Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biometrics Win Support From the Lazy

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i-have-to-use-my-finger-to-type-pshh dept.

judgecorp writes "We're used to discussions about privacy and security, but amongst users, the real issue is ease of use, according to a survey by Unisys. It's not a huge sample, but ten percent of the users in Asia were happy to be chipped and have done with it." From the article: "Frost & Sullivan security analyst James Turner said while speed of identity verification may be driving people's acceptance of biometrics, the key issue is that biometrics can be a security block, rather than an enabler. Turner added that what is more important in the smartcard debate is ratifying exactly where the identification data is stored. "

9 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Why implants? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not simply embed a password in a chip on some jewelry like a bracelet or a ring? Something you can take off if you need, and will be aware of if it is missing. Then have a system to deactivate it if it does come up missing or stolen. I for one don't want to have anything implanted in me unless it's a matter of life or death, but I guess the sheeple don't have as much of a problem with it :-(

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. Re:Turn it off? by Epistax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about instead of implanting chips, which can break or become obsolete easily, we implant something that can hold the chips? People get implants all the time which result in things like tubes sticking out, perhaps to regulate pressure or allow draining of some liquid. Pretty disgusting, but life saving.

    Well how about an implant that (is hopefully not nearly as disgusting) which allows a chip to be slid in place or out of place? The implant could be a tiny flap of sorts which allows a film to be placed between it and you. That film would be a small flexible chip. Some sort of electric pulse could form an ejection system for removing the chip.

    Now I don't know the exact physics of it, but I don't see a problem with it. Any number of ejection mechanisms could easily be tried. The only concern I'd have is infection, but someone out there is bound to have a solution for that, as well a solution to skin completely growing ontop of the device.

  3. Chiped off!!! by pedalfreak862 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem was stated in another article where people with laptops are stealing cars with keyless entries. Just think what they could do if they stole your chip info and could access not only your car but every aspect of your life.

  4. Security without Usability = Insecurity by cheesedog · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm a big fan of the thesis recently popularized by O'Reilly's "Security and Usabilty: Designing Secure Systems that People can Use", which is this:

    If you implement theoretically secure designs, but they suffer from usability problems, you'll end up with a system which is neither secure nor usable.

    If, on the other hand, you design your security/authentication mechanisms with usability as a key concern, you'll end up with usable, secure systems.

  5. Re:Morbidity by BigChiefMunkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this is true, I believe you are on the right track with the retinas. The 'pattern' that they are recognizing is the random pattern that the blood vessels make on your retina. No blood circulating/inflating those vessels..

    There are also technologies out that address this specifically with blood vessel patterns in your fingers as well. Although I'd have to think that these would be less accurate than retinas.. You'd think that there more capillaries in your eye than your fingers (although you certainly have a lot of nerve endings and blood in your fingertips.)

    Still, all that being said, it is more useful to have 2-factor identification anyway. SomethingYouHave and SomethingYouKnow. Not one or the other, etc.

    -bw

  6. Religious Issues with Chip? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am athiest, so I am not really sure... but wouldn't Christians be upset by being chipped? Doesn't it make people nervous about the whole "Mark of the Beast" thing? I would think that the whole issue of implants would be a non-starter in the U.S., and probably many parts of Europe. But maybe Christians don't mind, if it is implanted in their butt, or their foot, or elbow, or somewhere other than their forehead or right hand. Or maybe Christians don't mind, because in modern U.S. politics the Christian-right supports a lot of things forbidden in Christianity (war and military service, death penalty, etc.)

    Seems to me, using fingerprints, or retina scans, or some other "god given" form of ID would be more socially acceptable to Christians... and not really any more difficult to implement than an implate. And it would be harder to fake a retina or fingerprint than a chip.

    1. Re:Religious Issues with Chip? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is not a flamewar with me, because I don't really care that much about what the rules in Christianity are. But before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, early Christians would choose to die rather than participate in military service. The whole "Turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" thing seems pretty clearly pacifist to me. Even when Jesus was going to be murdered, his disiples were forbidden from saving him.

      And when it comes to the death penalty, you can look at the story in the Gospel of John, when the adulterur was to be killed by stoning, and Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

      After Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire, Christianity was kind of re-interpreted to support the goals of the Empire. But I think you have to seriously stretch the message of the Gospel in order to come to the conclusion that Jesus would approve of military service, war, or the death penalty.

      You could argue maybe that self-defense is justifyable under Christianity, but there is a big difference between having a military guarding U.S. borders, and launching a full scale global offensive as the modern Christian-right tend to support.

    2. Re:Religious Issues with Chip? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wasn't singling out Christianity for not supporting putting chips in people... Or for selling out their religion (which everyone seems to do nowadays) I was saying that Christianity would be the deal breaker. If the vast majorty of wealthy people in America and Western Europe refuse to get a chip, then it doesn't matter what poor people in the middle east will do - because they aren't the big market for financial services. It is the middle class (largely Christian) American or Western European who will really decide on the fate of installing chips into people for ID.

      I was also speculating if the Christian Right would be for or against chips though. The Christian Right tends to support all sorts of state interventions that don't have anything to do with Christianity - such as the war in iraq, death penalty for drug dealers, rounding up and deporting imigrants etc. Would the Christian Right be against chips on the fact that they are "the mark of the beast", or would they go along with it if some "conservative" leader promised that it was for stopping terrorists, or stopping illegal immigration, or something like that?

      But perhaps you, as a Christian, can answer my questions/speculation.

      1. Would the typical American Christian be opposed to using implanted chips as ID for religious reasons?

      2. Would it be OK, from a biblical standpoint, to get a chip in your buttocks, or elbow, or foot, or some place that clearly isn't your right hand or forehead, as it mentions in revelations? The book of Revelations is very specific. Will you be saved if you get a chip implanted in your left thumb?

  7. It's NOT ease of use by i+am+kman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was pretty deeply into the smartcards and biometrics business 7-8 years ago and they had VERY cheap ($2/keyboard on a keyboard) and VERY easy to use embedded keyboard scanners (as well as separate). We built prototypes for folks to easily to computers and web accounts, but it didn't really take off.

    Why? Users don't really care - even for bank account logins. Passwords work well enough. Also, everyone 'says' they'd LOVE biometrics, but when you get down to capturing their electronic fingerprint, they start to get nervous.

    It's rather like smartcards. While they're superior to credit cards, the credit card system in the US is mature, ubiquitious, integrated, and simple enough that most consumers wouldn't really get a huge benefit. I don't think most identity theft comes from stolen passwords.

    Same with biometrics - the technology has been around for 10 years and it's made some headway into niche applications, but it's not going to explode anytime soon unless WalMart or banks requires everyone to use it.