×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

Why? (1)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153098)

Neat but I don't see the point. Why grab someone's fingerprints from a couple of meters when you can just have them swipe it on a pad? Could anyone point out the (legitimate, non-thiefy) benefits of such a device?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153278)

1. cos you have to walk up to the pad and waot for it to process, if you could scan the hand whilst it's approaching, by the time the person has reached the barrier it can open for them immediately.

2. batch processing. i guess you could ramp it up so it could scan many hands at once so you wouldn't need to have bottle neck barriers more and open walk way (say 20m long) with a couple of guards to double check people who didn't register

3. prevent the spread of germs

4. weapon system target aquisition verification

5. it's just cooler.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153376)

...face palm....

whoops,

Re:Why? (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153402)

If it becomes good enough, then you could finger print somebody without him knowing, if his hands are open. You could wave at him, and if he waves back, then you have his finger prints.

Re:Why? (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153496)

That's it! From now on I'm giving the finger to anyone who waves at me.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153982)

Thanks, we put the camera behind you.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153640)

Unless he wears gloves.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153414)

Why? because you didn't read:

"Currently, individuals entering a military installation must place their fingers on a scanner, with a Marine standing beside them to help ensure a viable print. Powell would prefer there to be a safe distance between the Marine and the person being scanned."

aside from personal safety, if you don't touch the pad, you don't smudge it.. thus the part about "viable print"

Re:Why? (0)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153490)

I read that, but that's still a pretty stupid reason. They can just cable the scanners to give extra "distance." Smudges, at least, are an actual improvement, though I've yet to have that problem with my scanner. I could see that being a problem with greater volume and dirtier fingers though.

Re:Why? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36157512)

and how is moving the scanner going to help? The marine still has to be at the scanner, which is where the person puts his hand.

IRIS ? (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154192)

only outdated low security use finger prints i.e. borders and crime scene investigators
soon mexico will uses iris for those...

get an iris scanner

regards

John Jones

Re:IRIS ? (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#36155026)

As I recall, when the False Reject Rate is adjusted to be comparable, the False Accept Rate also becomes comparable between the two technologies. I'm not sure that this is up to date though.

Re:IRIS ? (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 2 years ago | (#36155152)

RTFA:

The military has a growing interest in biometric sensors that operate at a distance. The U.S. Department of Defense awarded $1.5 million to Carnegie Mellon's CyLab Biometrics Lab to support development of technology that performs iris detection at 13 meters.

They're already using it... the issue is data set and captureability. You don't leave Iris prints at a crime scene. Also they have been collecting fingerprints for eons. Iris is a much newer tech and so, although there are some pretty massive Iris databases already growing, it is more likely that they have your print to match you than they have your Iris.

In our business the key is "multi-biometrics". we capture and search against as many biometrics as are available at the time. Severely increases the chances of identification especially in areas of the world where manual erodes the prints over time, or thugs / machinery 'remove' fingers for you, etc.

Safe distance far more than 6 feet ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154996)

"Currently, individuals entering a military installation must place their fingers on a scanner, with a Marine standing beside them to help ensure a viable print. Powell would prefer there to be a safe distance between the Marine and the person being scanned."

Given a Marine carrying a sidearm the "safe distance" is far more than 6 feet. ;-)

Re:Why? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153492)

Neat but I don't see the point. Why grab someone's fingerprints from a couple of meters when you can just have them swipe it on a pad? Could anyone point out the (legitimate, non-thiefy) benefits of such a device?

What, as opposed to the TSA setting up a backscatter imager in a public place, and by the time people reached the sign indicating they were in an area that "might" be scanned, they already had been? Or a courthouse keeping thousands of images of people in the scanners?

This is all about people who are quite willing to implement the surveillance society for us. Everything you do will be monitored, without you knowing it.

The people who are buying and building these technologies are giddy at the prospect of gathering all of their information with neither your consent nor your knowledge.

And you're asking for what the 'legitimate' uses of this are? The short answer from them is "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear". You're expected to be compliant, and just suck it up and accept it as normal.

