Slashdot Mirror
Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico
kkleiner writes "The million-plus citizens of Leon, Mexico are set to become the first example of a city secured through the power of biometric identification. Iris and face scanning technologies from Global Rainmakers, Inc. will allow people to use their eyes to prove their identify, withdraw money from an ATM, get help at a hospital, and even ride the bus. Whether you're jealous or intimidated by Leon's adoption of widespread eye identification you should pay attention to the project – similar biometric checkpoints are coming to locations near you. Some are already in place."
There is one major difference. The government can sell the idea if Iris scanning much easier than fingerprinting to the masses. If they ask me to give a fingerprint to enter that is old technology, and closely identified with what happens to criminals to most people. As opposed to: You want me to look into this thing to enter? You mean like on Mission Impossible! Wow that's cool! Where do I sign up?
As you rightly point out, there is no reason to fear most technological innovations in and of themselves. The justified and proper concern enters the equation when we start to ask not how this can be used, but rather how it will likely be abused .
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?
In an imaginary world, we shouldn't, but this is reality so it is not ours to give or deny. It would be nice if we had some kind of control over this, but we have absolutely none, which is why I identified this as a reason for concern rather than a call for action.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash. Well done banks, for making technology slightly less useful while still allowing a crook to put a gun to your head and force you to make that withdrawal.
Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk, so the inability to share passwords is a plus. If you want someone to have permanent access to your account then add another card (or Iris) to your account. If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password.
This is yet another example of a multinational corporation taking advantage of corrupt governments in Mexico and Latin America to push undesirable and invasive technologies and business practices upon ignorant and disadvantaged populations. Of course, even the ignorant can become informed and once the people of Leon see the sorts of uses to which corrupt government officials will put this new technology the backlash will begin: el pueblo unido jamás será vencido.
I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop
Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Shoot account owner in head, empty account. Done.
FIFY.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
lol I don't know if this is sad or what, but to be honest I would gladly give my iris scan up too, if it meant I only had to stand in line at immigration for 30 seconds. I'm sure there's a drawback, but wow, that's a pretty sweet deal!
Qxe4
Mexico is a state in the process of failing.
Yes, the US DEA is killing mexico. But the people who work there don't want to lose their jobs. Drugs are bad M'kay? Drugs are bad, or the DEA is Ob, So, Lete. Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! And half the prison are .. Obsolete, and half the prison guards are ? Obsolete. And the drug helicopters? Obsolete. Halcyon and on and on. That's too many obsolete bureaucrats. The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.
What about the inability to change passwords (compromised passwords for example)? Isnt that a big security risk too?
Secured? Hardly. Monitored might be a good description, but "secured" can't be done with a camera no matter how smart the software is. Security is a human thing and accurate, reliable monitoring is just one piece of an overall security process.
You're grossly oversimplifying things. A lot of factors have contributed:
There's plenty of blame to spread around on both sides of the fence. I do agree, though, that the best way to end drug violence is to create a legal marketplace for the least harmful and most common of those drugs. Prohibition never works if you're talking about products that people want to consume. You'd think the government would have learned this eighty years ago. The only way they got the U.S. back under control was by repealing prohibition. Sadly, the "morally superior" never learn. They just keep standing there in their ivory towers issuing edicts, repeating the same mistakes, and wondering why the side of the tower is burning.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
gringo, this is how it spreads.
Knowing who someone is, does not reduce crime. It merely increases conviction rates.
I don't care if someone has my name, picture, iris scan, birth mark, and sperm sample. If I decide one day to kill a bunch of bankers, ID'ing me won't bring those parasites back from the dead.
I'd even say this will increase crime, because every failure of the system will push toward a new transgression, sometimes violent. Iris scanner won't let me on the bus, so now I get to be late for work ? Every ounce of grief my employer gives me will redirected three-fold at either the bus driver, the person in charge of the scanners, or some random innocent bystander.
