'Changing perceptions of biometric technologies' (Australian Institute of Criminology Research Report no. 20) by Christie Franks and Russell Smith - oriented to the Department of Home Affairs and heavily dependent on work by the biometrics industry body - comments
Identity crime and misuse cost the Australian economy an estimated $3.1b in 2018–19 (Smith & Franks 2020). Protecting individuals’ personal identification information and finding secure ways to verify identities has become an increased priority as the impact of identity crime continues to grow in Australia and worldwide. Biometric technologies for identity verification provide an enhanced security solution, although implementation of biometric systems within Australian society has met with varying degrees of acceptance. Since 2013, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has conducted online surveys to gain a greater understanding of identity crime and misuse in Australia. These surveys have asked about respondents’ experience of identity crime and also their previous use of, and future willingness to use, biometric technologies to safeguard their personal information. This report presents both qualitative and quantitative research findings obtained from a sample of respondents in the most recent surveys concerning their experiences of biometrics and perceptions as to its role in identity security.
The authors state
Annually since 2013 (with the exception of 2015), the AIC has administered online questionnaires to a research panel of Australians drawn from all states and territories. A sampling frame of more than 300,000 individuals was provided by the market research company i-Link Research Solutions, which also hosted the online questionnaire and provided raw, de-identified data for the AIC to analyse. Sampling was completed once a quota of 10,000 respondents had been satisfied. No other quotas were employed as the sample was sufficiently large to ensure good representation from urban and regional areas across Australia.
Survey results were weighted by age and gender to represent the spread of the population in Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics data from the 2016 Census were used to develop the weighting matrix for the sample. Questions on biometrics were asked of all respondents, not only those who had reported previous misuse of personal information. All respondents answered questions about their prior use of biometrics and their willingness to use biometrics for specified purposes.
Extended online interviews were conducted with 99 individuals who had participated in the AIC’s online survey in 2018 and who had agreed to participate in further research. These interviews were moderated by Footprints Market Research using the i-Discuss online platform provided by i-Link Research Services. Interviews canvassed four selected topics that enabled responses of the original survey respondents to be examined in greater depth. These qualitative results are the focus of the present report. In order to provide data on certain other aspects of biometrics, the findings of two other surveys were presented. One was conducted for the Ada Lovelace Institute in the United Kingdom on public attitudes to facial recognition technology and the other was conducted for the Biometrics Institute to ascertain the views of its membership regarding the biometrics market globally. These are presented by way of comparison with the AIC’s quantitative survey and qualitative interview research findings. ...
Results of the AIC 2019 identity crime survey, AIC 2018 identity crime survey and online interviews, and consulted international publications, demonstrate a generally high level of previous exposure to biometrics, with an increasing willingness to use biometric technologies in the future, especially among previous victims of identity crime. Simple username and password combinations are becoming obsolete as offenders have become more adept at compromising these user authentication processes. The constant requirement of network security to reset these combinations has made it challenging for users to manage access to devices without resorting to insecure ways of remembering passwords. Biometrics offer a more secure solution by enabling individuals to use their biological attributes as a means of identifying themselves.
The AIC’s research has shown that previous use of specified biological biometrics is strong, with three out of four respondents stating they have used at least one form of the technology in the past (Franks & Smith 2020). Franks and Smith (2020) also reported that future willingness to use biometrics as a security solution remains consistently strong, with at least 71 percent of all respondents willing to use some form of biometric for identification purposes, increasing to 76 percent for recent victims of identity theft. Recent victims were also more than twice as willing as non-victims to try having a computer chip implanted under their skin as a future security option (42% vs 20% respectively; Franks & Smith 2020). Generally, recent victims of identity crime were more willing than non-victims to use all of the biometric technologies mentioned; however, recent victims were four percentage points less willing than non-victims to continue using the less secure option of passwords (Franks & Smith 2020). The top three preferred biometrics among the cohort interviewed by the AIC in 2018 were fingerprint scans, facial recognition and voice recognition.
Respondents to the AIC surveys have shown a general approval of the use of biometric technologies by government authorities for law enforcement and national security reasons and as a means of obtaining access to government services. Feelings towards the use of biometric technologies for public surveillance, personal reasons and by private industry are mixed. Privacy, ethical use, data access and storage security were some of the main concerns expressed by both AIC and comparison survey participants. Results of the Biometrics Institute (2019) survey of industry experts were consistent with 2018 in predicting facial recognition technology as the area of greatest potential growth by 55 percent of Biometrics Institute respondents. AIC and Ada Lovelace Institute (2019) survey respondents stated their acceptance of the use of this technology in the form of crowd surveillance for national security and community safety but were less willing when considering it for commercial use. Survey participants were generally willing to use all biometric systems monitored by government entities and far less willing to use those issued by private organisations.
Most of the survey cohort had limited knowledge of how their personal information was being used, stored and protected, and expressed disappointment in the degree of information provided by both government and industry. The Biometrics Institute (2019) cohort ranked ‘data sharing concerns’ as the second highest key market restraint, with ‘privacy/data protection concerns’ ranked at number one.
Respondents from both the AIC and Ada Lovelace Institute surveys and the AIC online interviews were concerned about privacy issues and the ethical use of biometrics data—these included concerns about inaccurate matching leading to false identification/prosecution by law enforcement. Individuals were most comfortable with biometrics when they were afforded freedom of choice but accepted enforced use in situations where their security was at risk; however, support was not unconditional. The capture and storage of information without user consent was not justifiable for most.
Identity crime and misuse of personal information remain ongoing concerns for those in the Australian community. Despite advances in verification of credentials and improvements in online authentication procedures, victimisation continues to increase. Financial losses also continue to rise, along with the equally harmful non-financial consequences including damage to credit ratings, being wrongly accused of crime, and a range of psychological and emotional harms.
This report presents the findings obtained in online interviews with selected AIC 2018 survey participants as well as the results of the latest AIC identity crime survey, conducted in 2019. The results of relevant international publications that demonstrate previous exposure to biometrics in Australia and overseas are also presented by way of comparison. This report also examines the increasing willingness of individuals to use biometric technologies in the future, advantages, challenges, future developments and the restraints of implementation including expense, privacy and ethics considerations.
