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...
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.
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 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*
Definition of irony: Braille lettering on a drive-thru ATM machine.
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.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9808.html#b iometrics