Iris Recognition To Take Off

You've gotta admit... by PornMaster · 2005-07-09 11:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not often that you read about a company's patent expiring being likely to benefit it financially. Quite interesting.

--
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo

Re:You've gotta admit... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-09 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

It just proves that patents stifle creativity.
Re:You've gotta admit... by ThreeE · 2005-07-09 11:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

You neglect to recognize the fact that the technology would never have been developed without the patent. But that just spoils your rant doesn't it.
Re:You've gotta admit... by ThreeE · 2005-07-09 11:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Such insight...

Companies will not invest in the necessary R&D without some guarantee of exclusivity for some period of time.

But you knew that -- you're just bitter.
Re:You've gotta admit... by Ismilar · 2005-07-09 11:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Companies will not invest in the necessary R&D without some guarantee of exclusivity for some period of time."

Umm... did you even read article, or even the Slashdot blurb? The entire thing is /about/ companies being set to invest money in iris scanning technology and research due to the patent being removed. These companies would have done so long ago had there been no patent.

The article even suggests that the reason that iris scanners aren't as common as fingerprint or other scanners could be because of the patents that the single company holds.
Re:You've gotta admit... by (negative+video) · 2005-07-09 12:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The entire thing is /about/ companies being set to invest money in iris scanning technology and research due to the patent being removed. These companies would have done so long ago had there been no patent.
They're wrong. This is about the new opportunities for feeding at the Homeland Security trough, which by pure coincidence happens to be at about the time the patent expires.
Re:You've gotta admit... by ThreeE · 2005-07-09 12:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Moving past the a.h. attack...

These small companies -- why wouldn't they just patent the results of their efforts? Why exactly do patent laws favor size? I have a small number of patents that I paid for as an individual. They aren't going to make me millions, but submitting and getting a patent doesn't have any size barrier(s).

So seriously, what was your point?
Re:You've gotta admit... by NickFortune · 2005-07-09 12:52 · Score: 3, Informative

This is about the new opportunities for feeding at the Homeland Security trough, which by pure coincidence happens to be at about the time the patent expires.
That's one opinion. Business Week, that hotbed of anti-patent activism and communist propaganda, doesn't seem to agree.

While Iridian still holds some two dozen active patents on everything from ways to digitize an iris scan to camera design, expiration of the Flom patent will finally allow a stream of competitors to enter the iris-recognition market.
That's from TFA in case it wasn't obvious. The emphasis is mine.

--
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Re:You've gotta admit... by iminplaya · 2005-07-09 14:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

You neglect to recognize the fact that the technology would never have been developed without the patent.

That's a load of bull. If somebody needs an iris scanner, they will make one...with or without the damn patent. That's something that the IP drones won't ever admit....That something just might arise from necessity...not always exclusivity. It has been proven once again that IP law promotes speculation.

--
What?

Patents and innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-09 11:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

A patent exipry causing a boom in company startups and innovation - say it ain't so. Are there any legislators out there paying attention to stories like this?

Re:Patents and innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-09 11:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

If patents lasted as long as copyright, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Re:Patents and innovation by Have+Blue · 2005-07-09 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't know anything about the patent in question. How much did Iridian sink into developing it? How much have they made back from it? How much would they have made back if this flood of copycats came immediately after they announced their discovery?
Re:Patents and innovation by ThreeE · 2005-07-09 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

You are not clear on cause and effect here. If Xerox didn't expect to get the patents they did, the tech would never have been developed, implemented, and/or marketed. And yes, marketed. Often, that's the most expensive and difficult part.

"Tear shedders" like you are simply nuts wanting a free ride on other's hard work. You probably are a heavy user of P2P networks to illegally copy copyrighted work and live in some pirate haven in Asia. Someday you'll actually have to learn how to create value -- like Xerox and Microsoft did.

To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils the name of a great entrepreneur. But hey, this is slashdot and reality doesn't count. I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
Re:Patents and innovation by Planesdragon · 2005-07-09 14:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where do these people come from? Do they exist in the real world? I've never met anyone who actually thinks like this. This HAS to be a troll, there's no way it can be real.

