Slashdot Mirror
3D Biometric Facial Recognition Comes To UK
Roland Piquepaille writes "In the UK, where the recent Queen's speech about national identity cards generated lots of -- mostly negative -- coverage, another potentially invasive technology is being tested with very few criticism. For example, several police departments are now testing a 3D biometric facial recognition software from Aurora, a company based near Northampton. The use of facial recognition 'is rapidly becoming the third forensic science alongside fingerprints and DNA,' according to a police officer who talked to BBC News for 'How your face could open doors.'" (More below.)
"The company claims its software is so sophisticated it can make the distinction between identical twins. And if the civil liberties groups continue to be neutral, this technology could also be deployed in airports or by private companies. Even banks are thinking to put cameras in their ATM machines to identify you. The good thing is that you will not have to remember your PIN. On the other hand, as with every new technology, is it safe for your privacy and is it possible to hack the system? Read more before making your decision."
If this technology is as good as Aurora claims, it can be used to implement a virtual ID card - just scan someone's face, and you can bring up their info from a database, no need for them to carry a piece of plastic around.
Obviously that's a privacy concern - but how can you regulate face recognition? It's fundamentally no different from having a live cop recognize your mug.
Now I will have to end up looking like Mrs. Doubtfire whenever I want to go anywhere :(
.. that such software is just surfacing now. 3D facial recognition could've helped a ton with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.
My friend was building a 3D scanner for his final year project. He went to Aurora for a tour and to see how they did it.
:o (this was around the beginning of 2000, I'm not a big Geri fan so I can't tell you what video it was)
According to him they said that they'd taken Geri Halliwell's face and put it on to the body of a model for one of her videos as she was pregnant at the time.
I wasn't sure if I believed what Aurora had said at the time, and I'm still not. But if its true, this technology must be pretty advanced as that was 4 years ago.
The problem with face recognition is that faces change. If you get a black eye from some fist fight, the computer won't recognize you. Children going through puberty can look completely different in a matter of months. What if you're wearing huge-ass sunglasses? What if you grow a beard? Will you not be able to ID yourself if you are wearing an eye-bandage?
--- MS: "Working software is soooo nineties!"
if you're pretty enough...
Because with all those biometric recognition system/ATM, all a junky robber would need off would be to cut my finger/eye/head whatever and try to match it against the ATM. With pin code they at least need you alive to tell them what the pin is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm a bit concerned about the claims and assumtions regarding the "foolproof" nature of this technology.
Aurora say that they have a zero failure rate, but this is not proof on the "uniqueness" of their identification.
New technology like this very quickly becomes "magic" to the general public and the end users, and there is indeed a difference in the computer recognising your face vs a live cop... the computer is more likely to be assumed to be infallible
could a small laser attatched to the front of ones shirt with a lens that spreads the light in all directions in front of you be capable of still affecting cameras as much as the regular laser beam, or would the average powered pen laser laser with a lens like that be too weak to affect cameras in say, a 30 foot range?
My first thought was, 'where should I paint the stripes on my face to confuse such a system?'. My next thought was 'actually, painting stripes on my face might cause worse problems, such as being called 'stripey' by small kids'.
All the same, it would be pretty cool if measures to avoid face recognition became a mark of toughness ('I'm a scary criminal, me, I have to avoid cameras') and then of fashion -- everything that's adopted by genuinely scary people winds up being worn by college kids 5-10 years later, after all. The result could be an interesting arms race between software designers and makeup artists.
Now I'm off to order my David Blunkett latex mask. Heh heh.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Seriously, are the cameras going to be set to raise an alert when someone walks down the street that they can't distinguish? Will police occasionally stop you and ask you to remove your stetson so that CCTV can calm down?
How reliable can this be? And if they can scan and recognize a face this effectively in the data, can we reproduce it in latex a la Mission Impossible... well enough to fool the system anyway?
And do we want the government to have this much data on people?
