Slashdot Mirror
First Iris-scanning ATM
TheSwitch writes "BBC News wrote a
story about Stella, the first ATM machine that works completely on the eye. The machine from The Royal bank of Canada also talks on your birthday and the odds of a mistake are 1 in the 10 billion billion. Well, here's where I trust my cash... "
British or American billion, I'd still say those are pretty good odds...
I'm also pretty sure that most muggers couldn't manage to remove your eyeballs in suitable condition, let alone in the middle of the street without someone discovering what was happening.
So am I gonna have to force you to give me money from your ATM or can I more simply just cut out your eye and use it?
Ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Iris scanning sounds like a good primary identification method, but I think having PIN numbers to type in aswell would be good. But that's just me.
Also,the idea of discussing finances with a machine in the middle of the street is amongst the stupidest I've heard so far. Please let them keep keypads and displays on these things.
Read the article again, you'll read that the machines are heading to Britain after a successful public trial in Canada. That means that have already been in use for awhile.
I'm sure that anybody who performs a small service for somebody else (like the kid down the street who mows your lawn) would much rather not pay taxes on the 5 bucks you give him for doing your front yard.
Forget taxes, I don't know about where you are, but here in Canada the kid would have to make a fair bit of cash (over $6,000) before he'd have to pay taxes anyway. The real problem would be investing in an iris scanner (I'm sure they don't come cheap) just for the sake of making $5 a week mowing your lawn.
Secondly, iris scanning, or any other biometric security, is inherently insecure, as well as completely damaging to citizen privacy. Because biometrics is not tolerant of failure and has a very narrow application window, I wouldn't want to trust it. Further, I am more and more shocked at how poorly the information systems are being managed at banks across the country. They can't even get my checkbook balance right, let alone maintain something as complex as a biometric database.
What seems to be an even more disturbing trend is how non-technical people automatically assume the system is inherently secure. An example is when I went in six months ago to cash a paycheck at my bank, who had finally installed a fingerprint system for certain types of transactions. I struck up a conversation with the teller (a bad first mistake) by saying that their fingerprint system was extremely easy to crack, and I could think of at least three ways to do it, just while I was standing there waiting for her to complete my transaction. This teller looked at me like I had just slid a paper bag across the counter and announced I had a gun. She gave some kind of 'fingerprints are infallible' argument, and so I responded: "1) What if I wanted to emulate a fingerprint of a target customer of your bank by inviting them over for drinks, and got their print that way? How hard would it be to make a plastic or rubber copy of that print and secrete it to my thumb? 2) What if I falsely claimed to be one of your wealthy clients, and used a small gadget to heat up, cool down, or humidify your thumb scanner outside its environmental tolerances, so you had to go with a signature or some similarly easy method of forgery? No? Ok, 3) what if I obtained a job at the vendor who made your security system, and replaced a wealthy patron's thumb print with my own long enough to withdraw a pile of cash?"
The supervisor came over. That means the teller had to have pressed the psycho button behind the counter... anyway, after recounting the conversation, the supervisor repeated the same lame argument that the teller had, and obviously was gauging how far away the rent-a-cop was, and judging if he was paying enough attention to be of any help, should I go postal.
I closed the conversation by saying that I was deeply concerned about the safety of my money, because the bank was run by incompetent, ignorant boobs, and had to leave before I threw up all over the carpet. The problem is that there isn't a single consumer bank anywhere in the USA which doesn't have the same dim bulbs holding my money.
Thirdly, I don't use ATMs. I plan ahead and have cash when I need it. I don't like law enforcement's growing presumption that if you carry more than, say, $500 in cash, you have simply got to be a drug dealer. I think the populous needs to fight this kind of descrimination tooth and nail.
The increasing (incorrect) use of the American billion in Britain is ignorant people influenced
by American culture (if there is such a thing)?
Wrong. It's used by people who are perfectly aware of the difference, but need to get real work done.
Next.
Oh, don't be gruesome. Besides, that'd change the shape of the eyeball. They'd hack your head off instead.
Just wait...somebody will come out with the fact that human eyeballs color change when the human in question is under pressure. *grin* :)
But it's more fun this way. I wonder if cloned humans have the same eyeballs. Or you can clone eyeballs. What the passwd files of the early '90s were, the eyeball collections of the '00s may be.
Riiiight. And gee, marketing folks never find over-optimistic statistics. Maybe extrapolation from some specific group of people got that. But if that's the most secure number they can come up with, I don't feel so good.
:-(
What's the deal with natural features, anyway?
We need embedded ICs in an arm or something. Like cows have. Then you don't have big problems -- you get people designing secure systems.
Of course, I can see the backlash from general public: "the sign of the beast!"
Cloned eyes or clones themselves ought to work, considering that a clone, by definition, has the exact same genetic makeup as the "parent" organism. Now, to get really complex, I wonder if you could paint the irises on the CLONE'S "bollocks"...hehehe
By policy, your social security number is yours forever.
However, you missed the real intent of my post, which is to point out that this information should be legislated into total privacy, just like your medical records or financial transactions, which, like biometrics are also yours forever.
My journal has hot
It sounds cool and advanced. Not *only* does this make lots of banks buy it for no reason whatsoever, but *also* has the small possibility of intimidating a few criminals ("Boy, no way to crack that...no way, uh uh.").
"I have my father's eyes."
"Eeew! That's disgusting!"
--Hotshots (quote prob isn't perfect)
Uh, *these* eyeballs, officer? No, I don't know how they got into my pocket. Maybe they...like...fell in or something.
That depends on whether or not he/she has tried it before.
Eventually, that information would get around and become common knowledge, just like the knowledge that the new American $20, $50, and $100 bills cannot be easily forged due to their "holographic" inks that change colors as you look at them from different angles. Or the fact that current bills $10 and up have small strips in them designed to allow detection of the bills by a scanning device.
Or, if you weren't aware of those, I can think of lots of other security measures that have become common knowledge (car alarms come to mind...)
My journal has hot
In a democratic society, the majority is right.
This is an interesting statement for a few of reasons.
First of all, the majority is only deemed to be right; there's nothing that says that because the majority of people believe something it's intrinsically true.
Second, Britain is allegedly a democracy. The way it works ensures that the party which forms the government is the one that majority of people didn't vote for. Time to switch to a single transferable vote system, or it would be, if there was a hope in hell of people understanding it.
Third, empirical data seem to suggest that the majority are often downright wrong.
Ya, all those violent-crime opticians.
Be cooler to just cut their head off, tho. Easier. Probably quicker. And the liquid doesn't come out of the eyeball that way.
- You can't revoke a biometric.
- You can't keep a biometric secret in any serious way.
That is, biometrics don't have the two properties that any sort of key really should have.Other miscellaneous problems:
This should be solved. Unillion, billion, trillion, quadillion sounds good.
Does the ISO say anything about this?
