Linux Biometrics Site Opens Doors

flickerfly writes "A new site to unite the individuals interested in Linux and Biometrics has opened its doors. LinuxBiometrics.com's purpose is to fill the biometrics void in the Open Source community. With the increased adoption of Linux in europe and the recent increase in biometrics interest by the EU, this appears to be a field ready to blossom into heavy adoption and will be in need of OSS support."

Comments

This site looks like spam..

[grazzy]

.. and besides, doesnt biometrics suck? It's all about onetime identifiers. You cant easily change your eye, breath or thumbprint if they happened to fall into the wrong hands.

Re:This site looks like spam..

[damiangerous]

No, biometrics doesn't "suck". But it's also not the security panacea it's usually made out to be. Biometrics can be a valuable part of the security "arsenal". One good use for it is a verification where the main breach won't come from malicious access but rather laziness.

For example, a friend of mine is a pharmacist. The pharmacy technicians do most of the putting of pills in bottles, but everything has to be reviewed and signed off on by a pharmacist before it's released. The pharmacist verifies the finished prescription, uses his thumbprint to indicate he approves it, and a label is printed. With a password system it's far too easy for anyone to print out the approval label, and that's what would happen. Not out of maliciousness, but simply out of convenience.

Re:This site looks like spam..

[damiangerous]

Your biometric credentials couldn't be "compromised" for this purpose, that's the whole point as to why it's useful. It's a limited access, limited purpose system. It's only accessed from two physical terminals located in the pharmacy only during staffed hours and only does one thing, prints prescription approval labels. It exists to ensure that a given pharmacist actually does approve a given prescription rather than a tech who shoulder surfed a password or a lazy/too busy pharmacist who just gave the techs his password because he trusted them.

As for being any good? Yes. It's ideal for this particular scenario and probably many other highly similar ones.

Re:This site looks like spam..

[JimBobJoe]

The pharmacist verifies the finished prescription, uses his thumbprint to indicate he approves it, and a label is printed. With a password system it's far too easy for anyone to print out the approval label, and that's what would happen.

Essentially...biometrics is useful when security isn't important. (I think that will be the biggest uses of biometrics for years to come...non-security applications...like at my local grocery store where employees use their thumbrpint to sign into a time-clock. It is only loosely a security application, it's more of an application of convenience.)

In the end, there is no security and privacy tradeoff, the main tradeoff is between privacy and convenience, and security and convenience. Biometrics is very convenient, but it's not very private and it's arguably not secure.

Re:This site looks like spam..

[suitepotato]

.. and besides, doesnt biometrics suck? It's all about onetime identifiers. You cant easily change your eye, breath or thumbprint if they happened to fall into the wrong hands.

I'm not sure how your breath can fall into the wrong hands. I have trouble smelling my own breath by cupping my hands over my face. As to your eyes and thumbs, are you one of those people who has detachable parts? Like, when your S.O.(yes, some Slashdot readers have actual real life involvements with women) says "get your butt out of bed" you can hand it to her and say, "sure, take it, let me sleep."

Joking aside, bioelectricity, thermal output, and a bunch of other things are easily checked for to prevent use of amputated body parts.

Optimally, there would be stress identification methods and more than one password such that if someone tried the gun-to-your-head coercion method, you could silently tip off the system to call the authorities to the location. Be nice if every important system had personal 911 sort of passwords right now. "Send two units to the ATM at Stepford Avenue, we have a possible kidnap."

Biometrics is wonderful stuff in my book to keep people out of stuff where they don't belong. I just don't want a national ID card where I have to keep a record of my dna on file and so forth. But biometrics to secure my stuff? Better than leaving it wide open.

Re:This site looks like spam..

[halleluja]

No, biometrics doesn't "suck". (...) Not out of maliciousness, but simply out of convenience.

That is the scary part. In a few decades I will have to open my car with my retina just because 90% of the people is too lazy to put their keys on a nail near the door...

I'd prefer to have my keys stolen and my eyes comfortably in their sockets, thank you.

Biometric locks leave me feeling uneasy.

[Andy Mitchell]

I think ever since seeing the classic sci-fi series http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/blakes7/Blake's 7 as a kid the idea of biometric locks has filled me with dread.

There is a scene where the protagonists try to persuade the guard they have over powered to put his hand on the sensor to open the door so they can progress their escape. Naturally he is not helping.

Then Gan says to him: Look, we only need the hand. If you want to stay attached to it, do as you're told.

Strangely enough, instant compliance!

Re:Confused

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Linux + biometrics = optional

Re:Try:

[Proud like a god]

Ok, OS biometric software = better than closed source, with reasons being obvious to your possibly paranoid self.

"humans, being so error prone, can never come up with a fool proof system"
Well there are these things called proofs, and they're used to prove things, such as how possible it is to break an encryption algorithm, or bypass some logical sequence of security.

Why are people going to suddenly start dying or automated systems start taking "'pre-emptive' action" because there's the choice of OSS for biometric identification?

One minute you're saying "And assuming ppl do get tech savvy, and put up monitors (the human kind) we come back to the same old question of who monitors the monitors??" and then next it's "Give me ppl any damn time.".
Whether biometrics can be used alone or with human assistance for important identification is different from whether OS alternatives to the software are good, and seperate again from living in a society that has surrendered control to a corrupt government.

Re:Hand-based biometrics and public health

[kebes]

Unless you avoid ever touching a doorknob or hand-rail, I don't see what difference this makes. Common surfaces are everywhere. We all touch them all the time. Sometimes we catch something from a common surface. Adding a palm scanner to the mix doesn't increase the risk of transmission.