Don't say that. A side effect of a free and creative society is that a lot of very weird ideas show up. Some of them go away, and others are adopeted becasue they really do make more sense.

And why should tax-payers pay for this? Do you know how much corporations make? You're talking about maybe DOUBLING the tax burden just so cheapskates like you don't have to pay to licence patented technology.

I believe you can more articulately argue your objection by noting that the proposed system would place a burden of paying for an invention upon those that do not directly profit from it--thus, as I noted, going against capitalist principals.
Re:Patents and innovation by QuickFox · 2005-07-09 14:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Any inventor/writer/musician should be free to file a claim with the restitution bureau.

So in your opinion the power that now rests with consumers and shareholders should instead rest with bureaucrats, assigned by the State to decide the fate of inventors based on "value to society"?

In Communist East Germany, if you wanted a car, the only choice was the ridiculously inefficient and simple Trabant, because decisionmakers felt that the people did not need better cars. Initiating things like our home computers and the Internet is quite impossible in such systems, because you can't convince a state bureaucrat of the value of such an invention by describing it. To be a good bureaucrat you need to be cautious and exact, not bold and imaginative. If a state bureaucrat takes bold leaps with the taxpayer's money, he's not doing his job right.

I respect the bureaucrats, they do important work. But it's not their job to be visionaries. Your arrangement sounds quite horrible to me.

-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe.

--
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Re:Patents and innovation by sonamchauhan · 2005-07-09 15:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."

Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)

Regarding the Slashdot article we are discussing, here's the first Iridian patent from the eighties: Iris patent
It covers AUTOMATION of an existing manual process - iris recognition - that opthalmologists and common people do day in and day out. (Note how it says _multiple_ pictures may be used of the iris driven to different dilations). Even you have probably done this - remember the Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic, and her followup picture decades later, taken veiled, showing only her eyes? How can a patent on all possible way to automate this process be granted? See end of the patent statement which says:
Although the present invention has been described in connection with a plurality of preferred embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.

Now see this more recent patent granted to Iridian Handheld iris imaging apparatus and method . It references their first patent, and now covers handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport. Ironically, it was issued on 9/11.

Now see the end of this patent:
Although illustrated and described herein with reference to certain specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited to the embodiments specifically disclosed herein. Those skilled in the art also will appreciate that many other variations of the specific embodiments described herein are intended to be within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.

So industry is unfairly restrained a few decades more by this patent -- and this will hold back God knows how many real improvements to security. Happy now?

> To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils
> the name of a great entrepreneur.
He probably deserved much of it, but to say he deserved "all the money" he got is foolish, given the company he led was convicted and forced to compensate others in multiple cases, and Gates was personally fined in the anti-trust lawsuit.

> I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
No. I support Bush. Your opinion gives him a bad name.
Re:Patents and innovation by ThreeE · 2005-07-09 16:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for briefly stating your opinion. Some questions/comments:

1) Why is it ironic that the patent was issued on 9/11?

2) Yes, Microsoft and Bill are convicted monopolists. Rather than dispute that (which I could) I will just say that he paid the fine.

3) I support the US patent office and I give Bush a bad name? Huh?

4) Automation of a manual process seems like a reasonable patent to me and the US patent office... Their patent also include preferred embodiments and boundaries. You included a pretty big ellipsis...
Re:Patents and innovation by sonamchauhan · 2005-07-09 17:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

You're welcome and your civitility is appreciate. My answers/added comments are:

1) Because it is unfair. And because it deals with "handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport."

2) A monopolist (not evil in itself) convicted of unfair trade practises

3) No, you support the USPTO granting unfair patents, and gave Bush a bad name by dragging his name into the conversation.

4)
4.1) Granting a patent on current and future embodiments of automating an existing manual process is ridiculous.

4.2) Their first patent does not restrict itself and has absurdly limitless boundaries - it says their "invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims" - claims like claim 10 below, which are so broad as to cover all current and future embodiments:
This is CLAIM 10: "10. The method of claim 1 in which comparing the obtained image with stored image information comprises deriving a set of descriptors of at least the iris portion of the obtained image and comparing the derived descriptors with stored reference descriptors derived from a previous image for identifying the person." This is CLAIM 1: "1. A method of identification of a person, comprising: storing image information of at least a portion of the iris and pupil of the person's eye; illuminating an eye, of an unidentified person having an iris and a pupil; obtaining at least one image of at least the same portion of the iris and pupil of the eye of the unidentified person; and comparing at least the iris portion of the obtained image with the stored image information to identify the unidentified person."

