Home Secretary Requests Fingerprint-Activated iPods

John Reid, Home Secretary, has called upon tech manufacturers to improve the security on their gadgets to help with his recent push to frustrate criminals. Inviting Apple, Sony, and several others to his crime fighting summit Reid hopes to attack the rising robbery numbers in the most recent Home Office figures.

Comments

Brilliant!

[grape jelly]

...because nobody would ever find the owner's fingerprint in their home!

This is yet another case of legislation coming up with the wrong solution to the right problem.

Re:Brilliant!

[Azarael]

Home..? Have you ever seen how many finger prints there are on the *back* of an IPod? Sounds about as effective as hiding a key under the front mat, except the mat is also see through.

Re:Brilliant!

[jfengel]

Because I can hardly see somebody trying to fence an iPod with the little proviso that you have to keep around a fake thumbprint in order to use it.

Crime is something you deter, not forbid. Slashdotters get used to security being absolute because we work with computers, where we tend to put all of our data eggs in one password basket. Security of physical objects is much more about making it inconvenient, not impossible, to steal something.

Useless

[geek]

There is no such thing as security when you have physical access to the device. It's a useless "summit" that will do little more than raise the cost of these devices on consumers.

Re:Useless

[geek]

Wipe the flash. Force a reload on the firmware etc etc etc etc. You can not secure a device when the theif has physical access to it. Anyone that has worked with ATM's knows this.

Re:Useless

[hey!]

Oh, I don't think that's really true.

What you have to do is make it more trouble to get around the security than the value of the device. So, if you can pin-reset the device, obviously the security measures aren't worth squat. But let's say you have to open the device, and the case is designed to break when that happens. Sure, as a geek you might no mind walking around with the guts of your gadget hanging out, but it does put a crimp on the resale value.

The real problem is figuring out effective security measures that won't bite legitimate users thousand of times more often than they bite thieves.

Manufacturers barely have the capacity to make usable devices as it is. Adding security that will thwart a thief is sure to earn them legions of incensed users.

In any case Homeland Security doesn't really want really secure devices, because one of the unauthorized parties that might want to look at the contents of your device is ... Homeland Security.

Re:Useless

[skiflyer]

It doesn't, but it's a pointless example in the case of iPods, thieves aren't trying to steal the contents of the drives, they're trying to steal the device itself.

In resoponse to the added security...

[Billosaur]

...thieves have not only been stealing the iPods, but cutting off their victim's fingers as well. Given this new threat, the Home Secretary is calling for iPods controlled by brain waves.

Why?

[morgan_greywolf]

Why fingerprint-activated iPods? So no one but me can find out what's on my iPod? (Like I care if anyone knows that I listen to Disturbed, Metallica, or Puddle of Mud?) So no one will steal it? How fast before the thieves figure out how to disable the fingerprint scanner? All this'll do is drive up the cost of iPods, as if Apple didn't already charge and arm and a leg for the things.

Re:Why?

[lawpoop]

Basically it's to gear up the public to be accepting to fingerprint scanning as part of everyday life. You don't need a fingerprint scanner on an iPod. Same reason they're putting RFID chips in credit cards and passports -- to get people so used to them, there will be no problem when they want to implant them in our hand.

Remember, the Total Information Awareness project is alive and thumpin' !

of course, an iPod suppository

[The Mutant]

would offer the ultimate in security for the theft adverse iPod owner.

So why mess about with half measures like fingerprint activation? After all, if you stick it someplace where the sun don't shine, ain't nobody gonna know you're iPodding. Ignoring the obvious question of who the hell would try to steal an anally inserted iPod, who would purchase an (obviously) stolen / used anally insertable iPod?

Why the market for stolen iPods would close up tight.

Revocation

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"I'm sorry sir. Your identity has been compromised, and we are revoking all known authenticators. Your physical characteristics are no longer valid to autheticate your personal identity. You have been added to the list of unconfirmable citizens. Please turn in your face and fingers to the Department at the earliest possible opportunity."

Something about this....

[sycodon]

...just won't work. I can't quite put my finger on it though.

Revokation of Biometrics

[mwilliamson]

One of the biggest problems with biometric authentication is the lack of ability to revoke a compromised biometric key. Sure you can revoke rights based on a fingerprint, but then you've no way to use it again. Lifting fingerprints with gelatin isn't really that hard. See http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#5 for more information on the gummy-bear fingerprint reader bypass technique.

Personally, I think biometrics are great as a username equivalent, but should not be relied on for authentication. There is sound reason to have (1) something you have with (2) something you know in a good authentication system. The ability to revoke and re-generate either component is needed.

-Michael

Fingerprint reader = lame. Thermite = cool.

[Kadin2048]

There is no such thing as security when you have physical access to the device. It's a useless "summit" that will do little more than raise the cost of these devices on consumers.

Well, maybe not security ... but there could be punishment!

I propose that we build a small quantity of plastic explosives or thermite into every new portable device. They will take commands from the GSM cellular network and, upon command from the manufacturer, on receiving word from the original purchaser that the device has been stolen, explode/melt and blow/burn pieces of the device into the criminal's (or person who received said stolen property) face/hands/thighs. It will also have the handy side-effect of securely deleting confidential data. We'll just need some laws to indemnify manufacturers and owners from said criminals' lawsuits, and after that, we'll just let the problems work themselves out.

I foresee this having a slight negative impact on the used-equipment-on-eBay market, but overall I think it'll be a good thing.

What could possibly go wrong?

Technological solution to social problem

[kahei]

Like the endless parade of anti-IP-infringement measures, like the endless surveillance and mail-sifting programs, this is yet another result of a bunch of people facing (or creating) a social problem, and then trying to convince themselves that a nifty gadget will fix it.

And it's the latest in a long parade.

What they've got is a culture that favors the instigator, rather than the victim, in robbery, street violence, and general antisocial behavior. Here are their solutions so far:

--Cameras
--Electronic tags
--New Databases (rather like many large companies, the UK government loves greating A New Database to solve any kind of problem)
--Magic dream iPods that can't be stolen or some such rubbish

It's a simple choice -- you can either address a problem, or you can talk about how cool it would be if a gadget would make it go away.