Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Future Cell Phone Knows You By Your Walk

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-want-my-gun-to-know-me-better dept.

Toys 156

jangobongo writes "Researchers at the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland have come up with a unique way to secure your cell phone if it should get lost or stolen: 'Gait code'. Motion sensors in the phone would monitor the walking pattern (or gait) of whoever is in possession of the phone, and if the 'gait' doesn't match a pre-established biometric the phone would require a password to operate. The prototype cell phone correctly identified when it was being carried by someone other than its owner 98% of the time. The research team points out (powerpoint document) that this method could also work for PDAs, laptops, USB tokens, smart cards, wallets, suitcases, and guns."

cancel ×

156 comments

But (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796727)

I'm a wheelchair you insensitive clod. Anyone who can roll can pretend to be me.

Re:But (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796859)

At least Keith Richards is safe. Nobody can rock like him...

Re:But (1)

fatgav (555629) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796874)

What about people who ride horses? That'll confuse the little blighter!

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796894)

Sometimes I wish it was possible to take an M1 of "+1, Funny" and M2 it with "-1, Flamebait".

Re:But (1)

surprise_audit (575743) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797056)

Same goes for all those ignorant fools who use their cell phones while driving. Like the bastard that pulled over in front of me on the highway two nights ago. I had just pulled over into an exit lane and was still doing 60, heading for a loop around onto another highway and as I came up level with him, he suddenly decided he needed to be in my lane as well. His back end can't have been more than about 4 feet in front of me. His indicator flicked once and he moved over. There's *no* way he couldn't have seen me - it was about 10:30pm, he's driving a regular sized saloon car, and I'm in a full-size Chevy truck with my headlights lighting up the entire interior of his car. His (or maybe her) left hand was up by his/her ear in the classic talking-on-the-cellphone pose.

Never mind working out if the phone is being used by it's owner, I want a hotline where I can call in time, place and license plate of people like that.

Re:But (1)

gfilion (80497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797301)

[...]I want a hotline where I can call in time, place and license plate of people like that.

I tought that there was allready such a thing in every part of the civilized world! :-) At least in the province of Québec, you can dial *4141 on any cell phone for free and get connected to the provincial police (SQ) [gouv.qc.ca] . I call them all the time to report accidents and vehicules in distress.

cool tech, but dumb implementation (4, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796734)

If the gait biometric fails, and the system falls back to a password, then the system is still no stronger than a password based authentication scheme. So why add the extra complication and expense that developing this technology must surely add?

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (4, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796743)

If the gait biometric fails, and the system falls back to a password, then the system is still no stronger than a password based authentication scheme. So why add the extra complication and expense that developing this technology must surely add?

Because the device isn't secure at all when the owner turns off the password protection because they're tired of entering their password. If they only have to enter it 2% of the time, they're less likely to disable it.

I think we can both agree that password protection is better than nothing.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

Taladar (717494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796753)

They are also less likely to remember it.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796765)

If they only have to enter it 2% of the time they are also more likely to forgert the code. This system is going to defeat itself.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796965)

Depends on how hard the code is. GSM phones ask you for your PIN (4 digit number) when you turn it on, and people usually leave their phones on, so they only need to enter that code in very few occasions, but people remember that number just fine. :)

Speaking as a telco customer service "consultant"; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797274)

people forget their PIN all the farking time. The dumbest ones are those that try the secondary code, the PUK, ten times before calling to ask whether they've used the wrong code. For those not familiar with the PIN/PUK structure; three wrong tries with the PIN and you need the PUK. Ten wrong tries with the PUK and the card gets fried.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796757)

And what's wrong with password auth on phones anyway? If the phone's stolen then it's out of your possession - you lose, whether the theif can use it or not. I'm sure the amount they can run up in calls before you block it (assuming your provider even holds you accountable, which AFAIK most don't) is trivial compared to the cost of the phone you just lost.

what about your info stored on the phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796836)

call me paranoid, but what if the thief got a hold of your phone, read your messages, and found something incriminating? The message or picture could then be used to blackmail you. This will be the most useful aspect of the system IMO - keeps private information stored on the phone away from anyone who doesn't know how to extract the data manually from the flash chip (not the SIM card - i'm talking about the stuff stored on the phone)

I for one have a fair bit of incriminating evidence on my phone, that could be used to blackmail me (in the form of both pictures and messages) - being slightly paranoid, this technology would ease my fears a bit, because very few people are going to be able to get at the data out of that flash chip without the password, and i wouldn't have to enter the password every time i wanted to use my phone.

Plain old PIN security has two problems - one, i can't receive calls when my phone is off. Two, it only protects what's on the SIM - not what's on the phone's internal flash chip

Re:what about your info stored on the phone (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797014)

call me paranoid, but what if the thief got a hold of your phone, read your messages, and found something incriminating? The message or picture could then be used to blackmail you.

What kind of idiot sends anything that could be used to blackmail him over GSM - or any other phone network for that matter ? Either send an encrypted email, preferably from one free webmail provider to another so you can deny knowing anything about it if neccessary, or better yet, meet face-to-face.

