Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the you-blink-you-die dept.

Privacy 265

kkleiner writes "The million-plus citizens of Leon, Mexico are set to become the first example of a city secured through the power of biometric identification. Iris and face scanning technologies from Global Rainmakers, Inc. will allow people to use their eyes to prove their identify, withdraw money from an ATM, get help at a hospital, and even ride the bus. Whether you're jealous or intimidated by Leon's adoption of widespread eye identification you should pay attention to the project – similar biometric checkpoints are coming to locations near you. Some are already in place."

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Beware? (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 4 years ago | (#33706806)

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners -- and most of them have the option to enter a password or swipe a card in lieu of scanning your eyes -- they have to. Not everyone has eyes. Or hands.

Re:Beware? (2, Funny)

srodden (949473) | about 4 years ago | (#33706822)

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...

Re:Beware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706842)

Murphy's Law. As long as there are always redundancies, I don't care. If the scanner doesn't let me on the bus, then my $1.25 cash should. I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop, but if looking into an optical device is all I have to do--and not exchange money, push filthy ATM buttons, then I'm all for it. The fewer germs I spread and contract, the better.

Re:Beware? (5, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | about 4 years ago | (#33707084)

I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop

Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?

Re:Beware? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 4 years ago | (#33707242)

his weekly hooker?

Re:Beware? (1)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | about 4 years ago | (#33707406)

...but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?

kinda defeats the purpose if he tells you...

Re:Beware? (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33707424)

It seems his visit to the head shop?

Re:Beware? (4, Interesting)

dissy (172727) | about 4 years ago | (#33707566)

I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop

Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?

--

Well, I enjoy smoking my legally purchased tobacco out of a fine crafted glass pipe myself.

However a bunch of other people seem to assume such a purchase means I am a druggie hopped up on goofballs.

I am hiding from stupid people and their stupidity, because stupid people can still cause a great deal of damage to my life.

Unfortunately that answer is not always a good one to provide in court. One can never tell ahead of time if the cop or the judge happens to be one of those stupid people, until it is too late. So best to try and avoid finding out at all costs.

Re:Beware? (5, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33706846)

"I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners ..."

There is one major difference. The government can sell the idea if Iris scanning much easier than fingerprinting to the masses. If they ask me to give a fingerprint to enter that is old technology, and closely identified with what happens to criminals to most people. As opposed to: You want me to look into this thing to enter? You mean like on Mission Impossible! Wow that's cool! Where do I sign up?

As you rightly point out, there is no reason to fear most technological innovations in and of themselves. The justified and proper concern enters the equation when we start to ask not how this can be used, but rather how it will likely be abused .

Re:Beware? (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 years ago | (#33706882)

our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?

Re:Beware? (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33706944)

"Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?"

In an imaginary world, we shouldn't, but this is reality so it is not ours to give or deny. It would be nice if we had some kind of control over this, but we have absolutely none, which is why I identified this as a reason for concern rather than a call for action.

Re:Beware? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 4 years ago | (#33707894)

our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?

Given the circumstances (a monstrous abuser-maimer-murderer gov), IMHO, the correct question would be: "How can you stop the monstrosity of acquiring/imposing the used of another tool?"
Believe me, I'm not trolling, but my imagination fails when thinking on how a Mexican citizen (or many, for the instance) can oppose.

Re:Beware? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707236)

The problem with that line of thinking is that we already know the outcome - power corrupts. If a technology exists somebody in power will try to abuse it; that's just human nature. If we were truly concerned about potential abuses (and actual abuses, for that matter) then we would still be living in the stone age. But we take on the risk because the reward is (for the most part) worth it.

Re:Beware? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 4 years ago | (#33707388)

Exactly.

Last time this came up, I also mentioned the tracking potential for such a system. The government could require scanning at the borders, airports, bus stations, amusement parks, large events like rock concerts...all in the name of national security.

Private companies could follow suit - Say you go to Disneyland and get the obligatory government scan at the gate. Then, Disney's own scanning would be mandatory upon the entrance to rides and um, themed places like futureland or whatever. That way they could track where you go and analyze what order you visit things for marketting(or whatever) purposes.

Kinda like when supermarkets tried putting RFIDs on the bottom of baskets so that they could track their customers, but on a much larger scale.

Re:Beware? (1)

camperslo (704715) | about 4 years ago | (#33706868)

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

Envision if you will, in the corner of your room, a small dark cablebox... a cablebox that can look into your eyes and those of your friends, and reach into your wallet for each...

