Fingerprint Scanner That Works From 6 Feet

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fingerprint Scanner That Works From 6 Feet

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @02:07AM from the welcome-to-the-future dept.

Bruce Schneier found a somewhat older story that I haven't seen before about a device that is smaller than a tissue box, but uses two 1.3 megapixel cameras and a polarized light source to scan a fingerprint from two meters away.

83 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why? by DataDiddler · 2011-05-17 02:11 · Score: 1

Neat but I don't see the point. Why grab someone's fingerprints from a couple of meters when you can just have them swipe it on a pad? Could anyone point out the (legitimate, non-thiefy) benefits of such a device?

--
Working...
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  1. cos you have to walk up to the pad and waot for it to process, if you could scan the hand whilst it's approaching, by the time the person has reached the barrier it can open for them immediately.
  2. batch processing. i guess you could ramp it up so it could scan many hands at once so you wouldn't need to have bottle neck barriers more and open walk way (say 20m long) with a couple of guards to double check people who didn't register
  3. prevent the spread of germs
  4. weapon system target aquisition verification
  5. it's just cooler.
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  ...face palm....
  whoops,
3. Re:Why? by eugene+ts+wong · 2011-05-17 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  If it becomes good enough, then you could finger print somebody without him knowing, if his hands are open. You could wave at him, and if he waves back, then you have his finger prints.
  
  --
  testing out my trending skills
4. Re:Why? by milkmage · 2011-05-17 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why? because you didn't read:
  "Currently, individuals entering a military installation must place their fingers on a scanner, with a Marine standing beside them to help ensure a viable print. Powell would prefer there to be a safe distance between the Marine and the person being scanned."
  aside from personal safety, if you don't touch the pad, you don't smudge it.. thus the part about "viable print"
5. Re:Why? by DataDiddler · 2011-05-17 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  I read that, but that's still a pretty stupid reason. They can just cable the scanners to give extra "distance." Smudges, at least, are an actual improvement, though I've yet to have that problem with my scanner. I could see that being a problem with greater volume and dirtier fingers though.
  
  --
  Working...
6. Re:Why? by gstoddart · 2011-05-17 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  Neat but I don't see the point. Why grab someone's fingerprints from a couple of meters when you can just have them swipe it on a pad? Could anyone point out the (legitimate, non-thiefy) benefits of such a device?
  What, as opposed to the TSA setting up a backscatter imager in a public place, and by the time people reached the sign indicating they were in an area that "might" be scanned, they already had been? Or a courthouse keeping thousands of images of people in the scanners?
  This is all about people who are quite willing to implement the surveillance society for us. Everything you do will be monitored, without you knowing it.
  The people who are buying and building these technologies are giddy at the prospect of gathering all of their information with neither your consent nor your knowledge.
  And you're asking for what the 'legitimate' uses of this are? The short answer from them is "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear". You're expected to be compliant, and just suck it up and accept it as normal.
  To them, in order to protect us from terrorists, they need the ability to take this information from you without needing to ask you.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
7. Re:Why? by Anne_Nonymous · 2011-05-17 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  That's it! From now on I'm giving the finger to anyone who waves at me.
8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Unless he wears gloves.
9. Re:Why? by CrispyZorro · 2011-05-17 02:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This is all about people who are quite willing to implement the surveillance society for us. Everything you do will be monitored, without you knowing it.
  I finally found a use for my tin-foil gloves.
10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you are against being a compliant sheep.....raise your hand!
11. Re:Why? by ciderbrew · 2011-05-17 03:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Thanks, we put the camera behind you.
12. Re:Why? by Luckyo · 2011-05-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Kingdom for mod points, this is as funny as slashdot gets!
13. Re:Why? by slick7 · 2011-05-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  It gives new meaning to: "Two by two, hands of blue".
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
14. Re:Why? by wiedzmin · 2011-05-17 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  TSA
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
15. Re:Why? by sjames · 2011-05-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because we can't track your movements secretly if you have to willingly put your finger on the scanner. Nothing to see here, move along citizen!
16. Re:Why? by eugene+ts+wong · 2011-05-17 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, no! That's just what the spies and the government want you to do.
  
