Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico

Posted by timothy on from the you-blink-you-die dept.

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."

16 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Beware? by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners -- and most of them have the option to enter a password or swipe a card in lieu of scanning your eyes -- they have to. Not everyone has eyes. Or hands.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Beware? by PiAndWhippedCream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am afraid of Iris scanning technology, because it MAY give someone an incentive to rip my eyeballs out.

      I like my eyeballs.

    2. Re:Beware? by dissy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --

      Well, I enjoy smoking my legally purchased tobacco out of a fine crafted glass pipe myself.

      However a bunch of other people seem to assume such a purchase means I am a druggie hopped up on goofballs.

      I am hiding from stupid people and their stupidity, because stupid people can still cause a great deal of damage to my life.

      Unfortunately that answer is not always a good one to provide in court. One can never tell ahead of time if the cop or the judge happens to be one of those stupid people, until it is too late. So best to try and avoid finding out at all costs.

    3. Re:Beware? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

      Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

      You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

    4. Re:Beware? by Schemat1c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

      Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'.

      Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage.

      LSD was discovered while searching for a drug to induce labor in pregnant women.
      LSD does seem to cause psychosis, in people who have never done it. *Tips hat to Mr. Leary*

      Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

      Even if that was true, so what? Should there be a law to prevent me from smoking, drinking, eating junk food, watching too much TV... The government or you have no business to make decisions regarding what I choose to put into my body or mind.

      You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

      You go ahead and enjoy your Nanny state, scared little child. Meanwhile the smarter and less lazy of us will continue grow up and learn to take responsibility for ourselves, as grown-ups should.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    5. Re:Beware? by DeadPixels · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not legalize (most) drugs, but make penalties for crimes performed while under the influence of drugs automatically double, or at least much harsher? If you're going to do drugs, fine, but if you are going to be irresponsible about it, you will face much harsher consequences. Let those who can be responsible enjoy themselves, and let those who can't face the consequences. Don't want to take that risk? Don't do drugs. But if you gamble and lose, well, it's your fault. No point in punishing those who can be responsible users for your failings, right?

  2. So I guess by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:So I guess by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Done.
      I don't know if it does have that option, but it perfectly possible.

      But yeah, I don't really see the point.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    2. Re:So I guess by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It isnt just compromised passwords.

      Consider the following...

      I get a bank account at WeAreSecure Bank and Trust and they require Iris Scanning. Great, right?

      Then I get a job at WeAreParanoid Industries and they require Iris Scanning. Great... oh wait...

      Now some WeAreParanoid employees have all the information needed to mess with my WeAreSecure accounts, and some WeAreSecure employees have all the information they need to gain unauthorized access to WeAreParanoid.

      Now, add Iris Scanning to both State and Federal government stuff.. and before you know it, Iris Spoofing becomes and unstoppable crime.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It should be pretty easy and within current tech to make it detect a living eye, movement, focus etc. They probably dont in this initial model, but certainly in the future (when they wake up and figure out there are people who will do such things) they should be able to prevent "borrowing" issues.

    Perhaps there is even the possibility to detect fear response in the eye? Then trigger a silent alarm, security office monitoring, or give special marked notes from the ATM?

  4. "inherenty fallable" by thestuckmud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The phrase "inherently fallible" is part of the headline of this recent Eureka Alert regarding Biometrics. Original work by the National Research Council.

  5. Re:No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Having attended a discussion of these technologies at HP Labs I can assure you that the technology has "liveness" testing built-in. The guys who design these systems do watch movies, TV and read novels too you know.

  6. Biometrics going wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Let me explain with facts why using biometrics for identification is a bad idea. In Brazil some bureucrat decided that to renew your drive license you need to attend a few (a lot) hours of classes about safe driving and first aides. To make sure that everybody would attend these stupid classes, they required fingerprint identification. What happened? Look at the foto in the following news (from a major Brazilian newspaper... the news are in portuguese, but the photo speaks everything):

    http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/noblat/posts/2010/09/26/autoescola-em-sp-fraudava-exames-da-cnh-327621.asp

    conclusion: people will always find a way to fraud biometrics. The question is: if someone gets your password, you can change it. If someone has your fingerprints, how do you change them?

  7. Re:No way by monkyyy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    no if they have those its most likely heat(died in last few hours or better yet in the microwave for 10 seconds) or a pulse (could pump warm water though) while the eye scanner could see the reaction time to a flashing light

    --
    warning pointless sig
  8. NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexico by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People report being unable to bank and enter their homes.

  9. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I agree. The UK Government set up an iris scanning system to allow faster transit for UK passport holders though main airports. I signed up, thinking that it would (a) be interesting to see whether it worked, and (b) help me avoid the queues when getting back into the country. I've tried it maybe 10 times at several different airports including Heathrow and Gatwick. It has worked once or twice, mostly on the 3rd attempt (only allows 3 tries); generally it fails to recognise me. Sometimes those operating the system allow me to jump the queue, otherwise it was just a waste of time.

    I now see that it is officially being withdrawn, almost certainly because of the huge number of failures. Iris recognition might just work with a small population of users, say those working in a small building, but it's just not ready to be rolled out to a large population. Maybe it never will.