Evaluation of Users’ Knowledge and Concerns of Biometric Passport Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors evaluate and analyze users’ concerns and threats to the biometric passport delivery system in Uganda. They used a mixed approach to compute and articulate the results. These research results enable policymakers and security expertise to make a more suitable and correct decision for the country citizens and communities. It is an important issue for information security and privacy protection. However, some descriptions require being improved and revised.

1.      From the results of the statistical analysis, the author could include more descriptions about specific recommendations and solutions in this paper.

2.      The objects of this research survey only focus on students and faculty (about 78%) in this study. This may result in inaccurate research results. How to expand to everyone, even East Africa countries, in the future? The author should give some suggestions in this paper.

3.      The descriptions about Figure 2 in text are missed.

4.      The caption of Figure 4 in Page 12 is missed.

5.      The Figure 5 in Page 13 is unclear.

6.      There are too many error grammars or confusing sentences in this manuscript such that they are hard readable and ambiguous. The authors should improve and revise them carefully.

For example,

In Line 24: “Many European countries have at present operationalized ...” may be revised as “Many European countries have operationalized ...”.

In Line 35: “In Uganda, the biometric passport rollout is ...” may be revised as “In Uganda, the rollout of biometric passport is ...”.

In Lines 39-43: The sentence is too long. There are too many “and” in this sentence.

In Lines 44-45: “However, users’ concerns and fears for example on disclosure of personal data and data abuse (misuse) remains …” should add some commas, and may be revised as “However, users’ concerns and fears, for example on disclosure of personal data and data abuse (misuse), remains …”

In Lines 68-71: The sentence “Therefore, the technological inventor needs …, produce and personalize as well as build biometric systems … templates and reference … applications and the trust … and those … applications” has too many “and”.

In Line 85: “… an attacker can snoop on the message web of RFID cards.” is unclear.

In Line 88: “Opens when access is granted to an authorized person with a chip reader.” is unclear.

In Lines 90-92: “First chip replaced 90 with duplicated LDS. Where the duplicated…” may be revised as “First, chip replaced 90 with duplicated LDS, where the duplicated…”

In Lines 108-110: “Is a replication or reproducing information of a chip ...” may be revised as “Cloning is a replication or reproducing information of a chip ...”

 

Additionally, added a space in between references:

Line 62: Ng-Kruelle et al.’s [8]

Line 74: passport [9]

Line 82: the data [10]

Typo errors:

Line 54: ‘a ubiquitous’  ®‘an ubiquitous’

Line 78: ‘were discussed’ ® ‘are discussed’

Line 87: ‘to blocks’ ® ‘to block’

Line 94: ‘was removed’® ‘had been removed’

Line 100: ‘travel’ ® ‘traveler’

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for authors regarding the Manuscript ID data-478666

The response is hereby attached

Sincerely,

Taban Habibu

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors assessed Ugandans’ readiness and concerns regarding biometric passports. The topic is interesting, but the writing quality of the paper should be improved. The following comments are pointed out for the authors.

1. Line 291, page 7 of 16, the authors mentioned “Table 1”, but according to the description, it should be “Table 2”. If this is “Table 2”, where is the description for “Table 1”? The authors should check the paper carefully.

2. In the title, please use “biometric” instead of “bio-metric” because “biometric” is a well-defined word in literature and in the paper, the authors are also using “biometric” not “bio-metric”.

3. Line 91, page 2 of 16, the first time “LDS” is used, its full name should be given. Other similar abbreviations, e.g., MRZ, should be corrected.

4. The embedded figure and words in figure 5 is distorted. Please redraw it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for authors regarding the Manuscript ID Data-478666

The response is hereby attached

Sincerely,

Taban Habibu

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have solved the previous problems in this version. No further comments on this paper.