Re:Beware? (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 years ago | (#33707538)

Envision if you will...

Reading this post while imagining the voice of Rod Serling is awesome! If only you had added the punch line "...you have now entered the Timer Warner Zone"

Re:Beware? (1)

Bjecas (1753752) | about 4 years ago | (#33706886)

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

Because "borrowing" someone's password or security card isn't as... messy?

Or a Pulse ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706888)

Not everyone has eyes. Or hands.

Or a pulse [theonion.com] .

Re:Beware? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33706930)

Wait, its Mexico for crist sake!

An AK47 beats an iris scanner any day.

Mexico is a state in the process of failing. The Mexican Navy is about the only trustworthy branch of the government, and Leon is nowhere near the coast.

The people running the iris scanners will likely be in the employment of the drug lords, or dead shortly.

This is akin to locking yourself in your cabin on the Titanic.

Re:Beware? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707186)

Mexico is a state in the process of failing.

Yes, the US DEA is killing mexico. But the people who work there don't want to lose their jobs. Drugs are bad M'kay? Drugs are bad, or the DEA is Ob, So, Lete. Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! And half the prison are .. Obsolete, and half the prison guards are ? Obsolete. And the drug helicopters? Obsolete. Halcyon and on and on. That's too many obsolete bureaucrats. The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.

Re:Beware? (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#33707508)

You're grossly oversimplifying things. A lot of factors have contributed:

  • Laws forbidding foreign ownership of property.
  • A government that does little to combat abject poverty.
  • Brain drain to the U.S. and other countries.
  • Bad people who prey upon the poor to be drug mules, growers, etc.
  • Ineffectual police enforcement in Mexico.
  • A U.S. drug policy that encourages black market trade rather than controlled trade.
  • Utter failure on the part of the U.S. government to combat abject poverty.
  • Bad people who prey upon the poor and offer them a better life through dealing drugs.
  • Ineffectual district attorneys who would rather "get tough on drug users" than offer plea bargains in exchange for ratting out their pushers (the original purpose of prohibiting use of these drugs).
  • Ineffectual police enforcement that similarly focuses on busting users instead of dealers.

There's plenty of blame to spread around on both sides of the fence. I do agree, though, that the best way to end drug violence is to create a legal marketplace for the least harmful and most common of those drugs. Prohibition never works if you're talking about products that people want to consume. You'd think the government would have learned this eighty years ago. The only way they got the U.S. back under control was by repealing prohibition. Sadly, the "morally superior" never learn. They just keep standing there in their ivory towers issuing edicts, repeating the same mistakes, and wondering why the side of the tower is burning.

Re:Beware? (2, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 4 years ago | (#33707672)

The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

Re:Beware? (4, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 4 years ago | (#33707832)

If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.

Re:Beware? (4, Interesting)

Schemat1c (464768) | about 4 years ago | (#33707892)

The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'.

Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage.

LSD was discovered while searching for a drug to induce labor in pregnant women.
LSD does seem to cause psychosis, in people who have never done it. *Tips hat to Mr. Leary*

Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

Even if that was true, so what? Should there be a law to prevent me from smoking, drinking, eating junk food, watching too much TV... The government or you have no business to make decisions regarding what I choose to put into my body or mind.

You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

You go ahead and enjoy your Nanny state, scared little child. Meanwhile the smarter and less lazy of us will continue grow up and learn to take responsibility for ourselves, as grown-ups should.

Re:Beware? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#33707940)

I'm not arguing for legalizing all drugs. I'm arguing solely for marijuana because it seems to be lower on the "wrecks your body for life" scale than many legal substances. If young people are going to do it anyway, we should at least have a drug policy that sets consistent standards for what is and isn't illegal based on reasonable metrics of risk. As long as drugs that are relatively benign (I'm not saying marijuana is safe---smoking anything is inherently bad for your health---just that it's nowhere near as bad as meth or PCP) are illegal, young people think, "oh, the people who made those rules just don't understand," and they proceed to ignore the rules. Make the rules cover the hard stuff while going easy on the light stuff, and you'll be less likely to encourage drug use due to the ambivalence and rebelliousness of youth.

Iris Scanner Network != Fingerprints (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707208)

You don't usually have to give a fingerprint at every major intersection or before entering a store.

Ha! captcha = "Proofs" as in proof you were near the crime scene.

