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."

Comments

Beware?

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Beware?

[srodden]

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...

Re:Beware?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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 ..."

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 .

Re:Beware?

[camperslo]

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

Envision if you will, in the corner of your room, a small dark cablebox... a cablebox that can look into your eyes and those of your friends, and reach into your wallet for each...

Re:Beware?

[rubycodez]

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?

Re:Beware?

[Bjecas]

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

Because "borrowing" someone's password or security card isn't as... messy?

Re:Beware?

[icebike]

Wait, its Mexico for crist sake!

An AK47 beats an iris scanner any day.

Mexico is a state in the process of failing. The Mexican Navy is about the only trustworthy branch of the government, and Leon is nowhere near the coast.

The people running the iris scanners will likely be in the employment of the drug lords, or dead shortly.

This is akin to locking yourself in your cabin on the Titanic.

Re:Beware?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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.

Re:Beware?

[jamesh]

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?

Re:Beware?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Beware?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that line of thinking is that we already know the outcome - power corrupts. If a technology exists somebody in power will try to abuse it; that's just human nature. If we were truly concerned about potential abuses (and actual abuses, for that matter) then we would still be living in the stone age. But we take on the risk because the reward is (for the most part) worth it.

Re:Beware?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Exactly.

Last time this came up, I also mentioned the tracking potential for such a system. The government could require scanning at the borders, airports, bus stations, amusement parks, large events like rock concerts...all in the name of national security.

Private companies could follow suit - Say you go to Disneyland and get the obligatory government scan at the gate. Then, Disney's own scanning would be mandatory upon the entrance to rides and um, themed places like futureland or whatever. That way they could track where you go and analyze what order you visit things for marketting(or whatever) purposes.

Kinda like when supermarkets tried putting RFIDs on the bottom of baskets so that they could track their customers, but on a much larger scale.

Re:Beware?

[PiAndWhippedCream]

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

I like my eyeballs.

Re:Beware?

[DamienRBlack]

...but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?

kinda defeats the purpose if he tells you...

Re:Beware?

[socsoc]

It seems his visit to the head shop?

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

You're grossly oversimplifying things. A lot of factors have contributed:

• Laws forbidding foreign ownership of property.
• A government that does little to combat abject poverty.
• Brain drain to the U.S. and other countries.
• Bad people who prey upon the poor to be drug mules, growers, etc.
• Ineffectual police enforcement in Mexico.
• A U.S. drug policy that encourages black market trade rather than controlled trade.
• Utter failure on the part of the U.S. government to combat abject poverty.
• Bad people who prey upon the poor and offer them a better life through dealing drugs.
• Ineffectual district attorneys who would rather "get tough on drug users" than offer plea bargains in exchange for ratting out their pushers (the original purpose of prohibiting use of these drugs).
• Ineffectual police enforcement that similarly focuses on busting users instead of dealers.

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.

Re:Beware?

[Sponge Bath]

Envision if you will...

Reading this post while imagining the voice of Rod Serling is awesome! If only you had added the punch line "...you have now entered the Timer Warner Zone"

Re:Beware?

[dissy]

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.

Re:Beware?

[billcopc]

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.

Re:Beware?

[SplashMyBandit]

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.

Re:Beware?

[turbidostato]

"I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself."

I have no eyes, you insensitive clod!

Re:Beware?

[NiceGeek]

If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.

Re:Beware?

[Schemat1c]

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.

Re:Beware?

[c0lo]

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?

Given the circumstances (a monstrous abuser-maimer-murderer gov), IMHO, the correct question would be: "How can you stop the monstrosity of acquiring/imposing the used of another tool?"
Believe me, I'm not trolling, but my imagination fails when thinking on how a Mexican citizen (or many, for the instance) can oppose.

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

I'm not arguing for legalizing all drugs. I'm arguing solely for marijuana because it seems to be lower on the "wrecks your body for life" scale than many legal substances. If young people are going to do it anyway, we should at least have a drug policy that sets consistent standards for what is and isn't illegal based on reasonable metrics of risk. As long as drugs that are relatively benign (I'm not saying marijuana is safe---smoking anything is inherently bad for your health---just that it's nowhere near as bad as meth or PCP) are illegal, young people think, "oh, the people who made those rules just don't understand," and they proceed to ignore the rules. Make the rules cover the hard stuff while going easy on the light stuff, and you'll be less likely to encourage drug use due to the ambivalence and rebelliousness of youth.

Re:Beware?

[modecx]

Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction.

What crackpot did you hear that from? LSD was discovered during the search for medically useful variants of the active alkaloids of a certain common poisonous fungus. And yeah, the researchers discovered a few such compounds, along with LSD. The assertion that LSD was somehow "designed" to be anything at all is...silly.

It was/is used for psychiatric treatment, and at low doses it's useful for treating migraines--but research in those areas was long put aside due to the perceived stigma. Furthermore, while heavy use can cause potent changes in the brain and psyche (resulting in a condition which presents itself like brain damage), there isn't a consensus on its causing persistent psychosis... And at any rate, it's not considered addictive because the body quickly builds tolerance to psychoactive doses, which certianly would be a poor feature of something designed to be "the perfect drug".

Re:Beware?

[TheCarp]

I have a reason... because people will rely on it. When someone compromises the right keys, or database, or equipment and replaces your Iris signature with his own, he will walk right into the bank, withdraw your money, sell your house, and be long gone while you pick up the pieces.

Of course, has anyone collected large city sized samples of biometric data before? I doubt it...I am thinking that this has a high likelyhood of being a major disaster.

-Steve

Re:Beware?

[joelsanda]

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.

If that were the case why didn't the folks who are implementing the iris scanner just stick with fingerprints or the possible card?

I think there's a difference here, though I'm not sure what the implications of it are. A national ID card may look like a state-issued driver's license but the implication is different. I agree that fearing the technology is silly, but what isn't silly is fearing why a government is interested in making that kind of investment.

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

If they did that, the eyeball would almost immediately become unscannable and useless.

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

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.

This is where Precrime comes into play. A foregone conclusion that police officers will arrest people in the future for crimes they were going to commit if not stopped by the law, and the justice system will be altered so people who were going to commit a crime can be treated as convicted of the crime.

If you will commit a crime it has already been anticipated in the manner of time and date, you get picked up by authorities before you even knew you were going to commit a crime. The Iris scanners could even help with this, as long as the authorities have a way of knowing the last place you were scanned, they should in theory have a way of automatically knowing where to send a detachment of troops to arrest you to prevent the crime from being attempted, they just need to ensure access to the database (thanks to the Patriot Act, that should be no problem).

Tuesday, Aug 24th, 2010
Law enforcement agencies in Washington D.C. have begun to use technology that they say can predict when crimes will be committed and who will commit them, before they actually happen.

... forms of pre-crime technology in use or under development include surveillance cameras that can predict when a crime is about to occur and alert police, and even neurological brain scanners that can read people’s intentions before they act, thus detecting whether or not a person has “hostile intent”.

The British government has previously debated introducing pre-crime laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The government even has plans to collect lifelong records on all residents starting at the age of five, in order to screen for those who might be more likely to commit crimes in the future. Google and In-Q-Tel have recently injected a sum of up to $10 million each into a company called Recorded Future, which uses analytics to scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information, which is used to “assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.”

The company describes its analytics as “the ultimate tool for open-source intelligence” and says it can also “predict the future”.

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

Except that it doesn't work. Random drug tests might stop people from having jobs, but it won't stop people from using drugs. There are far too many counterexamples to believe that enforcement against users will work.

Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting plea bargains just for end users. Work your way up the chain. Eventually, you'll have enough small-time dealers willing to rat on the next person up the chain to get a conviction, rinse, repeat until you've gotten everybody, at least on the U.S. side of the border. Repeat this often enough and make the chances of getting caught high enough, and people won't be nearly as willing to risk dealing just to make a quick buck.

