Can Iris-Scanning ID Systems Tell the Difference Between a Live and Dead Eye? (ieee.org)

the_newsbeagle writes: Iris scanning is increasingly being used for biometric identification because it's fast, accurate, and relies on a body part that's protected and doesn't change over time. You may have seen such systems at a border crossing recently or at a high-security facility, and the Indian government is currently collecting iris scans from all its 1.2 billion citizens to enroll them in a national ID system. But such scanners can sometimes be spoofed by a high-quality paper printout or an image stuck on a contact lens.

Now, new research has shown that post-mortem eyes can be used for biometric identification for hours or days after death, despite the decay that occurs. This means an eye could theoretically be plucked from someone's head and presented to an iris scanner. The same researcher who conducted that post-mortem study is also looking for solutions, and is working on iris scanners that can detect the "liveness" of an eye. His best method so far relies on the unique way each person's pupil responds to a flash of light, although he notes some problems with this approach.

Comments

biometric identification insecure by nature

[sittingnut]

biometric identification and verification is insecure by its very nature.
whole concept derives from faulty assumption that identity of a person is securely linked his/her body parts. obviously body parts can be separated from true identity by variety of means ranging from death, amputation, kidnapping and coercion, replication , etc etc.
other forms of identification and verification based on links to individual's mind and memory, while far from perfect, is more secure.
even simple forms of that, like passwords, can defeat insecurities created by death, amputation, some coercion, etc etc.

all rational knowledgeable people should counter absurd biometric identification hype.