3-D Light System May Revolutionize Fingerprinting

coondoggie writes "The US Department of Homeland Security's Science & Technology Directorate recently awarded almost $420,000 to a Kentucky company to further develop a contactless finger print/biometric system. The goal is a machine that can snap 10 fingerprints in high resolution in less than 10 seconds, without human intervention. This goal is beginning to look feasible. FlashScan3D is working with the University of Kentucky's Center for Visualization and Virtual Environments, and has developed a technique called 'structured light illumination' (WIPO patent description), where a pattern of dots or stripes is projected onto a curved or irregular surface."

Comments

Touchless fingerprinting?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Like RFID-loaded passports and cameras at sports arenas, this technology only seems useful at violating our privacy remotely.

We are talking about Chinese Democracy a few stories below. What scares me more than Chinese Democracy (and Axl's hairplugs) is American Fascism.

Re:Touchless fingerprinting?

[shadowturtle]

Ink? Do they even use that anymore? When I was fingerprinted (for work) they used a scanner.

Re:Touchless fingerprinting?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or airport fingerprint scanning. Using 10 fingers, rather than just one, should help make the "Gummie finger" forgery technique somewhat more difficult. (Previously discussed on Slashdot, and in articles such as http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-915580.html) Basically, fingerprint scanners are _all_ easily misled by fingertips made of gelatin with the fake print overlaid on them. The necessary tools are vaguely decent copies of the victim's fingerprint, such as those from police files, a printer, a bowl of gelatin, and some skill with a knife.

But fingerprint forgery turns out not to be that difficult, especially against automated systems that have to auto-correlate such semi-random shapes.

Oh, boy!

[Samschnooks]

The US Department of Homeland Security's Science & Technology Directorate...

Stop right there. Already, I don't like it!

Great!

[Halo1]

We may be turning the West into a collection of police states, but at least they'll be time-efficient police states.

Who'd have though it would ever be considered a problem if it took more than 10 seconds to take 10 finger prints...

Re:Great!

[russotto]

Who'd have though it would ever be considered a problem if it took more than 10 seconds to take 10 finger prints...

Think border control and the DHS's "tourists are terrorists" programs (not the official name, of course).

Re:Great!

[Halo1]

Yes, that's what my "police state" comment was referring to. Of course, why stop there? They might catch even more terrorists if they take more fingerprints.

Fingerprinting for Freedom! Did you already give a fingerprint today? Your fingerprint too could belong to a terrorist, so get fingerprinted now! Never forget: fingerprint early, and fingerprint often!

Re:Great!

[StarkRG]

It takes about two seconds per finger. So, assuming they want all ten fingers it takes 20 seconds per-person. Add the time to explain how it all works let's say it takes a minute per-person. Lets say that 857,191 international travelers come through a busy airport in a given month. Since it's December that's an average of 27,651.32 per-day which is 460.85 man-hours, just for finger-printing.

Do the same calculation for the year (11,486,547/60=191442.45). Then multiply that by the cost of each employee (wages, payroll taxes, benefits, worker's comp, insurance (for stuff other than worker's benefits), etc), it's a HUGE amount of money just for finger printing every year at one busy airport (granted it is the busiest airport, but I doubt it's the busiest in terms of international travelers). If a $100,000 computer system can automate that it's a bargain (pays for itself in less than a month, not counting running costs, which can't be much).

I hear they have these things called scanners now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Place fingers on scanner
Step 2: Tell scanner to scan fingers
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Police State!

patent description???

[innocent_white_lamb]

Why should a technology developed using a grant from the public (taxpayers) be patented? Shouldn't the folks who paid for it be able to use it freely?

Investment, not employment

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

I'm going to disagree with your argument in letter but not in spirit.

Grants are a form of investment. The government is paying a company money to encourage development that they believe will improve all of society. They are no more entitled to free use of the resulting innovation any more than another investor or venture capitalist would be. Unlike most investment, a grant is essentially a gift, but they do come with certain obligations that may offset the value of the "free" money.

Good examples of this system working can be seen in the cable franchises. Local governments give a grant and monopoly to a selected cable company, with the obligation that service is made available to every single household in the region. Without the grant, the cable company may have never entered the region because the profit might have never paid off the cost of running the cable.

I'm not going to disagree with you in spirit, however, because this particular area of research has nothing to offer society. Biometrics, until we have computers above the intelligence of a human security guard, are no more secure than a plain metal key (but a whole lot more gory).

Re:10 fingerprints in 10 seconds

[flerchin]

And if they had 80 of these devices, that's only 1 continuous year. If they had ~80k they could do the entire population in a single 8 hour day. Never underestimate the ability of the government to waste money invading our privacy.