You don't make a problem go away by adding more rules. Centuries of puppet democracy should have taught us this by now.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
In a country where drug lords rule, you want to spend how much money on this technology? How about using that cash to support basic infrastructure like roads and potable water?
If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.
Tobacco is grandfathered in. People have a tradition of smoking it, have legal access to it already, it is protected by lobbyists, and banning it would do some serious harm to legitimate businesses and have a lasting severe negative impact on the economy. Plus the detrimental effects of being deprived (if you are addicted) are even more severe than exposure to Tobacco. Detrimental effects are not as serious as illegal drugs, if tobacco is not smoked in excess, and it is profitable for the government to tax this, much like they tax gambling.
Someone exposed to your secondhand tobacco smoke may have an unpleasant experience, but it won't have any significant or permanent effect based on that; unless you already have some serious disease(s), only significant exposures to Tobacco over a long period of time pose severe risks, and in that case, there are natural things like 'Fire' or burned-something-in-the-oven that are similarly risky.
Liquor has no detrimental effect if consumed in moderation, it can have significant beneficial effects.
Note that certain activities related to Liquor are illegal. For example, you cannot consume a large amount of liquor and then operate a motor vehicle
Nor can you drive a boat or plane.
If you smoke Tobacco, it is not legal for you to throw your cigarette out the window of your car as a means of disposal, or toss your hot cigarette buts into the bushes.
The same thing about insignificant immediate harm in moderation cannot be said of LSD, Coke, etc. They generally do immediate and serious permanent damage even if only small amounts are consumed.
They are particularly dangerous to children, the developmental effects are extremely severe, and by the time parents find a child is using a drug, it is too late. At least with Alcohol or Tobacco, the effects are less, and a long or large amount of abuse is required before the damage is permanent and irreversible, which is likely to be detected.
It should also be noted people do have a "right" to do things to themselves, that have beneficial effect, or consume products even if they may prove ultimately hamrful, and a government does not have any legitimate right to prevent you from doing things to yourself or consuming things, just because they have a theory that consuming the thing could eventually be detrimental to you.
However, the government have a legitimate right to prevent citizens from doing things that will be fatal to themselves or that might seriously harm other people or property.
In regards to the drugs that are illegal, they are so harmful that there can be no legally allowed amount -- even the slightest amount impairs people mentally and does permanent harm.
If possessing or using these drugs was legal, there would be a chance that people unaware of what a certain drug even was; would be exposed to it, without their informed consent.
A canonical example would be people being pressured or forced into using the drug, due to exposure to other people (e.g. friends) using the drug, or through deception.
For example... someone secretly 'spiking the punch' with LSD
Yes, Liquor could be used to do the same thing; however, the 'detrimental effect' is much smaller; one night, and a hangover, maybe.
In this manner, 'legalizing' a drug, or letting it be treated as food, in effect takes away the rights of people to refuse to use it.
Actually, if marijuana truly is acting as a gateway drug, that's all the more reason to legalize it. I didn't bring up that point because the debate over the concept of "gateway drugs" is highly contentious at best.
All of your acquaintances who moved from marijuana to something else did so because they already knew a dealer who dealt other stuff, or at least knew people who did. If they were buying pot from legal dealers instead of on the black market, that relationship---that connection---would not exist, and thus those people would be much less likely to move on to harder drugs.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If we are going to prohibit certain activities because of the extreme reactions it can cause in some people, we should outlaw religion
I think the point is that your eye is being scanned by lots of different parties, with equipment that you don't have control over. You can't be sure they're only "md5 hashing" the resulting data, for all you know they might store it so they can "duplicate" your eye... Just like what happens with bank cards.
For a short time, the only time the Govt. was directly answerable to People and feared people was in Ancient Greece
For a given definition of 'people,' not including women, slaves, or the poor.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How about not caring either way? A crime is a crime, regardless of what substance(s) you may or may not have in your body.
And more totalitarian.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No you can't. Read your damn agreement with your credit card processor.