Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy 124
judgecorp writes "We're used to discussions about privacy and security, but amongst users, the real issue is ease of use, according to a survey by Unisys. It's not a huge sample, but ten percent of the users in Asia were happy to be chipped and have done with it." From the article: "Frost & Sullivan security analyst James Turner said while speed of identity verification may be driving people's acceptance of biometrics, the key issue is that biometrics can be a security block, rather than an enabler. Turner added that what is more important in the smartcard debate is ratifying exactly where the identification data is stored. "
Why implants? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Turn it off? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well how about an implant that (is hopefully not nearly as disgusting) which allows a chip to be slid in place or out of place? The implant could be a tiny flap of sorts which allows a film to be placed between it and you. That film would be a small flexible chip. Some sort of electric pulse could form an ejection system for removing the chip.
Now I don't know the exact physics of it, but I don't see a problem with it. Any number of ejection mechanisms could easily be tried. The only concern I'd have is infection, but someone out there is bound to have a solution for that, as well a solution to skin completely growing ontop of the device.
Chiped off!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Security without Usability = Insecurity (Score:3, Interesting)
If you implement theoretically secure designs, but they suffer from usability problems, you'll end up with a system which is neither secure nor usable.
If, on the other hand, you design your security/authentication mechanisms with usability as a key concern, you'll end up with usable, secure systems.
Re:Morbidity (Score:2, Interesting)
There are also technologies out that address this specifically with blood vessel patterns in your fingers as well. Although I'd have to think that these would be less accurate than retinas.. You'd think that there more capillaries in your eye than your fingers (although you certainly have a lot of nerve endings and blood in your fingertips.)
Still, all that being said, it is more useful to have 2-factor identification anyway. SomethingYouHave and SomethingYouKnow. Not one or the other, etc.
-bw
Religious Issues with Chip? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me, using fingerprints, or retina scans, or some other "god given" form of ID would be more socially acceptable to Christians... and not really any more difficult to implement than an implate. And it would be harder to fake a retina or fingerprint than a chip.
It's NOT ease of use (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Users don't really care - even for bank account logins. Passwords work well enough. Also, everyone 'says' they'd LOVE biometrics, but when you get down to capturing their electronic fingerprint, they start to get nervous.
It's rather like smartcards. While they're superior to credit cards, the credit card system in the US is mature, ubiquitious, integrated, and simple enough that most consumers wouldn't really get a huge benefit. I don't think most identity theft comes from stolen passwords.
Same with biometrics - the technology has been around for 10 years and it's made some headway into niche applications, but it's not going to explode anytime soon unless WalMart or banks requires everyone to use it.
Re:Religious Issues with Chip? (Score:3, Interesting)
And when it comes to the death penalty, you can look at the story in the Gospel of John, when the adulterur was to be killed by stoning, and Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
After Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire, Christianity was kind of re-interpreted to support the goals of the Empire. But I think you have to seriously stretch the message of the Gospel in order to come to the conclusion that Jesus would approve of military service, war, or the death penalty.
You could argue maybe that self-defense is justifyable under Christianity, but there is a big difference between having a military guarding U.S. borders, and launching a full scale global offensive as the modern Christian-right tend to support.
Re:Religious Issues with Chip? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was also speculating if the Christian Right would be for or against chips though. The Christian Right tends to support all sorts of state interventions that don't have anything to do with Christianity - such as the war in iraq, death penalty for drug dealers, rounding up and deporting imigrants etc. Would the Christian Right be against chips on the fact that they are "the mark of the beast", or would they go along with it if some "conservative" leader promised that it was for stopping terrorists, or stopping illegal immigration, or something like that?
But perhaps you, as a Christian, can answer my questions/speculation.
1. Would the typical American Christian be opposed to using implanted chips as ID for religious reasons?
2. Would it be OK, from a biblical standpoint, to get a chip in your buttocks, or elbow, or foot, or some place that clearly isn't your right hand or forehead, as it mentions in revelations? The book of Revelations is very specific. Will you be saved if you get a chip implanted in your left thumb?