Hybrid authentication systems: towards robust user authentication on wireless and mobile devices using biometric technologies

Adequate user authentication is a persistent problem, particularly with mobile devices, which tend to be highly personal and at the fringes of an organisation's influence. Yet these devices are being used increasingly in various business settings, where they pose a risk to security and privacy, not only from sensitive information they may contain, but also from the means they typically offer to access such information over wireless networks. User authentication is the first line of defence for a mobile device that falls into the hands of an unauthorised user. However, motivating users to enable simple password mechanisms and periodically update their authentication information is difficult at best. This paper examines some of the issues relating to the use of biometrics as a viable method of authentication on mobile wireless devices. It is also a critical analysis of some of the techniques currently employed and where appropriate, suggests novel hybrid ways in which they could be improved or modified. Both biometric technology and wireless setting based constraints that determine the feasibility and the performance of the authentication feature are specified. Some well known biometric technologies are briefly reviewed and their feasibility for wireless and mobile use is reviewed. Furthermore, a number of quantitative and qualitative parameters for evaluation are also presented. Biometric technologies are continuously advancing toward commercial implementation in wireless devices. When carefully designed and implemented, the advantage of biometric authentication arises mainly from increased convenience and coexistent improved security.

Introduction: the impact of the 'War on Terror' on executive–legislative relations: a global perspective

In democratic polities, constitutional equilibria or balances of power between the executive and the legislature shift over time. Normative and empirical political theorists have long recognised that war, civil unrest, economic and political crises, terrorist attacks, and other events strengthen the power of the executive, disrupt and threaten constitutional politics, and damage democratic institutions: crises require swift action and executives are thought to be more capable than parliaments and legislatures of taking such actions. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 and the ensuing so-called 'war on terror' declared by President Bush clearly constituted a crisis, not only in the United States but also in other political systems, in part because of the US's hegemonic position in defining and shaping many other states' foreign and domestic policies. Dicey, Schmitt, and Rossiter suggest that critical events and political crises inevitably trigger the concentration of (emergency) powers in the hands of the executive. Aristotle and Machiavelli questioned the inevitability of this process. This article and the articles that follow in this Special Issue utilise empirical evidence, through the use of case studies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Australia, Israel, Italy and Indonesia, to address this debate. Specifically, the issue explores to what extent the external shock or crisis of 9/11 (and other terrorist attacks) and the ensuing 'war on terror' significantly changed the balance of executive-legislative relations from t (before the crisis) to t+1 (after the crisis) in these political systems, all of which were the targets of actual or foiled terrorist attacks. The most significant findings are that the shock of 9/11 and the 'war on terror' elicited varied responses by national executives and legislatures/parliaments and thus the balance of executive-legislative relations in different political systems; that, therefore, executive-legislative relations are positive rather than zero-sum; and that domestic political contexts conditioned these institutional responses.