Slashdot Mirror
Public Iris Scanning Device In the Works
Nonfinity writes "A public iris scanning device has been proposed in a patent application from Sarnoff Labs in New Jersey. The device is able to scan the iris of the eye without the knowledge or consent of the person being scanned. The device uses multiple cameras, captures multiple images, and then selects the best image to process."
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I think you were trying to say... contact lenses with a highly reflective coating (red is preferable).
Do we know that repeated retina scanning is healthy for our eyes?
Contact lenses that alter eye color are already in popular, widespread use.
How hard would it be to construct a contact lens with a unique, fake, computer-generated iris image (no idea how you'd do that, but "fractals" sounds like a good buzzword to insert here)? Sound like it would be a lot easier than fake fingerprints.
In a situation where you knew you were being scanned, the officials might say "I see you're wearing contacts, remove them please," but I don't quite see an airport saying "no contact lenses allowed in this airport..." particular if the idea is that the scanning is supposed to be surreptitious.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
specifically about implementing something this.
Identifying who you scanned. sure you can scan an iris without their knowledge but unless you have the pattern stored how will you know who it is? Perhaps do it at a register and match it to the card/id used? That would be underhanded to say the least.
Storage, how much space per pattern? What is the speed of comparison to a large database? Something that is quick enough to focus ads (for the minority report fans) would require serious processing power.
I could see it in small settings, say a business who needs a less instrusive means of security. Scan all your employees and only let them in, if accompanied by those who cannot be matched then don't admit to sensitive areas. However in the general public setting, costs for equipment to store millions of scans and process them fast enough to be meaningful is still aways off.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I've never seen such pessimistic claims for iris recognition. With a false accept rate of 1/1000 to 1/10000, you can achieve a false accept rate of pretty much zero. I respect Simon Davies, but I'm not sure he has his facts right here.
Xenu loves you!
...is not so much that this is possible, but that the inventors seem to feel sure that there's a market in this AND that there won't be any serious objection to stop it. A bit like the proliferation of "security" (read "unadulterated snooping") cameras in London.
Actually, thinking about it, what *really* worries me is that people *won't* object to it. Not really.
Ah! Brave new world... etc.
The system had a problem with people who blinked too much. I had to sit in front of the camera and remain still and it took a picture of my eye a few times before it got a good enough image. Out of 5 people who participated, all but one had to have multiple pictures taken.
I just can't see this system being used with cameras that randomly take pictures from varying distances and work, unless the cameras and software improved quite a bit in the past two years.
I know you're joking, but on a semi-serious note...doesn't that movie constitute 'prior work' or 'prior invention'?
The patent system, as it's defined, says that patentable ideas must not be a logical extension of existing ideas or an idea already created by somebody else. I skimmed both links and I can't find (maybe I missed it?) any mention of a the date related to when this company claims first provable conception of the idea. Unless they built something years ago, this isn't going to hold water.
While I wouldn't stand behind this approach, I'm sure it could also be challenged on the fact that it's a perfectly logical extension of using the eye as a fingerprint which was thought up decades (over a century maybe?) ago. After all, the only real change between the older conception and this is simply the level of unwillingness by the people being scanned. It does also include the multi-camera bit, but that's already in wide use by facial recognition software, which is also in wide use.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
Which terrorist group will detonate our beloved freedom fighters with this first?
"and when I gave them cell phones, they could not get enough...
generating the database is simple, just use the network of driver's license ID cameras.
the only good news is the economics of technology mean this will be first used by high-value targets against other high-value targets. Think large-scale corporate wars vs. vengeful government agencies...with the rest of us as collateral damage.
and- which foreign state will get access to our database first?
on the other hand, think of how many more dead soldiers we will be able to recognize on the battle field! yay!
I don't know about contacts, but my glasses must do wonders for light path - astigmatism corrections (different on each eye) AND progressive bifocals AND distance corrections (different on each eye). Gotta remember to keep them pushed up the bridge of my nose, I guess.
Oh, and they're coated so as to reduce UV.
Current systems only have a name in the database.
What makes you think that the new system will have pictures, a name and a text description when the current system only has one of them?
-b.