Slashdot Mirror
Mouse Scans Palms to Verify ID
p00kiethebear writes "'Fujitsu is eyeing a variation on the centuries-old art of palmistry as the latest biometric weapon against unauthorized access to computer systems and facilities. The company has developed a computer mouse that will scan the palm of the user and deliver not a look into the future but verify the identity of that person.', With a .5% error rate I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this in offices within the next few years."
There've been thumb-reading mice for a while now. google: thumb biometric mouse This isn't news, it's another slashvertisement.
Yawn.
[
A lot of good that does from keeping someone from typing 'rm -rf *'. :)
-brain
Now you'll eventually have a reason to wash your hands : if you don't, you won't have access to the computer !
...
Mom's gonna be happy
theefer
Well I would just switch out the mouse with one of my own =)
.5% Error Rate means if 1 million people use it, 5000 are going to have errors. That makes it pretty significant. If that half a percent get locked out completlely or half a percent get can get onto other computers without being the right person, then there are still issues to be worked out before it's used widespread.
Why use a mouse? I mean, mouses are subject to so much wear and tear that the sensors and lenses have to be real beaten on. I don't see a reason not to have a palm-checking USB device instead.
.5% error rate when clean, but what about when six months old, sweaty, covered in coke, chips, and bodily fluids and has been used for 8 hours a day for the last half year?
Something just used for recognition would seem to be a bit more practical. Cheaper because size wouldn't be a significant factor, and also it'd be easier to lock down against theft.
But a mouse is just asking for trouble. Its got a
A mouse is a bad idea.
Of course, this tells us nothing about how easily fooled the system is. Considering the recent success of a Japanese researcher in breaking fingerprint systems, I wouldn't trust this for a second.
If we saw people eating Jello in offices
In the article it states that Fujitsu conducted an experiment identifying a number of palms out of 700 palms and the system had an error rate of 0.5 percent.
It does not state what kind of errors were made. Failing to identify a palm or, confusing two palms. In the latter case, the error rate goes up dramatically with the number of palms in the database.
-- (:> jms cs.vu.nl (_) --"---
When other 2-factor systems are much cheaper and more portable (think "This system doesn't have your palm, you can't use it"), why would someone WANT a biometric, palm-scanning whizbang mouse? RSA SecurID (keychain with a changing number, synchronized to a login controller) is a much better solution because it's got client software for many OSes, you can login to any machine that's set up properly just with the fob, and it doesn't freak people out like a palm-scanning mouse will, IMO.
Anybody think this'll actually get used very often? IN a wolrd that values simplicty of security, I doubt I'll ever work in a place that uses these. Not because I don't value security, but because I doubt the comapany would enough to employ these.
Mod point free since 2001
most biometric scanners can compensate for small temorary differences, if 95% of your hand still matches the file your ok, so small cuts are no big deal, if however you spilled acid on your hand or something, that'd be a different story
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I personally am not in favor of biometric protection devices. Even if they are 100% effective and never make mistakes reading, I do not feel that they are a wise choice.
Bruce Schneider wrote a good column about biometrics here. I don't like the fact that some biometrics are very easy to steal. This means that once someone discovers your biometric "password" they can use it anywhere because you can't change your password.
So I personally would be wary about having too much faith in such a device. /p
neurostar
From my reading of the article, this'll be pretty much a replacement for the login passwords. So you don't have a valid print, you can't use keyboard shortcuts.
Let's hope they don't try and use this for verifying your age on porn sites. "SCANNING... *BZZT* ERROR. PALMS TOO HAIRY TO SCAN." :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Dan's Data did an interesting review of fingerprint scanners. Apparently they (well, that particular one anyway) are remarkably easy to fool - using jelly.
Personally, I'm happy with passwords - you can change those...
Gosh, why don't they just embed a smart card under the skin in or around the palm area. I mean, what is to prevent me from beating up the guy with the palm this mouse system wants to use, and then forcing his hand ont he mouse to circumvent the security system? Besides, who uses a mouse in VI anyways. Real men just yank and paste lines with YY/P commands. Oh wait, thats right... the drivers for this only work in Windoze!
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Will someone write an application for this mouse to read your palm? That would be a nice touch each morning when checking the 'ol inbox.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
'The company has developed a computer mouse that will scan the palm of the user and deliver not a look into the future but verify the identity of that person.'
Well, if someone were to rewrite fortune for this, you would have a customized one every time you logged on!
