Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biometrics in Airports

Posted by michael on from the only-outlaws-will-wear-sunglasses dept.

asv108 writes: "Extremetech has an article by renowned security expert Bruce Schneier about why face recognition in public places such as airports is not a good idea." Schneier is being generous - real world results show that facial recognition systems are a lot less than 99.99% accurate even under laboratory conditions (people posing for the camera under ideal lighting).

8 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Irony by atrowe · · Score: -1, Troll

    I find it ironic that members of one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world are so aprehensive of this potentially excellent technology. Traditionally Americans, and specifically members of the Slashdot community are some of the first to embrace new scientific advances that can improve the quality of life. I am a bit confused as to why you people are so hesitant to accept facial recognition cameras in public.

    Let's be honest here, folks. Nothing is perfect. No system, whether it be biological or mechanical, is going to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. Thanks to modern technology and tremendous advances in processing power, we now have a device that can accurately (four nines) identify a potential criminal from a database containing MILLIONS of entrys. I'd like to see a human do that. No law enforcement officer EVER can boast those kinds of stats. Thanks to computers, we can now have safer streets thanks to technology that is several orders of magnitude more effective and accurate than anything conventional techlology could do.

    Facial recognition cameras will take an additional burden off of our already overworked police departments, while at the same time, making the streets safer for our children. How can anyone NOT like the idea?

    --

    -atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

    1. Re:Irony by Goddamn+Niggers · · Score: -1, Troll

      The problem with this system is it gives a false sense of security. It presumes we know in advance who the terrorists are, and that is certainly not the case. Remember, they live in "cells" and we don't just how many are in the United States let alone who is in them. These people live ordinary lives until someone gives them a message to carry out their mission. You don't suspect them until it's too late. How are we going to use facial recognition when we don't even know who we're trying to recognize. The only thing it does is fool people into thinking things are safer and to lessen other security measures. And that's about the worst thing we could do.

      There are ways to improve security, but this is not one. Inspect baggage closely and don't let weapons get past the checks. Put air marshalls back on flights, as many as possible. Put thick metal doors to keep passengers out of the cockpit. And require extensive background checks on current and future pilots. In spite of this, there's always the possibility that these measures will fail us at a time and airplanes will be the site or weapon of more terrorism. Give people instructions of how to handle things in the event this does happen. It never hurts to be prepared. These are all good measures that actually provide some amount of real security and not just a false sense of it.

  2. i post to slashdot and i can't spel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Can you imagine how COOL it would be to have a beowulf cluster of these machines?!

  3. MODERATORS ON COCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Dammit, the above post is ON TOPIC! Why the fuck do you always moderate flamebaits and trolls as "Offtopic" even when they're completely ontopic! You're too busy smoking cock to think about what your moderating, that's why, fags.

  4. think about it for a second ... by codecowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... the objective of a facial recognition system is not to be 100% accurate - or anywhere near for that matter.

    The objective is to provide a tool that gives law enforcement the ability to *better* determine someone's true identity - and keep a terrorist off your flight.

    How on earth does that interfere with my civil liberties? Even if there was a false alarm, the truth would be discovered soon. Do you think that if the system makes a match to a suspected bad person it shoots you on sight?

    Personally, I have nothing to hide. If my facial scan was a false match and I had to spend a couple hours (or a day for that matter) in the airport getting cleared, I'll be happy knowing that something better than minimum wage security workers is keeping me and my family safer.

  5. Kill all Islam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "Kill all Islam" makes no sense. Please change it. Not doing so will result in a big huge hairy cock jizzing in your ass.

  6. Re:Biometrics are coming.... by lukel · · Score: 0, Troll

    The idea of the airlines having fingerprints for every passenger is pretty scary - but banks and many stores fingerprint when you use/cash checks. What level of this type of stuff will we accept?

    Scary? Maybe I just don't get it, but all this whining over civil liberties seems plain silly to me. Something has to be done to reassure people, and better airport security seems one of the more sensible options. IMO it's a hell of a lot better than some naïve military campaign against terrorism (if you think military action can prevent terrorism, take a look at Israel). Is it really going to hurt if they know which flight you're on?

  7. Re:Biometrics are coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I assume that you want my man-root up your ass crack, you flaming homosexual!