UNHCR adopting biometric face image quality standard for refugee ID documents
The UNHCR wants to strengthen the quality of the identity documents it issues by improving the quality of their facial photos. The agency is considering how to take advantage of the new international standard for biometric image quality assessment as it updates its policy.
The UN refugee agency’s Global Data Service has initiated a Photo Quality Initiative to improve the integrity of its data and support refugee inclusion, according to a blog post.
“Doubt cast from a poor-quality photo can erode trust, potentially leading to the denial of entry, services, or, in the case of refugees, protection and freedom,” the agency says. “Furthermore, a low-quality photo may expose an individual to the risk of identity theft.”
UNHCR has held adherence to the same standards used for biometric passport photos as a priority for some time, “but not without challenge,” the blog post states.
There are over 19 million people registered in UNHCR’s database, 15.8 million of them with facial photographs, as of late-September.
The advance of the ISO/IEC FDIS 29794-5 draft biometric sample standard for face image quality assessment to the final approval stage presents an opportunity
The UNHCR Global Data Service recently hosted a meeting with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) New Technology Working Group in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss the improvement and standardization of the photos taken of refugees for ID documents. As a result of that consultation, UNHCR will adopt the 29794-5 standard.
UNHCR has also been working on upgrading privacy protections for refugees through the implementation of blockchain and zero-knowledge proofs.
The EAB held a multi-day workshop earlier this year to explore how the image quality assessment standard contributes to ICAO’s update of its biometric passport standard.
Article Topics
biometric data quality | biometrics | face biometrics | face photo | ISO standards | refugee registration | standards | UNHCR
Comments