Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Home Secretary Requests Fingerprint-Activated iPods

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the losing-battles-to-fight dept.

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.

4 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Brilliant! by grape+jelly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by Azarael · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Brilliant! by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Revokation of Biometrics by mwilliamson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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