Re:Beware?

[Nadaka]

The Mexican drug cartels have killed ~28k in the 4 years.

The Taliban and US military has killed ~67k in the last 9 years in Afghanistan.

That means the Mexican cartels have a daily kill rate almost equal to the combed kill rate of the US military and Taliban at war in Afghanistan.

Re:Beware?

[Ksisanth]

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 seem to have a problem trusting people to make good decisions for themselves, but no problem trusting them to make decisions for others. This seems ... odd.

Re:Beware?

[NiceGeek]

Wow I could drive a truck through the logic holes in your post.

Re:Beware?

[phantomcircuit]

LSD does seem to cause psychosis, in people who have never done it. *Tips hat to Mr. Leary*

He might have been way off on the rest of it,but LSD can in fact cause psychosis. My neighbor (who mistakenly walked onto the freeway...) had LSD induced psychosis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychosis

Re:Beware?

[DeadPixels]

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?

Re:Beware?

[SplashMyBandit]

Ok, lt's imagine there are no gun laws, after all, "people are better at deciding for themselves". What do you end up with, the USA and its horrific statistics. Now, in most civilized countries (eg. not USA) firearms are permitted but strictly registered and controlled. Result? far fewer firearms deaths. The general populace can't usually be trusted with them except in exceptional cases (eg. Israel where everyone is trained in proper handling and an external threat keeps people focused on killing terrorists and not each other).

I agree with you that the extreme of totalitarianism is extremely bad (and is possibly what you had in mind). But a little bit of control in the interest of wider society is not the same thing.

Re:Beware?

[c0lo]

Destroy the equipment, for starters? it's not like those devices are cheap, and shit happens. Something bad can happen to the private entities contracted to operate and maintain them.

Destroy them... hmmm... might be hard (have you tried to destroy an ATM? Neither did I, but the rugged aspect of it doesn't seem inviting).
Render them unusable? Maybe easier, but the question still remains: how?
More important: if/when sabotaging them, what the saboteur may loose? (i.e. sabotaging an ATM - loose at least the possibility to withdraw money. If not your liberty when being accused of vandalism. And boy, I don't want to be in jail for petty crimes under a monstrous regime: better as a political dissident, at least you can hope that Amnesty International may track your case).

Re:Beware?

[SplashMyBandit]

How exactly will you distinguish between crimes committed under the influence vs. those not? Mandatory blood samples from every arrested person?

Far too totalitarian and far to expensive to implement. That is why banning is used (even if non-ideal). Simpler and cheaper.

Re:Beware?

[drgregoryhouse]

How about beheading you and keeping the blood circulating? If there's a will, there's a way.

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

Why bother with the head detachment? Sounds messy... They could haul you around, drugged out, in a wheelchair, and it would look less suspicious.

If they keep the blood circulating, are you really dead?

Re:Beware?

[icebike]

The difference is both sides are armed in Afghanistan.

There are a lot of other differences as well but it would seem you are not likely to be predisposed to pay them any heed in your rush to establish moral equivalence.

Re:Beware?

[davester666]

and you see somebody reaching up with a small spoon-like tool. He pops your eye out.

What do you want to do next?
>

Re:Beware?

[biryokumaru]

A little Etching Cream would render these useless fairly easily. And I would imagine the repair to be rather expensive.

Re:Beware?

[c6gunner]

That's why you go for the smaller ones. The bodies are easier to hide.

Re:Beware?

[Maximus633]

While I enjoy your comments I do object to your second to last comment.

There should be a law to protect me if the activity you choose to do will infringe on my rights to a healthy, happy, and safe life. You can choose to eat junk food and watch too much TV. I am fine with that. But if you are eating junk food causes harm to my life such as let us say such as alcohol with an impaired driver (you in such example) then I should be protected from that action. I am all for you drinking, smoking pot, doing crack, and living on Burger King if that is your choice. But if your choice means that I will have to worry about driving down the road and you are unable to clearly drive or make a responsible choice because your decision or cognitive functions are diminished then I have the right to say my safety and thus of the safety of society is to deem activities unlawful then I see no problem with it.

The other side is that the public is not trained medically to make decisions about the effects of such drugs on the population. If the drug itself may harm your mental state and you then need to be placed in a state center to be cared for because you killed off your brain cells to the point you have no ability to safely care for yourself then my tax money or society's money as a whole has to be used to now care for your "right to do what you want" has caused you harm and it is unethical along with immoral to let you die or cause harm to yourself/others then yes I/We (Society) have the right to tell you what activities you can't do to prevent harm to yourself, to others, and to society money.

Re:Beware?

[c6gunner]

Destroy the equipment, for starters?

Great idea: perform an act of vandalism in a location which is guaranteed to have cameras. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Beware?

[Maximus633]

What about those that commit crimes that result in the ending of a life? What will you do then? You can't punish them with double life sentences... The point is to deter in our laws from people committing those crimes. If you speed you choose to do that we punish you with a fine to pay and the results of your inability to make safe decisions will impact your future ability to drive and your insurance will rise because of your not making safe decisions. When those people sit down and think about the impact logically to their own life and the decisions that they may carry out while high, drunk, stoned, etc when they aren't in those settings maybe then they can say it shouldn't be risk for others for my dumb actions.

Re:Beware?

[drgregoryhouse]

That's the horror element. In your head you can still feel the pain. lol

Re:Beware?

[Maximus633]

Another sad argument... If they are going to do it anyway then make it legal. How many people in society do marijuana? The problem with this thought process is if we do it for this then we have to do it others. We can't combat murders so we should make it legal for them to do. We can't combat burglary so we should make a law that allows it if they do it and it is under a certain amount. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Regardless of the amount of people committing the crime. Now if the majority of people say okay this should be allowed and the risk to society or the risk to harm to yourself to the point we (society) will have to take care of you is non-existent or can't be offset some how (Taxes to cover mental help professional salary and the staff salary to take care of you etc) then I would be all for it.

Re:Beware?

[Maximus633]

Well AC I disagree. The police are trained and while accidents of human error happen it would be far more apparent with random stoners and opium addicts. Just think they had their dignity robbed but at least they got the drugs off the street so one day they won't have to worry about someone being so stoned that they end their lives.

Re:Beware?

[mpe]

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)

Which drugs are legal and which are illegal has little to do with "harm". Also even for a dangerous drug, such as alcohol, the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the drug itself. Especially when you factor in that black market drugs tend to be highly contaminated.

Re:Beware?

[mpe]

Rebellious youths with try whatever is available. Making marijuana acceptable means more who abstain now will try - with attendant consequences.

The evidence from countries such as Portugal is that relaxing prohibition actually tends to reduce usage. It isn't exactly "rebellious" to take a legal drug :) I know folks who are big on heroin etc now. They all stated they would never go past pot, but in truth it was the 'gateway' for them.

IIRC the most common actual "gateway drug" is tobacco. Any "progression" from pot having more to do with the economics of the drugs market than anything else.

Re:Beware?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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'.

LOL. You are one paranoid fruitcake. Your rant proves my point about drugs (and their users). How about you read this (obviously misinformation planted by the Greys out of Area 51, ha!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD

It's not clear what you are referring to in that lengthy article on LSD, but since you want to cite wikipedia, how about you start with the criminalization of marijuana which long predated even the invention of LSD:

Considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, aka marijuana,[17]. The southern border states called for action.[17] After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis.

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

I know folks who are big on heroin etc now. They all stated they would never go past pot, but in truth it was the 'gateway' for them. While it sucks for the people that can indulge in a little pot from time to time overall I think making it illegal benefits wider society (although harshly punishing casual use does seem a bit extreme).

