Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy 124

Posted by Zonk from the i-have-to-use-my-finger-to-type-pshh dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy More

Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy

Comments Filter:
  • I wish there was someway for me to use a fingerprint scanner or embedded RFID - that way I could get first post! ;-)

  • Where the chip is best stored... (Score:3, Funny)

    by parasonic ( 699907 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:44AM (#15262887)
    ...is in the body area most likely to be guarded.

  • The problem being... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Churla ( 936633 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:44AM (#15262888)
    I don't want an RFID which simply spews out "yes this is Churla" to any device requesting my identity because that it far too easy to spoof. Anything transmitted is just a transmission and on the most basic level can be recorded and rebroadcast by someone else.

    This brings around the point that you would still need a second means of authentication anyways. meaning either a password/code to enter that you knew, or possibly some biometrics like fingerprints/retina scans. I don't trust facial geometry scanning because it also is dupable easier than stealing a retina.

    • That's a good point. If RFID tags are to happen, God forbid, protocols have to be in established world wide, and the tag has to be active not just passive. By that I mean that when you go to unlock your office door at work, it needs to send a "Hi, who are you?" signtal to your tag, then YOUR tag has to send "Hello I'm the man that works here". But it has to somehow be encrypted.

      It seems that this all more and more a headache in the securtiy department.
      • How would an active tag help security?
        • It would simply answer the quest for information instead of just broadcasting when it gets hit w/ radio frequencies. Some how a private converstation has to happen w/ encryption of soe sort.
          • So you're saying an active tag would allow encryption, while a passive one would not? I'm not sure that's true, but certainly makes sense if so.
            • I'll try to cler up what I'm saying.

              Passive tags will lie under your skin dormant until something sends a message to it to ask a question. Then it will answer.

              Active tags will do more than just send out a responce. It will have to authenticate the query, then send information instead of just handing it out to any old request.

    • Re:The problem being... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:11PM (#15263158)
      I'm still not convinced that the will exists. With strong keypair-based encryption, unless the RFID has enough intelligence to generate its own keypair, something else is going to have to do that and copy the keys onto the RFID chip.

      And you just know someone will keep a copy of all the generated keypairs, and a whole bunch of them will be stolen.

      All these are resolveable, technical issues. But they're the kind of thing that gets resolved by academics dedicated to perfecting the theory, not the kind of thing that gets resolved by a company dedicated to getting the per-chip cost down to a fraction of a penny.

  • the real issue is ease of use... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grrr ( 16449 ) * <cgrrrNO@SPAMgrrr.net> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:44AM (#15262889) Homepage Journal
    Mold the technology to the users, not the other way around. Check.

    < grrr / >

  • Turn it off? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joke_dst ( 832055 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:46AM (#15262903) Journal
    The main issue I have with putting chips under my skin is that I can't take it out whenever I want! If there were a convenient way to turn it off I might do it...

    (But carrying around a device for turning it off kind of circumvent the whole idea... Then i could just carry an ID card with an off switch instead)

    • Chip your hand and wear a nice set of wire-mesh gloves. Put some leather around the wire-mesh and you'd be borderline fashionable.
    • If you must have a chip then have them put it in a place that can easily be covered with metal - ie by a braclet or ring.

      The jewelry {if it uses enough metal} will effectively block the RFID tag from receiveing and broadcasting signals, as well it won't be highly noticable that you are attempting to block random readers.

      Personally I'm not all that impressed with currently embedded chips. MRI machines are not supposed to be used on an unconcious chip embedded person, because of potential problems like
      • But, if you need that MRI to diagnose the brain aneurysm, they either have to dig the chip out, wasting time, or use another technology that may not be the best at diagnosing your illness.

    • Re:Turn it off? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Epistax ( 544591 )
      How about instead of implanting chips, which can break or become obsolete easily, we implant something that can hold the chips? People get implants all the time which result in things like tubes sticking out, perhaps to regulate pressure or allow draining of some liquid. Pretty disgusting, but life saving.

      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 pl
      • You mean kinda like one of these? [technovelgy.com]

      • Of course, if you can remove it and lose it that easily, why not just put it on your keychain?
        • Well you'd have to rather deliberately remove it, which would be done to replace it. I mean it's not like it'd make it more comfortable to remove it since what you're feeling is the holder, not the chip. The idea is you'd remove it to change it. I mean, a keychain can be stolen or forgotten. This could be made extremely hard to steal by having unique device interfaces (holder and ejector matched).

