What caused the soccer fingerprint system to overlook black-listed fans?

Implications: Low cost fingerprint matching solutions may often be inappropriately cutting into the sales of the higher end more accurate solutions made by COGT, ID, NEC etc.  In the end the client is the big loser.  

Analysis:

“Dutch researchers test the reliability of finger print biometrics by placing finger print scanner at three Dutch soccer stadiums for the purpose of identifying more than 6,000 "black listed" volunteers; the fingerprint system failed to spot 15 percent to 20 percent of those on a volunteer black-list.” Fingerprint system fails to identify black-listed soccer fans Fingerprint system fails to identify black-listed soccer fans. HS Dailywire.com http://hsdailywire.com/single.php?id=4893

Dutch researchers didn't realize  they were conducting a silly test.  I wonder if Las Vegas casinos have also been oversold.

Fingerprint scanners of the class used to guard PC’s were employed to determine if they could spot “black listed” volunteers.  Only 15 to 20 percent the “black-listed” volunteers were missed, which I believe was a good showing for low-end 256x256 pixel per inch sensors made by Cross Match Technologies (IPO delayed).  Cross Match also makes 500x500 and 1000x1000 pixel per inch solutions.  AUTHENTEC/AUTH and UPEK (IPO delayed) tend to focus at 256x256.  There are many other vendors who provide a wide range of biometric solutions including sensors and software fingerprint matchers.  In this instance NEC provided the fingerprint matching software.

The volunteers were asked to use “spoofing techniques” which clearly were not very effective.  If more than one finger was used most of the volunteers would have been detected along with many more “innocents” (false positives).