I can certainly answer the last question.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
3D Biometric Facial Recognition Comes To UK
In the UK, where the recent Queen's speech about national identity cards generated lots of -- mostly negative -- coverage, another potentially invasive technology is being tested with very few criticism. For example, several police departments are now testing a 3D biometric facial recognition software from Aurora, a company based near Northampton. The use of facial recognition "is rapidly becoming the third forensic science alongside fingerprints and DNA," according to a police officer who talked to BBC News for "How your face could open doors." The company claims its software is so sophisticated it can make the distinction between identical twins. And if the civil liberties groups continue to be neutral, this technology could also be deployed in airports or by private companies. Even banks are thinking to put cameras in their ATM machines to identify you. The good thing is that you will not have to remember your PIN. On the other hand, as with every new technology, is it safe for your privacy and is it possible to hack the system? Read more...
Here is the introduction from BBC News Magazine.
The ethical debate about identity cards has been reignited following the Queen's Speech, but its facial recognition technology is being used in other areas. Police are hailing it as a forensic breakthrough and a new "foolproof" 3D version could eventually become a routine procedure at cash machines or workplaces.
Once the preserve of science fiction, biometric facial recognition has now become a reality. Despite its association with the controversy of identity cards, it is predicted to become part of everyday life.
But is the technology ready?
As companies become more security conscious, the process of having our faces scanned is set to become more commonplace. And new technology which can produce this in a more accurate 3D form could accelerate this trend
A firm which has developed the 3D software, Aurora, claims it is sophisticated enough to distinguish between identical twins.
The brave BBC reporter tested the software for us.
I underwent the procedure myself and it only took a few seconds. A camera used a near-infrared light to put a virtual mesh on my face 16 times. It merged these into one unique template and calculated all the measurements of my features.
3D facial recognition software from Aurora Here is a computer screenshot showing you how thousands of points map your face and produce detailed measurements of what you look like
[image]
Now, the real questions are to know if the technology gives accurate results and if it's possible to hack the system.
The government's biometric trials for passports and identity cards have reportedly experienced a 10% error rate in face recognition. The Home Office denies this and says that in any case its trials were only testing the procedures and the public response, not the technology.
Aurora claims its software eliminates these alleged errors. Founder Hugh Carr-Archer says: "We can't say it's 100% but we've done tests and have a zero failure rate.
According to the police, the 3D technology is still too expensive to be widely deployed, but it continues to use successfully 2D images.
It works by scanning an image of a suspect's face - such as a CCTV picture taken from a crime scene or a drawing based on eye-witness accounts. This produces a 2D map of the face which marks attributes such as the distance between the eyes.
Then the computer uses an algorithm to compare the data of this face to thousands of others on a database of offenders - people who have ever been arrested or charged. Within seconds it lists the matches in order of relevance, just like a web search engine.
Of course, this technology is not approved by the justice and can't be used in courts. But it's used by the police
This could be very useful. I carry various swipe-cards and keys for hy home, car, places of work, etc. I frequently find myself absentmindedly trying to open a lift door with a swipecard, opening house door with car alarm keyfob, etc
This could save SO much time...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
It is geneally agreed that the latest Queen's speech (which is a speech made by the Queen using a script given to her by the incumbent government of the day) was a feeble affair which did little to reassure an already pissed off public.
The current Labout government run by T. Blair is generally seen to be scaremonegering over things like terrorism and crime to justify a new raft of draconian measures. Each one of these measures has been a cynical attempt to limit liberty within the UK. There has already been a government funded surevey judgning the "peoples" attitude towards ID cards which, according to the government, showed an overwhelming support for the scheme. Until, of course, it was discovered that the survey was far from impartial and the sample group was so small as to be non-representative.
Technology aside I fear for my children's liberty, they are already unable to do the stuff I used to do as a child - like blow things up with home made gunpowder, whittle wood with a knife (yes knives are soon to be banned in this moronic country) and when they get older they won't be able to smoke a cigarette (yep, smoking is banned too).
No, don't be lured by the technology, this is a bad thing. I hope my American cousin's don't let the president push them into accepting a loss of liberty in the name of some ficticious threat. It looks like this country is starting to fall foul of the lie that is "The war on terror"
I've recently lost about 5Kgs of weight, and my face, particularly the shape, is quite different. I look at pictures of myself just 3 months old and even I look quite different. Even friends who see me every day comment on it.