Re:Beware? (2, Interesting)

PiAndWhippedCream (1566727) | about 4 years ago | (#33707404)

I am afraid of Iris scanning technology, because it MAY give someone an incentive to rip my eyeballs out.

I like my eyeballs.

We can change the retinal pattern (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#33707492)

It happens all the time. Diabetic retinopathy [wikipedia.org] is treated with a laser to seal off blood vessels that are growing on the forward surface of the retina. Get your first iris scan before treatment, get your eyeballs zapped, and you are no longer you.

Then again, how are you going to do a scan when there's spots of blood floating around at random? Like looking through a fence at close range, the person won't notice as much as the scanner will - which is why patients tend to ignore it as much as possible - the thought of someone sucking all the juice out of your eyeball and replacing it, or sticking needles in it to inject stuff, is scary. Very scary.

Re:Beware? (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 4 years ago | (#33707646)

Knowing who someone is, does not reduce crime. It merely increases conviction rates.

I don't care if someone has my name, picture, iris scan, birth mark, and sperm sample. If I decide one day to kill a bunch of bankers, ID'ing me won't bring those parasites back from the dead.

I'd even say this will increase crime, because every failure of the system will push toward a new transgression, sometimes violent. Iris scanner won't let me on the bus, so now I get to be late for work ? Every ounce of grief my employer gives me will redirected three-fold at either the bus driver, the person in charge of the scanners, or some random innocent bystander.

You don't make a problem go away by adding more rules. Centuries of puppet democracy should have taught us this by now.

Re:Beware? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 4 years ago | (#33707772)

"I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself."

I have no eyes, you insensitive clod!

To paraphrase Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706816)

I assume these will work whether you are conscious or not.

Re:To paraphrase Data (1)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33707104)

Or whether your eyeball is actually in your head or not?

After all, this is mexicio.

Re:To paraphrase Data (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 4 years ago | (#33707374)

No more Stallone movies for you, okay?

So I guess (3, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33706834)

husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash. Well done banks, for making technology slightly less useful while still allowing a crook to put a gun to your head and force you to make that withdrawal.

Re:So I guess (3, Insightful)

tukang (1209392) | about 4 years ago | (#33707054)

husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash. Well done banks, for making technology slightly less useful while still allowing a crook to put a gun to your head and force you to make that withdrawal.

Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk, so the inability to share passwords is a plus. If you want someone to have permanent access to your account then add another card (or Iris) to your account. If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password.

Re:So I guess (5, Insightful)

iammani (1392285) | about 4 years ago | (#33707212)

What about the inability to change passwords (compromised passwords for example)? Isnt that a big security risk too?

Re:So I guess (4, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 years ago | (#33707690)

It isnt just compromised passwords.

Consider the following...

I get a bank account at WeAreSecure Bank and Trust and they require Iris Scanning. Great, right?

Then I get a job at WeAreParanoid Industries and they require Iris Scanning. Great... oh wait...

Now some WeAreParanoid employees have all the information needed to mess with my WeAreSecure accounts, and some WeAreSecure employees have all the information they need to gain unauthorized access to WeAreParanoid.

Now, add Iris Scanning to both State and Federal government stuff.. and before you know it, Iris Spoofing becomes and unstoppable crime.

Re:So I guess (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 4 years ago | (#33707400)

What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.

Re:So I guess (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33707446)

Even better, if it's a one time use by a trusted person, just change the pin later. Or get a new set of eyeballs.

Re:So I guess (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 4 years ago | (#33707746)

"Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk"

Alert. No reasons provided!!!

A password is nothing but an authorization token. An authorization token on untrusted hands is a security risk only proportional to the nature of the secured item (ICBM launch codes vs. my luggagge combination). An authorization token on trusted hands is mere "bussiness as usual".

"If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password. If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password."

If I want them to have temporary access (right now, just now), what should I do?

Re:So I guess (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33707092)

ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Done.
I don't know if it does have that option, but it perfectly possible.

But yeah, I don't really see the point.

Re:So I guess (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33707116)

ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Shoot account owner in head, empty account. Done.

FIFY.

Re:So I guess (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 4 years ago | (#33707100)

husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash

Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank. If you want someone else to access your account give them their own card (or tell the bank that their eyeballs are also valid for your account).

Re:So I guess (1)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33707126)

Why lend out your card if they can have one of their own?

And "other people?" There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends. If friends need money, I go with them to the bank machine or I just transfer it, depending how fast and how much they need.