          I'm not arguing for it. It's creepy to me. I'm just throwing an alternative into the air because no one
      • You mean something like a wallet....

        The day it is a requirement for me to come to work naked, I'll finally quit.

      • The big problem with having any open hole in the skin is infection. For some problems (e.g. kidney dialysis) the risk is worth it, but for everyday use with healthy people, the drawbacks are bigger than the benefits. You might be able to graft the skin into a pocket, like a kangaroo pouch, but that'd be a lot more expensive (and painful) than the 5 minutes it takes to insert a simple subcutaneous implant.

        Regardless, what's so bad about carrying around a wireless fob on one's keychain that one needs subc

    • The main issue I have with putting chips under my skin is that I can't take it out whenever I want!

      Bull hockey. It ain't nothing a shot of tequila, lether belt, and an exacto knife can't fix.

  • Morbidity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:50AM (#15262942) Journal

    Mind you... if all they need is a fingerprint and/or data from your RFID implant, a crook wouldn't even need you alive. The RFID chip would supposedly keep working for a while and fingerprints don't depend on you being alive. Retinas would be a different story, since they require a constant blood flow, though I'm not sure what the decay rate is for retinal tissue when you die.

    Food for thought.

    • Some fingerprint scanners to require signs of life. I seem to remember hearing that some need to detect a heartbeat and/or body heat. Of course, these measures can be circumvented as well...
      • That's pretty cool! I would have loved to be involved in planning that: Military Official: This fingerprint scanner will make sure only authorized personnel can get through this door! Naysayer: But what if someone chops off the hand of an authorized personnel and uses the severed hand to gain access? Official: Not to worry, we're prepared for that! You see, the scanner requires that the finger have a pulse. They can stand here all day poking it with the severed hand, they're not getting in. Authorize
        • Well, you do have to prepare for all contingencies. (:-)

          Seriously, this and skin conductivity also stop someone from having different fingerprints printed onto their fingers with latex.
      • Some secure fingerprint readers check temperature and skin conductivity, and even for those who don't, a dead finger is usable only for a short period of time. The finger skin stretches pretty quickly after death and the print becomes unusable. You should see what a necrodactilar finger card looks like, they're used for example to identify bodies in accidents or crimes, and it's not at all so easy as identifying a living person. Even if you can use them, it becomes evident when you see the print that the fi
      • Why not have an RFID reader within the thermal-testing fingerprint scanner? They'd have to kill you, chop off the whole hand (since they might get the wrong figer if they do just one) and then boil it, since microwaving is out of the question to heat it up as it'd fry the chip. I imagine a heartbeat'd be rather tough to spoof, but warmth is doable.

    • Re:Morbidity (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BigChiefMunkey ( 870488 )
      While this is true, I believe you are on the right track with the retinas. The 'pattern' that they are recognizing is the random pattern that the blood vessels make on your retina. No blood circulating/inflating those vessels..

      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 certai
    • Although in sci-fi, they usually kill the dude, take a picture of the retina, then make contacts w/ the image transferred onto it. Owned... :-( Of course, you'd be dead, so who cares if they ruin your credit at that point...
    • the deeper problem with using biometrics is once a crook figures out a way to deceive a system into thinking they are you. Thus compromising you biometric identity there is usually no way to correct the compromise. ( you can't change your fingerprints.)

      That is why biometrics are best considered as an ADDITIONAL level of security beyond passwords.

      Three things can establish trust:
      1) what you are - biometric
      2) something you carry - card ( ref id?)
      3) something you know - password or pin

      the most secure system

      • Three things can establish trust:
        1) what you are - biometric
        2) something you carry - card ( ref id?)
        3) something you know - password or pin

        Getting back to the laziness aspect, this is exactly what most people would prefer to avoid. While they carry fingerprints or retinas everywhere, carrying a card means the potential for losing it and having a PIN/password means having to remember it. Most people want a one-shot identification to take place, preferably without them having to lift a finger (I know

        • I guess that was what I was trying to get at:
          When laziness is your primary concern in building security you build windows 98.