This technology could be flawed by people just gaining and losing weight. Look at pictures of people who have lost a lot of weight and you'll see their cheeks, chin, even lips all look completely different. If this system is so "accurate" it can distinguish between identical twins, what happens when people eat too many twinkies or lose a few kgs?
'How your face could open doors.'
Yo momma's so ugly that doors open whenever they see her.
Have you metaroderated recently?
The reason we Brits aren't getting excited about this advert for a software company is very simple. It will need to get government backing. That means it will drown in red tape long before it hits the streets. The IT record of the UK government is a long list of what not to do.
there be pirates trying to defeat your biometrics
All your base are belong to Google.
Reposting BBC articles is pointless - they do not get slashdotted, in fact, the BBC could probably show /. what a slashdotting is like...
Wasn't there a failed trail of face recognition by one of the UK police forces - they installed software that would match faces of known offenders with live CCTV footage and identify them. However, I believe it was a complete disaster, and the system identified nearly all false positives. I can't quite remember the police force in question, but the software was from a US company specialising in biometrics...again, I'm not sure which one exactly.
CCTV must have come on in leaps and bounds recently. The pictures from CCTV footage that are shown on tv (Does anyone recognise this man seen robbing a post office last week) are usually of appalling quality.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Using facial biometrics provides an added, more accurate level of verification than such systems as an ID card (which can be lost or stolen) or a pin number (which can be forgotten or used fraudulently).
Am I the only one in the WORLD who knows what the "N" in "PIN" stands for?
Jeez...and I wanted to think that the lack of knowledge was limited to telephone monkeys and cashiers...
db
Cig:
ôô
the "distinquish identical twins" is hype and irrelevant.
As with all such systems it doesn't recognise faces but a metric derived from the face. It's entirely possible that two or more different faces can have the same metric (within the limits of the measuring process.)
So what do you do if someone matches your metric and is a terrorist? Unless you solve the false positive problem, and in a population of a billion people there are always going to be many false positives, you haven't solved face recognition.
This is not a theoretical problem. Already people have been falsely imprisoned because their DNA matches some found at a crime scene.
This quest for perfect identification is a waste of time and money.
What about following scenario: Somebody commit a crime, but he is not in the database. You look similar, thus in "search engine" you will have a high position. There are witnesses, but you look similar (you know, it was night, fog, but it could be...), and computer says it's you. Bingo!
My wife has a 19-year0old daughter who has this incredibly pretty (tall, thin, blond, beautiful face, very pleasant manner) but rather dizzy 18-year-old friend. She has stayed with us a couple of times. She also inherited a lot of money that she's trying to spend quickly (go figure).
One morning I took her to the station. She was going to see her boyfriend at university. She'd bought a load of stuff to take to him because he's a poor student. Later on I found out that the man selling the tickets at the station gave her the tickets (worth about $200 in US money) for free because she was so beautiful.
I was brought up in an egalitarian household. I had no idea this sort of things happens in Real Life.
I wish I was young, slim, blond and beautiful. :-)
Stick Men
usually gets doors slammed in it. That, or slapped. So now I have a new kind of abuse to look forward to?
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
The UK Government's Important List of What Not To Do in IT:
1 -- Employ EBS
2 -- Employ EBS for pretty well every contract
3 -- Pay strangely high fees to EBS
4 -- Never complain when EBS fucks up, just start a new contract
5 -- Anything else to do with EBS
I can remember when the UK was pretty well without corruption at the national level, and it _wasn't even long ago_. Remember how terrible it seemed in Major's time when someone got a kickback for asking a question? It would just be line noise now.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Maybe I should have said P.I.N. instead of pin :P. But i still stand that I want a password/Personal number so that nobody can use my body parts alone to open/enable a security feature like ATM.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
UK police departments have been using 3D biometric facial recognition since the day they first opened their doors. All they're doing now is supplementing expensive trained officers with cheaper new tools.
Seriously, if you people are technophobes on this level, you should log off right now and sell your computer. You can probably use the money to buy enough wood to build a shack in the mountains somewhere.
Oh, wait, you'd never survive that way; you're probably a hoplophobe, too.
