Biometric Failure Rate of Iris Scanning at Heathrow and Gatwick
Last updated 6th September 2008IRIS Technology
As a frequent business traveller flying from London Heathrow and Gatwick, I often have the opportunity to see first hand the effectiveness of biometric testing. Travellers that have enrolled for the IRIS technology can pass through immigration using iris scanning booths. The traveller enters through automated glass doors, bends down and places their eyes in front of the scanner, and if they are identified a second set of glass doors open to let them through.
How This Data is Collected
I monitor biometric testing for each trip (this is not always possible as not all passport controls have IRIS installed). I compare the number of passengers passing through the conventional, biometric-free process for each passenger passing through the IRIS booths. I try to monitor this for on average 5 IRIS scan passengers.
Understanding The Chart
The green points are the number of biometric-free passengers for each IRIS passenger. The green line is the trend line. Each red point represents one IRIS passenger. Where the red point sits on the x-axis it indicates that the passenger was refused entry through the IRIS booth.
If iris scanning is to provide a fit for purpose biometric identification technique, then it must be as efficient as conventional passport checking. In terms of the chart, the green line needs to reach 1, i.e. 1 biometric passenger can pass for every conventional passenger.
Conclusions
- Early indication suggests that on average 9 times more passengers pass through the biometric-free process in the same time that it takes passengers to use the iris-scanning procedure. Taking into account that there are normally 3-4 conventional passport counters open, compared to 1 scanning machine, this indicates on average the biometric procedure is 3 times slower than convenional passport control. Total failure of iris scanning occurs frequently.
- Iris scanning is documented as having a 20% failure rate, similar to fingerprint scanning. Indicating that similar delays could be encountered in Heathrow terminal 5 where BAA and the UK Government intend to introduce enforced finger printing. If similar delays are not encountered, this could indicate that less strict matching criteria is used.
Note: Calculation of the average takes into account that an IRIS passenger who is refused entry has to repeat the iris-scan, however the chart shows the fail and re-scan as separate passengers. As a result the actual average is higher than the chart suggests.
Observations
- lower failure rates tend to occur at London Gatwick. Over the year I re-routed my business flights through Gatwick after the anouncement of compulsory finger printing in Heathrow Terminal 5.
-although the trend line may relate to this move between airports, it may also identify higher failure rate in Heathrow terminals compared to Gatwick. Alternatively, it relates to improvement in the scanning technology or a relaxation in matching criteria.
-9th August 2008: 4 flights (Bari, Zurich, Madrid, Tunis) carrying largely British holiday-makers. Out of all the flights only 1 person used the Iris scanning. This indicates that biometric technology does not have mass appeal and would not be taken up if citizens were given the free choice.
-29th August 2008: Heathrow Terminal 5. Two biometric booths were in operation and two booths manned by immigration staff. This provided a good opportunity to compare the two technicques 'back-to-back'. This showed that or every 1 biometric passenger 4 biometric-free passengers passed through. At this ratio, passport control would require 4 biometric scanners to replace each member of staff from the IPS.