My company only uses the fingerprint scanners and SDKs for software we make, we don't make the biometrics equipment.
Yes, they can match with the same software/hardware. I just meant that police departments can't use their standard fingerprint labs(having people look for minutiae points with magnifying glasses) to do matching. If the data is in NIST standard format(most scanners don't save to NIST by default), then any digital police lab(thinking FBI inter-state fingerprint database) can use it without conversion.
I agree with your comments, but they are technically correct about the fingerprints being different. The government stores them as images on what are called "ten print" glass plates. Most matching is still done by hand.
There are two reasons why the fingerprints are different. The first is that they don't store the fingerprint or any image of the finger print, they run a filter to make the initial image black and white(no grays). Then they run an edge detection filter to make the lines obvious. An algorithm is then run that locates minutiae points. There are about 5 different types of minutiae(when a line becomes two, when two lines converge, an arch, a loop, a whorl). The distances between the points(about 12) is computed, and the whole thing is turned into a weighted undirected graph. They use graphs so that even an upside down fingerprint will match with the original.
Only the graph is saved, and the graphs are compared to verify identity. The fingerprint data that my company uses is less than 1k of data consisting of only minutiae type, links to other minutiae, and distances. So in other words, there is no way to get an image of the finger back, so the police can't use it(for manual matching).
The second reason is the that there is a union for the police workers that do fingerprint matching, and they have put up a fit to make sure that the police departments only use picture prints or ten prints(Job protection).
I agree. This is just a fancy Proxy. This isn't that great of an idea. Now the chinese will know who to arrest and or kill, by monitoring logs for port 443 access attempts. and for the people that are going to say "Just because it's anonymous doesn't mean the person committed a crime", things are much different in china. The entire internet infrastructure is controlled by the government, so I don't see why they couldn't block the port completely, or even develop a protocol aware firewall that would block things like this regardless of the port they use.
I agree with the parent(s) that U.S. is being repressive here. But I don't think you can take this at face value. IMHO, this has less to do with human rights, and more to do with national security and National Intel. Prop. I am presuming, that we want our servers off their soil because we fear that they would infiltrate the U.S. companies through the Chinese operations, steal technologies, and use them against us. It doesn't matter that these arn't military technologies. The U.S. is afraid of the pace at which china is developing in all areas. It almost seems like an "Information Race", except china is taking the microsoft approach(Steal and Extend). The aegis battle management system that somehow started "apearing" in chinese ships is a perfect example of this. I may be cynical, but I believe the U.S. want's to keep IP away from china in a literal sense.
Sure it is. Free is anything that you do not have to purchase to obtain. Free does not emply that you can copy, reproduce,modify, or reverse engineer. Free only implies the amount that you have to pay to obtain the item.
If Richard Stallman wants to create a word that means publicly malleable in every sense then he should do so, but he should not try to attatch that definition to an existing word, which most certainly does not mean what he uses it for.
"Different Thinkers" And by "different thinkers" you mean "teeny boppers?" Listening to Hillary Duff and coding Objective C on a Mac must certainly be a different experience.
oh, I completely agree. I'm on his side completely, and I think that people should continue to run sites like these, I just don't see why people have to make themselves believe the people that are sharing these files and or hosting these sites are not doing nothing wrong/illegal. I think they are doing something illegal, and I hope they KEEP seeding torrents, and running sites like these. I do not feel like I need to make myself believe that everything I do is good, I think it is interesting that a lot of people try to defend filesharing. It(sharing copyrighted files) is illegal(in the US I mean, but only if copyrighted), and that is all there is to it. I guess I just think that people should acknowledge that these things are illegal, and go on supporting them more than ever.
ummm he did do something wrong(assuming you coun't breaking the law(at least in some countries, maybe not his) "something wrong"), he made a site that helped people carry out an illegal act more effectively. Isn't that what napster got in trouble for? Anyways whether he did something or not is relative depending on what country your in, assuming that right and wrong are simply the average moral views of the members of a country at a particular point in time(which are #965lly developed into laws).
