Hardware That Recognizes You

Amit Upadhyay writes "Gizmodo is reporting about extra funding for smart guns at NJIT. Few have qualms about it, mostly on the line of: would optical sensor for finger prints work when the hand is soaked with blood? Would you get time to enter the override code in an emergency? But if we remove speculative emergency situations, the technology seems to be interesting. While checking out Fingkey Hamster what struck me was, this is one passkey I will not mind publishing on my webpage, and it can't be cracked, unless hardware tampering takes place. Kind of thing that you can put in all the car ignitions and lockers where password entry using keyboard can become too obtrusive."

Comments

Interesting

[Guitar Wizard]

I have always thought that a large-scale fingerprinting implementation would be helpful for a lot of things -- just think about never having to carry a wallet again -- rather, you would simply scan your fingerprint for whatever business you were involved in (making a purchase, showing proof of ID, etc.). A system like that would be convenient, but it's also really centralized, so there would definately be a "big brother" out there watching us.

As far as security goes, I would risk saying that is is much harder to dabble in fingerprinting than other forms of identity theft. If credit cards could be swiped and then authenticated with a fingerprint scan, I think we would have much less trouble with theft in that area as the technology to duplicate fingerprints doesn't seem to be widely available (how many people do you know who can do it?).

Anyhow, that's just my two pennies. Just hope that someone doesn't cut off your fingertips at night!

Re:Interesting

[ledow]

Problems with fingerprint scanners are legendary, especially when your fingerprint is so easy to collect, glasses, ATM's, a handshake. There was a study not long ago on Slashdot that showed that about 90% of fingerprint scanners can be fooled by things like gelatine.

And you think the retailers would want to buy a big expensive foolproof machine for every shop in the world or just something cheap that can read a fingerprint?

It was hard enough moving them over to what we in the UK call Chip-and-PIN where we've done away (or are going to do away) with signatures and use a four digit code. That's been years in the making and still not completely functional. I can still say "Oh, I haven't been sent a number for that card yet" and they let you sign for the transaction, much like previously.

No, I still say the best system for things like credit cards etc. is to have some sort of graphical. When you swipe the card, the owners picture appears for verification (sent direct from the credit card company, maybe chosen from a few random photographs from different angles, clothing etc.) Much more big brother, I know.

If the person in front of you does not look like the owner, you refuse the transaction. Put this on top of things like Chip-and-PIN and signatures and you've got it made. Only an CC company insider could realistically beat it and then they would be accountable (I would hope that every account created had a traceback history for which staff member created it, one that is unwriteable after creation.).

If the retailer tries to run a stolen credit card through to make a few fake transactions, and presses Yes to ID the photo, there's always the Chip-and-PIN to fall back on that he must know. But it means you can't stroll in just any shop with a stolen credit card and take someone else's money.

Ring lock

[RandoX]

Another interesting option for firearms is a ring lock. It uses a magnetic ring to unlock the firearm, which keeps the weapon from being taken during a struggle and used against the owner. Since the decline in popularity in magnetic media, unpleasant side effects of wearing a magnetic ring seem to be less of an issue.

Sounds like a great idea for cops, though.

As DNA put it:

[gidds]

(meaning the late and much-lamented Douglas Adams, not his or anyone else's deoxyribonucleic acid):

"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

He was talking about devices such as air-conditioning systems, but I think the principle applies here just as much.

Re:The problem with biometrics

[Ucklak]

So if I get carjacked, I should just get out of my car and let them take it?

If Joe Burglar breaks in my home and wants to take my jewelery and other valuables that are deemed valuable I should just throw out the welcome mat because he was able to break in?

I agree with you comment "Life is more valuable than property. By a factor of infinity. There are no exceptions. Property can be replaced, living things can't."

I think where we differ is that I feel that if Joe Burglar doesn't want to abide by societys rules, he should be removed from society, not given the welcome mat.

Someone who breaks into my home IS a threat to me and my family and I will do whatever it takes to PREVENT that threat. Not react to whatever that threat decides to do.

If that threat breaks the first barrier to me and my family, it is assumed that the threat is a danger and I will attack like a white blood cell.

Re:The problem with biometrics

[gandalf23atwork]

It can be done from a distance, and nearly instantaneously

I think you're thinking of Quake2's Railgun :)

I don't know about you, but it took me quite a bit of training with my rifle to get to the point where I could accurately put shots into a deer's killzone. Pistols take even more training, at least at anything beyond contact range.

If the deer is moving, you do have to lead it, the bullet does not just magically appear in the deer the moment you shoot it (unlike the Railgun). You also have to account for wind.

No consequence of action? Obviously you've never shot a living creature.

The point is that with a gun, it is supremely EASY to kill someone.

Nah. According to a Department of Justice report several years ago (IIRC, could've been DOD), using civilian data as far back as it was available, and using battlefield casualty data from the Civil War through the Vietnam War, you've got an 80% chance of surviving a gunshot wound. 80%! Seems to me that it's rather HARD to kill someone with a gun.

-gandalf23@work