To them, in order to protect us from terrorists, they need the ability to take this information from you without needing to ask you.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

CrispyZorro (1809948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153666)

This is all about people who are quite willing to implement the surveillance society for us. Everything you do will be monitored, without you knowing it.

I finally found a use for my tin-foil gloves.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153734)

If you are against being a compliant sheep.....raise your hand!

Re:Why? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36156848)

Because we can't track your movements secretly if you have to willingly put your finger on the scanner. Nothing to see here, move along citizen!

Hold on there (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153102)

I hope no one figures out how to implement this in such a way that I don't miss out on my complimentary TSA gropes.

Re:Hold on there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36154960)

No kidding! The airport is currently a great place for a little "action".....

the unwholesome cost of world rulership (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153108)

how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

  you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

  the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair,
please email MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "osplanet.org" claiming to be moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID,
which are always changing, you butthead

Hook up a second camera (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153114)

What a great way to surreptitiously collect fingerprints en masse: take this device, attach a camera, and use a website like Facebook to connect an image of a person's face to the recorded fingerprint.

Any lawyers want to comment on the legality of such an operation in the United States?

Re:Hook up a second camera (3, Insightful)

louic (1841824) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153306)

I am not a lawyer, but the USA have proven often enough that they think they can do whatever they want for "national security", no matter whether it is legal or not.

Re:Hook up a second camera (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153716)

I hate to say it but with our current Supreme Court it is not a good idea to push civil liberty issues their way. While I personally think that the intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect civil liberties I don't think our current sitting SC will rule that way.

Re:Hook up a second camera (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36156930)

Re:Hook up a second camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36192156)

Haven't you heard? We're in a war against drugs.
You know what that makes anybody doing drugs, right? A terrorist.
So you see, that man was a grave threat to national security. Do you know how many people he might've killed with those drugs?

In the immortal words of Henry Kissinger (1)

dido (9125) | more than 2 years ago | (#36159890)

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.

this sounds very useful for you (4, Funny)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153116)

At a distance it'll be even harder to tell that you're wearing a fake fingerprint skin.

Re:this sounds very useful for you (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153232)

But they would have a picture of who it was who showed the fake fingerprint if they have security issues.

Conclusion (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153132)

Fringerprints are worthless as biometric identity data because they are easy to acquire and copy but impossible to replace once compromised.

Re:Conclusion (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153150)

impossible to replace once compromised.

Can you name biometrics that can be replaced?

Re:Conclusion (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153180)

Can you name biometrics that can be replaced?

"Welcome back, Mr. Yakamoto! How are those assorted tank tops working out?"

Re:Conclusion (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153356)

Biometrics can be captured in a revocable manner, but cannot be replaced. Several companies are working on revocable biometrics. Also, if you can reliably detect spoofing, a biometric is not really 'compromised'. Generally people use at least 2 factor authentication, just in case.

Re:Conclusion (1)

egranlund (1827406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154922)

Isn't the ability to not be replaced the whole point of using biometric data to identify people?

Re:Conclusion (2)

profplump (309017) | more than 2 years ago | (#36155972)

Yes. But people keep envisioning (and sometimes implementing) authentication systems that use biometrics only, which is just as bad a plan as giving 500 people the same key to a building. So long as biometrics are paired with a second authentication factor that can be changed they still represent a net improvement in security, even if a copy of your biometric data becomes available and can be successfully substituted at the point of authentication.

Re:Conclusion (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36158406)

You would have the same problem with alternative authentication as currently exists with the Chip & Pin system for bank cards. In theory you can sign rather than use the pin number, and in fact some people can't use the pin for medical reasons, but many retailers are deeply suspicious of people using a signature. Aside from anything else the card issuer holds them liable for fraud if they agree to accept a signature.

Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (3, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153248)

Fingerprint Sniffer That Works From 6 Feet

Doesn't this technology invalidate all existing fingerprint scanners? An attacker can easily mine the fingerprints of every employee of a company by leaving a few innocent looking rocks in their parking lot.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153292)

Not a problem for me. I wear tinfoil gloves.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36158870)

Not a problem for me. I wear tinfoil gloves.