Human : "I want to withdraw 50 dollars"
ATM : "5000 dollar approval granted"
Well, I guess they don't have speech recognition on them yet, but if this idiotic idea makes it, the next version will. And "egg freckles" will be a lot more significant.
I don't trust speech recognition that far yet. But how about an emergency phrase that locks your account until some sort of verification (*real* verification) is performed. Yeah, you might still get killed by a mugger if they're trying to make a name for themselves and intimidate future victims. But I suspect that most, faced with a homicide with no reward, would just move on to someone else.
Jeeezus. Okay, my sides are starting to feel better now. "Please put your eye to the monitor unit" Yeah, okay okay...ah...ah...ACHOO! AAAUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHH!! MY EYES!!! SOMEONE TOURNIQUET MY EYEBALL!!
"Oh my goodness!"
"Auugh!"
"Someone get a policeman!"
"Wait! I'm a doctor! Everyone stand back! Okay, calm down. Were you stabbed?"
NO! AUUUUGH! I SNEEZED WRONG!!!
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet. One more way to assign a unique "identifier" to everything you do.
I was thinking the other day...barring the fact that the big five recording companies are behind the SDMI for secure distribution of recorded music, I think it would be GREAT if there was an SPII (Strategic Personal Information Initiative). Just as SDMI is supposed to have "rules" that govern when and where a particular (secured) MP3 can be played or copied, I think that personal information should have the very same protection. What if, for example, upon providing the necessary information to a fulfillment house for a magazine subscription, you could set it and any other identifying information, to "self-destruct" after a specified period of time? Or, what if the information somehow existed so that it could remain indefinitely, but not be transferred to another party?
All of this aggregation of personal information is going to get us into a real Orwellian situation if it isn't stopped. All this talk about "we have to do it to catch criminals" is a bunch of HORSE manure. I'd like to see a list of all of the "criminals" that were stopped or caught using Echelon, for example. How much has crime in New York city *really* declined as a result of the 2,400+ public surveylance cameras?
Hello, the homepage of Dr Daugman, the guy who has invented some of the technology can be found here. Look for "iris recognition".
Better idea! Subdermal data chips with small radios and antennas, which store all the information about you that the shops/ATM/whoever want.
Yeeah...
What scares me most is the number of friends that liked that idea. At least one thought it was only a good idea in everyone else, although perhaps that's worse.
*tries to get rid of the image of a publishing company being blown apart as information "self destructs"*
The UK has the data protection act, which at least has some guidelines about how you acquire information, and all comapanies must give you a complete copy of any information they hold on you, possibly for a small admin fee, on request.
Even worse are the extreme technophobes, who stand there, reading each tiny screen of text for at least a minute before trying to decide which button to press.
AAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!
Thankyou, I feel better for that.
As for the Son-going-to-get-money-for-mom, I would assume there would be a system implemented (Similar to authorized account users on credit cards) that would allow immediate family members to use the system.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
All of this technology is great and all, but to me, it shows a further removal of people from interacting with their environment, a further electronification of the world, and simply something I don't like. I prefer to have my ATM card, because I'd rather not have to have my eyes scanned by some dorky machine that is also going to attempt to talk to me. Of course, if they made these machines without the addition of it's wishing you a happy birthday and such, I'd be ok.
However, the idea of having my eyes scanned, though I'm sure it's probably a procedure that is unnoticeable, is not something I'd like to have done to me, because that just means that there's one more piece of information identifying me as me that is going to be stored in their computers, which means it's available for all those who can get to it, and it's available for exploitation. Although I realize that if someone knew my PIN and stole my ATM card, it'd be exploited as well, I'd just rather keep up with that piece of plastic. You can't hack into that.
Insert mind here.
As for the Son-going-to-get-money-for-mom, I would assume there would be a system implemented (Similar to authorized account
users on credit cards) that would allow immediate family members to use the system.
Do you really want a teenaged kid to have compete access to their parents checking accounts? Sure, the parents would have logs from the bank as to who took out the money but by then it's already gone.
well what about people without hands? they can't use the old-fashioned atm cards...
j
It was an honest mistake :)
"...Is this world not a call I can screen out" --
And, how many thieves do you know with access to cutting edge laboratory equipment, reseachers, and could be bothered waiting several months for the results?
Which is why I say, it would become much more economically justifiable should the clone be able to access other things, like workstations, workplaces, the person's home, et cetera. If it were only the bank account, it would be easier to rob a bank.
> Does anyone remember the article about scientists cloning a human ear onto
the back of a mouse?
If I remember correctly, the scientists constructed some sort of fake ear-shaped cartilidge, which was grafted onto the mouse. I'm not sure if this even involved cloning at all.
Then it should default to "no talking" and have a big red button somewhere that people who can't read could press to activate the voice mode.
The last thing you need is the ATM machine telling everybody within earshot your current ballance... Actualy, I'm thinking that might keep muggers away from me.
We have had these for ages in the UK - and they're just as bad as ordinary ATM's.
Excitement over...
Frog51
Yeah, but what if his sneeze just about blinded him? Sounds vicious. :)
Iris scanning works by analyzing the pattern in the iris. Color is not an issue.
You know. You're standing at at ATM...the pollen builds up...you feel a sneeze coming, and try to cover your mouth. Unfortunately your hand catches on some guy's briefcase. He gets spun around, the mugger behind him with a knife misses him and gets too close to your face and nails your eyes. It could happen. Tragic event, that.
now muggers can rip your eyes out instead of taking your ATM card!
A lot of things can change the appearance of your irises, like diabetes, RP, keratitus
No big deal. You'll have to go to the bank and re-scan your eyes - then you can use ATM's again. It is not as if people get such a disease every other week. Many more people loose or accidentally destroy their cards today. Those with no eyes at all can do business the old-fashioned way, by actually talking to the bank clerks. Most of them do that already, the visual interface is no good for them.
I still wonder how they test those things. ("Sorry...can't ship yet! Seven more years of continuously running the drive left to test the thing!")
Mmm, black market eyeballs...
Says the guy interacting electronically with people over Slashdot...
So true, so true. (With one problem: I'm not a male). However, the point is still very true, very poignant, and is a key point I forgot to address in my "rant." And if it weren't for the internet and ATM machines, my life would be a peopled society, because, as far as I know, every other aspect of my life involves people, in some way. And it often involves people that I know well and care a lot for.
And in response to someone else's reply that machines are more efficient than people... well, yes, they seem to be. And I'm not necessarily saying that we should try to keep people in the place of machines where machines can do a better job. However, I doubt that machines can do a decent job of arresting people. Or understanding their problems. Or comforting them (although this is debatable). Or a great deal of other jobs that people do and machines can not. Machines are only as good as the user, because it is the user who determines how it is used, not the maker, though he/she be all the more intelligent or not.
Insert mind here.
To be blunt, no one in the industry's gonna care because the total wealth and business of this market (not just blind but *no* eyes) is so tiny compared to the rest of the world (which sees "high-tech consumer device" and heads straight for it) that I doubt there'll be much provision.