          If biometric adoption is being helped by the laziness factor it is because the biometrics systems being build are less secure then password based systems they replace. biometrics can only offer additional security if they are use in combination with some other techniques. Otherwise they offer poorer security because they can't be changed if they are comprised.

          Giving someone a smart
    • Requirements for defeating retinal scans: one fountain pen. This [imdb.com] proves it conclusivly. Hollywood NEVER lies.
    • Mind you... if all they need is a fingerprint and/or data from your RFID implant, a crook wouldn't even need you alive.

      And how this is any different from a guy putting a gun to your head, forcing you to write down your password or PIN, and then shooting you anyways?

      There are countless roberies every year were victims are forced at gun point to withdraw monies from ATMs.

      Seriously, a thief doesn't want to murder you (most of the time) if he can avoid it. Unless you put up resistance, they just want your money

  • Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bensafrickingenius ( 828123 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:52AM (#15262978)
    "ten percent of the users in Asia were happy to be chipped and have done with it."

    Is being "chipped" biometrics at all? Or am I being a semantics Nazi?

    • You know, I had the same thought. Maybe it is more inclusive than how it is defined in my head.

      > I am not left-handed, either!

      Crap, I am. Does this mean we've got the bases covered for biometrics, chips, and handedness? heh

      -bw
    • I was thinking the same thing, but I was willing to assume the article cleared up the confusion. I haven't read the article yet, but a chip is definitely not biometrics.

  • Repeat the Story Enough (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mpapet ( 761907 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:56AM (#15263024) Homepage
    times and people will believe it.

    Unisys has the most to gain by selling this story. They do these kinds of projects on a regular basis.

    I'd be interested to hear how many of their smart card projects actually worked as promised.
  • and what's to stop someone from putting someone else's or a duplicate chip in

  • Why implants? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:57AM (#15263036) Journal
    Why not simply embed a password in a chip on some jewelry like a bracelet or a ring? Something you can take off if you need, and will be aware of if it is missing. Then have a system to deactivate it if it does come up missing or stolen. I for one don't want to have anything implanted in me unless it's a matter of life or death, but I guess the sheeple don't have as much of a problem with it :-(
    • Now that's a decent compromise, but how would you deactivate the device? Unless it has a some kind of cellular receiver in it that you can just send a signal from anywhere in the world.

      Unless of course, you do it from the other end and once you find it's missing you remove the device ID from the system it works on, therefore makint it null and void. So if it is stolen, then someone can try to use it but it won't work because the ID it sends to authenticate won't exhist any more.

  • Who needs RFID? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:58AM (#15263041) Journal
    RFID isn't lazy. This [slashdot.org] would be the ultimate in lazy and simple. Of course, it would be fun if things start happening randomly once your mind starts to wander.

  • Excuse me? Lazy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:58AM (#15263042) Journal
    from the i-have-to-use-my-finger-to-type-pshh dept.

    I don't think the users are sick of having to type -- they're sick of the situation created by lazy-ass admins who think that you create security by having 30 different accounts, each with >8 characters, with mandatory uppercase, lowercase, numerics and punctuation. Oh, and they all have to be rotated at 60 day intervals and it's easy because you just make up a little story about each of your convoluted passwords, remember all 30 of them and make up a new one and forget the old one every time you change the password!

    I just had to change and lengthen my purchasing account password because, y'know, there's a huge problem with h4x0rs ordering office supplies in my name. I'll tell you where I'd like to implant an RFID chip...

    • This won't make it any better...You'll just have to have so many chips implanted you'll look like a chip hedgehog.

      The problem lies with corporations who are too lazy to set up some kind of integrated security...unfortunately microshaft has one of the most friendly setups, with Active Directory, but it doesn't play well with others, and it has all the problems associated with all the other microsoft products.

      So you end up with every application having its own security, and then corporate decides that all pas
  • These lazy people should watch "Charlie Jade" first.
    http://www.charliejade.com/ [charliejade.com]

    In the show, in the Alphaverse ( a parallel universe with more advanced technology than use) everybody has a chip in their wrist. They use is as a debit card. The corporations/governments use it as population control. If you don't have a chip, you don't exist and anybody can kill you.

