+1 Recommend
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Technological, legal, and sociological summary of biometric technology usage'

    Technological, legal, and sociological summary of biometric technology usageCrossref
    Overview article with focus on technology, law context and user awarenes and acceptance.
    Average rating:
        Rated 3.5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 2 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    I work partly in the same institution as the authors, but it is a different research group with which I have no ties.

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Technological, legal, and sociological summary of biometric technology usage

    The article presents biometric systems from three different standpoints. Technological standpoint, where the focus is laid on biometric system usage by the general public. Explaining basic terms and difficulties using various biometric characteristics. It also shortly describes how recognition works in several biometric characteristics (fingerprint, face, iris, and signature). After that is the legal standpoint, which is focused mainly on European Union law, where the often-mentioned GDPR is discussed, this basic legal regulation places a significantly higher standard than the previous legislation on the processing of biometric data as a particular category of personal data. Lastly, the article shows a sociological standpoint. In that part, different attitudes towards biometric technologies are discussed within the world population and different groups of the Czech Republic population. In the latest survey done by the authors in 2020 was found that age, and education play a vital role in the knowledge about biometric systems.

      Review information

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Sociology,Computer vision & Pattern recognition,Public law
      law,social groups,biometrics
      ScienceOpen disciplines:

      Review text

      The manuscript represents an overview article suitable for readers who want to get acquainted with the issue of biometric authentication in a broader context - not only from the technology but also from the position of biometrics in the context of the law and user awareness and acceptance.

      The first part is devoted to the basic introduction of biometric authentication. It explains the basic concepts and introduces the most commonly used technologies. The next part focuses on relevant European legislation that applies to biometric authentication - it primarily focuses on data protection (GDPR, etc.) and covers other standards. The last part is dedicated to the user perspective. The authors present how users perceive biometric authentication regarding its security and usability. New data from the Czech Republic is also included.

      Although the paper does not present any major new findings, it is a comprehensive work that adequately presents the whole issue. I welcome the inclusion of other aspects, as the legal framework and applicable security must also be considered for effective and correct technology deployment.

      Minor comments/questions:

      1. You discuss the need for active consent in the context of GDPR. However, this can not be obtained (and usually is not obtained) for video monitoring services in public places, which usually adopt face recognition. What is the legal basis for this use case?
      2. While I appreciate the size of the demographic group for the sociological survey from 2018, I am completely missing the demography description for the latest preliminary research from 2020. Without this information, there is no possibility of assessing the significance of the conclusions.



      Comment on this review