 1.5 seconds

False Rejection Rate 12.4 per cent (one-try) 0.4 per cent (three-try)

False Acceptance 0 Percent

User Capacity 3000 Users

Memory Retention Up to 5 years via the standard internal lithium battery

Transaction Storage 3300 transactions

ID Number Length 1 to 10 digits

Baud Rate 9600 K bps

Communications RS-232, RS-485/422, Wiegand 2-In/ 1-Out

• Public perception?

• 160 million eye exams per year (est)

• In your eye doctor’s office: • Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy

• Optical Coherence Tomography

• Fundus Photography

• Unfamiliar? • Poor understanding of eye anatomy? • Technologically difficult? • Very expensive? • Valid, reliable and robust? • Liveness detection? • Spoof-proof?

Audience contributions: Identify yourself and affiliation

Convey your experience or ask questions Tie comments/questions to topics in Framework

Be concise, allow for multiple contributors

Moderator will move the discussion along.

THANKS TO ALL FOR ATTENDING

AND PARTICIPATING