Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms. / Palmer, Anthony.

In: Computers and Security, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609, 01.12.2008, p. 260-284.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms. / Palmer, Anthony.

In: Computers and Security, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609, 01.12.2008, p. 260-284.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Palmer, A 2008, 'Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms', Computers and Security, vol. 27, no. 7-8, Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609, pp. 260-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

APA

Palmer, A. (2008). Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms. Computers and Security, 27(7-8), 260-284. [Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

Vancouver

Palmer A. Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms. Computers and Security. 2008 Dec 1;27(7-8):260-284. Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

Author

Palmer, Anthony. / Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms. In: Computers and Security. 2008 ; Vol. 27, No. 7-8. pp. 260-284.

BibTeX

@article{7a7f8c8bbccb454ea9e04797396cb634,
title = "Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms",
abstract = "The consequences of digital identity compromises suggest that selected Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms, which enable computer systems to identify individuals, may be unsuitable in some contexts. Currently, there are no commonly agreed set of factors upon which to base an evaluation, regardless of purpose or requirements. We establish over 200 evaluation criteria to aid decision on the selection of the most appropriate mechanism for a given context. We consider that the suitability of these mechanisms should be based upon a broad approach. Our criteria are designed to expose strategic issues and risk management aspects that influence organisations' objectives and policies for introducing these mechanisms. Additionally, criteria are developed to acquire functional and performance requirements for the intended user community. Our criteria are also formulated to help describe the characteristics of contesting solutions. These qualities range from technological efficiencies to usability effectiveness. Each mechanism may then be assessed for its suitability against the context's risks, issues and operational requirements within an evaluation framework capable of accommodating diverse perspectives and multiple objectives.",
keywords = "Accessibility, Automated Personal Identification Mechanism, Biometric Identification, Biometric Verification, Privacy, Reliability, Risk, Usability, User Authentication, Vulnerabilities",
author = "Anthony Palmer",
year = "2008",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "260--284",
journal = "Computers and Security",
issn = "0167-4048",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "7-8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Criteria to evaluate Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms

AU - Palmer, Anthony

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - The consequences of digital identity compromises suggest that selected Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms, which enable computer systems to identify individuals, may be unsuitable in some contexts. Currently, there are no commonly agreed set of factors upon which to base an evaluation, regardless of purpose or requirements. We establish over 200 evaluation criteria to aid decision on the selection of the most appropriate mechanism for a given context. We consider that the suitability of these mechanisms should be based upon a broad approach. Our criteria are designed to expose strategic issues and risk management aspects that influence organisations' objectives and policies for introducing these mechanisms. Additionally, criteria are developed to acquire functional and performance requirements for the intended user community. Our criteria are also formulated to help describe the characteristics of contesting solutions. These qualities range from technological efficiencies to usability effectiveness. Each mechanism may then be assessed for its suitability against the context's risks, issues and operational requirements within an evaluation framework capable of accommodating diverse perspectives and multiple objectives.

AB - The consequences of digital identity compromises suggest that selected Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms, which enable computer systems to identify individuals, may be unsuitable in some contexts. Currently, there are no commonly agreed set of factors upon which to base an evaluation, regardless of purpose or requirements. We establish over 200 evaluation criteria to aid decision on the selection of the most appropriate mechanism for a given context. We consider that the suitability of these mechanisms should be based upon a broad approach. Our criteria are designed to expose strategic issues and risk management aspects that influence organisations' objectives and policies for introducing these mechanisms. Additionally, criteria are developed to acquire functional and performance requirements for the intended user community. Our criteria are also formulated to help describe the characteristics of contesting solutions. These qualities range from technological efficiencies to usability effectiveness. Each mechanism may then be assessed for its suitability against the context's risks, issues and operational requirements within an evaluation framework capable of accommodating diverse perspectives and multiple objectives.

KW - Accessibility

KW - Automated Personal Identification Mechanism

KW - Biometric Identification

KW - Biometric Verification

KW - Privacy

KW - Reliability

KW - Risk

KW - Usability

KW - User Authentication

KW - Vulnerabilities

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

U2 - 10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

DO - 10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 260

EP - 284

JO - Computers and Security

JF - Computers and Security

SN - 0167-4048

IS - 7-8

M1 - Palmer:2008:CEA2639520.2639609

ER -