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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[icebike]

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

FIFY.

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

[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

[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

[socsoc]

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

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

[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:Iris border control - awesome!

[Zero__Kelvin]

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

"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.

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: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!

Good.

[John Hasler]

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

"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.

NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexico

[assemblerex]

People report being unable to bank and enter their homes.

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.

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?

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