  --
  testing out my trending skills
17. Re:Why? by X0563511 · 2011-05-17 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  and how is moving the scanner going to help? The marine still has to be at the scanner, which is where the person puts his hand.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
18. Re:Why? by eugene+ts+wong · 2011-05-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  There's no need for that. You just have to photograph a reflective surface, and then enhance!
  
  --
  testing out my trending skills
19. Re:Why? by ciderbrew · 2011-05-18 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the UK they just keep adding more cameras. Give me a hard copy right there and there and there and there and there and there.
Hold on there by mr1911 · 2011-05-17 02:11 · Score: 1

I hope no one figures out how to implement this in such a way that I don't miss out on my complimentary TSA gropes.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
1. Re:Hold on there by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding! The airport is currently a great place for a little "action".....
Hook up a second camera by betterunixthanunix · 2011-05-17 02:12 · Score: 2

What a great way to surreptitiously collect fingerprints en masse: take this device, attach a camera, and use a website like Facebook to connect an image of a person's face to the recorded fingerprint.

Any lawyers want to comment on the legality of such an operation in the United States?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Hook up a second camera by louic · 2011-05-17 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I am not a lawyer, but the USA have proven often enough that they think they can do whatever they want for "national security", no matter whether it is legal or not.
2. Re:Hook up a second camera by yoshi_mon · 2011-05-17 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to say it but with our current Supreme Court it is not a good idea to push civil liberty issues their way. While I personally think that the intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect civil liberties I don't think our current sitting SC will rule that way.
  
  --
  
  Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
3. Re:Hook up a second camera by StikyPad · 2011-05-17 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not just for national security.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
4. Re:Hook up a second camera by Neil+Boekend · 2011-05-17 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  They already have a way of doing that: require fingerprints for passports.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
5. Re:Hook up a second camera by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-20 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't you heard? We're in a war against drugs.
  You know what that makes anybody doing drugs, right? A terrorist.
  So you see, that man was a grave threat to national security. Do you know how many people he might've killed with those drugs?
this sounds very useful for you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-05-17 02:12 · Score: 4, Funny

At a distance it'll be even harder to tell that you're wearing a fake fingerprint skin.
1. Re:this sounds very useful for you by i+kan+reed · 2011-05-17 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But they would have a picture of who it was who showed the fake fingerprint if they have security issues.
2. Re:this sounds very useful for you by Scoldog · 2011-05-17 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Elvis is back!
  
  --
  This space for rent
3. Re:this sounds very useful for you by Geminii · 2011-05-17 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, it was a rubber Richard Nixon.
Conclusion by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-17 02:12 · Score: 2

Fringerprints are worthless as biometric identity data because they are easy to acquire and copy but impossible to replace once compromised.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1. Re:Conclusion by betterunixthanunix · 2011-05-17 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  impossible to replace once compromised.
  Can you name biometrics that can be replaced?
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:Conclusion by Nidi62 · 2011-05-17 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  Can you name biometrics that can be replaced?
  "Welcome back, Mr. Yakamoto! How are those assorted tank tops working out?"
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:Conclusion by Nerdfest · 2011-05-17 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Biometrics can be captured in a revocable manner, but cannot be replaced. Several companies are working on revocable biometrics. Also, if you can reliably detect spoofing, a biometric is not really 'compromised'. Generally people use at least 2 factor authentication, just in case.
4. Re:Conclusion by egranlund · 2011-05-17 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the ability to not be replaced the whole point of using biometric data to identify people?
5. Re:Conclusion by profplump · 2011-05-17 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. But people keep envisioning (and sometimes implementing) authentication systems that use biometrics only, which is just as bad a plan as giving 500 people the same key to a building. So long as biometrics are paired with a second authentication factor that can be changed they still represent a net improvement in security, even if a copy of your biometric data becomes available and can be successfully substituted at the point of authentication.
6. Re:Conclusion by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-17 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  You would have the same problem with alternative authentication as currently exists with the Chip & Pin system for bank cards. In theory you can sign rather than use the pin number, and in fact some people can't use the pin for medical reasons, but many retailers are deeply suspicious of people using a signature. Aside from anything else the card issuer holds them liable for fraud if they agree to accept a signature.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by zill · 2011-05-17 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fingerprint Sniffer That Works From 6 Feet
Doesn't this technology invalidate all existing fingerprint scanners? An attacker can easily mine the fingerprints of every employee of a company by leaving a few innocent looking rocks in their parking lot.
1. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not a problem for me. I wear tinfoil gloves.
2. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by MischaNix · 2011-05-17 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People don't give a damn about the validity of their existing security technologies. They just like the feeling of security.
3. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by jgtg32a · 2011-05-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Most people over the age of 5 don't pick up innocent looking rocks in the parking lot.
4. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by gl4ss · 2011-05-17 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  it doesn't invalidate the scanners, it just invalidates the idea that fingerprints would be secret. they're not, they never were.
  it just invalidates the idea that they're secret. anyways, a scanner that works really close, with a big sensor, could provide you better results and do day-to-day adjustments.
  also one thing some people forget, all regular keys can be copied with a cellphone camera and somebody with determination(or with the help of someone with determination). think about that.
  (so whats the result? just live your life and don't give a crap)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by VolciMaster · 2011-05-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Most people over the age of 5 don't pick up innocent looking rocks in the parking lot.
  ummm... yeah we do
  