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.

Re:Beware?

[Ksisanth]

You claimed that most people can't be trusted, their judgment sucks, they suck. Fine. Any given "Nanny State" is composed of people--what sets them apart from the mass of suck that is the rest of us?

Re:Beware?

[Joce640k]

At least with iris scanning I'm leaving copies of my 'key' wherever I go.

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

Another sad argument... If they are going to do it anyway then make it legal.

That is not my argument. My argument is that if a substance is of comparable harm to dozens of other substances that are all legal, AND if people are going to use that substance anyway, that prohibition is doomed to failure.

The singling out of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance comically exceeds any rational evaluation based on its long-term health effects, its addictiveness, or any other reasonable criteria. If marijuana is classified as schedule I, cigarettes should be even more highly restricted, as should alcohol, as both show substantially greater potential for clinical addiction and at least as much long term harm. Yet neither of these is a controlled substance. Hence, by any rational evaluation, marijuana should also not be a controlled substance, and any decision to make it one is entirely arbitrary, driven by political aims (and the lack of big companies backing it), rather than being driven by science and reason.

Your argument might hold up if I were arguing for legalization of PCP or meth, but I would never be foolish enough to make such an argument. Clearly, burglary causes significantly more harm than any legal activity that I'm aware of. Thus, comparing it to marijuana use is at best fallacious, and at worst, deliberately misleading, specious reasoning.

Re:Beware?

[freedom_india]

Aren't you forgetting the adage; if the Govt. does it, then it must be Legal. The Golden Period was Plato's Republic and Greeks got it right for the first and last time in history of World. For a short time, the only time the Govt. was directly answerable to People and feared people was in Ancient Greece. The Romans tried to copy, but failed when their own inherent contradictions paved the way for Ceaser. The Founding Fathers had this in mind and tried to do the best, but not even they could have: 1) Predicted the rise of AT&T and illegal wire-tapping. 2) Rise of Corporations and owning of senators by unfranchised Corporations. 3) War-Mongering presidents like Truman, Reagan and Bush Sr. and Cheney who believed in an Unitary Executive.

Re:Beware?

[freedom_india]

Tobacco and Beer have their Lobbyists.

Re:Beware?

[chrb]

The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.

I'm not so sure - it is possible that the people of Mexico will simply get fed up of the violence and decide to end prohibition by themselves. It seems like there is a real global momentum towards decriminalisation and legalisation at the moment. Last year Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine and heroin. In the past few months, the Presidents of Peru, Mexico and Columbia have all called for debate on legalisation. There is some amount of popular support in Mexico for legalisation of all drugs (The Guardian - Mexico looks to legalisation as drug war murders hit 28,000, The Guardian - War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle, The Economist - Mexico and drugs: Thinking the unthinkable, BBC News - Vicente Fox backs Mexico drugs legalisation). And it's not just Mexico BBC News - Britain looks at Portugal's success story over decriminalising personal drug use.

The whole thing has the feeling of a house of cards. If prop 19 passes, California legalises cannabis, and Peru, Mexico, and Columbia legalise all drugs, and the U.K moves to decriminalise all drugs, then things could move quite rapidly. If legalisation significantly reduces crime and violence in those nations, the ripple on effects are going to lead to people everywhere questioning why they should continue to be part of the global drugs prohibition regime. In a decade the world's approach to drugs could look significantly different.

Re:Beware?

[mSparks43]

Personally I tend to hide absolutely anything of value, since the world is full of thieving scum. Why do you want to know? Are you said thieving scum?

Re:Beware?

[JSombra]

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

Highlighted relevant bits. As to the detrimental effects of tobacco, never heard anyone classify cancer as “not serious”

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.

Can happen and already happens when the drug is illegal (or even with legal drugs), so how does making it illegal help? Oh yeah it does not

As to the rest of your rather poor arguments about the dangers of drugs (which sound like a re run of late 80’s infomercials on drugs and usually ended in, just say ‘No’) notice you stuck whole time to the harder (and more controversial) drugs like coke and LSD and avoid the whole time mentioning the main drug people talk about when talking about legalisation, marijuana. You know the drugs that is less harmful and addictive than Tabaco, more beneficial in moderation than alcohol? Why was that?

Got to say, love your ending, where you twist taking right of personal choice away from people as somehow protecting the right to choose, something right out of the lobbyist playbook

You should consider looking for a job with the Tabaco and alcohol lobbyist group’s.that is if you don’t already work for them

Re:Beware?

[Maximus633]

One of the things I have learned on Slashdot is someone may say something and define it later. I have also had a pleasure of both learning others sides to issues as well as being lucky to have people comment back professionally or at least not disrespectful. This is much importance to note because I feel and have seen others who get down right rude. I appreciate your respect in your response.

I couldn't agree more with alcohol (honestly my post was a little different to begin with but later revised.). I believe that the control of alcohol should be limited to in a persons home where they can drink all night long but keeping themselves out of general harm to the public. If given outside of the area of ones home then rules and responsibilities to those giving such drinks should be stricter. I do not believe nor do I think it is fair that drunks can get in their cars and drive off without someone ensuring their ability to drive without being a danger to the public. Sadly prohibition didn't work well out as we all know.

I believe that at least with what little knowledge I have (I am not afraid to admit lack of knowledge) that the difference is we failed because of the wide spread popularity of alcohol. This helped in making enforcement harder as so many people were well on their way to work around the system for what they wanted. However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana. Which to me is the equivalent of some areas not even enforcing prohibition or seat belt laws . To me "personally" I feel Marijuana and Alcohol are one and the same as far as effects to the average Joe. While I have never used marijuana, the studying I have done on it for school projects show that the effects can have almost like effects to people. For example drivers driving drunk don't clearly see, have delayed reaction time, and possible blackouts, and those who are high are unable to determine what actions to do, hallucinations, and decreased response time.

I do not for reasons agree with cigarettes (I do however see your point). I have not heard of a person driving after smoking a cigarette have an accident because they couldn't clearly tell the line or had decreased reaction time. Granted those incidents I am sure with people dropping them in their lap may not help the cause it is different to marijuana in the sense of the reactions to one's mental abilities. While I do agree it is addictive (both my parents smoke) the effects are felt by the person and the impact to society from say someone driving is far less. I do support the laws prohibiting smoking from the work place and minimizing the attempt to target minors. I agree on public offices (Government Owned or those dealing with the public) should not allow smoking inside of them. However that is the end of my agreeing. I dislike and feel that the law makers have overstepped the rights of the people by requiring (Here in Texas 3 cities I know of have city ordinances on the books) private business that while deal with the public are required to stop smoking from taking place. If a non-smoker doesn't wish for their health to be impacted that way then their choice to go to a place where such restrictions are in place and spend their money there. Forcing restaurants or bars from allowing smokers to smoke is wrong because they are "privately" owned and no one is required to go to them for a service.

My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.

I think their is a disservice to people and getting the truth out by not having a study on the impact of Marijuana and gathering of stats (if available) to prove and back the point why we have made marijuana illegal. I think everything at some point needs to be revisited to ensure the necessity of due diligence when faced with such situations of lack of scientific proof with drugs.

Re:Beware?

[geekmux]

If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.

Given the fact that deaths directly related to tobacco use outnumber the deaths from all other illegal drug use combined by a multiplier of at least 10, I'd say "logic" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

My sig has further insight into the matter.

Re:Beware?

[geekmux]

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...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.

Perhaps instead of attempting to convince us of how "good" tobacco is for us, vs. how "bad" LSD, Coke, etc. is, one should probably take a look at the WHO statistics.

And "not smoked in excess"? If you're attempting to mask the 5% that are "not in excess" cigar or pipe smokers in with the other 95% who are hopelessly addicted (by design) to cigarettes, then you've failed with your point of tobacco in "moderation".