    BTW: Yes, it's a good show but the pace is slower than lets say BSG.
  • There was that one movie with that one guy that eats placentas... uhm... "Minority Report".

    I already don't like when they read my credit card and say, "thank you Mr. Fragmentate." Actually, I don't really want them talking to me in a personal manner at all.

    You just know that eventually they'll always just know where you are. "Shame on you Mr. Fragmentate... an NC-7 movie? Tsk." I find it hilarious that a good portion of the people recently surveyed by my company about the "evils of browser cookies" were willing to have an implant in their body, but absolutely would not allow cookies.

    I don't get it. A harmless text string implanted on your hard-drive that can track you quite anonymously (the net only knows what you tell it) and that you have direct access to; versus a device implanted in your body that you have absolutely no understanding of, or control over.

    It's not THAT hard to whip out the driver's license or state-issued ID. I know they're not "secure" but this article isn't talking about security -- it's talking about convenience.

  • ...that's because they are godless heathens! ;-)

  • Famous quotation (Score:5, Funny)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus herbivore> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:01PM (#15263080) Homepage
    Wasn't it Abe Lincoln that said: "Those that would be be lazy and get an RFID chip inserted into them deserve no privacy - who shot me?"
    • Benjamin Franklin - "They that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."

      Could be rewritten/interpreted as "They that would trade essential liberty for a little convenience deserve neither."

      That's the problem with people these days -- they don't want to put any effort into anything and so they're more than willing to give away their rights and their privacy if it means they get through the line quicker at Wal*Mart.

      *sigh*
    • Playing trivial pursuit a few years back, I got to ask a friend this question:

      This late president's last words were "Oh dear, I think I have a headache".

      Friend thinks for a second, then says "Hope it wasn't Kennedy..."

      What?

      Too soon?

  • After reading the demo in Wired 14.05... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:04PM (#15263105)
    ...where Jon Westhues cloned an implanted VeriChip (the only FDA approved chip on the market) in 10 minutes with a homebrew device, NO CHIP FOR ME!

  • Communism (Score:2, Insightful)

    by armyturtle ( 603867 )
    100% of those 10% surveyed are probably not accustomed to the normal daily freedoms we have as Americans. If you survey 10% of people in China who are used to being oppressed by their government I'm more than certain they'll be more accepting to this idea than 10% of Americans. I hate one-sided/slanted polls because not everyone can think for themselves & there are those who are prone to take a poll for gospel.
    • 100% of those 10% surveyed are probably not accustomed to the normal daily freedoms we have as Americans. If you survey 10% of people in China who are used to being oppressed by their government I'm more than certain they'll be more accepting to this idea than 10% of Americans.

      On the contrary. For people who lived in totalitarian societies freedom means turning a blind eye to the indiscretions of others, hiding your own from strangers, and generally doing everything you can to make bureaucracy ineffective a
      • It may take time - but our society in America has made more progress towards what the *people* want than any other nation in history. You tellin' me that the peoples of China are represented fairly by their government?

        Grant it I don't agree with every politician in our government here in the USA but if the majority of the public here doesn't like what they've done, out they go!
        • The Americans today are not the Americans of the late 18th century.

          People will learn to deal with the government they have to live with. Most of the world population is more suspicious of government than the US, and therefore less likely to like this technology. Americans do have much more influence on whether it is used. Not just because of the reason you stated but also because the US is the number one superpower and tells a lot of its allies what identification technology to use to monitor its citizens b
  • It seems like all these technologies can do for us is to say "there's a good chance this is me." In order to really ID someone, you can't just take an instant in time -- you'd have to have some way of checking their "story", i.e. how do you validate that their id isn't a fraud? We'd be way better off if we could reject any fake id vs. continuing trying to verify that an ID is in fact the actual person it says it is. If you could always tell a fake, then at the very least you'd have to steal the actual I

  • I'm lazy (Score:5, Funny)

    by tezza ( 539307 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:11PM (#15263155)

    I would have voted against biometrics, but never quite got around to it.

  • Chiped off!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pedalfreak862 ( 972750 )
    The problem was stated in another article where people with laptops are stealing cars with keyless entries. Just think what they could do if they stole your chip info and could access not only your car but every aspect of your life.
  • remember Demolition Man 2?