People without arms have problems with cars, too. I don't see Ford or Toyota caring much.
To be even more nasty about it, people without any eyes would almost certainly have been Darwinized before they lived very long just a few centuries back.
Is it just me, or does the pic in the article resemble the star trek LCARS interface a bit too close for comfort?
oh yeah, first.
knowing the current level of precision employed banking technologies in use in the US, there is no way I would ever trust an ATM to shine a laser into my eye, even if the bank offered me a free eyepatch with their logo on it!
They did it in a particularly brutal way--they supposedly stole the President's retina scan and made a fake eyeball that they implanted in the Air Force officer's eye socket. The officer--who had security clearance, which is why SPECTRE chose him--then went to a control room, where he duly placed his face into a rather fearful-looking device for scanning, and he apparently had to do some kind of tuning (I remember him being nervous and having to practice for some reason).
But that wouldn't be necessary in the "real world". Somewhere, a digital copy of your iris scan data would have to exist, which could then be copied without anyone's knowledge; using some way of patching the interface to the iris scanner, one could bypass the need for an eyeball and just feed the data into the scanner.
Oh, and the movie was "Thunderball", not "From Russia with Love". :-)
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Sounds good to me. Just have a stroll up to the machine and look in. Say the bank has 10,000 customers; that means you've got a one-in-10-million chance of "winning" the contents of their bank accounts.
Pretty hard to foil an iris scan on a regular basis. If this becomes popular, *everyone* is going to use it for ID, not just ATM people. Amazing that people got all upset over the (relatively trivial) Pentium III serial (my short-term warez rights are being impeded!), but no one's upset about being traced through their eyes.
You can change your name. You can move. But your eyes won't change. You can be found. Anywhere.
Doesn't resemble LCARS in anyway here.
Another? Gentlemen, just a few centuries ago no one would have *cared* about anyone with disabilities. A while before that they would have fallen prey to natural selection. "Another way to discriminate"? Uh, no. We live in the most disability-friendly society ever.
Nice to see someone else thinking of this. I really don't like it. Change a name, don't give out your e-mail address (or have multiples), move to another country. Bit hard to be incognito when all business transactions require iris scans, you know? And I don't see eye transplants any time soon (heh...if we could do that we'd have some *darn* cool Ethernets).
I wish we could set up "identity proxy servers", where we can choose one (or a chain of such) proxies to id ourselves. Of course, you have to trust the proxy, at least the first one, with your true ID, but otherwise it's good.
But government's against it and business is against it, and advocating such things makes it look like you're a criminal. I mean, the US government doesn't like non-backdoor *encryption*, for crying out loud. I don't see this happening any time soon. Besides, imagine the pressure for espionage....Id, Incorporated just needs one turncoat employee...and I know that at least law enforcement and government would require unrestricted access to the database. And so on.
It still comes down to data. The big problem with this one, however, is that if your retina pattern is "stolen" you can't change it. Now the entire system is obsolete. Doh!
;)... I'm thinking a good hacker with some optical equipment stands a substantially better chance than that!
If those numbers are British, I guess that makes it 10 Octillion to 1, American
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Not if you pronounce it "ATMachine" and "PINumber" like most people do. :-)
Pet peeve.
Really? What breed? :-)
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
this was on /. not too long ago and the big thing wuz muggers ripping out eyeballs. I believe it was said many times that a dead eye ball would not work with these machines so why go back to the same discussion?
:P
just remember, they aint gonna rip your eyes out, just mug you AFTER you got your money
Yeah. Why does it always seem that liberal = the sort of person that runs out and plays with alternative medicine, that wants more Social Security, that does all the dumb left-wing stuff? And conservative = closed-minded Bible-thumping types? I disagree with 90% of everything both groups say.
:-(
I'd say mass media has more fundamental problems than just being too liberal (or conservative). It seems like high ideas like mass communication somehow get icky when they get filtered down to Joe and Jane Six-Pack. The Internet will not be a *cool* thing in 10 years. It will be the television/SUV of today. Yes, I sound elitist, but turn on your television and try to find something that isn't just plain fodder for idiots and propoganda. Same thing goes for newspapers and most magazines. Mass media goes lowest common demoninator. The larger the market, the lower the aim.
Can they even use ATMs now? I don't see how someone without eyes (and therefore necessarily blind) could use an ATM even today. But the question remains about people with one glass eye. I'd expect it only to scan one eye simply because it's cheaper to do so.
"...Is this world not a call I can screen out" --
Accessing everything from my front-door to an ATM machine with my eyeball is appealing. Who wouldn't like to walk around five pounds lighter, sans credit-cards, ATM cards, keys and identification card?
I see a possible problem with many of the technological advances which utilize specific personal data that only you possess. I'm not a paranoia-bandit, but I would like to explore the extent to which my data will be used and by whom. I'm not sure I am comfortable with having my fingerprints, eye-pattern, or face-print (another innovation which reads the heat-patterns of your face) anymore than I am with turning over rights to my phone number, address, medical history, and DNA.
If we could trust the institutions we are patrons of, such security evolutions would be incredibly advantageous. Unfortunately, we can't even trust the people we do business with to keep our credit-history or home address confidential, let alone our more personal physical makeup-data or 'information'. Businesses have a lack of ethics and accountability to their customers and will divulge anything for a price. They'll even tell every two-bit salesman where you live for five or six cents.
Until an institution defines a clearly favorable policy regarding use of physical personal data, we should be wary and refuse business unless allowed to opt-out from the security measures.
Once information about you is made available to one entity, you cannot revoke it. It is out there and will flow to the rest of the market. I don't believe we should be so nonchalant when turning over information which has no defined restrictions.
---
seumas.com
I have a feeling that devices such as this will co-opted by the police and FBI very soon in the name of cathching criminals. I worry what might happen if a bug or data-entry error mistakes an honest person for a criminal. Heck I worry if a real criminal get caught with one of these things.
If a devious person had access to the actual database couldn't they construct a set of contacts to mimic the iris of a person?
John Daugman is Q!
Visit the page yourself and view the evidence!
---
seumas.com
So now muggers will have to gouge an eye out instead of simply taking your wallet?
I think I'd like to keep the ability to hand over my bank cards.
Deleted
How long will it be until someone finds a way to boost the power of the scanning laser? With the networking that these things need, you could perform an awesome DOS (Dusting optic sensor) attack. Tee hee hee!
Great, as soon as the system is cracked, we can all have free money! :)
Deleted
did someone say billiards? I know a good local pub...
Sometimes, I lend a card to brother(mother, dauther, wife, ... you name it). Now they will
try to pluck my eyes out!
Seriously, I think that bank robbery is the
way banks are trying to rob you of your money.
I am already putting all my golden coins into
a secret place in my matrace.And if I ever have
to pass accidentaly past an ATM machine, never
without sunglasses on!