And I'm glad you brought up the government and taxes in all this, because you just hit it on the head as to the exact reason certain drugs remain illegal today while tobacco continues to "flourish" as our #1 killer, all in the name of taxes and "tradition"

I see no honor in murder as a "tradition", but plenty of greedy fuckers sure do see profit from it.

Re:Beware?

[geekmux]

The Mexican drug cartels have killed ~28k in the 4 years.

The Taliban and US military has killed ~67k in the last 9 years in Afghanistan.

That means the Mexican cartels have a daily kill rate almost equal to the combed kill rate of the US military and Taliban at war in Afghanistan.

And tobacco has killed over four million in the last 10 years.

And what that means is that greed is far more deadly than any war or illegal drug trade.

Re:Beware?

[DrSkwid]

> The government could require scanning at the borders

I don' tknow where you're from but border control at Atlanta Airport, USA fingerprinted and iris scanned me when I visited last year.

Re:Beware?

[zippthorne]

You should be wary because it's so easy to fool. Biometrics are username, but everyone's using them for password.

I wouldn't want to keep my money in a bank that used iris scanning for authentication. (identification however, that could be neat.)

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

Those statistics are misleading, because the number of people who regularly take tobacco dwarf the number of people who take illegal drugs by a significant margin too. Not that I disagree with your overall point - I don't care if these drugs are dangerous: you should have the right to kill yourself in any way that you choose. Almost everything that we do is dangerous, and it's up to the individual to weight the risks and benefits. It's not the government's job to tell people what to put in their bodies. The only drug laws I'd support are:

• Ban on drug advertising (including alcohol, and probably including coffee, tea, and caffeinated sodas as well - let's have a level playing field).
• Ban on smoking (anything) in public places - you have the right to take drugs, not the right to make other people take them.
• Ban on driving or operating any other machinery while under the influence of anything that impairs your reactions, concentration, or situational awareness.
• Require products that contain drugs to have the risks clearly listed on the packaging (we're capitalists, at least in theory, so let's have informed customers).
• Harsh sentencing for giving someone drugs without their knowledge and consent.

Caffeine and alcohol would probably still be my drugs of choice under such a regime, but tax revenues would be higher because other drug users would be paying the same taxes as me.

Re:Beware?

[ultranova]

The Golden Period was Plato's Republic and Greeks got it right for the first and last time in history of World.

You're saying we should all bow down for the Philosopher Kings with unchecked power?

For a short time, the only time the Govt. was directly answerable to People and feared people was in Ancient Greece.

It was directly answerable to and feared the nobility, then called Citizens. The ordinary people had far less power then than now.

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

Note that the Wikipedia article states:

It is difficult to determine whether LSD itself induces these reactions or if it triggers latent conditions that would have manifested themselves otherwise

It then cites two papers, one from 1960 and one from 1971. The most recent study that I read was from the late '90s, and indicated that it was most probable that LSD triggers latent conditions, which doesn't seem to contradict the results of the studies that Wikipedia does cite.

Re:Beware?

[ultranova]

The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.

So does working or eating at McDonald's yet they're allowed to keep operating.

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

IIRC the most common actual "gateway drug" is tobacco

I've known a few people where marijuana was the gateway drug - to nicotine. People were rolling joints with marijuana and tobacco and ended up addicted to nicotine.

Re:Beware?

[ultranova]

How exactly will you distinguish between crimes committed under the influence vs. those not? Mandatory blood samples from every arrested person?

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.

Far too totalitarian and far to expensive to implement. That is why banning is used (even if non-ideal). Simpler and cheaper.

And more totalitarian.

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

the U.K moves to decriminalise all drugs

See Mark Easton's analysis as to how likely this is.

Re:Beware?

[TheRaven64]

One of the ways in which iris scanners check that you're really you is to measure the speed of pupil dilation. This means that you would not be identified if drugged. Unfortunately, it means that you often aren't identified when drunk either. This isn't usually seen as a problem - the biggest customers of this kind of technology are facilities where you generally don't want drunk or stoned people going in anyway - but it could be in this case.

Re:Beware?

[ultranova]

There are a lot of other differences as well but it would seem you are not likely to be predisposed to pay them any heed in your rush to establish moral equivalence.

Dunno about moral equivalence, but the numbers certainly seem to suggest that what's going on in Mexico is a civil war.

Re:Beware?

[HBI]

Of course we have a choice. Vandalism is a choice. Biometric scanners are sensitive to damage, much moreso than old technology. You can reduce these items to uselessness and increase the costs of maintaining them to the point where the project is abandoned. Just scratch up the lens for starters. I bet an awl would do far more nasty damage to such a thing.

Re:Beware?

[WillDraven]

Buddy, I think you need to lay off the drugs, you're not making any sense.

With drugs illegal you have a thriving black market which does nothing to restrict children's access to drugs. If you don't want kids to do drugs, get them off the streets and behind the counter at convenience stores or pharmacies where somebody will check ID before selling it.

I'm 25 now and I remember being underage, I could get cannabis, cocaine, LSD, etc easier than I could get a bottle of vodka. And no this isn't in some big evil city, I grew up in a medium size southern town.

As for all that shit about the government preventing people hurting themselves... FUCK YOU. YOU GOD DAMNED AUTHORITARIAN SHITBAG. IT'S MY FUCKING BODY AND IF I WANT TO BREAK IT IT'S MY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DO SO.

Fucking idiots like you have been ruining my fucking country for more than 60 years now and I'm fucking sick of it.

I try to avoid shouting like this (you can look at my posting history to confirm this) but lately I've seen too much harm done in the name of the war on drugs. I have several friends who have been in terrible accidents and then after being given painkillers for months or years so they can live something like a normal life, they get cut off overnight because the fucking DEA has started telling doctors how to do their jobs. Honest hard-working people who then lose their jobs because they're in too much pain. Not to mention having to go through the absolute horror of a forced opiate withdrawal. All because they smoked a little pot or took some other painkiller (because the DEA won't let the doctors give them enough to begin with).

So, in conclusion, fuck the war on drugs, fuck the DEA, and fuck you.

Re:Beware?

[t0p]

When "chip & pin" credit cards and debit cards were introduced in the UK, all the shops had to install machines so the customer can swipe his card through it then input his PIN. Soon after, criminals devised ways to grab card details and PINs from the machines, and use these details to make up forged cards. So you'd go to the local store to buy your cigarettes or washing powder, pay with your card, then a few days later your card would be maxed out by somebody somewhere else. A lot of people have had to go to a lot of trouble to prove that the details were stolen and the person hadn't used the card himself.

Re:Beware?

[t0p]

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.

You clearly know nothing about drugs and should refrain from writing about the subject. In other words: STFU!

Re:Beware?

[inf4mia]

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.

If this is your premise, then government has a "right" (I'd love to see where that right is enshrined in Common Law) to monitor your caloric intake (eating too much is harmful), ensure you don't go to McDonald's too much, make sure you eat the right kinds of foods, make certain you don't drink "too much", don't take ANY risks our "good and wise" politicians and bureaucrats deem unnecessary. Your line of reasoning would almost undoubtedly lead to an overarching government that knows no boundaries to its "rights" since it is here to protect us from ourselves.

Also, you act as though government has the ability to keep people from buying and selling drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. I would have thought that the Prohibition Era and Mexican Drug Cartels would have taught prohibitionists like yourself that government is powerless to control such things. You only drive the activity underground, empower criminal organized crime and gangs, and turn people who would otherwise be considered law abiding citizens into criminals.

By the way, how's that War On Drugs going so far? Are drugs any less available to kids today than they were in the 60's when this never ending war began? We've spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this War On Drugs over the past 40 years. I'd like to know when I can expect for us to win.

