Security Curve Weblog

Iris Scanning for Sex Offenders?

I am not in the habit of defending sex offenders, and I'm not about to start now. I do, however, have to question whether anybody has seriously thought through the ramifications of North Carolina's plan to use iris scanning to register sex offenders. I came across this gem via the Biometrics Discussion Email list (what arose out of the ashes from the Biometrics Consortium forums) and did some digging around. Apparently, the system they are planning on using is called SORIS (Sex Offender Registry and Identification System) which positively identifies sex offenders based on their iris.

Granted, identifying sex offenders is important, but for the life of me I can't figure out why iris scanning helps. Look, the argument is that this iris scanning will help locate sex offenders, right? How exactly are we planning on doing this identification? I can't remember ever having been asked to have my iris scanned outside of biometrics tradeshows or specific iris-scanning pilot deployments. Where exactly are we going to introduce the iris scanning "checkpoint" to locate these sex offenders? Are we going to start requiring mandatory iris-scanning for people moving in to a new state? Iris scanning at the DMV? Iris scanning as part of standard employment background checks? I hope not. However, it seems that unless there's a plan for more iris scanning somewhere, that this registry is all but useless. Just some whiz-bang gadgetry that the North Carolina taxpayer has to pay for.

I mean - is it me or does this not make any sense? Compare it with fingerprint. Don't we have fingerprinting already for just about everything nowadays? Get a job, get fingerprinted. Get arrested, get fingerprinted. Go to the DMV, get fingerprinted. We already have fingerprints for every convicted sex offender on file, therefore allowing the creation of a database with no new enrollment and no change to current processes. We also have people actively checking people's fingerprints occassionally (not commonly, but it's out there.) Why not use (oh let me think about it) FINGERPRINT to track the legions of roving chesters loose in suburbia? Is it because the iris is supposedly more "unique"? Hype. It is theoretically more unique and maybe more accurate - but I haven't seen any tests to back this up. Actually, the tests I've seen show better performance for fingerprint because fingerprint is easier to use and train people on. Even if iris was marginally better than fingerprint, you're talking about fractions of a percent. Is that fractional percentage increase in accuracy worth the tremendous extra expense, inconvenience, and use of police resources associated with deploying an entirely new recognition infrastructure?

Oh, and it's expensive all right - training costs are high as is processing time. At one point in my career, I piloted an iris-scanning system let me tell you - you actually have to *work* to use an iris scanner. It's not like fingerprint where you roll your finger around in some ink and slap it on a pad. You basically have to stare into this tube at an LED and adjust your eye muscles in such a way that you bring two concentric circles into alignment. It's hard to do, it takes learning on the part of the scannie to use it properly, and it gives you eyestrain with frequent use. It's hard to do with a willing participant - which your average perv isn't likely to be. So, ante up Charlotte residents and when you figure out that you bought the proverbial "alaskan refrigerator" you'll know who to thank.