Slashdot Mirror
My company only uses the fingerprint scanners and SDKs for software we make, we don't make the biometrics equipment. Yes, they can match with the same software/hardware. I just meant that police departments can't use their standard fingerprint labs(having people look for minutiae points with magnifying glasses) to do matching. If the data is in NIST standard format(most scanners don't save to NIST by default), then any digital police lab(thinking FBI inter-state fingerprint database) can use it without conversion.
This is true about the 1-2% of the pop. Those people don't produce enough oil on their skin.
I agree with your comments, but they are technically correct about the fingerprints being different. The government stores them as images on what are called "ten print" glass plates. Most matching is still done by hand.
There are two reasons why the fingerprints are different. The first is that they don't store the fingerprint or any image of the finger print, they run a filter to make the initial image black and white(no grays). Then they run an edge detection filter to make the lines obvious. An algorithm is then run that locates minutiae points. There are about 5 different types of minutiae(when a line becomes two, when two lines converge, an arch, a loop, a whorl). The distances between the points(about 12) is computed, and the whole thing is turned into a weighted undirected graph. They use graphs so that even an upside down fingerprint will match with the original.
Only the graph is saved, and the graphs are compared to verify identity. The fingerprint data that my company uses is less than 1k of data consisting of only minutiae type, links to other minutiae, and distances. So in other words, there is no way to get an image of the finger back, so the police can't use it(for manual matching).
The second reason is the that there is a union for the police workers that do fingerprint matching, and they have put up a fit to make sure that the police departments only use picture prints or ten prints(Job protection).
I agree. This is just a fancy Proxy. This isn't that great of an idea. Now the chinese will know who to arrest and or kill, by monitoring logs for port 443 access attempts. and for the people that are going to say "Just because it's anonymous doesn't mean the person committed a crime", things are much different in china. The entire internet infrastructure is controlled by the government, so I don't see why they couldn't block the port completely, or even develop a protocol aware firewall that would block things like this regardless of the port they use.
I agree with the parent(s) that U.S. is being repressive here. But I don't think you can take this at face value. IMHO, this has less to do with human rights, and more to do with national security and National Intel. Prop. I am presuming, that we want our servers off their soil because we fear that they would infiltrate the U.S. companies through the Chinese operations, steal technologies, and use them against us. It doesn't matter that these arn't military technologies. The U.S. is afraid of the pace at which china is developing in all areas. It almost seems like an "Information Race", except china is taking the microsoft approach(Steal and Extend). The aegis battle management system that somehow started "apearing" in chinese ships is a perfect example of this. I may be cynical, but I believe the U.S. want's to keep IP away from china in a literal sense.
Sure it is. Free is anything that you do not have to purchase to obtain. Free does not emply that you can copy, reproduce,modify, or reverse engineer. Free only implies the amount that you have to pay to obtain the item. If Richard Stallman wants to create a word that means publicly malleable in every sense then he should do so, but he should not try to attatch that definition to an existing word, which most certainly does not mean what he uses it for.
"Different Thinkers"
And by "different thinkers" you mean "teeny boppers?" Listening to Hillary Duff and coding Objective C on a Mac must certainly be a different experience.
Thanks alot for clarifying, I suppose CNN is getting to me with their anti filesharing propaganda. I stand corrected :-).
oh, I completely agree. I'm on his side completely, and I think that people should continue to run sites like these, I just don't see why people have to make themselves believe the people that are sharing these files and or hosting these sites are not doing nothing wrong/illegal. I think they are doing something illegal, and I hope they KEEP seeding torrents, and running sites like these. I do not feel like I need to make myself believe that everything I do is good, I think it is interesting that a lot of people try to defend filesharing. It(sharing copyrighted files) is illegal(in the US I mean, but only if copyrighted), and that is all there is to it. I guess I just think that people should acknowledge that these things are illegal, and go on supporting them more than ever.
ummm he did do something wrong(assuming you coun't breaking the law(at least in some countries, maybe not his) "something wrong"), he made a site that helped people carry out an illegal act more effectively. Isn't that what napster got in trouble for? Anyways whether he did something or not is relative depending on what country your in, assuming that right and wrong are simply the average moral views of the members of a country at a particular point in time(which are #965lly developed into laws).
It IS PCWorld, of course there is pc bias. That's like saying Newsweek is biased towards news related articles.