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
As it stands, the system of using passwords to prove identity is the best-working piece of the whole security puzzle. I'm not defending passwords; they are crappy and easy to "engineer". My point is that the rest of the security situation is worse off than that.
Most of the security threats people have to worry about in the real world have to do with attacks that bypass authentication entirely (most buffer overflows), or that trick valid users into doing stupid things (most viruses), or that hijack the software valid users run into doing their bidding (most viruses and worms).
Go over all the high-profile security issues of the past year. How many of them would have been mitigated by using biometric authentication instead of passwords? Few, if any. I'll bet 99% of the Klez E-mail I get has its true origin in a valid, properly authenticated user.
Hey Bob, can you show me how to use this new app? Oh wait, I guess you'll have to tell me how to use it. Actually, this sucks... let's just go to your computer.
I wonder if what they'll do about my laptop mouse.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Then again, if you're as stupid as to spill some extremely aggresive acid on your hand, (most acids commonly available aren't aggresive enough to radically change things) not actually clean it off, endure agonizing pain in the process of letting it disfigure your hand, manage to hold a mouse with your disfigured hand and then finally wonder why it doesn't work, one shouldn't be allowed to use a computer to start with.
Hate me!
Almost all computer users look at monitors. So put thoses inexpensie LCD cameras in monitors and do a face scan. Less engineering than a mouse.
So now a visible percentage of the population are now going to be intermittently locked out of their computers by a stress-related illness. Isn't technology great?
So how long before someone writes a linux driver for it?
moto411.com
probability will indicate this scheme will fail at the rate of about 1.2 times a year on average -- assuming 250 working days and you only authenticate once per day. however -- if this was really implemented, people will probabbly time out after 15 minutes / out to lunch / in meeting / whatever; so it will fsck up probabbly every month or so. i dunno -- just seem like passwords are so much more reliable.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
An article in c't (www.heise.de) a while back really opened my eyes as to how immature biometric testing still is. They managed to fool every system they tested (fingerprints and irisscan).
The companies selling this stuff are really pushing this as 'secure' and the way the media are raving about this, I imagine a lot of ppl are fooled by this.
Even when the system itself wouldn't be easily fooled I would hate to see what happens if people start bypassing this in hard/software. You would have to have physical protection of the hardware to avoid bypassing the scanner and have very ingenious software to make this secure.
beauty is only a light switch away
See this Counterpane article from May.
Seems to me the sOme common gelatin trick would work here as well...you just need more of it.
Another issue that this may create - the chopping off of hands. Think about this...in the early 90's insurance companies tried to reduce their car theft losses by encouraging the use of car alarms and passive security measures (eg, only your key will unlock the steering column). The result...lower incidence of car theft..sort of. While noone now breaks into and steals a car parked on the street, the incidence of "car jacking" or the violent theft of a running car from the owner at gun point. More often than not this results in serious physical harm or evenb death to the car owner. That almost never happened in the "old days" before car alarms.....
So this may, for access to the right kind of data, encourage the kidnapping of perwsons, the "removal" of a hand, and the making or a "hand cast" as in the article (a whole hand print is much harder to come across than a single fingerprint)to use to circumvent this "cool" mouse...
So, be careful what you wish for....
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
NO IT CANT... god you dont know ANYTHING... jesus christ why dont you actually READ the article before you post about it. how would you feel if you submitted a story like that and people such as YOURSELF started posting threadcrapping BULLSHIT like you just did.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Is that 0.5% rate the "false positive" or "false negative" error rate? If it is a false positive rate, then that means 1 in 200 times, the wrong person will be allowed access. That is much worse than the false negative, i.e., 1 in 200 times the correct person will have his authentication fail.
My other first post is car post.
[i]With a .5% error rate I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this in offices within the next few years[/i] A 1/2% error rate is a 1 in 200 error rate. That's not very good. That means you could walk through a large office and have a fair chance of being falsely recognized by the id system.
ShoutingMan.com
Remember that hoax a couple of years ago about a company that was going to implant ID chips in the palm of everyone's right hand, readable by the mouse to authenticate online purchases... ...intentionally recalling the passage in the Book of Revelations, "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name?"
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Will excessive hair growth interfere with the readings?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Well yeah.
Finally, there's a convenience involved in various devices on the USB tree not being able to communicate with each other without relaying through the computer.
What's this Submit thingy do?