Re:Beware?

[t0p]

This "cannabis is a gateway drug" crap really annoys me. Go look at somewhere that has decriminalized cannabis and you'll find that the majority of cannabis users have never used an illegal drug.

There is some truth in the fact that some people who use cannabis buy it from dealers who sell other stuff, which the customer might end up buying out of curiosity, because it's there. That adds more weight to the argument for decriminalizing/legalizing cannabis: then the customer would go to a proper shop or bar to buy his cannabis, and there wouldn't be any illegal drugs on offer there.

Re:Beware?

[the_humeister]

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.

No there should be no law against those things. What there should be is a law that would allow physicians to not be obligated to treat you (and government not obligated to pay) if you develop emphysema/lung cancer from your smoking, liver failure/brain damage from your drinking, becoming an obese diabetic from eating too much, etc.

Re:Beware?

[GameboyRMH]

>look

You have no eyes. It now appears dark, but in reality it is not, however you are the only living thing for miles, so as far as anybody knows it is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

>

Re:Beware?

[Nadaka]

Moral equivalence? I was pointing out numerical equivalence.

In Mexico, both sides are armed as well. Most of the killings are between rival cartels or against the politicians, police and military.

In Afghanistan, ~half of the dead are civilians, killed by both US and Taliban forces. I don't have any statistics for the distribution of the dead in Mexico, so I can only make assumptions, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar ratio.

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

You clearly know nothing about drugs and should refrain from writing about the subject. In other words: STFU!

Clearly you know nothing about me, or what I know about drugs, and you should refrain from writing about the subject. In other words: STFU!

Re:Beware?

[mysidia]

If this is your premise, then government has a "right" (I'd love to see where that right is enshrined in Common Law) to monitor your caloric intake (eating too much is harmful)

Eating 'too much' on one particular day is harmful in somebody's opinion. It has yet to be proven to be immediately harmful. Although the government certainly has a legitimate right to prohibit you from eating until your stomach explodes. Note I said 'fatal' as in immediately harmful, not harmful if repeated in excess over long periods of time.

The government does not have a right to monitor or collect information about your caloric intake. Although your health insurance company might have that right. This is protected due to an expectation of privacy, and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

It should be noted that banning an intrinsically hazardous substance is an entirely different kind of thing.

It is beneficial for the government to ban attractive menaces such as drugs. Much in the same manner as it is for them to ban your neighbor storing highly radioactive material in their yard that can pose a radiation exposure hazard to anyone who comes within 50 feet of it.

Re:Beware?

[geekmux]

...I don't care if these drugs are dangerous: you should have the right to kill yourself in any way that you choose. Almost everything that we do is dangerous, and it's up to the individual to weight the risks and benefits.

And when an individual finds themselves so hopelessly addicted to a product like cigarettes that they physically and mentally no longer have the power to actually weigh the "risks and benefits"? How many people do you know who smoke who would quit if they could, yet they can't seem to find the strength to combat the addictive chemicals and additives?

It's not the government's job to tell people what to put in their bodies.

Really? Then what exactly is the purpose of the FDA?

Look, I agree with you to some extent regarding personal freedoms, but there is absolutely ZERO reason cigarettes "need" to be as deadly and addictive as they are today. It is this absolute lack of oversight and a blinding desire for greed on both the part of the tobacco company (who make the deadly product highly addictive to maximize revenue) and the US Government (who allow it to happen to maximize tax revenue) that I look to blame here.

Re:Beware?

[Schemat1c]

LOL. You are one paranoid fruitcake. Your rant proves my point about drugs (and their users). How about you read this (obviously misinformation planted by the Greys out of Area 51, ha!):

Before you embarrass yourself further with rumors, opinions and urban legends I would suggest that you read a copy of the excellent book The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer. The link is to the online version but it's worth getting the hard copy. This way you will be much more prepared at your next prohibition debate and maybe you just might learn something!

Re:Beware?

[icebike]

In Mexico nearly 90% of the dead are civilians. The police are on the take. Those who aren't don't last long.

Have you had your head in the sand for the last three years?

Re:Beware?

[icebike]

I think that stretches the common definition of a civil war beyond anything I've seen before.

Drug Cartels are trying to take over the entire country. I doubt this fits into the mold of north vs south, or Tamils vs Government.

   

Re:Beware?

[dgatwood]

My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.

The line I typically draw is that laws should cover harm to others and harm to society, and should go no further. Laws against burglary, murder, etc. are clear cases of preventing harm to others. Laws against using drugs that cause people to become dangerous addicts (meth, PCP, etc.) fall squarely on the good side of the line as well.

Laws about less harmful substances like pot, alcohol, and tobacco should be only as restrictive as is necessary to prevent the harm. For example, laws against smoking where others are forced to breathe the air, laws against driving drunk, laws against smoking on public beaches resulting from decades of litter problems by jerks who don't care, etc. fall squarely on the good side of the line because they are designed to limit behavior that causes harm to others.

Laws banning the substances altogether fall squarely on the other side of that line, as mere possession of any substance without using it cannot cause harm (unless you're talking about something radioactive or poisonous without proper containment) and these substances are not dangerous enough when used to warrant such restrictive laws. Even laws against the use of such substances within the privacy of your own home, assuming you don't have kids in your home, are unreasonably restrictive; the injury to others and to society can be better mitigated in other ways.

However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana.

Marijuana use was out of control long before medical marijuana came into play. Here are some stats on the popularity of marijuana. Notice that the numbers for young people were dropping until the early 90s, then started climbing again. The numbers for older people followed along a few years afterwards as those people got older and "aged up" into higher categories. Any effects of medical marijuana legislation (passed in 1996) should have started showing up after 1996, or at a minimum, should have started rising much faster, but in fact, the largest jump in youth use occurred before 1996. An effect cannot predate a cause, to the best of my knowledge. If anything, this suggests that perhaps the reverse is true---that laws to allow medical marijuana use stemmed from a resurgence in and growing acceptance of pot use.

More to the point, in people age 25-34, almost half have admitted using marijuana at some point in their lives. This has been true fairly consistently in every measurement beginning in the 1970s and continuing every 3 years up to the present. What's interesting about this is that people over 35 show lower lifetime pot use even after enough time has gone by for those people to "age up" into the next bracket, which basically suggests that people over 35 like to pretend that they never used marijuana because of social stigmas and/or because they have kids and don't want their kids to know that they smoked pot. Either way, it's a rather fascinating pile of statistics when you really start to think about it. :-)

Re:Beware?

[ultranova]

I think that stretches the common definition of a civil war beyond anything I've seen before.

Tens of thousands dead in fighting imply war. The fighting is mainly done by domestic factions inside the country, therefore it's civil war. Seems like a pretty straightforward fit to me.

Drug Cartels are trying to take over the entire country. I doubt this fits into the mold of north vs south, or Tamils vs Government.

It's "some bunch of assholes with guns vs. the government". It's what happens when the central government becomes too weak to maintain its monopoly on violence: various groups take advantage and start rebelling.

Re:Beware?

[icebike]

Rebuilding?

What do drug gangs build?

Re:Beware?

[Nadaka]

Rebuilding?

What do drug gangs build?

Profit.

but he said rebelling

Re:Beware?

[rubycodez]

I disagree that the Founding Fathers didn't see the possibility of what we have. Looking past the superficials of technology, they indeed knew of "secret police" and "domestic spying". The western banking cartels (still the most powerful of our mega-corporations) had already been in power for over a hundred years. They certainly knew of the dangers of war and so defined a system of checks against war-mongering. What they didn't account for was blatant unconstitutional behavior and high treason going unchecked and unpunished.

Re:Beware?

