Cry To Beat Iris Scanners

Ant writes "The Register has an article on how crying beats iris scanners. An MP who volunteered to take part in the UK ID card trials says the iris scanner used is uncomfortable and made his eyes water... The water in his eyes actually stopped the scanner from working, and it seems long eyelashes and hard contact lenses could fox it too... So we're going to have a system that is derailed by a few tears and fluttering eyelashes?"

Comments

There is no such thing

[0xC0FFEE]

There ain't no such thing as a technology that gets worst or doesn't improve. So in due time things will be perversely efficient and operate in a wide range of conditions. Yeah it takes time, but in this particular case, the more the better in my view.

Anyway, when I go get my eyes examined, there's this machine taking a picture of my retina and blowing air into it so as to remove water. Oh and they ask me to remove my lens first, imagine!

Re:There is no such thing

[prockcore]

There ain't no such thing as a technology that gets worst or doesn't improve.

True, but there is such a think as a technology that has been proven to be inherently flawed.

Just google for "Bertillonage" for an example of a failed biometrics concept, which no amount of technology could save.

Is iris scanning inherently flawed? I don't know, but if they're just now finding out crying gives a false negative, I don't think anyone has really done any real tests to prove one way or another.

Re:Please.. Mr Blunket/Random authority.. Get a cl

[Ralph Wiggam]

All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid state IDs. I think about that while I'm showing my ID to the sixth person in the airport. Speaking of those guys, there was big report released last month showing that the federal TSA baggage screeners were just as incompetent as the private employees they replaced. It's all window dressing to make you feel safe enough to go out and spend your money. Meanwhile, our ports are wide open to someone slapping a stamp on a bomb.

-B

Re:Please.. Mr Blunket/Random authority.. Get a cl

[Ckwop]

Furthermore, even if the biometric identifiers are not reliable enough to be able to distinguish between hundreds of millions of people in centralized databases, governments are also assuming that they can make id cards that are sufficiently forgery-proof to make "just getting a *real* id in a fake name" rather difficult.

A UK reporter was able to obtain a *real* fake ID for just over a grand. Through a network of bribes.. It's not as hard as you think..

Ask yourself this: How much do you recon they pay their staff at the passport issuing office? Now ask yourself how much that passport could be worth to someone! The math does itself.

ID cards are flawed because you can't secure a system that large. Criminals have cash to 'invest' in perverting your system.

Simon

Astigmatism

[groupthink]

Where I work we use these iris scanners. I wear glasses for my astigmatism and the system reads just fine through my glasses, unless I turn them perpendicular to my face. Other people who work here have to remove their glasses regardless.

Nervous != guilty - does scanner obey this logic?

[thesp]

This seems a worrying trend with biometric systems - even innocent fear/nerves cause physiological changes which can cause a scanner to give a 'no match' scenario. If biometric ID were to become compulsory, there is the distinct possibility of this problem becoming a real danger to the population.

For example, if you have some nerves or phobia about the screening process (big men with guns, what-ifs about false positives), your physiology changes, and your biometrics no longer match your card. You are therefore taken in for further questioning.

Even if you are cleared, the next time it happens, you are more nervous, and eventually this becomes a common event for you.

In extreme cases, some people's reinforced phobia would then prevent them claiming benefits, travelling, anything that the ID was required for, sine they fear the accusations and questioning.

This is similar to effects seen on the now-discredited polygraph, still in use by agencies worldwide.

For example, I always get tense going through metal detectors. This is partly due to a childhood visit to Washington from the UK, when by accident I triggered the bomb detectors on a visit to the CIA buildings. (I was about 7, and didn't realise my pocket fan would set off the detectors.) I was taken away from my parents, and searched. This is a big thing when you're seven, and now these sorts of checks make me (irrationally, I know) very twitchy.

If failing these tests due to phobia were to become a pattern with me, even if it meant I was often singled out in any sort of official process, I am sure my phobia's symptoms would increase, just driving up the error rate. Positive feedback, you see.

I don't understand this

[Zog The Undeniable]

Nationwide Building Society in the UK tried iris scanning for ATMs a few years ago, and it was 100% successful. The technology wasn't rolled out further because of (a) cost and (b) it was fairly useless as a fraud prevention measure unless all other banks did it too - you could just use a non-iris ATM if you only had a card and PIN.

Rather gruesomely, the system checked for a pulse in the iris to ensure that you hadn't got a life-size photograph...or cut off the account owner's head.

Re:I don't understand this

[TheLink]

Well they're not all made the same. Just like anything there are different specs. Not sure of the ones used in the ATMs - I heard some of those can work from quite a significant distance- 1 metre? The one I played around with only could do about 10 cm to 20cm maybe 30 cm.

To register a person you'd want the best pic possible, so you normally want a cooperative subject. But after that the one I tested was pretty OK, even IDs people with scratched eyewear and even some sunglasses.

As for the danger to epileptics claims thats stupid - the stuff can work with IR light. The one I played around with had 3 red LEDs for illumination and was made by LG.

Just buy the right iris scanner for the task and it'll work OK, unless the iris is obscured - I suppose really thick/long eyelashes might cause problems.

Epileptic thing really sounds fishy, perhaps there's a hidden story/agenda somewhere. Now if they had said that fake contact lenses could cause problems I'd believe them - then you need fancy scanners that detect pulses and the usual involuntary iris size changes - I doubt the cheap scanners do that.

Whatever it is, with biometrics for real security you always need a guard there, otherwise you can bring in equipment to fool the sensors. No self respecting guard is going to let you stick some fancy gizmo into/in front of a biometric sensor...

No, the iris scanner fails to identify you.

[Moderation abuser]

Iris scanners have a failure rate of around 4% -> 7%. This is a failure to identify a legitimate person against a *previously stored scan*. I.e. the scan stored in your biometric card or the scan stored in the government database.

Fingerprint scanners have a failure rate of around 2%.

Facial scanners have a failure rate of 10+%.

Re:Am I the only one worried by all this?

[Lord Ender]

If the US hadn't spent so much on its military in the past 60 years, much of the world would be communist (in the model of the USSR) and would not have this "freedom" we now enjoy. There would still be a cold war. Countries like South Korea would be in the sad state of countries like North Korea. If we had taken that money and put it toward social services, we would curerntly have an unsustainable population because every unproductive bum in the world would come here for free health care, shelter, and food. And these bums would have a disproportinately high number of children, who inherit their freeloading attitude. But enough of thus alternate timeline.