Interview with Dr. Myra S. Gray, Director & Executive Manager, DoD Biometrics

Would you please provide our readers with a brief background of the Biometrics Task Force (BTF) and its role within the Department of Defense (DoD)?

  

Dr. Gray 

The Biometrics Task Force was established through public law in 2000,

and at that time, its primary focus was on information assurance.  However,

when the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, we realized the power this technology would provide us in fighting the war on terror and in identifying our adversaries. From that point on, we began focusing directly on how the BTF could serve in the war efforts.  But that wasn’t the original intent in the year 2000.

 

The BTF’s role is to enable the DoD with biometric capabilities, and that can mean many things. We work in those areas of the DoD that, when enabled with biometrics, are made better.  For example, it could be in an area such as base access or in the medical community, where the need to identify someone is required.  My role, along with the BTF’s role, is to provide that enabling capability throughout the different mission-threads in the DoD, as well as to be a partner with the other agencies and departments of the U.S. government and our international partners in providing that capability.

 

FB 

You mentioned that it’s your responsibility to provide, and I gather then that you’re the starting point for information for all the different areas in the DoD. How do you work with the private sector, and maybe academia, to accomplish that?

The academic community primarily helps us focus on future capabilities within “the realm of the possible.”  It’s a forward-looking community. We ask, for example, what are the different areas that we can look at, and how can we make what we already have better through the use of biometrics?

 

Within the commercial sector, there are those who are looking at enhancing biometric capabilities, but their focus is on delivering the current capabilities better, faster, and cheaper.

On the international front, what mechanisms would be involved for that part of the equation?

We have relationships with our other military partners, such as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.  We also work with our international partners in areas of the world where there’s a NATO presence.  Through the FBI, we work with entities such as Interpol on the law enforcement side.  We not only provide data so that it’s available for the DoD, but we also enable our other interagency and international partners through the work we do.

Great, we’ve recently spoken with the Fairfax County Police Department and the NOVARIS Group, and I know that they also are fairly tied in. You’re probably speaking with them as well, just to make sure that information is shared and that kind of thing.

Information is being shared, but at the same time, I would caution you that it’s not an open blanket of information.  Each department and agency has certain authorities that they are executing.  They also have specific prohibitions on things that they do not do. For instance, in my case, the DoD has to be very careful that it doesn’t cross into those activities that are strictly for law enforcement.  There are other agencies and departments that do that.  Therefore, we make sure that as we are executing our mission we stay within the bounds of the authorities given to us by the DoD.

Yes, of course, thank you. Now, there have been a number of advancements in biometric technology over the past three to five years, what excites you about some of these changes?

 

The first one is the capability known as “multimodal,” where a combination of biometric modalities is used to identify or verify.  Every modality in biometrics has its pluses and minuses.  Fingerprints are very useful for identifying people, however, it may not be fast enough if you have a large through-put, such as at an airport.  When you have a large through-put of people, iris scan is very useful.  But people don’t leave latent iris prints, whereas DNA can be left behind.  While DNA is another extremely accurate identifier, it’s labor-intensive and slow to determine identity. In other words, each modality has its own pros and cons based on the particular mission it’s to be applied to—whether it’s a personnel mission at one end of the spectrum, or at the other end, a mission geared toward detainee supervision.

 

The power behind biometrics comes into play when you are using multiple modalities.  In doing so, it helps to eliminate the negatives of each modality and provides you with a greater success rate in making a positive identification. Suppose there’s an individual and through iris scanning it’s 90% certain that iris matches that person’s. When we add to that the individual’s fingerprint—provided you also have the fingerprint technology—there’s an added 90% chance that in putting those two modalities together you can make a positive identification.

 

Another recent advancement that excites me has to do with the modalities themselves and our ability to process them quicker. We have faster, more accurate algorithms and the ability to field these capabilities in very austere environments.  That’s the future of the technology.  And the new modalities that we’re looking at are ones such as voice and DNA.

 

And when you say that you’re looking at some of these new biometric technologies, were I a biometric manufacturer, how would I go about introducing my product to you if I felt that it was going to be useful to the Department of Defense?

One method is through NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association).  We have a partnership with them where they assist us in engaging industry.  For example, we’ll periodically brief industry and report to them what we’re looking at, the challenges we’re facing, and the areas in which we’d like to focus.

 

However, if independent contractors wish to come forward and represent their companies, then they should contact the BTF.  At that point we would arrange a meeting with our subject matter experts and determine if each technology can be applied across the spectrum of our mission sets. Our mission sets are varied, so it’s impossible to have one set formula; there is no one-size-fits-all approach to this.

 

We are always open to new ideas and to new ways of deploying equipment in an effort to make things faster, better, and cheaper.  New ideas and technologies help us deal with the volume of data that we face. Data brings power, and it’s not limited to data on an individual machine. Any technologies that enhance our ability to reach back faster and to handle a greater volume of information are wonderful. If anyone has any of those ideas, by all means, come forward.

It is truly a critical aspect and I’d say, no doubt, a bit of a challenge to try and ensure that that part of the equation is constantly moving forward. What might you say are some of the other challenges that are facing the biometric industry? 

The biggest one, which I’ve already mentioned, concerns having a comprehensive data set.  People don’t always understand the full enterprise of biometrics.  They notice a reader on a door and they believe that particular technology only checks the people entering and exiting that door within a given parameter. However, in order for that apparatus to be powerful, it should be able to check against a larger database.  For example, if someone was entering through either door A or C, you should be able to determine if that person is authorized to access both entrances.  If you have a person entering one or more of your installations in Iraq or Afghanistan, you will want to know where they are authorized to go.

 

Therefore, the challenge is in linking everything to a comprehensive database, and we must be able to have the capability to do that in the field.  Another aspect of shared data is that the information collected at each of those locations should be shared with everybody in the mission.  That is what enables the real power of biometrics.

 

The other challenge the industry faces is in getting things done better, faster, and cheaper.  A lot of advancement has occurred within the last few years, such as the emergence of smaller, more powerful, less-expensive products.  As biometrics is becoming more mainstream, one of the challenges that is going to face the community is that the futuristic-thinking companies with the cutting-edge technologies may have a hard time competing because they don’t have the corporate infrastructure that supports their technologies.

 

How do you take this industry of very intelligent, far-reaching people and keep their companies viable, many of which are small start-ups?  That will be something that those companies will have to address.  It happens in any industry as the industry matures. That means that some of the smaller companies end up being bought out, leaving just a handful of larger companies.  However, I don’t want the industry to lose its innovative spirit when that inevitably happens.  We’ve got to keep the innovative spirit, and we’ve got to keep those great ideas flowing.

I couldn’t agree more and, luckily, I think that that is still the case because we do speak with a number of companies that are smaller in nature, and they are coming up with some truly fantastic ideas. But I think that your point is well taken as in, how do they get to the next level to make sure that those ideas get incorporated into future development?

We need for people to look at the big picture instead of simply looking at smaller details—for example, enabling a widget with biometrics.  People should focus on how to link the data of that widget into the enterprise because that’s where the power is.  So, if I can get folks to think about their piece of a bigger pie rather than their stand-alone tasks, it’s going to pay big dividends. It will not only benefit their particular goals, but it will also benefit others.

As biometrics continues to grow and, in particular, as the use of biometrics continues to grow within the Department of Defense, what will that hold for the BTF? As well, in terms of budgeting, do you see increases coming in that area, and who will be the beneficiary of any future activity?

I really don’t see any increases in the budget; however, what I do see is more of a transition in where the money comes from.  Presently, our funding tends to be more supplemental and immediate dollars, but we’re going to become more enduring from a funding standpoint. It’s a matter of institutionalizing biometrics within the DoD and also with our partners. So the shift will lean toward the long-term vision and recognition of how we pay to advance biometric technologies within DoD.

 

As a result, we are going to create greater efficiencies. That is already occurring; the equipment is becoming better and less expensive. As people learn more about biometrics, and as the BTF matures as an organization, the discipline will become more prevalent and more widely understood.  Efficiency and effectiveness—that’s where we’re headed. 

 

Therefore, it’s not a matter of needing more money to accomplish the mission.  We’re going to be more efficient with the money we have and, therefore, make a greater impact. Five years from now, biometrics will be far more mainstream and institutionalized.  It will be a routine part of our defense capabilities, and it will be better understood by the community at large. Most importantly, it’s going to have a strong enterprise flavor so everyone knows that they’re part of the bigger picture rather than what I call, “little stove-pipes of excellence.”

In closing, could you share a recent success example for us?

 

A dramatic example involves the case of Mr. Swar Khan. Mr. Khan has a “rap sheet” a mile long, which in biometrics terms translates into many entries in the DoD ABIS database dating back to 2003.  Mr. Kahn has such a long criminal history that he has his own entry in Wikipedia.  No matter how you feel about Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, it’s there.

 

Among the allegations noted for Mr. Khan are that he’s a member and former intelligence officer of the Taliban.  He also participated in military operations against the United States and its coalition partners, had approximately six truckloads of weapons and ammunition including mortars and artillery stored in his house, and was selling weapons and ammunition that were allegedly used against coalition forces.  Mr. Khan swore written allegiance to the Union of Mujahadin under Commander Malem Jan Sobari, who is a Taliban guerrilla warfare leader in certain areas of Afghanistan.

 

Our ABIS records on Mr. Khan showed that he was first captured in January 2003 and quickly shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. He spent several years there and was released in October 2006. Fortunately, the latest match to Mr. Khan, which occurred in May of this year, will keep him off the streets. Perhaps he’ll even get another trip to Guantanamo Bay.

 

Is there anything you’d like to add about your organization and its goals?

Certainly. Our organization is very focused on providing the enabling capabilities of biometrics to the DoD, other government agencies and to our international, state, and local partners.

 

We are focused on not just providing that capability, but making sure that it is used within the confines of the law, the parameters of existing regulations, and in thorough compliance with any and all privacy policies.

 

Dr. Gray, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us.

 

It was my pleasure Peter.