Seemed to work impressively until three people showed up at the door, one spied into the iris reader, door opened and the other two just tailgated through.
wasn't some system of facial recognition duped by people smiling in one shot and not the other.
Face recognition software has never worked. And by that i mean that it has never caught a criminal. Ever. It's never happened.
Funny thing is, it's not a new concept. Before the advent of fingerprinting, law enforcement in a number of countries used a hand measured set of facial metrics to identify criminals.
One of the events that precipitated widespread fingerprinting was a day when a guy was picked up for being a shady character who looked just like a guy on a wanted poster. They get him in, start measuring features on his face. Everything is lining up, then one of the guards says, "Hey, I know this guy" - and realizes that they already have this guy in custody, has been in for years.
At that point, when they had evidence of the fallability of their facial recognition system right there in the same prison, there was a loss of confidence, and a need for a better system.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
This is less scary than fingerprint recognition. Crook can defeat both methods with gelatine, but if they can't be bothered to get any, I'd rather there was no incentive whatsoever to cut off my finger.
1. Be sued for having the same facial features as one of RIAA's artists.
2. Secret Service show up at your door and say, "good morning Mr. President".
3. Finally be able to fullfill the dream job as stunt double for George Clooney.
4. Launch a dotcom called facialdating.com and make millions matching people who look alike.
5. Get fingered by the FBI as being the latest serial killer and have a good laugh with your buddies when your on TV.
6. Receive spam on how you can change your facial features to look like anyone.
7. Answer the phone and find out it's a porn company asking you if you would like to do a photo shoot for their upcoming special...big noses.
8. Donald Trump realizes it's about time to get a new haircut.
9. Finally be able to prove once and for all your friend DOES look like one of the guys from Dumb and Dumber.
10. Go bankrupt taking botox
but seriously, i dont see facial recognition being accurate enough for wide scale implementation any time soon.
England hasn't had a land invasion for a thousand years(ish), America hasn't had a land invasion for a hell of a long time and nor has Australia. I don't see how they can tell us that were constantly under threat.
The countries that do stand up for the rights of there inhabitents have been invaded by people seen to be opressors (or have been governed by them).
I think our governments are starting to feel imortal, and trying to make sure they stay that way.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Is it just me, or does something seem to be missing from this sentence? For example -- injection of proposed content >> -- "however the software failed to recognize a Halliburton executive from a West-African Pygmy ".
Just walk around the airport with a goofy look on your face. You'll never be suspected ... by the facial recognition equipment. Or better yet come through the cafeteria with chunks of food smeared on your face. That's inconspicuous.
'How your face could open doors.'
Hah - that's nothing. At work there is a woman with a face that can stop a train.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
That would get some attention.
I know a thing or two about computer vision, and this isn't even close to working well in a general sense.
You can match a face to an image on file, maybe, if the conditions (lighting, perspective, facial hair, glasses) are similar. Often you need the face hand cropped from the background for the training image.
You can maybe extend this for a security system that can say if someone who doesn't belong is entering the system. In this case, you can control all the elements listed above, and the ok-list is small.
We are at least a decade off from the general facial recognition problem: match the id or name to the face of 5 billion people under severe changes in the conditions mentioned above.
That said, the face detection problem is very close to being solved. Instead of classification, this is more of a clustering algorithm, "what parts of this image have faces in them". Take a security camera image, and return cropped subsections of that image with faces. This could then be fed into the yet unsolved recognition problem.
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
Comments on 3-D face recognition in United Kingdom
A few comments:
1. The claimed performance of the Aurora system seems unlikely. There is a long history of exaggerated claims by companies marketing face recognition products. For example, see news coverage of face recognition immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Face recognition is quite difficult:
Faces vary over time due to natural aging, gain or loss of weight, weathering of the face due to environmental factors, changes in facial hair in men, and other factors.
Even human face recognition is not particularly accurate, as many cases of mistaken identity and incorrect eyewitness identification demonstrate.
The uniqueness of faces has not been demonstrated. In addition to identical twins and close relatives with striking resemblances, people with strikingly similar faces sometimes occur in the general population, usually among the same ethnic group.