According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, it is "safer and less invasive than other ocular identification systems".
The reason it is so safe is because scanning the iris is a non-invasive procedure and uses low levels of regular visible light (as opposed to IR or UV light) to find the person's face, the eye, and then take a snapshot of the iris.
---
seumas.com
So? I think the iris idea is lame, but you're missing the point. A lot of things can mess up your ATM card too. Being run through a circular saw, eaten by a pit bull, dropped in front of a lawn mower. You get a new one. Same with irises. You get a new scan and new record. I say everyone should have an embedded IC in their arm or something. *That* would be a good thing.
Heh. We're such hypocrites. We talk about grand and noble things, but when it comes down to it we don't like technologies that mess with our right to commit petty crimes. Our privacy, our pirated software, our minor tax fraud. Slight fasifications of background. Things like that. We don't want a perfect, painfully idea world where our honesty is 100% perfect, and we're open to every bit of scrutiny. We want the dark caves to lurk in that our privacy gives us. We like being criminals.
Granted, I don't want to lose my privacy and for the same reasons. But it'd do everyone good to realize this, and stop thinking up noble reasons for our actions. We're human, after all
"They are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier" (Schneier, Aug 98 Crypto-Gram)
Since the ATM is built as a safe, saying there is a trusted path from reader to verifier would almost be an understatement in this case.
Trying to use biometrics for "securing" remote logins would be pathetic, unless you are using tamper resistant readers that sign their biometric reading + with timestamp or challenge to prevent replay attacks. And be sure keep some way to revoke reader credentials in case a reader signing key is compromised.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
You know, I realize you're being sarcastic. But the point is valid. Should we, at some point, step out of the way at let machines take over, if we find ourselves inferior to them? Isn't it our duty to let a superior being take our place in the universe? (Of course, this assumes a lot about our ultimate goals and our motives...)
If we could become like the Borg, should we? If it would make us "better" (define that) ? What makes our current state so important?
It's an awesome idea. Lots better than iris scanning. You can replace chips, and get a new identity. Wipe the slate clean. A bit harder to rip your eyes out. And *you* get the chips and decide what information you send out. And if they require surgery to install, you won't have commercial types pressuring you to have the chips give out more info, because they'll realize that it's a hassle (though not impossible) to mess with them, and that they'll just lose customer base to places that don't require as much info. Not so with places today that require thumbprinting and the like -- you do it because it's little more hassle.
Ya. But the comparison isn't really to cash. It's to credit cards. And there, if you lose a credit card no one cares. They should make the "cash cards" like checks, so you can invalidate the suckers if you lose them.
Or you *could* just avoid archaism entirely and shop over the Internet. You can get groceries delivered to your door. I think in bulk it's about as cheap as a grocery store, depending on where you live. Just plug in your credit (so the CC company is the only not benefiting from your money's interest...not debit cards) card number, and buy. Heck, set up a daemon that does your shopping for you. A little creative X-10 work and a few custom devices later, and you don't have to cook, clean, or do much at all except earn money (author software or something). *That's* avoiding archaism.
Well. Let's see, not all of us live in Canada for one.
"After all, what's the point of the metric system when we have a nice Imperial system already in place in the US?" *Please*
"Screw you, I'm better because I live in XXX so ha!" genere replies aren't constructive.
Shit. Must have been a FUCKING vicious sneeze!!
It shouldn't affect the reliability of the machine. In fact, even surgery cannot alter the pattern of the iris, without basically blinding you.
---
seumas.com
And they are certainly nothing new. Iris scanning was first introduced at a medical convention in the 1930's.
---
seumas.com
Anyway. Food for thought.
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
When are these companies going to realize that talking machines are ANNOYING!. Every few years somebody else does a massive rollout of a talking machine and has to quietly remove the feature due to public loathing. Remember talking cars? When was the last time you heard a talking grocery store cash register? Machines should be making LESS noise, not more.
Mary might get more company than she was expecting...
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
Well it's possible to have one glass eye, and thus, if the thing scanned (and relied) on two valid irises, it might not work.
Also, Wells Fargo has recently implemented (or is going to) an auidible ATM (i.e. it speaks to you); so that blind people can use it.. Seems crazy to me... screw mugging them, just stick a tape recorder nearby.
The revolution will be mocked
Sure they can. They can poke at it with their nose, or use a prostetic finger of sorts... or a barbie leg *grin* (IF you don't read the National Enquirer, barbie legs have been used as artificial fingers, because they are bendable (the knee joint) and controlable via some motorized mechanism).
The revolution will be mocked
Wrong. He can get a new ICQ number, or not list his name in the address box. Same for other non-biometric info. Some company (credit card, whatever) acts as an intermediary between you and the business you're working with. You can change intermediaries or change identity at that intermediary.
No eye transplants yet. Once someone has biometric info on you, you can never change that information.
In an Orwellian society our problems *are* taken care of. Criminals can't escape with their actions. Depends on your ultimate values, I guess.
Today, if someone steal your card, he needs to watch you typing your code or ask it to you. With finger scan, he needs ... your finger :-( and with the iris scan, he needs your eye :-((( . I am always puzzled by people killing others for a few thousand of EUR (or $), therefore I am not keen about finger/iris scan
I 'd rather prefer a voice scan or anything that both a/ needs you alive; and b) make it clear that you need to be alive to get my money.
Iris scan? Not for me!
Uh...I really doubt the eye undergoes massive changes during pregnancy. Given that it's stable enough to use as an ID all the time.
It's even worse that that - the BBC report I saw had the customer saying (shouting) the amount into
the ATM himself!
I'm perturbed by all this talk of muggers ripping out eyeballs, which I hadn't thought of.
How about using voice-print ID on a random text flashed up at the time of the cash request - so I would at least have to be alive in front of the ATM. The bank would have previously analysed enough of my recorded voice to re-recognise me saying practically anything in English. When I actually use the ATM it randomly composes a phrase and tells me to recite it back ("The goat hides the green trousers under the observatory"). This would mean that muggers would have no incentive to mutilate me...
george
When iris-scanning ATM's arrive in my neighborhood, they'll be trashed inside of 24 hours.
More likely, the users will be trashed...
Machine: Welcome to Personal Iris Banking. To begin, lean forward and look directly into the scanner.
You lean forward...
Mugger in the shadows: Yeah, lean forward sucker.
Machine: Scan not completed. Please lean forward and look directly into the scanner.
You: Damn machine...
You lean a bit farther forward to get a proper scan.
The mugger seizes the opportunity and sneaks up behind you.
*** THWAP! ***
You: Ungh!
Mugger: Shuddup!
Machine: You currently have $1,234.56 in your account. Would you like to make a withdrawl?
You: Ungh!
Mugger punches in a withdrawl, takes the money, and runs off.
Machine: You have $0.00 remaining in your account. Thank you for using Personal Iris Banking.