  • Security without Usability = Insecurity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheesedog ( 603990 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:20PM (#15263226)
    I'm a big fan of the thesis recently popularized by O'Reilly's "Security and Usabilty: Designing Secure Systems that People can Use" [amazon.com], which is this:

    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.

  • I've had my credit card info stolen when the swipe machine at a Kinko's was hacked to record everything. That very night I got a call from VISA regarding suspicious account activity; my card was deactivated and they sent me a new one in the mail.

    Imagine if I were using a retina or fingerprint scanner instead of a credit card. Replacing my retina/fingerprints isn't nearly as easy.

    Biometrics mean you have once chance to keep your identity safe. Afterwards you're screwed for the rest of your life. For this
    • 3 points. First, biometrics would not replace credit cards, I'm not sure where you got that idea. At most, they would replace the signature "required" to use the card. I can't see how that would do anything but make the card more secure, since currently checkers generally don't give the signature a glance, let alone carefully compare it to the one on the card. So if your credit card information got hijacked and it was protected by biometrics, either the theif would not be able to use it, or you would ju
      • Thanks, nasch. I'm glad nobody's thinking of letting biometrics replace credit cards entirely. As far as identity theft goes, as long as you can get the powers that be know what's going on, anthing issued to you can be re-issued, but you're stuck with what you're born with. I think we agree that biometrics can be a good thing, but only if it's used where appropriate.

  • Religious Issues with Chip? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:45PM (#15263422)
    I am athiest, so I am not really sure... but wouldn't Christians be upset by being chipped? Doesn't it make people nervous about the whole "Mark of the Beast" thing? I would think that the whole issue of implants would be a non-starter in the U.S., and probably many parts of Europe. But maybe Christians don't mind, if it is implanted in their butt, or their foot, or elbow, or somewhere other than their forehead or right hand. Or maybe Christians don't mind, because in modern U.S. politics the Christian-right supports a lot of things forbidden in Christianity (war and military service, death penalty, etc.)

    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.
    • in modern U.S. politics the Christian-right supports a lot of things forbidden in Christianity (war and military service, death penalty, etc.)
      Hope I don't start a flamewar, but... are you sure those are forbidden by Christianity (if we can even say there is a single such thing as Christianity)?
      • It is not a flamewar with me, because I don't really care that much about what the rules in Christianity are. But before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, early Christians would choose to die rather than participate in military service. The whole "Turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" thing seems pretty clearly pacifist to me. Even when Jesus was going to be murdered, his disiples were forbidden from saving him.

        And when it comes to the death penalty, you can look at the story in the Gospel of John
        • Just so the other voice is heard, it's not any different than Muslim's using Jihad (holy war) as an excuse to kill Christians and Jews. I have a hard time believing that the koran justifies violence, military service, and the like...

          I'm not hear to flame or to otherwise support Christianity (of which I'm a card carrying believer), I'm just here to point out that Muslims, Jews, and other religions suffer from the same hypocrisy... Don't just single out the Christians in this endeavor. I'm sure the oth
          • I wasn't singling out Christianity for not supporting putting chips in people... Or for selling out their religion (which everyone seems to do nowadays) I was saying that Christianity would be the deal breaker. If the vast majorty of wealthy people in America and Western Europe refuse to get a chip, then it doesn't matter what poor people in the middle east will do - because they aren't the big market for financial services. It is the middle class (largely Christian) American or Western European who will re
            • Little late on the reply, so accept my appologies. I'll try to answer your questions as honestly as possible but this requires a tad bit of back story...

              First off, I am a Christian and I have my own faith that is what it is. I do not, however, consider myself part of any sect, congreation, or denomination. Basically, as a child I saw through the hypocracy and lies and opted out of the popularity contests and such.

