"About 12 per cent of the population do not have a fingerprint. They are too old or they have been engaged in manual work and it may have worn off. There is no wall on the end of their thumb. Biometrics are going to be a much more expensive solution," he told the committee.This article invites a question we often ask: Compared to what? We'll be charitable and take the percentages in the article as given. How many problem gamblers are being detected in the absence of a system? If the answer is less than 70%, what is the improvement from current levels of detection to a 70% detection rate worth? What does the proposed system cost? In short, does the proposed system offer a positive return on investment (ROI)?
"This is mainly because, if you have to maintain 197,000 biometric readers ... it is going to be extraordinarily expensive. You are looking at something like five times the cost for biometrics."
Donald said there would have to be many exceptions made to the system if biometrics were used.
Secondly, because of their accuracy, ease of use, low cost and strong history of delivering positive ROI, fingerprint biometrics are all the rage. But they are not the only game in town. Facial recognition may be the preferred modality in this application. One facial recognition system at the front door of the facility can eliminate the need to have a biometric reader at every machine. The same can be said for a fingerprint system, but face-rec systems are less intrusive and they address the problem, raised in the article (we're still being charitable), of the 12% of the population who can't use all fingerprint readers.
Third, why does anyone assume that vandalizing property in order to circumvent security measures is an indictment of the security measure? Someone who finds a way to break a slot machine to get the money out of it doesn't have a gambling problem, they have a stealing problem. Someone who damages property (breaks a fingerprint reader) in the misguided hope that the machine will enable an enrolled problem gambler to use the machine, has a vandalism problem. Granted, a gambling addiction could serve as one impetus for both behaviors, but preventing this type of behavior isn't what the problem gambler program is built to address. These systems are meant to allow problem gamblers to put themselves on a "do not serve" list while reducing the abuse of the program by non-problem gamblers who simply wish to indemnify themselves against gambling losses.
The amusement and biometric sensor manufacturers both take the durability and physical security of the devices they manufacture seriously but they aren't, and never will be, invincible.
