Encyclopedia of Biometrics

2009 Edition
| Editors: Stan Z. Li, Anil Jain

Fraud Reduction, Overview

  • Victor Minchih Lee
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73003-5_25



Fraud is conventionally defined as the deliberate perversion or withholding of veracity to induce another to surrender something of value. In the context of biometrics, the item of value is typically an identity or a privilege associated with an identity.

Fraud can assume a variety of forms ranging from phishing to scams to hacking. In the specific case of biometrics, fraud can also consist of spoofing, or the presentation of an artifact designed to imitate a legitimate biometric.

Fraud reduction in a biometric context entails both the use of biometric technology to deter, inhibit, and mitigate fraud, as well as efforts to counter the exploitation of biometric system vulnerabilities through illegitimate submissions.


With the increased reliance of modern society on technology, fraudsters have developed new exploitative techniques to prey upon the unsuspecting and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.
    Study Report on Biometrics and E-Authentication. INCITS/M1 Ad Hoc Group on Biometrics in E-Authentication (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, K.: Consumer Fraud in the United States: Second Survey. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, V. et al. Transcript of Authentication Technologies FTC Proof Positive Workshop Session. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: October 2006 to September 2007. UK Department for Work and Pensions, Information Directorate (May 2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Progress in Tackling Benefit Fraud: Thirty-first Report of Session 2007–2008. UK House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts (2 June 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Counting the cost of UK fraud, BBC News, 24 November 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4463132.stm (29 September 2008)
  7. 7.
    Woolcock, N.: Cost of fraud spirals to £40bn, TimesOnline, 9 September 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article633540.ece (29 September 2008)
  8. 8.
    Ratha, N. et al.: Cancelable Biometrics: A Case Study in Fingerprints (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Unisys. Consumers Worldwide Overwhelmingly Support Biometrics for Identity Verification, 26 April 2006. Press release (30 September 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program, United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, December 1999. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/fsp/FILES/ProgramIntegrity/biomeval.htm (30 September 2008)
  11. 11.
    Identity Fraud: Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities, United State General Accounting Office, 25 June 2002. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02830t.pdf (30 September 2008)
  12. 12.
    Martinez-Diaz, M. et al.: Hill-Climbing and Brute-Force Attacks on Biometric Systems: A Case Study in Match-on-Card Fingerprint Verification, http://fierrez.ii.uam.es/docs/2006_ICCST_HillClimbingAttackMoC_Martinez.pdf (30 September 2008)
  13. 13.
    Schuckers, S. et al.: Issues for Liveness Detection in Biometrics. http://www.biometrics.org/html/bc2002_sept_program/2_bc0130_DerakhshabiBrief.pdf (30 September 2008)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Minchih Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.International Biometric GroupNew YorkUSA