And I have refused credit cards presented to me, because the person clearly was NOT the person on the card. I do not care if you are married to that person or if it is your son. It is NOT your card. For all I know, you are in the middle of a horrible divorce and try to scam your soon to be ex-partner.

Re:So I guess (1)

DarthBart (640519) | about 4 years ago | (#33707160)

I know several couples who have only one debit card between them. Mostly they explain it by saying "That way John/Mary doesn't spend money I don't know about".

But then it usually turns out that John has the debit card and Mary is out writing checks and not telling John until John's debit card gets declined because they're $200 in the hole.

Re:So I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707330)

And I have refused credit cards presented to me, because the person clearly was NOT the person on the card. I do not care if you are married to that person or if it is your son.

Or it is that person's card and she's just in the middle of a gender transition and hasn't gotten the bank to recognize a name change yet, which can be a real PITA.

Re:So I guess (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33707460)

Where does your merchant agreement allow you to infer whether someone is that person? You probably incorrectly ask for ID too.

Re:So I guess (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#33707664)

There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends

Is your password Bosco? [wikipedia.org]

Iris border control - awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706850)

I've beenusing the IRIS border control program in the UK for the last couple of years and I can't begin up tell you how good it is not to need to stand in lines for long or have to wait at an immigration desk for more than 30 seconds. Granted that the program is only open to frequent travelers to the UK, but it is a great example of how such systems can speed up slow tasks and make it somewhat more secure.

Re:Iris border control - awesome! (3, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33706866)

You have posted as an AC. Please look into your monitor so that we may remedy the situation.

Re:Iris border control - awesome! (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 years ago | (#33707130)

lol I don't know if this is sad or what, but to be honest I would gladly give my iris scan up too, if it meant I only had to stand in line at immigration for 30 seconds. I'm sure there's a drawback, but wow, that's a pretty sweet deal!

Every Illegal Alien should be Biometric Scanned (0, Flamebait)

HockeyGuy (1864828) | about 4 years ago | (#33706856)

They should do that to every person that is caught illegally in the USA and every person entering the USA on a VISA.
Entering the USA is not a right its a privileged and if you cross the border with 50 pounds of heroin or marijuana on your back then you should do time digging a trench on the southern boarder ... then give up all possessions to fund your incarceration and then be deported with a face tattoo.
I think the USA should get a copy of that database for ID of illegals in the USA

Re:Every Illegal Alien should be Biometric Scanned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706874)

Nice off-topic soapbox, bro.

Re:Every Illegal Alien should be Biometric Scanned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707904)

Yeah, that's what quality people the anti-immigration types are. They're all for forced labor (slavery, whether it's with or without compensation, and note that he wants to take away all possessions afterwards, so it's without compensation), and bringing back facial branding as a punishment.

No way (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 years ago | (#33706862)

Of all the countries where I wouldn't want having my eye in my head as the only barrier to someone else's quick cash...

Re:No way (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707110)

Having attended a discussion of these technologies at HP Labs I can assure you that the technology has "liveness" testing built-in. The guys who design these systems do watch movies, TV and read novels too you know.

Re:No way (1)

Urd.Yggdrasil (1127899) | about 4 years ago | (#33707162)

Does the "liveness" test work as well as those for fingerprint scanners? [youtube.com]

Re:No way (3, Interesting)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 4 years ago | (#33707320)

no if they have those its most likely heat(died in last few hours or better yet in the microwave for 10 seconds) or a pulse (could pump warm water though) while the eye scanner could see the reaction time to a flashing light

Severed head in a bag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706878)

What good will this do. There are already so many beheadings in Mexico, the thugs will simply hold the severed heads up to the eye scanner and proceed to steal money from the ATM. Or, thinking more of convenience, they will just carve out the eyes, leaving the heads, and take the eyes to the ATM. Easier than carrying the whole head.

You think I'm joking or being sarcastic and cynical? Count to 10 and check CNN.

Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | about 4 years ago | (#33706892)

and heads. "Hey no one said they had to be attached to the body to work!"

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33706986)

It should be pretty easy and within current tech to make it detect a living eye, movement, focus etc. They probably dont in this initial model, but certainly in the future (when they wake up and figure out there are people who will do such things) they should be able to prevent "borrowing" issues.

Perhaps there is even the possibility to detect fear response in the eye? Then trigger a silent alarm, security office monitoring, or give special marked notes from the ATM?