4.3) I don't know which ellipsis you speak of

Iris Recognition by Jeet81 · 2005-07-09 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I believe iris recognition takes some time to verfiy the identity of the person as the person has to stand close to a certain point and then the scanner would scan the eye. So this will take more time than pulling your card out and swipping it and walking through the doors. Therefore this tech will only be used in high security area and most of them I guess are already using it.

--
What does your Credit Report look like?

Re:Iris Recognition by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-09 12:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Iris recognition proves beyond reasonable doubt, that you are who you claim you are.
Iris scanning proves beyond a reasonable doubt that your eye matches information in a row in a database. The information in that row may or may not match you.
Re:Iris Recognition by Bishop · 2005-07-09 13:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Iris scanning is very fast, and can be done from a distance of several meters. It is typically setup such that people can walk up to an iris scanner controled door and be identified without missing a step. Iris scanners are used in some airports to identify and admit crew to the departure area. Aircrew love the scanners.

Really? by Infinityis · 2005-07-09 11:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes...

Of course, I'll need some of this new technology to make sure they really are my own eyes.

Wait A Minute... by __aaclcg7560 · 2005-07-09 11:32 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought SGI was going bankrupt. Don't tell me they're come out of bankruptcy with a new version of IRIS. Some companies just never learn how to die properly.

One question by ScrewMaster · 2005-07-09 11:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Just who is this "Iris" person anyway, and why is she so hard to recognize?

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

For those concerned about privacy... by Infinityis · 2005-07-09 11:35 · Score: 5, Funny

This points to the obvious "next big thing":

Tinfoil Contact Lenses(TM)

Don't forget... by MarkByers · 2005-07-09 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. You can change your password but you can't change your iris.

2. If you are threatened with violence, you can tell the attacker your password, but would you want to give them your eye?

--
I'll probably be modded down for this...

Re:Don't forget... by PWatson · 2005-07-09 11:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, the same concerns could be raised for any sort of biometric security. Hopefully, technologies will become widespread that make stealing somebody's eyes , fingers, DNA, etc useless. For example, some fingerprint readers can tell if the finger is alive or not.

Of course, in some situations, the very issue you mentioned is a boon to the system. For example, let's say that the CDC's Smallpox virus is protected by either a iris scanner or a password. If a scientist is faced with giving up a password or an eye, he'll probably be more likely to give up the password. Thus, if everything else is equal, the eye-based security is better.

--
Does your application handle + characters in e-mail addresses? (RFC2822)
Re:Don't forget... by timeOday · 2005-07-09 11:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly. Why go to all this trouble of reading irises and fingerprints? You could accomplish the same thing by tatooing users' passwords to their foreheads. Biometrics are just like normal passwords, but easier to steal and harder to change.
Re:Don't forget... by Lehk228 · 2005-07-09 12:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

problem: a $5000 DSLR with zoom lens could capture an iris from across the street.

i would prefer that it cost more than $5000 to steal smallpox virus

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Don't forget... by blindbat · 2005-07-09 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

But someone who wanted your password and would be willing to gouge out an eye or cut off a finger would also be willing to do that or torture for your password. Would you want your finger or eye lost for a biometric scan or lose some other body part(s) as torture in giving up the password?
Re:Don't forget... by forkazoo · 2005-07-09 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I want is a fingerprint scanner, where you have to scan all your fingers, but the order you put your fingers on the pads would be a sort of 'pin code,' which you could change. Make all fingerprint scanners be sold with a protective hood, so nobody can see what order you use. If some criminal ever chops off your hand, just use the other one to phone in (or use voice dial), to change the pin before then can buy a TV.

You have the security of revocability, but the convenience of never accidentally losing your "card" (except in extreme cases of accident.)

exploding iris by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-09 11:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Looks like iris recognition is about to explode

Please don't mention iris - or anything to do with eyes - in the same sentence as "explode". Some of us are squeamish.

