Menu Close

Danish forensic procedure addresses subjectivity in face biometrics investigations

Forensic examinations of face biometrics for immigration cases in the Netherlands follow a procedure that both acknowledges and tries to mitigate subjectivity, which was explained to members of the European Association for Biometrics in an online presentation.

‘Forensic Facial Examination – transparency and uniformity in case work’ was presented by Dr. Trine Edvardsen of the Danish National ID Centre in a recent EAB Lunch Talk, based on a presentation earlier in the year at IAI in Omaha.

The Danish national ID Centre is an independent expert body which provides services to the country’s immigration authorities. Biometrics experts within the center focus on face and fingerprint modalities.

The center provides full morphological comparison of some cases, a more limited biometric screening procedure for others, and an assistance service for urgent cases. The latter can include advice on whether to escalate the given case to a full morphological comparison, Edvardsen explains.

Full morphological comparisons take a half-day, and are carried out with the biometric analysts to minimize the potential for bias. A double blind procedure with full documentation is carried out, with conclusions ranging from -3 to +3, with 0 meaning the analysis is inconclusive.

Edvardsen notes that in many countries, the term “conclusion” would be rejected in favor of “opinion,” but says that in the Danish language, “conclusion” is the preferred term, without necessarily imparting any different meaning from “opinion” in other situations.

She reviewed the procedural documents, which cover technical analysis, a facial feature checklist, side-by-side comparison and evaluation. The feature analysis is based on the FISWG guidelines.

Features are described at three levels, from basic outline to clearly resolved dimensions. Most images will be in between, at level 2 feature visibility.

The Centre began revamping its facial examination procedures just over two years ago, introducing a decision tool to increase the transparency of the complex decisions made.

In reviewing the elements of facial comparison that are considered vital to the final decision, Edvardsen notes the use of presence or absence of other distinct features as an added variable, “kind of like our wild card.” This considers distinguishing marks beyond the global features, such as a set of freckles or a visible scar.

Image suitability, comparability, feature visibility and similarity, and the presence or absence of other distinguishing figures thus all contribute to the final assessment by the Centre.

Edvardsen presented the Excel spreadsheet the procedure is documented in, and the weighting of the criteria. The model does not determine the final score, however, but rather the outer bounds of allowable judgements the case workers can make.

“We’re taking the feeling out of this case work,” Edvardsen says.

If less than 5 global features are visible, for example, judgements at the highest relative level of certainty are not available to examiners.

Efforts to further reduce the subjectivity in the system could include adjusting the image suitability criteria to draw on ISO standards for image quality. Forensic examinations of face biometrics for immigration cases in the Netherlands follow a procedure that both acknowledges and tries to mitigate subjectivity, which was explained to members of the European Association for Biometrics in an online presentation.

‘Forensic Facial Examination – transparency and uniformity in case work’ was presented by Dr. Trine Edvardsen of the Danish National ID Centre in a recent EAB Lunch Talk, based on a presentation earlier in the year at IAI in Omaha.

The Danish national ID Centre is an independent expert body which provides services to the country’s immigration authorities. Biometrics experts within the center focus on face and fingerprint modalities.

The center provides full morphological comparison of some cases, a more limited biometric screening procedure for others, and an assistance service for urgent cases. The latter can include advice on whether to escalate the given case to a full morphological comparison, Edvardsen explains.

Full morphological comparisons take a half-day, and are carried out with the biometric analysts to minimize the potential for bias. A double blind procedure with full documentation is carried out, with conclusions ranging from -3 to +3, with 0 meaning the analysis is inconclusive.

Edvardsen notes that in many countries, the term “conclusion” would be rejected in favor of “opinion,” but says that in the Danish language, “conclusion” is the preferred term, without necessarily imparting any different meaning from “opinion” in other situations.

She reviewed the procedural documents, which cover technical analysis, a facial feature checklist, side-by-side comparison and evaluation. The feature analysis is based on the FISWG guidelines.

Features are described at three levels, from basic outline to clearly resolved dimensions. Most images will be in between, at level 2 feature visibility.

The Centre began revamping its facial examination procedures just over two years ago, introducing a decision tool to increase the transparency of the complex decisions made.

In reviewing the elements of facial comparison that are considered vital to the final decision, Edvardsen notes the use of presence or absence of other distinct features as an added variable, “kind of like our wild card.” This considers distinguishing marks beyond the global features, such as a set of freckles or a visible scar.

Image suitability, comparability, feature visibility and similarity, and the presence or absence of other distinguishing figures thus all contribute to the final assessment by the Centre.

Edvardsen presented the Excel spreadsheet the procedure is documented in, and the weighting of the criteria. The model does not determine the final score, however, but rather the outer bounds of allowable judgements the case workers can make.

“We’re taking the feeling out of this case work,” Edvardsen says.

If less than 5 global features are visible, for example, judgements at the highest relative level of certainty are not available to examiners.

Efforts to further reduce the subjectivity in the system could include adjusting the image suitability criteria to draw on ISO standards for image quality.  Read More  Biometric Update 

Generated by Feedzy

Disclaimer

Innov8 is owned and operated by Rolling Rock Ventures. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Any information obtained from this website should be reviewed with appropriate parties if there is any concern about the details reported herein. Innov8 is not responsible for its contents, accuracies, and any inaccuracies. Nothing on this site should be construed as professional advice for any individual or situation. This website includes information and content from external sites that is attributed accordingly and is not the intellectual property of Innov8. All feeds ("RSS Feed") and/or their contents contain material which is derived in whole or in part from material supplied by third parties and is protected by national and international copyright and trademark laws. The Site processes all information automatically using automated software without any human intervention or screening. Therefore, the Site is not responsible for any (part) of this content. The copyright of the feeds', including pictures and graphics, and its content belongs to its author or publisher.  Views and statements expressed in the content do not necessarily reflect those of Innov8 or its staff. Care and due diligence has been taken to maintain the accuracy of the information provided on this website. However, neither Innov8 nor the owners, attorneys, management, editorial team or any writers or employees are responsible for its content, errors or any consequences arising from use of the information provided on this website. The Site may modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the RSS Feed at any time, including, without limitation, the availability of any Site content.  The User agrees that all RSS Feeds and news articles are for personal use only and that the User may not resell, lease, license, assign, redistribute or otherwise transfer any portion of the RSS Feed without attribution to the Site and to its originating author. The Site does not represent or warrant that every action taken with regard to your account and related activities in connection with the RSS Feed, including, without limitation, the Site Content, will be lawful in any particular jurisdiction. It is incumbent upon the user to know the laws that pertain to you in your jurisdiction and act lawfully at all times when using the RSS Feed, including, without limitation, the Site Content.  

Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami