Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: DHS OBIM Biometric Technology Assessments, OMB Control No. 1601-NEW
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants to check if some new machines that recognize fingerprints or faces work well and are safe. They're asking people what they think and if these machines make things harder for small businesses.
Summary AI
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is sending an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget for review. This request, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, aims to gather public feedback for an extra 30 days on studies about emerging biometric technologies conducted by the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM). These studies assess the effectiveness of new biometric sensors and technologies, which help improve biometric identity management services crucial for national security. Comments are requested to ensure the improvements do not put undue burdens on individuals or small businesses and enhance the quality of information collected.
Abstract
The Department of Homeland Security will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 25, 2024 for a 60-day public comment period. One comment were received by DHS. The purpose of this notice is to allow additional 30-days for public comments.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document outlines a significant move by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is seeking public input on new biometric technology assessments being conducted by the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM). These assessments are crucial to ensure that the biometric technologies used for national security purposes remain effective and relevant amidst rapid technological advancements. DHS is providing a 30-day window for public comments, allowing stakeholders, including individuals and small businesses, to voice their concerns or support for the initiative.
General Overview
At its core, this document is a request for public commentary on the DHS's plans to assess emerging biometric technologies. OBIM serves a crucial role in biometrics for U.S. security, tasked with managing identification and verification processes at U.S. borders and beyond. The studies will explore new sensors and data techniques to enhance the accuracy and reliability of biometric services, such as fingerprint and facial recognition.
Key Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from this document. First, it uses technical language like "biometric modalities" and "operational biometric matchers" without providing definitions, which might make it difficult for the general public to grasp the full scope of these efforts. The mention of collaboration with prestigious institutions, such as the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, raises questions about the selection process for these collaborations. Transparency regarding how these partners are chosen would be beneficial.
The document also underscores the participation of small businesses without specifying how their involvement will be facilitated. While it asserts that they won't face prohibitive requirements, more concrete measures would underscore this assurance. Additionally, the estimated 1.5-hour time burden per respondent lacks an explanation, which might lead to questions on how these figures were computed and whether they accurately reflect the reality.
Privacy concerns are another issue, as the document states that there are no confidentiality assurances for this information collection. Furthermore, references to laws like the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 are not elaborated upon, making it challenging for readers without prior knowledge to contextualize this information effectively.
Public Impact
Broadly, this initiative has significant implications for enhancing national security through improved biometric technologies. By seeking public input, DHS is offering stakeholders the chance to contribute to shaping these technologies, which could impact public interactions with security agencies. However, the lack of clarity and transparency on several fronts might hamper public trust and participation.
Stakeholder Impact
Specific stakeholder groups could feel distinct impacts. Small businesses within the tech and biometric equipment sectors could benefit from this initiative if engaged effectively. Clear guidance and manageable requirements can encourage participation, potentially leading to innovations that drive the industry forward.
Conversely, individuals concerned about privacy may feel apprehensive due to the document's indication that confidentiality isn't guaranteed. This could lead to hesitation in participating in public comment periods or biometric studies. Ensuring strong privacy measures and transparent communication could mitigate these concerns and bolster public confidence.
Overall, while the DHS's efforts to engage the public in advancements in biometric technology are commendable, addressing transparency and privacy concerns will be key to ensuring broad and effective stakeholder participation.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms such as 'biometric modalities', 'operational biometric matchers', and 'interoperability standards' without providing clear definitions, which may hinder understanding for the general public.
• The initiative involves multiple actors including John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) without clear information on whether there is any preferential treatment or competitive selection process.
• The document specifies that 'no requests of performers, vendors, or participants will be made that would be prohibitive to the participation of small businesses', yet it does not elaborate on what measures are in place to ensure this.
• The estimated time burden for respondents is given as 1.5 hours per respondent, totaling 1,500 hours, but there is no breakdown or justification for how this time estimate was reached.
• There is no mention of specific cost estimates for the activities described, which makes it difficult to assess the potential for wasteful spending.
• The document states there are no confidentiality assurances associated with this collection of information, which might raise privacy concerns for respondents.
• The document refers to various laws and acts (e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017) without providing enough context, which could make it difficult for readers unfamiliar with these references.