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 4 years ago | (#33706992)

lol, first thing that popped in my head was "demolition man" where snipes pops out the guards eyeball for the scanners using an ink pen... It may not work for the bus, but remote location ATM's are a easy target, no more beating the pin number out of someone when you rob them

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 4 years ago | (#33707062)

Something you have (your eye) and something you know (your PIN) = two factor security. Its a simple alternative to a card.

For low value transactions you can skip the second factor (the PIN) just like you can with modern ATM/credit cards.

More secure, simpler, and less to carry around in your pockets.

Re:Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33707078)

I don't think that this would work with a dead or otherwise non-functioning eyeball. If you've ever looked closely at your eye in the mirror, you'd notice that it's not static. It's constantly adjusting slightly to barely perceptible changes in light. You're not going to be able to easily replicate that with a dead eye.

I'm sure that somebody has been doing something to curtail the use of dead body parts to break into the system. I know that they've been working on the dead finger problem for quite a while as well.

dead eyes just need batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707088)

and little bits of wire -- rabbits

Targetted Ads (1)

stovicek (1768794) | about 4 years ago | (#33707004)

I can't wait for the day I walk down the street and have billboards call out my name or stores asking me how I enjoyed those pants I last bought. Seems like I've seen that kind of marketing before.

Re:Targetted Ads (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707022)

Or, better yet, "Welcome back Steve! We missed you. We see you've recently purchased an anal plug at the sex shop around the corner. Would you like to buy some Preparation H to go with that?" shouted at you as you enter a grocery store. That would be simply amazing. I for one look forward to our all-seeing-all-knowing advertising overlords.

Re:Targetted Ads (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33707086)

Certain companies don't use targeted advertising. I can guarantee you that if that ever happens, it won't be the company named in the advertisement that pays for it.

Demolition Man (1)

CrAlt (3208) | about 4 years ago | (#33707016)

Remember what happened to Warden William Smithers in that movie?

That's how this is going to end up...

Thank you. And BE well.

Re:Demolition Man (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33707094)

That was an awesome movie, but that part was particularly silly. In this day and age, any system which uses biometrics has somewhere in it a contingency plan specifically to discourage that sort of thing. Whether it be pulse detection or checking to make sure that there's a face attached to the eye.

Re:Demolition Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707140)

You can explain that to the nitwit psychopath that has your eye on a fork. ;^)

Re:Demolition Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707148)

Just because there are systems in place to detect this does NOT mean that a criminal will be aware of or smart enough to know that it won't work.

So yeah, maybe the crim doesn't get what he wants from the system he is trying to defeat. Hey, that's great for the bank. By that time though, he's already cut your eye out in the belief that it will. That's not so great for you.

Re:Demolition Man (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 4 years ago | (#33707356)

he`ll only try once not dozens of times and probably in a week or two 99% of those people will have found out cops come every time after

"inherenty fallable" (4, Interesting)

thestuckmud (955767) | about 4 years ago | (#33707024)

The phrase "inherently fallible" is part of the headline of this [eurekalert.org] recent Eureka Alert regarding Biometrics. Original work by the National Research Council.

Mexico? One reason only (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33707040)

There's only one reason to do this in Mexico first, it can be gotten away with. The people will do whatever you tell them. They're used to doing as the men with guns say, because if they don't, the men with guns have a way of getting nasty, since there's no repercussions.

Taking Advantage of Ignorance (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 4 years ago | (#33707072)

This is yet another example of a multinational corporation taking advantage of corrupt governments in Mexico and Latin America to push undesirable and invasive technologies and business practices upon ignorant and disadvantaged populations. Of course, even the ignorant can become informed and once the people of Leon see the sorts of uses to which corrupt government officials will put this new technology the backlash will begin: el pueblo unido jamás será vencido.

don't you mean (1)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | about 4 years ago | (#33707172)

"eye identification"

"eyedentification"

Biometrics going wrong... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707182)

Let me explain with facts why using biometrics for identification is a bad idea. In Brazil some bureucrat decided that to renew your drive license you need to attend a few (a lot) hours of classes about safe driving and first aides. To make sure that everybody would attend these stupid classes, they required fingerprint identification. What happened? Look at the foto in the following news (from a major Brazilian newspaper... the news are in portuguese, but the photo speaks everything):

http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/noblat/posts/2010/09/26/autoescola-em-sp-fraudava-exames-da-cnh-327621.asp

conclusion: people will always find a way to fraud biometrics. The question is: if someone gets your password, you can change it. If someone has your fingerprints, how do you change them?