You: Ungh!
Machine: Oh, and happy birthday Mr. Smith.
This is pretty old. Houston, Texas got them about three months ago. I remember seeing them while I was still living there, and the newspaper even had a whole write up about them. I think when I left there were six of these in the city.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't see how someone without eyes (and therefore necessarily blind) could use an ATM even today.
People who are blind can use braile to read the keys on ATM's... but my argument isn't about blind people it is about people with no eyes at all...
Let's see:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 / 10,000
I get 100,000,000,000,000, which is a little bigger than 10 million. However, the Royal Bank of Canada has approximately 10 million customers, so your odds in this case would be 1 in 100 billion.
What if this was tied to the National Deadbeat Dad Database? Your right to buy groceries and use an ATM could be revoked until you paid up your overdue child support.
/.ers will be divorced and your kids will be off with their momma in another state, so I'm talking about you.
Hey, half of you
No more kids on welfare if you met your obligations, and reduced taxes for welfare. I'm beginning to like this idea.
I would like this explained... I'm the sort of person who's allergic to just about everything and I sneeze all the time. I would like to know what _not_ to do, since otherwise I'm likely to stumble upon the secret of sneezing wrong by accident.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I don't see the point of Smartcards when Interac is pretty much standard (well in Canada anyways)
There are some very concerning things going on with the trends in some of these new laws for new technologys that govts are bringing in. Australian censorsip laws could be quite nasty if someone decided to take them to the fullest extent - not really likely at the moment.
I reckon that everyone should go read up at www.worldmedia.com to get some diferent views and commentary on some real world events. - Alternative Media, better Truth. (as strange as that sounds)
Military installation was using retinaly scaning tech similar to these. Security personel could tell when women were pregnant, sometimes even being the first to let them know.
Sigh.
Now your ATM will know you body better than your doctor.
Probably can tell when/if you are drunk or stoned.....
Wonder if it can tell the difference between a drunk and a stoned person.
Wouldn't that be nifty? We can finally clean up the streets using ATMs.
Down with privacy and up with family values!
usually use my check card at restaurants, as the good ones usually take Visa. I think cash is somewhat archaic as well.
:)
Almost all restaurants here take Visa or MC, but I don't find it as convenient, plus I try to avoid using credit cards and really only keep them as an emergency thing. I've seen restaurants that have wireless Interac things that they can actually bring to the table. Those are really cool.
Off-topic ethnocentrism: I noticed that you used both the correct (check) and incorrect (cheque) spelling of a certain negotiable instrument...creeping Americanism getting to you?
Hehe... actually, I used "check" when I was referring to American people using them, and "cheque" when I talking about in Canada.
Western civilization is in a really scary period of time. Most people only get their information from mass media. Mass media is being owned by less and less major corporations everyday. The media is covering less and less stories. The media is covering more stories that boost ratings and focus on those (usually violence or (sexual) scandals of those in the spotlight). Also, it used to be that when an issue is covered and "experts" come in to talk about it, the media had to offer two sides. They no longer are required to do this at all. And this is unfortunate since, predictably, the "experts" used now are mainly corporate friendly...right-winged.
So, what we have is the control of information. What people know. How people see things. This is VERY VERY bad. Many right-wing people now are using Christianity and "family values" to inact more laws against personal freedom and expression. And as far as treatment and reasons of crimes they do not mention that rehabilitation and such are better (and usually cheaper) than just throwing people in prison. They do not mention the fact that crime is typically committed by those in the lower class...which would open up the idea that class inequality, created as a result of capitalism, is in fact the major reason for crime...except in the very isolated incidences like the Columbine shootings and such, which the media ends up focus on extremely, making it look like some sort of epidemic.
Anyway, corporations have never been interested in being humane, or interested in the future of the world and enviroment...they are interested in profits and worker obedience. With the assistance of the major governments, they help push laws that allow for them to have more control over people, and for people to have less control over them. It's innacurate to refer to corporations as some sort of equal state, when they are actual hierachies with of course a dictator at top. The best interests of corporations, which include most of the worlds workers/people in some way or another, are actually the best interests of the very rich few at the top.
It's very sad that people aren't actually, mentally aware of their state. The violation of their freedoms. The inequality created by these institutions. The destruction of the democracies they believe exist. They are not mentally aware of this, since the source of their information, the mass media, are controlled by these same people. Oh well.
It's Talkie the Toaster's cousin!
(if you don't know the reference,
watch more tv)
I may be mistaken, but I think
that the retinal pattern is not
(solely?) a function of genetics,
but more so the random growth of
blood vessels according to a fractal
pattern, altered by environmental factors.
Much the same as a plant growing...
If you cut off part of it, and grow
that part into a new plant, they WILL
be clones, but the branch arrangment will
have variations based on the general
chaos of the environmental effects.
Someone flame me if I'm wrong...
-Just Another Anonymous Coward
"Doouugghhnnuuttt!" - Homer Simpson
Ummm, I do believe that you can get an iris scan from about 4' away....
http://cnri.edu/courses/F AQ/Iridology_can_show_and_not_.htm
got it from some other thread. Useful info on iridology etc....
it cant show whether subject is male or female or whether they are pregnant.....
As I know the Iris was chosen since this is the part of the body which has no know disease and is very stable.
I'm pretty sure these biometric machines look for an eye on a face.
I'd say the TV-talk-show and Newsweek crowd should go for this.
Oh yeah? I bet you a google that you're wrong!
LOL. The thought of people behind you yelling out numbers to piss you off is *darn* hillarious.
Computer: "What quantity of money would you like to withdraw?"
Victim:"Five..."
Bystander 1:"Billion pesos!"
Computer: "Your account does not contain..."
Victim:"Shut up!"
Computer:"What quanity of money..."
Bystander 2:"Negative sixteen!"
Victim:"You're going to regret it if you don't stuff it!" (ATM rage?)
Computer:"Negative values are not allowed. Deposits should be made by...."
Computer:"What quantity of money..."
At least bank/credit card account
numbers are structured to allow institutions to contact the issuer for approval; iris patterns have no such predictable
structure. The card I choose to insert into the ATM picks my account to be debited, so I still want to be able to have that
choice, but I can't see (sic) how this could be done without massive, world-wide propagation of customer information to
every participating institution.
Yeah. That used to be an old pirate BBS trick, from something I read. Set up a service, let you use a password, and then try to find out if you used your regular password. The difference is, a password compromise, while bad, can be fixed. If I set up Joe Blow Fast Food, get your iris scan through a hacked up iris scanner, not only do I have *full* access to not just your ATM account, but every single place that requires ID (if iris scanning catches on). That's your financial info, medical, ability to alter organ donor status, revoke national citizenship, etc. *Plus* the problem is unfixable. You can't change your eyeballs. You can't get a new card, like with a compromised ATM card. Believe me, the phrase "you have been owned" probably gets a bit more chilling in a world with iris scanning.
