Your Skin Is Your Password

An anonymous reader writes: "Technology Review is running a story outlining a process which uses light to uniquely identify a person through their skin. The light reflects through a person's skin and is uniquely reflected back to a receiver. The researchers believe that this has some major applications including improving hand gun saftey locks and preventing cellular phone theft."

Comments

I have this giant wart on my finger

[PD]

And dammit it's right on the tip of my index finger. Biometric systems need to be able to account for variation over time. What happens if a person gets a tan? Or develops some new freckles, or a mole?

These devices really have to be perfect. False negatives are one thing, but even one false positive completely destroys the usefulness of the device.

Re:I have this giant wart on my finger

[liquidice5]

I agree

what about the handgun thing
what if you are being attacked and your gun wont recognize you because you are sweating profusely??

What about dirty hands?

I believe that biometric systems will not be completely accurate until they use DNA from blood
(like in Gattaca) (but, then also like in Gattaca, they can be fooled)

but then there is privacy issues and things like that.

Re:I have this giant wart on my finger

[PD]

We've got to combine these things

-something you are - biometric data
-something you have - a physical key of some kind
-something you know - a password or PIN

Re:I have this giant wart on my finger

[b_pretender]

The biometric will suffice for the "physical key of some kind". Remember, though, according to Scheier, biometrics are easily bypassed. The something you know part, can be replaced by one of those smart cards with a constantly changing password. Those cards are generally more secure than biometrics and passwords.

Re:I have this giant wart on my finger

[glock22]

Uncle Mike's makes a holster for police which requires finger print verification before releasing the handgun from the holster. Strangely, I can't find that product on their Law Enforcement Holster page. [shrug] The product brochure/catalog I read (and this random site, description halfway down the page) both claim that it takes about a second for the system to work. That's one second just to start clearing the holster, then you have to bring it to bear.

One training center claims that they can train you to draw and fire two good shots in 1.5 seconds, and a man who used to run the sheriff's armory told me that he would train deputies to draw and fire from a standard police holster in 1.65 seconds.

Now add one full second to those times. Then think about how far you can run in 2-3 seconds. That aggresive man with a knife is now much closer to our police officer than he would have been otherwise. In the case of firearms we must remember that speed is going to be an issue. If it's not fast, I don't want it. Make it fast, and I'll look at it.

Uh oh..

[Xunker]

Phone theft

[andy@petdance.com]

Well, it won't really prevent cellular phone theft, although it will probably make them not so appealing as a target.

Re:Phone theft

[rtaylor]

Its cold here. Some of us wear gloves.

This isn't going to work very well.

Re:Phone theft

[quantaman]

Its cold here.

The http://www.zort.ca says it all :)

haha

[kasper37]

unfortunately 90% of the hackers' logins could be bypassed using a single sheet of plain white paper.

Re:Different How?

[unDiWahn]

Well, let's go read the article:

"Unlike biometrics like fingerprinting and face recognition (see "Face Recognition", TR Nov 2001), light printing doesn't rely on image-processing. Instead, the device measures wavelengths of reflected light, which requires considerably less computing power."

So, its a fairly different method, meaning different solutions to it application.

"Norton says, "but the point is that fingerprint technology cannot determine 'liveness.' You can't foil the Lumidigm system with fake or dead tissue.""

So, maybe it's more reliable?

Either way tho, I agree with the guy down there who disbelieves it -- if you're measuring the wavelength of reflected light, couldn't that change drastically (enough to make it useless) over time?

Wonderful.

[Lendrick]

This means that eventually they'll be able to place a large infrared light out in a public place and be able to identify everyone who walks through using minimal computer power.

Attempts at face recognition so far have been encouragingly laughable. If this is everything it's cracked up to be, it may eventually be able to fill the niche that face recognition was supposed to.

Of course, it sounds like right now the light has to be very close to the skin for it to work. Perhaps there are inherent limitations in the system that will prevent it from working over large areas.

Re:protecting us where it matters most

[cpeterso]

agreed. Cell phones are practically free these days..

Re:Different How?

[dbrutus]

In a world where the biologists are working in creting organs this is not a long term reliable method. Just splice into the data stream of some entryway using this system (you can probably set up your own) and then calculate how to make an object provide the same reflectivity characteristics. Once you create the fake, voila the method is defeated.

Re:Skin

[dbrutus]

Would it have been as funny to say visit the tanning salon, you don't want your [insert appliance here] to call you a thief come February. Changing skin appearance goes one of two ways from dark to light or light to dark. For the slashdot crowd though, I'd guess that the normal average appearance is pretty untanned.

I wonder...

[MrIcee]

Can this really be a good biometric? First, I would wonder what the differences were say, between twins or triplets? Do their skins reflect the same (e.g., could one twin use the other twins gun)? Likewise for genetic offspring - to what degree are, say, 12 children of the same parents going to have vastly different signatures? Perhaps they do.

It also strikes me odd that they say it would be very difficult to foil. If the device is merely monitoring the response to a flash of light, one would think it would be fairly easy to create a *fuzz buster* (as it were) that sends out a false signal. Or even a *gummy bear* that just absorbs correctly.

Also, if a *living* person is required (e.g., it senses blood flow or something like that) than on would wonder how hard it would be to add a filter over your own skin that would change your index to that of someone else. Or how about injecting your skin with a material that changes your index.... or merely soaking your skin in water until it prunes (does that affect things?).

I can't imagine that this is at all foolproof. And I can cetainly bet that if crimes are committed using a gun that utilizes this technology, sooner or later someone will be framed by faking the technology out.