[ajlisows]

I think one thing that you need to keep in mind is that not all drugs are equal. Marijuana is not nearly as harmful to the body and/or mind as Crystal Meth and Heroin. Heck, I know some every day Marijuana smokers and some every day binge drinkers. I'll let you take a guess which ones are gainfully employed and which ones are totally burned out at 40 with no job and no future.

I can't see how anyone can look at that situation and decide that it makes sense from a health and safety perspective.

Re:Beware?

[monkyyy]

but he`d still have to take the bus to the bad part of town

So I guess

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:So I guess

[tukang]

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.

Re:So I guess

[icebraining]

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.

Re:So I guess

[jamesh]

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

Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank. If you want someone else to access your account give them their own card (or tell the bank that their eyeballs are also valid for your account).

Re:So I guess

[icebike]

ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Shoot account owner in head, empty account. Done.

FIFY.

Re:So I guess

[houghi]

Why lend out your card if they can have one of their own?

And "other people?" There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends. If friends need money, I go with them to the bank machine or I just transfer it, depending how fast and how much they need.

And I have refused credit cards presented to me, because the person clearly was NOT the person on the card. I do not care if you are married to that person or if it is your son. It is NOT your card. For all I know, you are in the middle of a horrible divorce and try to scam your soon to be ex-partner.

Re:So I guess

[DarthBart]

I know several couples who have only one debit card between them. Mostly they explain it by saying "That way John/Mary doesn't spend money I don't know about".

But then it usually turns out that John has the debit card and Mary is out writing checks and not telling John until John's debit card gets declined because they're $200 in the hole.

Re:So I guess

[iammani]

What about the inability to change passwords (compromised passwords for example)? Isnt that a big security risk too?

Re:So I guess

[twidarkling]

What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.

Re:So I guess

[socsoc]

Even better, if it's a one time use by a trusted person, just change the pin later. Or get a new set of eyeballs.

Re:So I guess

[socsoc]

Where does your merchant agreement allow you to infer whether someone is that person? You probably incorrectly ask for ID too.

Re:So I guess

[WrongSizeGlass]

There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends

Is your password Bosco?

Re:So I guess

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:So I guess

[turbidostato]

"Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk"

Alert. No reasons provided!!!

A password is nothing but an authorization token. An authorization token on untrusted hands is a security risk only proportional to the nature of the secured item (ICBM launch codes vs. my luggagge combination). An authorization token on trusted hands is mere "bussiness as usual".

"If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password. If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password."

If I want them to have temporary access (right now, just now), what should I do?

Re:So I guess

[icebike]

Have you been to mexico?

Fat chance of them finding anything.
Besides, Iris != face.

Re:So I guess

[mpe]

What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.

This might improve security. If it prevents a corrupt bank employee being able to create a card attached to your account. Withdraw your money then destroy the records of the additional card ever having existed.

Re:So I guess

[TooMuchToDo]

*MORBO VOICE* That is not how centralized authentication works! *MORBO*

Are you familiar with how Kerberos works? Similar principal, but instead of a password your iris is substituted as your password/passphrase.

Re:So I guess

[xtracto]

As a Mexican I have to say that right now Mexico is the worst country where this could be implemented.

Just a quick glance at the horrors people are making in Mexico (just see the pictures of the BlogDelNarco site... you don't need to read Spanish to understand...). For a lot of Mexicans, grabbing the eyes of someone is a trivial task; and the worst problem is that in this manner *they have only something to win* and nothing to lose. Whereas, if the password was in the person's brain, they won't benefit in killing such a person.

Re:So I guess

[houghi]

If the name is female and the person is male, then it is very clear that it is not the person on the card. If there is another reason there is doubt, I can ask the person for extra ID and if he does not want to do that, refuse the sale.

If that person then says he does not have any other ID, I could have him arrested for breaking the law.

Re:So I guess

[L4t3r4lu5]

You do realise that your Iris scan won't actually be used as a key. It'll be a one way collision resistant hash of the scan.

MD5 for your eyes.

Re:So I guess

[L4t3r4lu5]

ATM Menu > Enter Pin. Shoot account owner in head, empty account, Bank don't have facial scan of perp. Done.

FTFY.

Re:So I guess

[Jeppe Salvesen]

No need to shoot the account owner. It will actually become easier to rob someone. Now you gotta threaten them to give up their PIN. With iris scanning, the robber will only need to drag your ass to the ATM and hold your head in front of the iris scanner.

Not that I like the technology, but your example seems wrong. Also the other assertions about the risks of shared authentication may be misguided. Those who hold your iris info will not necessarily be able to use this to authenticate themselves as you. Manufacturing an iris is considered difficult. And the iris scanning may be digitally signed when authenticating yourself online to get around the problem of using the same authentication to several accounts.

Re:So I guess

[Dunbal]

Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank.

      And speeding is against the law, but almost everyone does it at least once a day.

      Please do not attempt to force people to live by all the laws/agreements/licenses they are expected to uphold unless first you can demonstrate being able to do this yourself. Of course the bank states you can't do this, right at the beginning, where they say "do not give your PIN to ANYONE", to cover their asses. However I consider my wife to be an exception. She can empty my entire bank account if she wishes. It's not as if that's where I keep all my money anyway. She'll have a harder time getting at the stock, bonds and real estate.

Re:So I guess

[The_Noid]

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.

Re:So I guess

[Timmmm]

Ah so they'll always hash your iris scan, just like how websites always hash your password. /s

Re:So I guess

[vlm]

Manufacturing an iris is considered difficult.

Dude, I can't believe you just publicly wrote that printing out a picture and holding it up to a camera is "considered difficult". God knows there will be no traffic in stolen corporate data of iris pictures, because that's illegal, I mean if that happened, next thing you'd know people would be trading in stolen CC numbers, and that could NEVER happen.

The biggest problem with biometrics is the combination of being relatively easily and cheaply faked for great monetary reward, and the inability to cheaply change your "key". A true story, I worked at a dead/dying telco in the past and they've got a computer with all my biometric data on it, somewhere. As that company finishes dying, I may as well just post my biometric data here on slashdot, its not like its going to be private anymore. Over the long term, using biometrics for identification is about as private as using your slashdot username to prove id.

Re:So I guess

[jamesh]

Please do not attempt to force people to live by all the laws/agreements/licenses they are expected to uphold unless first you can demonstrate being able to do this yourself.

I've never given card or my pin number to anyone else, not even my wife. We've both got cards that access the same accounts however. I trust my wife, but if my account is ever compromised I don't want to be in the position of having to lie and say that i've never given my pin to anyone, especially when they can then just show me a picture of my wife accessing my account with my pin number. I know someone who was put in that situation and it wasn't a lot of fun - from memory he mistyped the pin number 3 times and the machine ate his wife's card and he had to go in and get it and admit that he had been given the pin etc.

However I consider my wife to be an exception. She can empty my entire bank account if she wishes. It's not as if that's where I keep all my money anyway. She'll have a harder time getting at the stock, bonds and real estate.

Now that sounds like a relationship built on trust! Myself, I don't have any money/accounts/bonds/whatever that my wife can't get to. I'd rather live a lifetime of trust and be screwed over in the end than live a lifetime afraid of being screwed over...

Re:So I guess

[socsoc]

No you can't. Read your damn agreement with your credit card processor.

Re:So I guess

[Mindcontrolled]

If I want them to have temporary access (right now, just now), what should I do?

In an ideal world, you should give them a temporary authentication token with a set expiry date.

Re:So I guess

[Jeppe Salvesen]

That's interesting. Seriously. I thought the machines were able to distinguish between living matter and printouts (like looking for signs of movement, adding an IR channel). If the iris scanners can't do that, the product is DOA.

