There are a few examples in Canada.
If you look at the report, we surveyed a bunch of secondary identity documents produced by the Government of Canada. Among them is the NEXUS card which uses two particular biometrics, that being fingerprinting and iris scans. There's an example that, should the fingerprint not be readable or the person not have the appropriate fingers in order for the machine to scan, they could potentially rely on an iris scan. That in itself might not necessarily be as inclusive because not everybody might have scannable fingers and scannable irises. It's to ensure....
What the report demonstrates is that when you develop those kinds of systems, you always have some kind of additional thinking behind it to say that if this is what is required, what other measures can you put in place that might compensate for those exceptions where needed?
There are other simpler examples. If you go to a grocery store, for example, you might find hand scanners that allow you to clock in an employee. There again you might want to find out if the hand scanner can scan one hand or both hands. You want a system that can scan presumably both because there have been demonstrated examples of people objecting to having one particular hand scanned over another. When you have systems like that, our argument is to not rely exclusively on that one system, but have others there to complement it.