And matching hat ? :o)

I hope the TSA has the sense to get fingerprints before they fondle junk. The lines are long enough without "You gorgeous man, could you step back so we can read your fingerprints"

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (5, Insightful)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153304)

People don't give a damn about the validity of their existing security technologies. They just like the feeling of security.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#36158592)

Exactly. We lock all kinds of things up behind conventional six-pin locks. They've been pickable for far longer than I care to consider, but we still trust that our valuables are safe.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36153358)

Maybe so. The Mythbusters had an episode where they got a photograph of a fingerprint and used the photograph to open a fingerprint scanner.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154048)

Most people over the age of 5 don't pick up innocent looking rocks in the parking lot.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 2 years ago | (#36155568)

Most people over the age of 5 don't pick up innocent looking rocks in the parking lot.

ummm... yeah we do

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36156554)

A rock by the entrance can capture the fingerprint of everyone that walks by.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36157552)

You apparently missed the "From X DISTANCE" part of the fucking story title.

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154258)

it doesn't invalidate the scanners, it just invalidates the idea that fingerprints would be secret. they're not, they never were.

it just invalidates the idea that they're secret. anyways, a scanner that works really close, with a big sensor, could provide you better results and do day-to-day adjustments.

also one thing some people forget, all regular keys can be copied with a cellphone camera and somebody with determination(or with the help of someone with determination). think about that.

(so whats the result? just live your life and don't give a crap)

Re:Isn't this bad for fingerprint scanners? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 2 years ago | (#36156134)

Exactly. Like all security systems, it's not perfect. Using several together can mitigate the flaws in any one system. Biometrics are useful in that they don't require you to carry around anything -- hence they are user-friendly -- and are somewhat more difficult to fake than a traditional key (not necessarily harder to obtain, but at attended posts the guard could notice your fake thumb/eye/weight belt, whereas he could not be expected to notice a fake key). But any biometric scan you'd be willing to submit to on a regular basis is going to be so non-invasive that it probably could be carried out surreptitiously, so the data shouldn't be treated as a well-guarded secret.

Can I...excuse me? (2)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153370)

I don't see the point. Women at the bars say they know exactly who I am from across the room. *shrug*

Can I login by waving goodbye? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153452)

If so, I would like to take the whole day off without ever entering my office space.

Discount? (4, Funny)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153526)

From TFA.

Burcham says several potential customers have indicated that a single-finger scanner would be sufficient for their needs—so AOS plans to sell both a single-finger device and a more expensive five-finger device.

But shouldn't there be a 5 finger discount?

Re:Discount? (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154092)

Burcham says several potential customers have indicated that a single-finger scanner would be sufficient for their needs

Perhaps they meant a specific finger, and he didn't get the joke.

Works from 6 feet (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36153800)

under?...

Re:Works from 6 feet (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154068)

It requires the feet of six security officers in order to operate.

Re:Works from 6 feet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36155060)

One legged security operators?

Re:Works from 6 feet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36156672)

No, they need one foot to operate the device, and one to kick you while you're down.

Not to be technical on a tech site..but (3, Interesting)

nomel (244635) | more than 2 years ago | (#36154152)

Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles..

Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36155100)

Well in principle you could do this without polarization control at all. A decent photo of a person's finger will show all the ridges plain as day. The polarization data (e.g. a difference image between two polarizations) is probably used to enhance edge-detection.

Re:Not to be technical on a tech site..but (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 2 years ago | (#36157776)

Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles

I have no idea how this works, but I was immediately reminded of hyperspectral imaging [wikipedia.org] which can do things like pick out days old tracks that are invisible to regular cameras and the naked eye. I am only vaguely acquainted with HSI, so make of that what you will.

Toe scanner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36154374)

If it works from six feet, surely it would be a toe-print scanner?

Really? (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36155032)

I have been using fingerprint scanners for years, even on laptops. Recently they added them at my gym. They work for me about 15% of the time, and my finger is pressing against it. I have also read about retinal scanners that work at 5 meters. Perhaps like many products, these work well in the lab but not in the wild.

Technology Review sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36156690)

The websurvey popups at technology review make that site intolerable.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...