2. Bombing of Dining Facility in Mosul, Iraq, in Dec 2004 Murder of US Contractors in March 2004 led to 2 major operations for control of Fallujah, Iraq.

3.  Something intrinsic to you (cannot be shared without complicated surgery)  Something that is unique (more or less)  Something that cannot be repudiated (beware the dark side)  Something that can tie you to places and activities you wish to hide  Not 100% accurate nor a panacea  Something that is or should be an integral part of any identity management program

4.  Physical Modalities: fingerprint, face, iris, hand geometry, palm print, DNA, voice, retina, vein pattern  Behavioral: gait, hand writing/signature, keystroke  “Soft biometrics”: hair color, sex, age, ethnicity

5.  Depends on the operational environment, available technology and the mission  Each modality is different in terms of universality, uniqueness, permanence, collectability, acceptability, etc.  Many are highly effected by factors such as ethnicity, employment, sex, etc

6.  Identification: Who are you (or who you are not)?  Typically 1 to many  Can also involve re-identification  Uses: personnel vetting (access, hiring, training, intel sources), targeting, screening, force protection, human terrain mapping, detention decision making)  Verification: Are you who you say you are?  Typically 1 to 1 usually against an enrollment sample  Often matching against a template held by the claimant (e.g. on a smart card)  Uses: access control, population management, detainee/prisoner management, resource management (aid, benefits, etc)

7.  Overt/Covert  Cooperative/uncooperative  Face to face/stand off  Data Sharing  Forensics

8. A probability that we have seen you before  Score(S) compared to predetermined Threshold value  Accuracy determined by quality of database and algorithm(s)  Most commonly based upon two sets of the same modality (e.g. fingerprint to fingerprint)  Accuracy can be enhanced via fusion of matches from multiple sets of the same modality, multiple modalities, multiple algorithms  May require human intervention/analysis (“Yellow Resolves” and latent print matching)

9. FAR and FRR vs. Threshold Threshold setting

10. FUSION MATCH! Prints: Inconclusive Face: Non-IDENT Iris: Inconclusive Multi-modal biometric fusion (currently DoD ABIS only) results in: More matches through the correlation of other modalities More auto-identification, with lower number of manual examinations required Improved overall system accuracy and performance The fusion algorithm combined near matches to identify the individual. 10

11.  The same biometric is in our database  That’s it--may have value if done for verification purposes only  Analysis required to link the biometric to other information (e.g. intelligence, criminal, civil, financial, etc)  Not intrinsically good or bad—depends on mission  “Good” Match: against an approved access roster  “Bad” Match: against a terrorist watchlist

12. Subject is enrolled Biometrics collected (may include biographic, soft biometrics and contextual data) Biometrics stored Subject is Encountered At access point In the field At computer terminal At a crime scene Encounter collection compared to enrollment collection On a card On the collection system (stored enrollments and/or watchlist) Against a centralized database Against remote database(s) Match results are reported Match/No Match Additional guidance may be provided Operational Decision Made Allow/deny access Detain/Arrest Provide/deny resources

13. Name: XXX DOB: XXX HT: 5’ 06” WT: 133 Eyes: BROWN Hair: BLACK 21 July 2011 – SOCOM Enrollment Unsolved Latent Files Latent Case: ###### Priority Code: Green 120 IED Related Latents 34 Distinct IED Cases Links Two (2) DoD Enrollments Two (2) Interagency Enrollments One (1) DoD Detainee Enrollment Background March 2011: IED related evidence was received and processed by multiple agencies between May 2010 and July 2011. The latent prints were submitted with no significant identifications and added to the DoD ABIS Unsolved Latent File. 21 July 2011: The subject was encountered and enrolled by DoD elements due to suspicion of terrorist activities resulting in multiple unsolved latent matches confirmed by BIMA’s Biometric Examination Services Team.

14.  Put thousands of biometrics kits into the hands of military and contract personnel around the world  Built database of over 6 million unique identities  Developed most advanced large-scale multi-modal/fusion matching system in the world  Enabled military operations (e.g. SOF and CIED), intelligence analysis, access control, detainee management  Shared data across the USG (i.e. the TRIAD)  Successfully denied access to US by numerous foreign nationals  Shared data with select foreign governments

15.  Leadership awareness/support  Development of a holistic operational concept  No DoD or USG integrated IdM vision  Uncertain future of biometrics “force structure”  Not part of the Joint or Services institutional frameworks  “Triad” not fully implemented or automated  Policy gaps  Keeping pace with technological developments

17.  Senior leader education  Rapid acquisition (GOTS/COTS) and institutionalization capability  Stand-off collection  Improved data management (quality, structure)  Improved data movement (compression, transmission, architecture)  Disassociation of biometrics from all data not required for matching  Link identity data across numerous databases and security domains  Improved security and privacy (technology and procedures)  A USG identity management leadership, strategy and roadmap