Thread Subject: Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 10:25 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Schomburg, Paul: "Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Thanks Paul

Yes - "or activation" shouldn't be there. We removed it at our last
meeting. So that's no long a problem/question.

And yes - it IS the intent that there be maximum flexibility in what the
other technique would be. It has to be as timely (e.g. it can't be calling
someone and having them come and let you in) but the other technique could
be anything with our current wording.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Schomburg, Paul
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:19 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
>
> Greg: Thanks for your reply. My main concern was that the
> TEITAC not recommend a specific technology for an alternative
> biometric.
>
> It appears the language below would not require an
> alternative biometric identification but "an alternative form
> of identification or activation"
> -- which may or may not be biometric. For example, this
> would allow the agency to show a photo to a human security
> guard for site access or use an alpha-numeric password for
> network access, but if higher security is required, to use an
> alternative biometric technology. If this was the intended
> result it is fine with me.
>
> I am not sure of what is meant by "or activation". My
> understanding is that biometric technologies are used to
> verify identity and do not in themselves activate controls.
> Activation would be done by a software program after identity
> is verified. If it is not necessary I would recommend
> dropping the phrase "or activation."
>
> Best regards, Paul
>
> ----------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:51:22 -0500
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] biometrics continued
> To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Message-ID: <001301c7d589$f1349760$0f6fa8c0@NC84301>
>
> Thanks Paul
>
> You said that agencies were free to use a second biometric. Do you
> mean an
> alternative biometric?
>
> The provision we have been discussing is
>
> "When biometric forms of user identification or control are
> used, an alternative form of identification or activation
> shall also be provided unless all people can use the
> biometric device."
>
> This would seem to meet your recommendation that a specific
> form not be
> required. Does it?
>
> Do you have any recommendationed changes to this?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Schomburg, Paul: "Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2"