All forms of pattern recognition by computers -- computer vision, speech recognition, face recognition, etc. -- have proven extremely difficult. It seems likely that duplicating human level pattern recognition requires the discovery of a new scientific principle or principles. Obviously, one cannot rule out that Aurora or another company has made such a discovery.
2. Whether using fingerprints, DNA, face patterns, or other biometrics, even a small rate of duplicates -- for example one in a million -- present serious problems for forensic applications. In major urban areas, several million people live within a few hours travel time of any crime scene, meaning that any biometric could be matched to several suspects (using a one in a million duplicate rate) with plausible access to the crime scene. In fact, with modern airline transportation, the entire world's population of over 6 billion people is within at most a few days travel time of any crime scene.
This is not an academic concern. For example, in the recent Brandon Mayfield case, the United States FBI matched a fingerprint taken from a bag at the scene of the Madrid train bombing to Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer, in Portland Oregon. The Spanish authorities, however, produced their own match to the fingerprint, an Algerian suspect. The FBI argued for a time that Brandon Mayfield might have traveled by plane to Spain using a false passport -- since there was no record of any travel. The considerable distance between Portland Oregon and Madrid did not provide an adequate alibi due to modern transportation. Eventually, the FBI backed down and claimed that its expert fingerprint examiners had made a mistake.
The Brandon Mayfield case is not an isolated case. There are several known cases of mistaken fingerprint identification. In all cases, the authorities blame the misidentification on error or fraud by fingerprint examiners, rather than a duplicate or near duplicate fingerprint, a finding which would invalidate the method entirely.
3. Historically, the databases of biometrics -- fingerprints and mug shots -- used in police investigations appear to be highly biased, consisting primarily of persons with criminal records or circumstances that make them plausible suspects for crimes (for example, terrorist watch lists). Thus, if a misidentification occurs -- especially due to fingerprints, the suspect will face a very difficult time proving his or her innocence. It requires an airtight alibi, contradictory DNA evidence, or something similarly compelling to call into question the biometric identification, especially if the wrongly accused is a known "bad person". If the databases included all citizens, then suspicious misidentifications of persons without criminal records or other plausible reasons for suspicion would be more likely to call into question the biometric method such as fingerprint.
4. Biometrics used for access control, in place of keys for example, face serious problems with error rates as low as 1%. For example, consider a hote
Now is the time to buy Aurora shares - soon, there will still be lots of applications of this technology throughout Europe. The European Parliament is to vote this Wednesday on a proposal to include face scans, along with fingerprints, on chips embedded in all EU citizens' and residents' passports. The biometrics chips will be introduced even if the Parliament should vote no, because in the pseudo democracy that is the EU, the Government (the EU Council, composed of ministers from the member states) can simply ignore a vote by the Parliament on many issues. Privacy International, Statewatch and European Digital Rights are moblising against the introduction, they are calling for endorsements of an Open Letter to the Parliament here: http://www.edri.org/campaigns/biometrics/0411
Non-UK readers should be aware that David Blunkett, the UK Foreign Minister and parent of this god-forsaken legislation often uses the old "you can trust us with your data - it's not like we're the Nazis or anything" line when people complain about ID cards, biometrics and all the other good stuff he has in mind.
Non-UK readers shuld also be aware that Blunkett this week is facing charges of inappropriate behaviour when he was caught personally intervening in the visa application for his mistress' new nanny.
I find myself needing to give my face/fingerprints to a man who would appear to be a corrupt adulterer. How excellent is that.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
Oops.
Not foreign office. Home office.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
Hmmmm, Just a few questions...
Why would I need a gun?
Why would I buy wood to build a shack in the mountains? (Of course, unless you live near some hideously deforested mountains.)
And finally, why would a technophobe have a computer?
I live within a short drive of that company. Anyone interested in filling their foyer with people wearing balaclavas?
"Even banks are thinking to put cameras in their ATM machines to identify you."
So they going to put these into ATM's. I heard that tests on iris-recognition failed because when the sun had been shining onto the ATM (as it always does) the camera/CCD had trouble 'recovering' from the light levels so kept giving false readings and refusing people.