  --
  antipaucity
6. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by profplump · 2011-05-17 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Like all security systems, it's not perfect. Using several together can mitigate the flaws in any one system. Biometrics are useful in that they don't require you to carry around anything -- hence they are user-friendly -- and are somewhat more difficult to fake than a traditional key (not necessarily harder to obtain, but at attended posts the guard could notice your fake thumb/eye/weight belt, whereas he could not be expected to notice a fake key). But any biometric scan you'd be willing to submit to on a regular basis is going to be so non-invasive that it probably could be carried out surreptitiously, so the data shouldn't be treated as a well-guarded secret.
7. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by zill · 2011-05-17 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  A rock by the entrance can capture the fingerprint of everyone that walks by.
8. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by X0563511 · 2011-05-17 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  You apparently missed the "From X DISTANCE" part of the fucking story title.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
9. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by NoobixCube · 2011-05-17 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. We lock all kinds of things up behind conventional six-pin locks. They've been pickable for far longer than I care to consider, but we still trust that our valuables are safe.
  
  --
  Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
10. Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Not a problem for me. I wear tinfoil gloves.
  And matching hat ? :o)
  I hope the TSA has the sense to get fingerprints before they fondle junk. The lines are long enough without "You gorgeous man, could you step back so we can read your fingerprints"
But does it work on... by presidenteloco · 2011-05-17 02:26 · Score: 1

the middle finger?

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
And yet... by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-05-17 02:28 · Score: 1

... High school yearbook editors still can't seem to catch and remove all photos containing the Shocker. Does this scanner ever error "201 - Two in the Pink, One in the Stink"?

--
I8-D
1. Re:And yet... by Gravitron+5000 · 2011-05-17 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why shocker, when you can spock her?
Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 02:29 · Score: 0

Maybe so. The Mythbusters had an episode where they got a photograph of a fingerprint and used the photograph to open a fingerprint scanner.
Can I...excuse me? by magusxxx · 2011-05-17 02:29 · Score: 2

I don't see the point. Women at the bars say they know exactly who I am from across the room. *shrug*

--
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Thumbs up! by ThunderBird89 · 2011-05-17 02:31 · Score: 2

Cool, so now I can log into my laptop by giving it thumbs up if I buy the device?
Double thumbs up for su?

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
1. Re:Thumbs up! by dasdrewid · 2011-05-17 05:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Who's got 2 thumbs and really needs to alter some boot variables? THIS GUY!!!"
  
  --
  No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Can I login by waving goodbye? by digitaldc · 2011-05-17 02:36 · Score: 1

If so, I would like to take the whole day off without ever entering my office space.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
ooooooh.... by dogganos · 2011-05-17 02:38 · Score: 1

I can see how this development will enhance our liberties!
Discount? by Gravitron+5000 · 2011-05-17 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

From TFA.

