That's the first thing I thought when I saw the photo of his desk - If this guy's such a big league money making hacker, why's his computer so cheap and crappy looking? Why does he only have a 15" monitor?
You've estimated that it will take roughly 10 years to develop rejuvenation in mice but another 15 years after that to do it in humans. Why will take significantly longer to develop the therapies in humans, especially if the basic techniques will already exist?
I don't think biometrics are ever going to be useful for a widely deployed e-commerce system.
Consider:
- The system has to store the biometric signatures somewhere. Biometrics takes a set of measurements of some analog quantity, and compares how close they are to those on file. Because they are testing how _close_ the measurements are, within a margin of error, instead of whether they're exactly the same, they _cannot_ use a one way hash like we do with passwords.
- Every comany you deal with is going to have a copy of your biometric information. Even if its not enough to reconstruct (say) your entire fingerprint, it will be enough to spoof anyone else who uses the same implementation, or a different implentation with similar algorithms.
- The system is only as secure as the most insecure company/organization/site useing it. Imagine if you use retina scanning at your job at the CIA to access Top Secret files, and your favorite pr0n site introduces retinal scanning to stop your kids/younger siblings from using your account. Anyone who could hack into the pr0n site could potentially access your top secret files.
- If a few (or just one) organization[s] held all the biometric signatures and did all the verifications, we might get a bit more security, but we'd have to kiss what little privacy we have left goodbye. Those groups could (and would) track all interactions we had with other companys. Because biometrics can uniquely identify you, you couldn't get a false email or isp account. And if a site holding a large % of the populations signatures were comprimised, it could destroy the trust of the entire system, and anything that was based on it (eg global ecommerce).
- Biometrics are often easy to steal without comprimising the server side of the system. Fingerprints, palmprints and DNA tests all leave traces on the sensor. You don't even have to be on the same continent to get hold of a mugshot or voice sample. And once a biometric signature is stolen, it is useless for the rest of your _life_. You can't repudiate like a PGP key, or pick a new one, like a password.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but what have they actually won? Bluray's done poorly enough to be considered a failure
That's the first thing I thought when I saw the photo of his desk - If this guy's such a big league money making hacker, why's his computer so cheap and crappy looking? Why does he only have a 15" monitor?
Put a Phased array inside, so they can network together with multiple other phones, and form a giant peer-to-peer network mesh.
You've estimated that it will take roughly 10 years to develop rejuvenation in mice but another 15 years after that to do it in humans. Why will take significantly longer to develop the therapies in humans, especially if the basic techniques will already exist?
Consider:
- The system has to store the biometric signatures somewhere. Biometrics takes a set of measurements of some analog quantity, and compares how close they are to those on file. Because they are testing how _close_ the measurements are, within a margin of error, instead of whether they're exactly the same, they _cannot_ use a one way hash like we do with passwords.
- Every comany you deal with is going to have a copy of your biometric information. Even if its not enough to reconstruct (say) your entire fingerprint, it will be enough to spoof anyone else who uses the same implementation, or a different implentation with similar algorithms.
- The system is only as secure as the most insecure company/organization/site useing it. Imagine if you use retina scanning at your job at the CIA to access Top Secret files, and your favorite pr0n site introduces retinal scanning to stop your kids/younger siblings from using your account. Anyone who could hack into the pr0n site could potentially access your top secret files.
- If a few (or just one) organization[s] held all the biometric signatures and did all the verifications, we might get a bit more security, but we'd have to kiss what little privacy we have left goodbye. Those groups could (and would) track all interactions we had with other companys. Because biometrics can uniquely identify you, you couldn't get a false email or isp account. And if a site holding a large % of the populations signatures were comprimised, it could destroy the trust of the entire system, and anything that was based on it (eg global ecommerce).
- Biometrics are often easy to steal without comprimising the server side of the system. Fingerprints, palmprints and DNA tests all leave traces on the sensor. You don't even have to be on the same continent to get hold of a mugshot or voice sample. And once a biometric signature is stolen, it is useless for the rest of your _life_. You can't repudiate like a PGP key, or pick a new one, like a password.