There remains the question of how reliable these new biometric technologies will be. A 2006 German study looking at facial recognition in a crowded train station found successful matches could be made 60 percent of the time during the day. But when lighting conditions worsened at night, the results shrank to a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

As work on these technologies continues, researchers are quick to admit what's proven to be the most accurate so far. “Iris technology is perceived today, together with fingerprints, to be the most accurate,” said Cukic.

But in the future all kinds of methods may be employed. Some researchers are looking at the way people walk as a possible additional means of identification.

Please explain a “criminal or terrorist walk or skip”.

I work in the financial services and have had background checks done on me. It's no big deal to me since I understand I'm in a sensitive position. That I support.

But again a database on everyone is an invasion privacy.

If you're a criminal, you're info will be in the system. If you're applying for a sensitive position, then they'll take your info and you'll be in the system. No others should be in the system.

BTW: my comment on securing nuclear material was meant that we should use that $1bn on ways that could actually obtain results to secure nuclear materials, etc. The terrorists could strike at any time and it doesn't make sense spending $1bn now on projects which don't work. If there was a sufficient effort to secure what is now needed and then put additional funds into research that's another story. But I'd still be against a wide spread invasion of privacy.

Let's fund necessary work now.

Furthermore, they admit up front that the technology to make it all work does not yet exist. Keep in mind that fingerprint scanners are only about 98-99% accurate.

A smaller system didn't work with technology that could work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…

But the problems were not the FBI's alone. Because of an open-ended contract with few safeguards, SAIC reaped more than $100 million as the project became bigger and more complicated, even though its software never worked properly. The company continued to meet the bureau's requests, accepting payments despite clear signs that the FBI's approach to the project was badly flawed, according to people who were involved in the project or later reviewed it for the government.

The “open ended contract” monster…

The biometrics is part of securing nuclear materials, water supplies, chemical plants, biological research facilities. The government has been on a steady increase in the demand to fingerprint and do criminal background checks of people who work in or who visit those facilities and need escorted access.

The first part of securing a facility is ensuring that the people who work in those places can be trusted and the government has determined that criminal background checks using fingerprints and other biometrics is the best way to do it.

Maybe you could describe who the Obama administration would secure nuclear materials without background checks?

Of course, what is lacking in such biometric checks is a true comprehensive risk analysis to determine if workers can be trusted to do their entire jobs instead of just the part with nuclear materials, chemical agents precursors, biological samples, etc.

Oh, I forgot, this is the Bush Administration which ignored pre-9/11 warnings and then invaded a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the terrorists attacks.

But yeah, the presumption of innocence is big in the US. With that database the government is saying, “We don't trust you and we're watching!”