And that's hard to fool? Besides, if optical transplants become feasable, I don't know whether I could resist the temptation of having a cloned Bill Gates eye replace one of my own. It *would* come in handy for times I'm short on cash.
Still doesn't matter. I'm *sure* its possible to make a duplicate of an eye with methods easier than nanotech rebuilding of the entire eye. Maybe ultra-fast growth with little electrical shocks coming from a device reading the other eye. I wouldn't rule it out.
I plain don't like the idea of a business identifying *you*. Not you as an a number in some credit card company's database, which they say you are. *You*. A compromise may be hard. But the benifits to a criminal would be insane. And others. What would the benefit to the US be of having duplicate eyeballs of a few high-ranking foreign diplomats? I can see governments getting in on the act (remember the US and encryption)?
With the reward *this* great, I assure you, it *will* happen. Maybe an extremely high rez curved screen that can emulate an eyeball.
I like having the credit card companies as middlemen. The whole structure of this is flawed.
I think a moderator accidently put "Insightful" when it was supposed to be funny.
I remember hearing about this statistic a while ago. I believe it comes from a survey printed (and possibly performed by) the Washington Post. 92% of journalists voted Democrat in the last election, and the majority of journalists are registered Democrats.
Just because the Washington Post said so doesn't make it true, of course, but I think that it helps drive home the point that it's important to get BOTH sides of the story.
YOU'RE DONE NOW GET OUT OF THE WAY!
But you do want to get your money in a safe place, in front of the ATM. You know there's a camera recording, and potential muggers know so too.
Hmm... It is strange that I, being "right-winged", have the same fears as you. You appear to have it backwards as to the political inclinations of large corporations. Corporations control the money, which controls the politicians which control the government. "Left-winged" politicians, which include many members of all the major parties, generally push for a larger, more inclusive government with laws specially crafted to keep power in the hands of large established corporations. "Right-winged" politicians, including few members of most major parties, tend to argue for an end to the governments growth.
Try living in Europe. EC cards are accepted at some places not all, and your lucky if Credit Cards are accepted.
As for useing direct debits, your card gets stolen and PIN, money instantly gone. With credit cards and checks you still have a chance to recoop. With checks due to the time delay...ie time enough to report it to bank and such.
With credit cards, because of limited liability if its stolen.
With debit, its GONE!
I think sperm-based biometry would be more accurate- when you want your money, the atm has an attachment that gives you a hand job, and it performs DNA analysis on the results. Of course, this could be a problem if you need to take out money several times in succesion (or maybe not!) Certainly it would not work for women...
At least banks would no longer by lying when they claimed that banking with them is a pleasure.
i wish people would stop pointing that out and acting like they've discovered some hilarious folly on the part of banks. the cost of having two different types of ATMs would far outweigh the tiny savings in materials.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
So I guess the muggers will now carry a spoon along with their knives?
ATM machine is redundant. Like PIN number. Cut it out.
Pet peeve.
testicles
A check of a recent OED suggests that 1 billion = 10^12. And that's how a lot of people use it. It does seem to be common for the media to use 1 billion to mean 10^9. There are a lot of ignorant people about. I could say 'door handle' whenever I meant 'car', but that wouldn't make it correct.
'Milliard' is also a valid English word, meaning 10^9, i.e. 1 US billion.
Mass media is excessively liberal.
This means we will begin to see lots of people with looks from The Matrix... hehehe...
ROTFL!!! This is the funniest thing I've ever read! BWAHAHAHA! OH MAN! I've got tears streaming down my cheeks. Hahaha!
:)
Sorry, I'm not laughing at you, it just sounds funny the way you wrote that. I keep picturing someone sneezing and their eyeballs exploading, which for some reason I find insanely hillarious.
BTW, how exactly does one "sneeze wrong"? I've never heard of anything like this before!
Also, I like this line at the end of the article:
The machines would also be able to provide [night club patrons] with airtime cards for pre-paid mobile phones and stamps.
When was the last time you went out to a night club for drinks and dancing, and needed stamps? "Oh, crap, I forgot to send Grandma's birthday card. I'll use STELLA to get some stamps!" :-)
http://cnri.edu/classes/iridfaq.htm
And they will use it if they can.
I fail to see how this iris scanner reduces crime.
yip , your correct
its truely random
identical twins have differnet patterns
Back to the drawning board
At that particular bank branch, there were two ATMs located inside the building with the one drive thru. The ones inside didn't have braille on the keypad, only the drive-thru one. So much for redundency.
Obviously you've never really thought about how you'd use an ATM if you were blind. Hint: you'd probably have a taxi or friend take you to a drive-up teller with you sitting in the seat behind the driver. You don't have to be blind to figure that out, just think for a moment...
I don't think we use the old 'British' definition of billion (1 million million) over here any more, although I could be wrong. If so, I've been misreading everything for years :)
it doesn't say 10 billion to 1 ... it says 10 billion, billion to one ... which i beleive is:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1
if knowledge is power, the internet is god - me again
I heard a piece about this on Radio 4 the other day, they played a recording of someone using one. The damned things also talks to you, it is tediously slow. As if cash point machines weren't slow enough already, I'm always drumming my fingers waiting for the machine to catch up.
uh, I type faster than I think... the price I pay for successfully completing touch-typing school!
:g/retina/s//iris/g
Geeky modern art T-shirts
"ATM not tested on animals"
AFAIK a genetic duplicate wouldn't be sufficient to dupliate the retina.
And, how many thieves do you know with access to cutting edge laboratory equipment, reseachers, and could be bothered waiting several months for the results?
Heck, I think it would cost more to clone most people than they have in their accounts!
What happens if you have some sort of eye infection? A few weeks ago I sneezed wrong and both of my eyeballs filled up with blood, which took about a week to go away. Would this mess up such a machine?
"...Is this world not a call I can screen out" --
From Men at Arms (I think)
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Well you could always use your other eye. Though once the other one is reproduced in some way to, then you have a problem. ;]
bah...eventually every bank in the world will have merged/bought out every other bank, resulting in one huge worldwide conglomobank.
well, this might be similar to those hard drives with an MTBF of 400000h.
I wondered too often how short that period can be.
Anyone see it mentioned anywhere how these machines might treat contacts? Due to the diff't reflections, would a machine used to seeing you WITH them in reject you if you didnt, or vice versa?
Also, what of those who wear colored contact lenses? If this becomes standard on all ATMs in the country it all but rules them out!
tchort
I've never been in a pub with a Billiard table, Snooker, pool, yes - Billiards no...
Played skittles in a Pub once though, that was a bit antiquated, kept on exprecting a buxom wench carrying flagons of ale to crash towards me.
Bit of a pity she didn't, if she said something, I could use that old Blackadder line, "okay you can stop that talk, I'm not a tourist."
mark.
-- "Ho hum, It's all a load of bollocks, Eddie", Ricky in "Bottom".