              So with that in mind; If the typical christain were like myself, then no, they wo
  • Being a paranoid type, I tend to overreact to things, but consider the following-
    Given the US Governments current plans to consolidate all the data they hold about you into ginormous centralized multi-agency databases-
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-6-9-ioi.html [whitehouse.gov]
    They then intend to secure this data with biometric-containing RFID equipped tokens-
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information .html#is [whitehouse.gov]
    But they intend to use Microsoft MIIS as the security engine-
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetm [microsoft.com]
  • I guess my thought is, with rf tags it's always trasmitting, it's like yelling out your credit card every time you use it, anyone around can steal the data.
    • Credit card information would (I hope) be "yelled out" in the same way it is yelled out when you use it on the internet - after being encrypted.
      • Yeah, I would hope so as well! I guess my point being that a good system would need to be established before I would trust ANY of my information to be traveling freely through the air regaurdless how the rf device is implimented...I wouldn't want some joe off the street just to be able to 'request' the data either! ;)

  • Oh dear (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by jb.hl.com ( 782137 )
    Here come all the trolls saying how it's everyone else's fault for being stupid, and not that they really just don't give a damn so long as their life gets a little easier.
  • I am constantly surprised by all of the security efforts and fads that come and go. I have observed that security is usually lighter where people know and trust each other and is more complex where people do not know each other. Perhaps security experts would do well to consider how we could improve the relationships we have with people around us.

  • It's NOT ease of use (Score:3, Interesting)

    by i am kman ( 972584 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @01:03PM (#15263593)
    I was pretty deeply into the smartcards and biometrics business 7-8 years ago and they had VERY cheap ($2/keyboard on a keyboard) and VERY easy to use embedded keyboard scanners (as well as separate). We built prototypes for folks to easily to computers and web accounts, but it didn't really take off.

    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.

  • Where, where, where is Waldo? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dark Coder ( 66759 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @01:09PM (#15263651)
    Yeah, right... Where do we put the identification metrics and how is it kept in check from unauthorized usages?

    You have your basic triage of information:

    1. Consumer/User/
    2. Merchant/Provider
    3. Arbitrator/Mediator/Authenticator

    Each MUST be able to revoke one of the other two for such a successful system. Right now, the biggest problem in today's computing world is the consumer/user cannot revoke.

    Without user revokation, the system is ineffectual against abuse (i.e., identity thefts, innocent arrest records, stuck with a Social Security Number)

    What is needed is a 3-way public key exchange algorithm (can't even find that in Google).

  • when they implanted the RFID next to my scapula, but everyone just said I had a chip on my shoulder.
  • "Turner added that what is more important in the smartcard debate is ratifying exactly where the identification data is stored."

    The problem is that no one should store any ID information. The chip needs to provide a digital signature, and the private key needs to exist only in the chip. This completely eliminates spoofing by "listening" to a device or pinging it for ID. I suppose each device should also have an ID, but that should not be used as authentication - just a suggestion as to which public key ca

  • But you know... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by east coast ( 590680 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @02:10PM (#15264228)
    Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy

    This is the same reason that beers with twist-off caps is so popular too.
  • Biometrics is "something you are" not "something you have." A chip, even embedded under the skin, qualifies as "something you have." It being embedded under the skin just makes it more difficult to lose.
  • What's controversial is RFID smartcards and implants containing personal data, not necessarily biometrics itself. Your driver's license and passport have had biometrics for a long time.
  • You can be disposed of yet still exist.
    You'll still be officially alive
    Don't be pissed.
    You'll still be voting in 9595
    All your base
    are belong to us.
    Decompose, at a slow pace.
    Don't make a stinking fuss.

  • Biometrics != Chipping (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ernesto Alvarez ( 750678 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @07:19PM (#15266853) Homepage Journal
    The idea behind biometrics is that some autentication device detects some characteristic of your body that's not easy to forge. The response of a RFID chip however, would be relatively easy to fake, and the intruder would not have to be himself chipped.

    Chipping is no more than a fancy way of carrying an access card, a poor substitute for biometrics (really NOT a substitute). And even if it were a perfect substitute, biometrics is not a good method under some circumstances (like remote logging: was that someone speaking his passphrase on a microphone, or just a recording?).

    Decision makers should leave the mothod of authentication to the experts (sane ones, excessive paranoia is detrimental too).
  • I'll never willingly accept a chip implant that could be used by governments or companies to identify me. If my body and the product of my mind [speech, knowledge] aren't good enough, screw 'em. My ancestors didn't emigrate to America and work themselves into early graves so that their children could become property of the State. They came specifically to avoid such things, and the Constitution of this country promised protection against same. Their descendants have worked, fought, and voted to preserve tha

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close