Good. (3, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33707196)

It'll be a dismal failure and give biometrics a black eye.

RE: Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707216)

So the Federal Goverment of Mexico has instituted a plan and technology to blind its citizens.

Just as the U.S.A. Department of Homaland Security has contracted out for a 7 km buffer zone with Mexico to he mined with cluster munitions with automated sensors.

Amongst the winners was Boing.

Even MacDonalds won a contract to erect restruants close, but out-side of the cluster land mine zone. The U.S.A. Department of Homeland Security is concerned about the contractual-workers lunch habits during the installation of the cluster land mines within the Demilertize Zone with Mexico.

Oh ... its Demilertized becaue the Uinted States of American will kill anything walking there. Har di har har! This is Obama Country!
And President Obama put the ... Cunt ... back in Country. Beutiful Billie Ray will be Pissed at this.

Lordy o' Lordy. Seem the State of Isreal just cant get enough meat for Kosher Sausage these days. :D

new world order (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707244)

This is on the start of George Bush Snr's new world order, if people are fearful they will give up nearly all their rights and privacy just too feel safe.

"Secured"? I think not (4, Insightful)

eagl (86459) | about 4 years ago | (#33707250)

Secured? Hardly. Monitored might be a good description, but "secured" can't be done with a camera no matter how smart the software is. Security is a human thing and accurate, reliable monitoring is just one piece of an overall security process.

Re:"Secured"? I think not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707562)

Security will come next by giving or denying people access to perimeters depending on who the eye belongs to.

What if you are blind? (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 4 years ago | (#33707280)

How will the iris scanners see your eyes and vice versa?

The company's name... (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | about 4 years ago | (#33707346)

Does anyone else find the company name "Global Rainmakers" rather (ironically) fitting? It is as if even the heaven itself is crying. Big brother will definitely come, it is only a matter of time now.

Hemioplyia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707348)

Now things gets really interesting.

I'm guessing t he next fashion statement for the globalized better-offs and proffessionals wil be... let's see :) er, armored ray-bans, perhaps ?

Ah! The fruits of neo-hoarding. Different haves for different folks. The hoarders ruin, loot, pillage, sack, hoard. Have loot. The hundred millions looted, pillaged, sacked, ruined, don't have anything left - but have a huge score to settle.

Guess I'll open up an "eye" shop. As a tribute to Blade Runner. While the market's still growing.

NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexico (4, Interesting)

assemblerex (1275164) | about 4 years ago | (#33707352)

People report being unable to bank and enter their homes.

Re:NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707530)

That's be so hilarious. Only thing is, by then it's too late and these scammers have had their money already.

Yikes! I'm getting sunglasses!!! (1)

lavagolemking (1352431) | about 4 years ago | (#33707736)

Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in.

Does anyone else think now might be a good time to get a good, reflective pair sunglasses to try an avoid getting flagged?

#irc.trol7talk.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707370)

theY are Come o+n

Nice (1)

fadethepolice (689344) | about 4 years ago | (#33707414)

Soooo.... Do they run windows? This is the greatest database to download. Imagine how much you can get for a pair of contact lenses that mimic Carlos Slim's retina's.

no eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707558)

this discriminates against me because I have no eyes

Laser my eye! (2, Funny)

spaceman375 (780812) | about 4 years ago | (#33707570)

You want to aim a camera at me and use facial recognition or even trace the capillaries in my skin? Fine - I'm all for it. Want to shoot a laser in my eye? Not a chance! I'm adding a set of mirrored contact lenses to my tinfoil hat collection.

eyes infection. (3, Insightful)

bronney (638318) | about 4 years ago | (#33707594)

gringo, this is how it spreads.

Scan This (1)

Alsee (515537) | about 4 years ago | (#33707724)

I just turn around, pull down my pants, and tell them they can scan my iris.

-

Moronic use of money (3, Insightful)

Sosetta (702368) | about 4 years ago | (#33707726)

In a country where drug lords rule, you want to spend how much money on this technology? How about using that cash to support basic infrastructure like roads and potable water?

Don't worry, what can go wrong? (1)

JoeBuck (7947) | about 4 years ago | (#33707782)

If someone manages to make a copy of your iris to create contact lenses that let them pose as you, we'll just issue you a new iris.

Bend over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33707854)

Bend over and prepare for retina scan....

The public tracking of Minority Report (1)

cryokinetic2 (1888240) | about 4 years ago | (#33707884)

is now on just as close to being a reality as the awesome UI.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?