If the money is actually on the card, what happens if you lose it?
Mondex and such are a perfect example of how the US banking system is totally screwed up. I saw a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up show on TV just a year or two ago and he was doing this bit where he mentioned how he hates waiting in line behind people who pay by check at the supermarket. How archaic! I live in Canada, and the last time I saw someone pay by cheque at a supermarket was probably 10 years ago. Now 90% pay by Interac (a debit system which basically just withdraws the money from your bank account). Even fast food places take Interac now. I usually keep a bit of cash on me in case there's an emergency or I get mugged or something. But literally the only time I ever use cash now is at bars and restaurants.
They can get as fancy as they want, but if the banking system behind it ain't Y2K, it really doesn't matter, because nobody will have any money to withdraw :-)
It really annoys me when odds are quoted like this, since they are essentially meaningless.
The odds they quote (1 in 10^19) effectively mean it is *absolutely* foolproof. This is obviously bullshit in practice, as there is always finite chance of error. Someone has to code the thing up, and there is obviously a *small* chance of a bug somewhere along the line.
Ergo: the original statistic was incorrect and totally meaningless.
You can come up with large numbers to show DNA based tests are foolproof, but you can still get a Mark Furman.
PIN numbers are secure enough for me, and they are only 1 in 10^4. The security is needed elsewhere. If someone is standing behind me at the ATM with a gun, he'll still get my money.
As an aside, my physics professor said the size of the universe was about 10^30 (if I remember correctly). What units are you talking about? we would ask. But obviously it doesnt matter, when numbers are as large as this.
There ya go!
I saw the BBC News item too, and the demonstrator basically stood there and had a dialogue with this thing, calling out how much money he wanted, etc.. It looked completely dopey, and I couldn't imagine it working in Piccadilly or Times Square.
How does it work in a noisy environment? (One of the planned deployments is in nightclubs!) Does it work in the rain? Can people behind you call out answers just to piss you off? Will the system accept bird calls, music and road works as valid, unpredictable input? (Answer: of course.) Will it understand you when you're drunk, and you need the money for a taxi home?
More seriously, how does it cope when you have multiple bank cards with different institutions? How does it cope when you are using an ATM
of a bank you're not a customer of, perhaps in a foreign country?
A real example: I have multiple accounts with a Scottish bank but I live in England, so I'm always using ATMs of other banks. In addition , I travel abroad, and rely on my Visa or Amex cards to draw cash. If plastic cards are done away with, how does my single, non-transferable iris pattern work without every bank in the world having details of every account I could draw money on, so that they can offer me the choice of account to use? At least bank/credit card account numbers are structured to allow institutions to contact the issuer for approval; iris patterns have no such predictable structure. The card I choose to insert into the ATM picks my account to be debited, so I still want to be able to have that choice, but I can't see (sic) how this could be done without massive, world-wide propagation of customer information to every participating institution.
Now, if they were to keep ATMs the way they are now, but just allow iris scanning as an option in place of a PIN, I think it might be more workable.
...some blind people who have chauffeurs :)
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
How archaic! I live in Canada, and the last time I saw someone pay by cheque at a supermarket was probably 10 years ago.
Well, most supermarkets, drugstores, and other chains here (at least the ones in Florida) take debit cards on the Honor and/or Plus networks. Also, most people are getting check cards that replace their debit cards -- they have a Visa or MasterCard logo, and work wherever they are taken, but deduct directly from the checking account they are tied to. I hate checkwriters too; they are usually technophobes or people who can't be bothered to use their debit card.
And even though Wal-Mart, Eckerd (a drugstore), and many other chains can print everything but the signature on the check, most people still write them out the long way.
Even fast food places take Interac now.
I don't think most fast food places here take Visa or MC, and they certainly don't take debit; sooner or later they definitely take check cards.
But literally the only time I ever use cash now is at bars and restaurants.
I usually use my check card at restaurants, as the good ones usually take Visa. I think cash is somewhat archaic as well.
Off-topic ethnocentrism: I noticed that you used both the correct (check) and incorrect (cheque) spelling of a certain negotiable instrument...creeping Americanism getting to you?
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Perhaps it is is the stuff of science fiction, but I believe that there exists a huge weakness with biometrics (actually, there are several, and they all come together to be one really big one.)
In a thread above, I posted an example of the problem of making identifications more secure, and how that causes a stronger economic interest to try to get around those more secure systems.
So, the idea here is that if there is a strong enough economic interest, someone will try to find a way of getting around these silly biometric readers.
And so here's my idea: Cloning.
When I first thought of this idea, I imagined some sort of criminal walking around with a baby holding it in front of the bank machine scanner. Actually, it doesn't need to be that inconvenient. Does anyone remember the article about scientists cloning a human ear onto the back of a mouse? If they can do that, it is perfectly conceivable that someone can clone an exact copy of my eye onto the back of a mouse. All someone would need is to carry that strange looking mouse around.
My thesis, once again, is that if the economic gain is large enough, then it will be worth putting the time and effort into getting around the identification system, and if the technology is available and advanced enough, cloning would be able to do it. And while getting access to my bank account may not be worth the trouble, getting access to my bank account, my computer, my house and my workplace may justify the expense involved.
The best part of this is what someone needs to do it--DNA. Heck, we shed plenty of DNA waking up in the morning and walking to the bathroom. It won't take much at all to make the clone. We are a long way away from security guards in front of hair salons, but maybe we should be a little alarmed about securing too many important things on something that may become very easy to copy.
You can already use your credit card to buy groceries, tools, computers, music, etc etc. I am not in favor of completely eliminating cash because I don't want the credit company to know every purchase I have made, and I'm sure that anybody who performs a small service for somebody else (like the kid down the street who mows your lawn) would much rather not pay taxes on the 5 bucks you give him for doing your front yard.
-S
subdermal antennas? Blah! What we need is a device that scans your brain for what you're thinking, and properly plans your daily activities. Great for management of traffic on highways, the internet, as well as general ppl-having. Next, the device could use unused brain cycles to process data. Then we could be like the borg.
-S
A lot of things can change the appearance of your irises, like diabetes, RP, keratitus (sp), macular degeneration, etc.
Many moons ago I used to do high security for Honeywell. We were using, I believe Schlage, prototype hand scanners for SCIF room door access. One the contractors had to remove/fire an employee because he in fire and had litterally no finger prints left. Because his hand were constantly healing we couldn't get a consistent print from him.
This was in '91 and thos things horribily unreliable. The scanners had a downloadable database via 1.44MB drive installed in it. I never could get hands on one long enough to think about hack'n it though... And of course we had some Navy security officer standing over me the whole time.