Iris vs Retina by vossman77 · 2005-07-09 12:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Are we talking Iris or Retina here?

Because I've never heard of using the Iris and don't know anything about its uniqueness. Where the retina is easily scanned and heavily researched.

Anybody know more? or is this a typo?

Re:Iris vs Retina by kaiser423 · 2005-07-09 12:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The iris is much more unique (I believe it has the highest amount of uniqueness in any biometric system), and I believe they've come up with some very compact and efficient schemes for its use. I remember when I looked back at various biometric technology about 3 years ago, iris scanning was the clear winner barring this patent nonsense.
Re:Iris vs Retina by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-09 12:14 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm sure they meant to type retina - the keys are right next to each other.

Patents at work by jhylkema · 2005-07-09 12:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Regardless of what you may think of iris recognition, this is proof of how the patent system doesn't work. The technology for this has probably been around for 20 years, but it hasn't been able to be used because some shithead corporation owned a patent. This enabled them to browbeat competitors out of existence, and only now that the patent is nearing expiration can anything "innovative" happen.

Not exactly by SuperKendall · 2005-07-09 12:11 · Score: 2, Funny

I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes...

I'm afraid you won't be able to see it until you see it with at least one of my eyes. Access Denied.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Defeated by contact lenses? by shawnmchorse · 2005-07-09 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Out of curiousity, does anyone know if iris recognition is defeated by contact lenses? I'm guessing that normal corrective lenses might be OK, but I have difficulty imagining iris recognition working through lenses that modify the color of eyes and other such. Will airport security be demanding that people remove their contact lenses prior to the security screening next?

Re:Defeated by contact lenses? by pHatidic · 2005-07-09 13:05 · Score: 2, Informative

No, contact lenses don't defeat it. Cf John Daugman's homepage, the inventor of the iris scan recognition algorithm.
Re:Defeated by contact lenses? by pHatidic · 2005-07-09 13:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Correct, you can defeat it if you specially make contact lenses for the purpose. However your everyday over the counter prescriptions won't nullify your identity and turn you into a ghost agent living off the grid. Compared to other forms of biometrics, faking irises is medium difficulty and medium cost. Not great for banking and airport security, but very good for some other purposes.

Re:Iris no thanks by PWatson · 2005-07-09 12:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here you go: Malaysia car thieves steal finger
With better scanners that can tell the difference between live and dead fingers, this might have been prevented. Of course, that would depend on the bad guys knowing that it wouldn't work...

--
Does your application handle + characters in e-mail addresses? (RFC2822)

Actually your iris does change with your health by crovira · 2005-07-09 12:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

for example, an untreated diabetics' eyes show some filaments that will disappear when he starts geting treatment.

And diabetes is only one disease which affects the patterns which can be detected in the iris. Many other diseases affect both the radial disposition and the radial pattern. The medical books are filled with disease effects on the eyes.

While iris scanning for recognition is useless, it IS extremely useful as a diagnostic tool in medecine.

For personal identification, you would want to scan the blood vessels in the retina. Those are relatively more stable under a wider range of biological conditions.

But the eyes is a bag of watery tissue. Its subject to varying degrees deformation under a wide variety of physical and bioogical conditions.

How would you like to be refused admision to your work place when all you did was eat some food containing some mono sodium glutemate for lunch? It that easy to screw your patterns.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong... by xpeeblix · 2005-07-09 13:08 · Score: 2, Funny

"Looks like iris recognition is about to explode."

..but isn't exploding iris recognition hardware a bad idea?

Reminds me of a joke... by MacDork · 2005-07-09 13:16 · Score: 4, Funny

This points to the obvious "next big thing":

The "next big thing" eh? That reminds me of a joke =)

An anatomy professor is quizzing his students one session when he calls on Suzy with question, "Suzy, what part of the body has the ability to expand to six times its normal size and under what conditions?" Suzy indignantly replies, "Professor! How dare you ask me such a thing, and in front of the entire class no less! I assure you my parents will be hearing about this incident, and you will no doubt have to answer to someone for it!" The professors tells her she may sit down and then asks Emily the same question. Emily replies "The iris. In the dark." The professor continues, "That is correct Emily, you may be seated. Suzy, your answer tells me three things. 1) You have not studied your lessons, 2) You have a dirty mind, and 3) You will be very disappointed one day."