Re:So I guess

[EdIII]

for all you know they might store it so they can "duplicate" your eye... Just like what happens with bank cards.

Uh huh. How? Put my thumbdrive containing the "md5 hashing" of your eye against the machine?

This is not anywhere close to password/hash based authentication system. You can't duplicate it. At least not with our current level of technology.

The scanners themselves merely measure the environment in a myriad of ways, with different algorithms, and even different proprietary technologies. There is only one thing they are designed to do, and that is determine if the current measurements match a stored pattern. This is not remotely the same as passwords or magnetic strip readers. They deliver a yes/no to a match against a stored pattern, an index to a stored pattern, a value representing the accuracy of the match, etc.

Let's say I walk into your bedroom put a 360 degree scanning pod in the middle and capture LIDAR, temperature, humidity, radiation, and a couple dozen different chemical trace tests. All of that becomes the pattern of your bedroom at that place and time. In order to cause the pod to deliver the same pattern, or anything close to it, I would need to recreate your bedroom down to the smallest detail.

Where your misconception, and that of the original poster lies, is in believing that you can somehow present the pattern directly. You can't. You need to present the room.

Attempting to duplicate a human eye to present it to a machine designed to measure it precisely? Insanely unlikely to succeed. Even if we succeed at human cloning, there is no guarantee you can even duplicate the eye, as parts of your eye are going to change over time. How do you recreate the exact conditions of macular degeneration which changes the eyes, and differently to each eye? That is an example of only one environmental factor that cannot be accounted for by DNA. Your lifestyle and what you eat can affect, over time, what your pattern would be. So you can't duplicate it from DNA alone. That leaves duplicating it from a resultant pattern, or the physical eye in your possession. Once again, probably have to wait for Star Trek to do that.

Biometrics is inherently flawed if you only use it as authentication. That being said, I am pretty darn certain they are not going to duplicate my eye in a way to fool the scanners we have today. The best you could hope to do is to bypass the biometric scanner, not hack it, which is not the same kind of attack that you are worried about either.

Re:So I guess

[turbidostato]

"In an ideal world, you should give them a temporary authentication token with a set expiry date."

Like my credit card that I want returned in five minutes.

Which, oh, surprise! it's exactly what I do.

Re:So I guess

[houghi]

Id did. In Belgium that is how it works.

Re:So I guess

[The_Noid]

Where your misconception, and that of the original poster lies, is in believing that you can somehow present the pattern directly. You can't. You need to present the room.

But you don't need to represent an exact copy of the room, or the eye in this case. You only need to present a copy that results in the same signature. Eye scanning is not anything like putting a bunch of sensors in a room. It's more like putting a bunch of sensors on the other side of town, while the room is racing around on the back of a truck, with a drunken driver. And the room is made of organic matter and constantly changing. And the room only has a tiny window through witch you need to do your measurements.

No way

[DoofusOfDeath]

Of all the countries where I wouldn't want having my eye in my head as the only barrier to someone else's quick cash...

Re:No way

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No way

[Urd.Yggdrasil]

Does the "liveness" test work as well as those for fingerprint scanners?

Re:No way

[monkyyy]

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

Re:No way

[jayveekay]

Future headline: "Eyedentity theft increasing in Mexico." Nobody saw this coming. :)

Re:Iris border control - awesome!

[Zero__Kelvin]

You have posted as an AC. Please look into your monitor so that we may remedy the situation.

Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes

[assemblerex]

and heads. "Hey no one said they had to be attached to the body to work!"

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes

[Osgeld]

lol, first thing that popped in my head was "demolition man" where snipes pops out the guards eyeball for the scanners using an ink pen... It may not work for the bus, but remote location ATM's are a easy target, no more beating the pin number out of someone when you rob them

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes

[Local ID10T]

Something you have (your eye) and something you know (your PIN) = two factor security. Its a simple alternative to a card.

For low value transactions you can skip the second factor (the PIN) just like you can with modern ATM/credit cards.

More secure, simpler, and less to carry around in your pockets.

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes

[hedwards]

I don't think that this would work with a dead or otherwise non-functioning eyeball. If you've ever looked closely at your eye in the mirror, you'd notice that it's not static. It's constantly adjusting slightly to barely perceptible changes in light. You're not going to be able to easily replicate that with a dead eye.

I'm sure that somebody has been doing something to curtail the use of dead body parts to break into the system. I know that they've been working on the dead finger problem for quite a while as well.

Targetted Ads

[stovicek]

I can't wait for the day I walk down the street and have billboards call out my name or stores asking me how I enjoyed those pants I last bought. Seems like I've seen that kind of marketing before.

Re:Targetted Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, better yet, "Welcome back Steve! We missed you. We see you've recently purchased an anal plug at the sex shop around the corner. Would you like to buy some Preparation H to go with that?" shouted at you as you enter a grocery store. That would be simply amazing. I for one look forward to our all-seeing-all-knowing advertising overlords.

Re:Targetted Ads

[hedwards]

Certain companies don't use targeted advertising. I can guarantee you that if that ever happens, it won't be the company named in the advertisement that pays for it.

Re:Targetted Ads

[darth dickinson]

Yeah in "Minority Report".

Re:Targetted Ads

[kvezach]

It's called mirrorshades.

Demolition Man

[CrAlt]

Remember what happened to Warden William Smithers in that movie?

That's how this is going to end up...

Thank you. And BE well.

Re:Demolition Man

[hedwards]

That was an awesome movie, but that part was particularly silly. In this day and age, any system which uses biometrics has somewhere in it a contingency plan specifically to discourage that sort of thing. Whether it be pulse detection or checking to make sure that there's a face attached to the eye.

"inherenty fallable"

[thestuckmud]

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

Re:"inherenty fallable"

[TooMuchToDo]

I think any system that doesn't rely on two-factor authentication (and on biometrics alone) is apt to fail.

Mexico? One reason only

[drinkypoo]

There's only one reason to do this in Mexico first, it can be gotten away with. The people will do whatever you tell them. They're used to doing as the men with guns say, because if they don't, the men with guns have a way of getting nasty, since there's no repercussions.

Taking Advantage of Ignorance

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:Taking Advantage of Ignorance

[phantomfive]

Si Mexico pudiera unirse, no tendría tantos problemas ya.

If Mexico could be united, it already would have conquered many of its problems.

Re:To paraphrase Data

[icebike]

Or whether your eyeball is actually in your head or not?

After all, this is mexicio.

Re:Iris border control - awesome!

[phantomfive]

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!

don't you mean

[OnePumpChump]

"eye identification"

"eyedentification"

Biometrics going wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Good.

[John Hasler]

It'll be a dismal failure and give biometrics a black eye.

Re:Good.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ethnically Diverse eye.

Don't feed prejudice, man.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"Secured"? I think not

[eagl]

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.

What if you are blind?

[thatkid_2002]

How will the iris scanners see your eyes and vice versa?

Re:What if you are blind?

[socsoc]

Are you saying blind folks don't have eyes? Protip: most do.

The company's name...

[Sepiraph]

Does anyone else find the company name "Global Rainmakers" rather (ironically) fitting? It is as if even the heaven itself is crying. Big brother will definitely come, it is only a matter of time now.

Re:The company's name...

[EdgeyEdgey]

Reminds me a bit of the Umbrella corporation

NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexico

[assemblerex]

People report being unable to bank and enter their homes.

Re:To paraphrase Data

[twidarkling]

No more Stallone movies for you, okay?

Nice

[fadethepolice]

Soooo.... Do they run windows? This is the greatest database to download. Imagine how much you can get for a pair of contact lenses that mimic Carlos Slim's retina's.

We can change the retinal pattern

[tomhudson]

It happens all the time. Diabetic retinopathy is treated with a laser to seal off blood vessels that are growing on the forward surface of the retina. Get your first iris scan before treatment, get your eyeballs zapped, and you are no longer you.