Burcham says several potential customers have indicated that a single-finger scanner would be sufficient for their needs—so AOS plans to sell both a single-finger device and a more expensive five-finger device.
But shouldn't there be a 5 finger discount?
1. Re:Discount? by DanTheStone · 2011-05-17 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Burcham says several potential customers have indicated that a single-finger scanner would be sufficient for their needs
  Perhaps they meant a specific finger, and he didn't get the joke.
Oops... by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · 2011-05-17 03:01 · Score: 1

I hope I'm not the only one who read the headline as something to do with scanning my feet. Need. More. Coffee.
Works from 6 feet by countertrolling · 2011-05-17 03:02 · Score: 1

under?...

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Re:Works from 6 feet by Skidborg · 2011-05-17 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  It requires the feet of six security officers in order to operate.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
2. Re:Works from 6 feet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  One legged security operators?
3. Re:Works from 6 feet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  No, they need one foot to operate the device, and one to kick you while you're down.
Not to be technical on a tech site..but by nomel · 2011-05-17 03:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles..
1. Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but by nomel · 2011-05-17 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe it's something like this Touchless 3-D Fingerprinting with two polarized beams going at once to speed things up.
2. Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Well in principle you could do this without polarization control at all. A decent photo of a person's finger will show all the ridges plain as day. The polarization data (e.g. a difference image between two polarizations) is probably used to enhance edge-detection.
3. Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but by jimand · 2011-05-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I can't fathom it either.
4. Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but by npsimons · 2011-05-17 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles
  I have no idea how this works, but I was immediately reminded of hyperspectral imaging which can do things like pick out days old tracks that are invisible to regular cameras and the naked eye. I am only vaguely acquainted with HSI, so make of that what you will.
  
  --
  Nathan's blog
IRIS ? by johnjones · 2011-05-17 03:31 · Score: 1

only outdated low security use finger prints i.e. borders and crime scene investigators
soon mexico will uses iris for those...
get an iris scanner
regards
John Jones
1. Re:IRIS ? by AJH16 · 2011-05-17 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  As I recall, when the False Reject Rate is adjusted to be comparable, the False Accept Rate also becomes comparable between the two technologies. I'm not sure that this is up to date though.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
2. Re:IRIS ? by Matheus · 2011-05-17 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA:
  
  The military has a growing interest in biometric sensors that operate at a distance. The U.S. Department of Defense awarded $1.5 million to Carnegie Mellon's CyLab Biometrics Lab to support development of technology that performs iris detection at 13 meters.
  They're already using it... the issue is data set and captureability. You don't leave Iris prints at a crime scene. Also they have been collecting fingerprints for eons. Iris is a much newer tech and so, although there are some pretty massive Iris databases already growing, it is more likely that they have your print to match you than they have your Iris.
  In our business the key is "multi-biometrics". we capture and search against as many biometrics as are available at the time. Severely increases the chances of identification especially in areas of the world where manual erodes the prints over time, or thugs / machinery 'remove' fingers for you, etc.
3. Re:IRIS ? by RespekMyAthorati · 2011-05-17 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  regards
  John Jones
  The Martian Manhunter don't need no stinkin scanner.
Toe scanner by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 03:43 · Score: 0

If it works from six feet, surely it would be a toe-print scanner?
Safe distance far more than 6 feet ... by perpenso · 2011-05-17 04:28 · Score: 1

"Currently, individuals entering a military installation must place their fingers on a scanner, with a Marine standing beside them to help ensure a viable print. Powell would prefer there to be a safe distance between the Marine and the person being scanned."
Given a Marine carrying a sidearm the "safe distance" is far more than 6 feet. ;-)
Really? by NicknamesAreStupid · 2011-05-17 04:31 · Score: 2

I have been using fingerprint scanners for years, even on laptops. Recently they added them at my gym. They work for me about 15% of the time, and my finger is pressing against it. I have also read about retinal scanners that work at 5 meters. Perhaps like many products, these work well in the lab but not in the wild.
1. Re:Really? by i+kan+reed · 2011-05-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The gym one is likely the result of sweat. Image based fingerprint scanning is probably MORE reliable.
Good News by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-05-17 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

for glove sales.
Technology Review sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-17 06:08 · Score: 0

The websurvey popups at technology review make that site intolerable.
In the immortal words of Henry Kissinger by dido · 2011-05-17 11:04 · Score: 1

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.

--
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.