;-)

Complete Fallacy by samael · 2005-07-09 15:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Biometric recognition systems have generally been designed to only work if the part is still attached.

Retina scans depend on blood vessels in the eye - which change radically if said eye is detached (or the owner is dead).

Fingerprint scans are usually designed to check for electrical conductivity, which is different for an attached finger and a detached one.

--
My Journal

cool, but unreliable by tri44id · 2005-07-09 15:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's worth remembering that while any reputable website requires usernames to be unique and passwords to be half a dozen or more characters long, with a chance of guessing of less than 1 in several billion, biometrics are far less reliable.

One of the more broadly applicable studies, performed for the UK Passport Office (reports downloadable from http://www.passport.gov.uk/publications.asp) with just over 10,000 participants, found that 1 in 10 British Citizens were unable to even successfully enroll their iris patterns into the system. And afterwards, the system couldn't confirm that 5% of the participants were still the same person.

A facial recognition system was even less reliable, but nevertheless the goverment is going ahead with deployment in every passport.

--
Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!

Argument against patents by pavera · 2005-07-09 16:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

The whole article basically sums up why patents don't work as intended. And I'm not talking about software patents, all patents. This field could have been huge 10 years ago, generating billions of dollars and furthering innovation. The supposed purpose of patents is to foster innovation and invention, alas, patents just stymie innovation for 20 years until they expire.

If as I've said before patents lasted 3 years, maybe 5 at the very most, they would probably be a good thing, in 3 years Iridian would have been able to establish itself as a market leader, and every newcomer to the field would most likely license their stuff anyway (under copyright, or some other license generated by the company). Instead it takes 20 years to get an iris scanner on my laptop, or built into a security system at my house? Those things should have been done in 92.

Re:For those concerned about privacy... bend over by UnapprovedThought · 2005-07-10 18:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

First of all let me congratulate you for trying to put a bit more thought into what you are doing, than, say, any major electronic voting machine company did. But, I still think you will be doing your customers a disservice in the long run, whatever benefits they may derive in the short run.

Rant: It doesn't do me any good to tell you to abandon what you're doing, because I know that the only thing that will happen is that a less ethically constrained individual will just take your place, whether at your company or at one of the IP-farms, and then it will be implemented even less competently. I realize this idea simply won't be prevented from happening while there is a mindless sheep herd of IP lawyers who all smell taller grass in another field guiding this ouija-board mental process along.

We have a fancy trick where there is no way that you can get someone's iris if you know their account, and there is no way you can get their account if you know their iris

Online ad/marketing/spyware companies also know a fancy trick called database merging. That is, one company says to you "we only want to buy the accounts and addresses for a mass mailing." Then, a separate company says to you "we only want the names and the iris scan data for our online purchases." You deal with both, happy that no one person has been given the farm. Then, of course they meet up with each other and agree to merge the data and share the results. They may be able to match the data based on some key you are not aware of.
Even if you provide a secure service in the beginning and you are able to run it properly for a while, the next person who (purchases and/or) runs the company may not have your idealistic goals in mind at all, and in trying to squeeze more profit out of it will end up cutting out the clueful part of the tech staff, destroying the identities of the clientele, and basically running things as incompetently and abusively as most major companies do now, except with the added damage that they are figuratively holding some people by the eyeballs. (Reminds me of "A Clockwork Orange." It won't help in the long run because you're not taking the entirety of human nature into account.)

Even if you have a thousand obscure tricks I still think that people's iris-scan data streams will be intercepted or spoofed and become public information in spite of your best efforts to prevent it.

Once biometric data is public, a biometric measurement is no longer of value as a guarantor of identity because at that point anyone else could be sending it down the wire.

Then, rather than learn their lesson, the IP-lawyer-drones will scurry off and repeat the same mistake on another part of the body, probably the inside of the colon at some point...

48 of 229 comments (clear)