Then again, how are you going to do a scan when there's spots of blood floating around at random? Like looking through a fence at close range, the person won't notice as much as the scanner will - which is why patients tend to ignore it as much as possible - the thought of someone sucking all the juice out of your eyeball and replacing it, or sticking needles in it to inject stuff, is scary. Very scary.

Laser my eye!

[spaceman375]

You want to aim a camera at me and use facial recognition or even trace the capillaries in my skin? Fine - I'm all for it. Want to shoot a laser in my eye? Not a chance! I'm adding a set of mirrored contact lenses to my tinfoil hat collection.

eyes infection.

[bronney]

gringo, this is how it spreads.

Scan This

[Alsee]

I just turn around, pull down my pants, and tell them they can scan my iris.

-

Moronic use of money

[Sosetta]

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?

Re:Moronic use of money

[xtracto]

Yah but by the looks of it (and my experience of how Mexican "politics" work) there is some kind of "friendly connection" between the guy in the government who approves this shit and the persons who sell it (or their representatives in Mexico).

This way, either they can exchange favors or the politician will get a cut of the deal (or in a parallel deal which the other guy can push).

Yikes! I'm getting sunglasses!!!

[lavagolemking]

Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in.

Does anyone else think now might be a good time to get a good, reflective pair sunglasses to try an avoid getting flagged?

Don't worry, what can go wrong?

[JoeBuck]

If someone manages to make a copy of your iris to create contact lenses that let them pose as you, we'll just issue you a new iris.

Duplicated article

[Superdarion]

There was already an article about this.

The public tracking of Minority Report

[cryokinetic2]

is now on just as close to being a reality as the awesome UI.

This _may_ be fake.

[E-Sabbath]

I saw this article about a month ago. Have a friend who's physically in the area, and they said they checked around, and couldn't find anyone who'd heard word one of this.

Now, it may not be fake. But...

Re:This _may_ be fake.

[Animats]

I can't find anything about this company that doesn't come from a press release.

The COO is James M. Demitrius. Looking him up, he's an accountant. Here's his bio. He was at Drexel Burnham Lambert during the Michael Milken era, before the indictments and bankruptcy. During the dot-com era, he was involved in the 1999 IPO of Ixnet, which was acquired by Global Crossing, which went bankrupt in 2002. Then he was COO of Frontier Communications for a year. Then Aluma Systems, a Canadian concrete company, which he arranged to sell off to somebody.

Hello..

[Ventriloquate]

sunglasses!

easy for people with EYES

[JambisJubilee]

So serious question: what about people without eyes? Or people with only one eye? Or old people with cataracts? What happens if you get punched or get pink eye?

Biometrics don't have to be secret!!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

What do you mean, "compromised"?

Passwords have to be secret because that's the only way to attach a password to a particular person. Irises don't have to be secret because they're literally attached to a person.

What you need to do to ensure the security of a biometric authentication system isn't to keep the biometric secret, it's to protect the integrity of the checkpoint against people holding up pictures or fingerprint molds made of Gummi worms. If you design a system that will fail if a readily observable body part gets copied, you have made an irretrievable design mistake.

Re:Biometrics don't have to be secret!!

[ultranova]

What you need to do to ensure the security of a biometric authentication system isn't to keep the biometric secret, it's to protect the integrity of the checkpoint against people holding up pictures or fingerprint molds made of Gummi worms. If you design a system that will fail if a readily observable body part gets copied, you have made an irretrievable design mistake.

It is impossible to design the system so it can't be fooled. Biometrics aren't magical, they are simply physical configurations of a system that cause a series of signals in the sensor of a biometric identification system, and as such can be both copied and forged.

On the other hand, while a memorized password is, of course, still stored as a physical configuration of your brain, getting it out of there without your cooperation is pretty much impossible. As such it's far safer.

Re:"Secured"? I think not

[TooMuchToDo]

I know of a security firm with a gov contract using cameras covering an entire international airport in the US, with software being used to evaluate potential "risks" in realtime. It's not perfect, but based on research showing how quickly the human brain loses it's attentiveness staring at security cameras, my money is on the algorithm.

Re:Iris border control - awesome!

[xtracto]

Yah, but that is because you Britons have long lost any idea of what individual "Privacy" means.

Obvious catch

[ModelX]

Would you feel secure if everybody could see and photograph your password? Then it's just a question how easy it is to make a replica that will fool the system.

Besides, I have heard from a major expert on the topic that there are many iris/retina conditions that make the system fail, meaning the system is unable to extract required features or unable to uniquely identify individual. In fact, there's no single biometric method that will work for all the people and uniquely identify them. You have to combine several features to get anywhere close to 100%.

Headline should read

[sokoban]

Iris Scanning Technology Firm Set To Secure Boatloads of Cash In Mexico

Obviously half-life

[eexaa]

BEEP BEEP Access Denied!

Religion can lead to psychosis

[mangu]

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.

If we are going to prohibit certain activities because of the extreme reactions it can cause in some people, we should outlaw religion

Missing Punctuation

[neoshroom]

You forgot the punctuation!

Iris Scanning Set to "Secure" City in Mexico

There, fixed that for ya.

What's the line out of Las Vegas

[ThatsNotPudding]

on the first dateline Leon news story about an eyeball on a stick?

sick

[bmw20]

Iris and face scanning technologies from Global Rainmakers, Inc. will allow people to use their eyes to ... get help at a hospital ...

Whatever happened to helping the sick and needy?

Caffeine is a gateway drug

[BetterSense]

Seriously, every single person I have ever seen that was addicted to hard drugs, started out with Caffeine. No exceptions. It must be the most powerful gateway drug out there, second only to water.

Look Mom!

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Of course we have a choice. Vandalism is a choice."

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree; vandalism is a choice. It just isn't the choice you think it is, but rather a choice to be provided with government provided "housing" where all of your choices will be made for you for quite some time.

Re:Look Mom!

[HBI]

In 1992 on tax day, I was not done with the forms until 12:30am April 16. Only time i've ever been in that situation. My dad had a Pitney-Bowes postal meter. You can set the date on those things - at least you used to be able to. Effectively, it's a postmark. Anyway, I called him and asked to use the meter. His response was "Do you really think the government has time to chase down everyone who files late? Just drop it in the mail tomorrow morning." He was also disappointed in me for not understanding the world better at that point.

Well, he was right. I never heard back about that, and I laugh every time I hear about lines of people trying to get their returns in by midnight April 15th. The perception of enforcement is worse than the reality. If enough people vandalize biometric scanners, they won't be able to track all the people down. Since the scanners have to be in your proximity, there's no stopping the vandalism.

The people have _total_ control.

Can anyone say Burbclave?

[quibbler]

This is exactly where things are going.

Mexico is first because it has the highest tension between those who live like animals, and those who don't. This trend will continue, however.

Only OFFICIAL crimes from now on

[Vitriol Angst]

This means only those in the government, or who have PAID their dues, can commit crimes.

It won't mean less crime, it will just mean less abuse of people will be CALLED crimes. But fighting back will of course, be illegal.

This should work out really well for the Economic Royalists.

REally?

[BlackBloq]

Does it come with something to prevent the local drug lord from cutting your head off? Eye ball scanners PLAEZZE they will cut off your head and take it to the bank machine ... I'm not kidding! Who gives a shit about this crap?!? Secure your citizens right to a safe life in the real world first. They need more police and military. This is a big joke. I am not pro guns but if I was living in Mexico my whole family would be double strapped with Kevlar shit all over. Hell even my Santa suit would be made out of Kevlar with plates. My treat bag would defiantly have at least one automatic weapon and some grenades for sure. HOHOHO!