Search

Finger vein recognition is gaining popularity in the field of biometrics, yet the inter-operability of finger vein patterns has received limited attention. This study aims to fill this gap by introducing a cross-device finger vein dataset and evaluating the performance of finger vein recognition across devices using a classical method, a convolutional neural network, and our proposed patch-based convolutional auto-encoder (CAE). The findings emphasise the importance of standardisation of finger vein recognition, similar to that of fingerprints or irises, crucial for achieving inter-operability. Despite the inherent challenges of cross-device recognition, the proposed CAE architecture in this study demonstrates promising results in finger vein recognition, particularly in the context of cross-device comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identity documents (or IDs) play an important role in verifying the identity of a person with wide applications in banks, travel, video‐identification services and border controls. Replay or photocopied ID cards can be misused to pass ID control in unsupervised scenarios if the liveness of a person is not checked. To detect such presentation attacks on ID card verification process when presented virtually is a critical step for the biometric systems to assure authenticity. In this paper, a pixel‐wise supervision on DenseNet is proposed to detect presentation attacks of the printed and digitally replayed attacks. The authors motivate the approach to use pixel‐wise supervision to leverage minute cues on various artefacts such as moiré patterns and artefacts left by the printers. The baseline benchmark is presented using different handcrafted and deep learning models on a newly constructed in‐house database obtained from an operational system consisting of 886 users with 433 bona fide, 67 print and 366 display attacks. It is demonstrated that the proposed approach achieves better performance compared to handcrafted features and Deep Models with an Equal Error Rate of 2.22% and Bona fide Presentation Classification Error Rate (BPCER) of 1.83% and 1.67% at Attack Presentation Classification Error Rate of 5% and 10%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intention of this position paper is to comment on the joint European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)‐Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (aepd) publication '14 Misunderstandings with regard to Biometric Identification and Authentication' that was published in June 2020 and to provide additional input to help with the better understanding of the issues raised in that publication. In particular, it aims to highlight some important missing information in the aforementioned publication. It is hoped that this paper will help with any future revision of the EDPS‐aepd publication, such that it includes a full picture of the current state of the art in biometrics and the availability of standards and privacy enhancing techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]