The big question: Will it be effective?

Some fear the time needed to sort out errors will frustrate travelers.
NEW YORK (AP) -- As the United States and other countries spend billions adding biometrics to passports and border checkpoints, questions persist about how well the technology will work on such a widespread basis.
Though biometrics has been used for years, it has gotten mixed results in independent examinations.
Ultimately, analysts and biometric companies say, the success of face and fingerprint scans at border crossings will depend on just how much is expected of them.
No biometric system is perfect. All either falsely match some people with images on file or fail to properly recognize them. When the sensitivity of biometric systems is adjusted to reduce one type of error, that generally raises the likelihood of another kind.
Sorting out such errors in secondary inspections and dealing with other unfamiliar aspects of biometrics could lengthen lines at travel checkpoints, possibly hurting trade or tourism.
The Federal Aviation Administration determined in 2001 and 2002 that a facial recognition system added 9.5 seconds to the process of passing through a doorway.
"I expect it to improve the security of the process, but we will be happy if it does not slow down the border-crossing process," conceded Joseph Atick, chief of biometric systems maker Identix Inc.
For better, for worse
Tests sponsored last year by several government agencies found that face recognition -- the technology preferred by the U.N. agency that sets travel standards -- had improved significantly since 2000.
But the report also stressed that face-recognition systems continue to get worse at identifying people on watch lists as the pool of wanted suspects grows. Sometimes systems struggle to recognize people as they age, unless updated images are put on file.
Beards, bandages and eyeglasses can throw off face-recognition software, leading the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to note last year that the systems "have not performed particularly well in independent testing."
Fingerprint scans are considered more reliable, though they have been fooled with fake fingers and other tricks. A bigger problem is that people from some cultures might be offended by a perceived criminal connotation to the technology.
And roughly 2 percent of the populace cannot have their prints scanned because age, labor or chemicals have worn them away.
Controlled environments
Biometrics manufacturers say their systems perform best in settings such as border checkpoints, where lighting and backgrounds can be carefully controlled.
Given such an environment, face-recognition software can be 99 percent accurate in determining that travelers are indeed the people their passports say they are, said Bernard Bailey, head of face-recognition maker Viisage Inc.
When it comes to matching travelers to a watch list of about 4,000 images, Bailey expects the success rate to range from 30 percent to 90 percent, depending on the quality of the pictures on file.
However, experts say that if two kinds of biometrics are combined -- such as face and fingerprint, assuming both kinds of data are available on suspects -- the success rate can exceed 90 percent.
"At the end of the day, there's no guarantee that we are going to stop terrorists from entering the country," Atick said. "This is just one layer that is going to make it a lot harder for them to do so."
Perhaps the biggest argument favoring border biometrics is that the technology is meant to enhance, not replace, the human judgments customs and border agents make about travelers every day.
"With proper expectations, I think the system can work very effectively," said Dennis Carlton, director of Washington operations for the International Biometric Group, a consulting firm. "The core, underlying technologies appear to us to be ready to handle it."