DrWatt
Uh, well, if you had a wad of cash, what happens if you lose it? The same thing I imagine... you're out that much cash...so don't put *ALL* your cash on the card...put just enough to get what you need... you don't go walking around with *ALL* your money in your wallet, do you? [If so, where do you live? :) ]
Ender
Nothing to see here
I heard a study that says these retinal scanners damage the DNA in your eyes, causing mutations when the cells reproduce, much like skin cancer from the sun. The problem is do to the rate at which eye cells reproduce, it will go unnoticed until its too late. I sure hope they've thouroughly tested this thing.
I have seen many people that had a glass eye... So this makes me wonder does this machine read one eye or both eyes? If it reads both eyes then the glass eye would need to be upgraded to contain a microchip or IR device of sorts?
What about people with no eyes... they can use the old system still right? Does this end the days of kids (with permission) taking their parents ATM cards to get cash?
I think I am for this system because I think we can only benefit from not having to carry our wallets with us everywhere... although maybe this technology would be better suited for the police to identify people rather than ATM machines...
This is a scary innovation because of the things people will do to get your money, not because of the technology.
by the way... does over use of this type of ATM machine cause any cancer? *laugh*
All a "mugger" has to do is force you to stand in front of the machine for a few seconds and let your iris be scanned, and then take the proceeds which come out.
Admittedly, the same situation applies to our bank card + PIN scheme, but it is far more difficult for someone to force someone else to insert a card which they may or may not have and enter a pin which they may or may not know under duress. Which is why a person will just wait until after you removed money from the machine before mugging you.
...this is yet another disability-unfriendly way for banks to do business. Gee, that's just swell.
Posted by Assmodeus:
the article said there was no keyboard...although maybe it matches your voiceprint to your eyes...
assmodeus
When iris-scanning ATM's arrive in my neighborhood, they'll be trashed inside of 24 hours.
C'mon guys, can't you see the violation of privacy implicit in this technology?
And that is the big crutch of this system for future use.
Today, we use bank card + PINs. If you added to that system an iris scan, the process would be very secure, and then we can talk comfortably about 1 in 10 billion chances.
The thing is, if you were to say to a bank customer, we can make this more secure, if we also scan your iris too...then they won't want to do it. There is no strong interest for them in doing it, and they have to go through a third inconvenient process.
In order to get their irises scanned, you have to give them something, and that, in this instance, is the convenience of not having the card nor the PIN.
With that in mind, my thesis is that we won't have anymore security for very long with this type of system.
Since all you need is the iris to get money of the bank, there will exist an economic interest in figuring out a way of fooling the system. If you needed the card, the PIN and the iris, that economic interest would be squelched by the complexity.
Adding to that the fact that your iris may be the key to a lot of other future uses, like entering your workplace, or turning on your computer, then the economic interest of tricking these systems rises even higher (assuming you can use the same process for any scanner.)
I am reminded by a less complex example of this idea that occured just a few years ago.
California, in 1996, introduced a new PVC plastic driver's license, with digitized photo, special anti-counterfiting materials, blah blah blah.
The California BMV told everyone that this would be a more secure system that would reduce fraud, and expectations were raised. The assumption people were making was "s/he's got the new license, they must be legit."
Shortly after the license introduction, a huge amount of fraudulent licenses came up...perfect copies. It sure annoyed a lot of people, who spent millions getting this system into place, and then having perfect copies coming out.
The copies were genuine, from the BMV. BMV employees were paid as much as $5000 for each license. Since the economic interest of getting a genuine license had risen so much, there existed the a market for spending $5000 for one of those licenses, because you could do so much more with them since they had the reputation for security. If they couldn't do anything for you, except allow you to drive, the no one would be spending $5000 a piece.
A bank in texas rolled 3 of these out a few months ago.
Eyebollocks!
Cloning would not produce the same retinal pattern. Otherwise identical twins would be able to access each others bank accounts. The article said the odds are 1 in 1e19 of a conflict occurring, and the frequency of identical twins is substantially higher than that.
So how much of it is based on genetics? And even if only part of it is based on genetics, is it entirely random, or could the genetic clone be forced into the forming the same pattern. I did know that a twin's fingerprints are different, but only slightly different. I am wondering if the finger can also be cloned in such a way so that it would end up growing into a particular pattern.
while many U.S. banks include braile by their ATM machines, there's a really interesting precedent that was recently set: apparently, a large bank (Wells Fargo?) just lost a class action suit over lack of blind-assisted ATM's.
:)
Apparently, adding braile to the location isn't enough - only slightly over 10% of the blind population actually UNDERSTANDS braile!
So, an audio-based ATM may be the solution, but I kinda feel disappointed that so few people understand braile.
-Stu
Most Europeans use the correct definition of a billion (10^12), that's 350 million. Just a tad more than there are Americans. And then there are all the other people around the world, including over 900 million people in India influenced by the British. And just because somebody made a mistake and people followed suit doesn't make it right... perhaps you're a sheep and can't think for yourself? When will Americans realise that they're not always right? The increasing (incorrect) use of the American billion in Britain is ignorant people influenced by American culture (if there is such a thing)?
does this mean I have to take my contacts out everytime I want to take some money out?? now that would suck
If you'll refer yourself back to the article, you'll read that the machines are heading to Britain *after* a public trial in Canada. It looks to me like Houston is testing it now (or was 3 months ago), so old or not, odds are Texas was not the first place to have it implemented.
But, since the system is entirely text based and each ATM is (allowed to be) unique in its interface, isn't it already rather impossible for the blind to use ATMs?
My father has very bad vision and struggles with the ATM for this very reason. Braille is really not a major help on ATM's. Think about it... the buttons that follow on-screen instructions are dynamic, so they can't have "translations", then numeric keypad, just like a phone, doesn't need translation since it is always in the same layout.
The real problem is the text based system... the best you could do is get into a routine and pray that the bank doesn't throw some new question like "Would you like to have an additional $3 removed from your account?"
This doesn't even get into the obvious safety issues... people with normal vision face enough threats at the ATM as it is.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9808.html#b iometrics
What about a walletless, cashless society.
The entire ordeal at the cashier would be shortened to as long as it takes to scan your items. Walk up, scan eyeballs, be greeted by Cashier (except at IGA) walk out with items. No physical transaction. Just a scannin' of the ole' retinas.
Im not in favour of this system. I think you should still have to use some sort of PIN type auth..
I work for a company that will produce Linux based web terminals with smartcards readers that will support Mondex, and let you transfer money between your bank account and a Mondex card from home (or wherever). Of course thats just one of the functions.
The Mondex cards are cool because they're not intended to be personal, and because the "money" is actually on the card, so if I'm not completely mistaken, you should be able to do secure Mondex transfers without being online at all. It's digital cash.
Now, ifrastructure to use Mondex cards, and internet banking, and you have real home banking.
Hey all,
I think that I like this... although there is one drawback... when one is in an inebreated state in a pub and one of your mates says that they're off the case machine, how are you going to get them to get a tenner out - write a promise or something ?
If you can't even figure out how to sneeze correctly, you probably shouldn't be worried about using an ATM :)