So it'll probably not matter if you've been in a fight or had a shave/grown a goatee unless they start putting these things in darkened booths. Which would probably make things interesting when trying to get cash out at night, clambering over amorous clubbers...
Each one of these measures has been a cynical attempt to limit liberty within the UK. There has already been a government funded surevey judgning the "peoples" attitude towards ID cards
I have yet to see anybody explain why ID cards are an attempt to limit liberty. Sure, ID cards in some forms are abusive, but that doesn't mean that ID cards are intrinsically abusive. I don't have a problem with having a way to identify myself to the government, I already have a number of ways, such as my passport. Reducing it to one form of ID is basically just database normalisation. I suspect that very few UK citizens do have a problem with having a standard way of identifying themselves to the government.
yes knives are soon to be banned in this moronic country
Then how are we to cut our food? Please back up your claims with evidence and not opinion.
when they get older they won't be able to smoke a cigarette (yep, smoking is banned too).
Smoking certainly isn't banned, and as far as drug use goes, the drugs laws are relaxing (e.g. Marijuana laws have been significantly reduced over the past few years and some forms are available legally for medical purposes).
It looks like this country is starting to fall foul of the lie that is "The war on terror"
The government trying to push ID cards in the name of safety is bullshit. The opposition trying to push against ID cards in the name of liberty is equally bullshit. Trying to counter one set of lies with another set of diametrically opposed lies is disingenuous.
according to a police officer who talked to BBC News for 'How your face could open doors.'
If you happen to be a Helen Of Troy look-a-like, could you use this tech to launch a thousand ships? (or open a thousand doors?)
Nothing is so smiple that it can't be screwed up.
Am I the only one who's worried by the assumption that someone is more likely to be a criminal just because they've been arrested, whether or not they were cautioned/tried/convicted? The police can arrest you more-or-less on a whim under the law in the UK today, and under the measures the government is pushing for, this would now be able to result in everything from a compulsory drugs test to scanning your biometrics and comparing them for any potential matches with a national database. If getting arrested now puts you on the hit list, does the fact that you were once taken in for being drunk and disorderly now make you more likely to be a suspect in a murder investigation?!
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, and the oft-quoted official line that "we won't use the new measures to go on fishing expeditions"? Of course, this is the country where out of all the arrests under the anti-terrorism legislation, there have been almost no actual convictions for terrorism-related offences (but a fair few for other minor things, so that's OK then), and where you can be held indefinitely, without trial, on suspicion of terrorist activity, if the Home Secretary doesn't like you (and you're foreign). Welcome to the UK...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What about if you break a cheekbone or your nose? The article states that thousands of points are measured on your face and the system remembers the "geograpahy" of your face. I'm not a doctor, but I'm sure if you break a bone, there's no guarantee that it will heal in exactly the same way as it was before, so surely your facial structure will change, and the system may not recognise you?
Now I know that identical twins are 100% identical, but there are some who are close. How does such a system cope with identical twins? they are after all two different people.
Just for once I'm going to leave the social implications of this technology to other commentators, and look at it from a detached, purely mathematical standpoint. What is going on in this software is basically shape recognition. And the mathematical implications of having a shape-recognition system that can apply to something as imprecise and diverse as human faces are as important IMHO as the social ones.
.....
While I don't have a formal proof -- I'll leave that up to the daylights-boring-out faction of the pure maths brigade -- it's my gut feeling that the mathematical problems thrown up by attempting to render compiled code into human-readable form are in the same domain as those involved in shape recognition. Functions, "if / else" structures, "for" and "while" loops and so forth are all basically just recognisable shapes.
Now the maths is done for recognising the shapes of human faces, picking out features and so forth. Obviously the next thing is going to be the ability to do it with one individual in a moving crowd. And I really do not think that a workable decompiler can be all that far behind. This really could be the end of the open-source / closed-source debate
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If you read the news, there are a chronic shortage of NHS dentists. With people queueing when a new practice opens.
e /3494409.stm
2 66547.stm
u k+bbc+dentists+nhs&hl=en&lr=&start=0&s a=N
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3699871.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3109915.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2266231.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3499215.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4038741.stm
(a lot isn't there?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshir
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2935611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2
Too many to list
http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:news.bbc.co.