I for one have a fair bit of incriminating evidence on my phone, that could be used to blackmail me (in the form of both pictures and messages) - being slightly paranoid, this technology would ease my fears a bit, because very few people are going to be able to get at the data out of that flash chip without the password, and i wouldn't have to enter the password every time i wanted to use my phone.

You aren't paranoid, you are too trusting. Surely you realize that the phone company could be storing all the messages passing through them ?

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796860)

Try config your phone to take pictures and send back to your web site when the gait-code isnt right. At least you could have the mug shots of the bastard. If you can identify the background, chances are, you could recognize the place.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797211)

And what's wrong with password auth on phones anyway? If the phone's stolen then it's out of your possession - you lose, whether the theif can use it or not.

Emm, I have my complete schedule on mine, contacts, email. It has cookies to online sites with auto-log in (e.g. eBay). It CAN be used to run up calls until the network can block it, including data calls. With many phones, you can do a hard-reset that brings them to an out-the-box state, including erasing the password. So, a smart crook might manage that, but if they do, my data is wiped. My data is more valuable than the device.

If everyone had a password, phone theft would be less common. I've always had a PIN on my phone, going back at least ten years. If I can't use it, why should the arsehole that nicked it be able to? ;-)

WRT to the article, this would definately interest me. Though I'd prefer a system using perhaps WiFi networks. It would be nice not having to enter the password when at home, if the phone is picking up my network.

And it just about assures forgetting the password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796767)

You fall down some stairs, sprain your ankle, hobble along a bit, find you need help, grab your phone.

It won't let you call without the password, which you've forgotten since it's been 7 months since you last used it.

Nice.

Re:And it just about assures forgetting the passwo (1)

chrisbolt (11273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796828)

Nearly any phone will allow calls to 911 no matter what, even if the phone is locked with a password and doesn't have service, as long as it's within range of a cell tower.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796789)

...why add the extra complication and expense that developing this technology must surely add?

Because it's an almost perfect way to save users the time of entering their password, the effort of locking their phone all the time, and/or the expense of having some steal and use their phone. Most phones won't let you enter more than a handful of password tries anyway.

Hmm... someone should do a statistical study to see what numbers (birthdates/years, phone numbers, etc...) people are most likely to use for their PIN's, and see if it's possible to guess like 80% within 3 tries. I bet it is possible.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

CodeArtisan (795142) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796983)

I don't see what advantage this has over, say, fingerprint authentication. I pick up my phone, finger print is verified as I hold it, and off we go.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (2, Insightful)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797030)

I don't see what advantage this has over, say, fingerprint authentication. I pick up my phone, finger print is verified as I hold it, and off we go.

Up in Canada, it's nice to not have to take off your gloves. It's cold outside, and if you're carrying stuff in your other hand it can be difficult to do. (You end up trying to place a call with a glove held in your teeth.)

Also, a fingerprint scanner involves a surface on the telephone's exterior that has to be kept fairly clean and is vulnerable to pointy things. The gait monitor discussed here can be entirely internal.

you dont exactly get it (1)

Stalyn (662) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796866)

it is a password protected system which only queries for a password when you fail biometric authentication. essentially it is more convenient than a password system that queries on usage or on time intervals. also because it registers by the way you walk, the authentication is hands and voice free.

i suppose for ultra security you could have the gait biometric which defaults to some other traditional biometric. but thats expensive and somewhat impractical for the average person.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

Lorkki (863577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796933)

Convenience. This is likely to be cheaper to implement than, say, fingerprint detection, doesn't add any external breakable parts, and is certainly less intrusive.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (1)

salgiza (650851) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797126)

If someone steals the phone from you, not only have you lost the mobile, the thief could use it to make as many calls as he/she wanted until you contact your phone company. This idea will help to avoid the money loss related to that last situation.
The idea is not to make authentication better, but to have one! (as, once the mobile is on, you never have to enter the password again).
I don't know if in the USA it's such a big deal, but in Europe it's not uncommon for mobile thieves to use them to call to foreign countries, which means a very expensive phone bill.

Re:cool tech, but dumb implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797298)

Because of the convenience of not having to type in your password everytime you have to answer a call or make a phone call.

Won't Sell in Scotland (5, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796735)

Imagine when you've had 6-8 pints of Heavy and you stumble out of the pub and try to phone a taxi.

Have you ever tried typing in a password after a gallon of beer?

Never mind, there's always the beer scooter.

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (2, Funny)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796798)

In Scotland you can just train it when you're drunk, and you'll be fine most of the time!

/me ducks.

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796843)

Have you ever tried phoning a taxi after a gallon of beer?

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796935)

the gait-code system will immediately recognize when you step out of the bar with a few pints of beer consumpted, it would prompt you: want to call a cab? but of course that assummes youre not completely stoned.

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796950)

It recognizes when you're completely drunk, and calls a cab for itself--leaving you to sleep it off in ditch somewhere, you insensitive sot!

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796853)

It's funny, it takes you 43 attempts when blind drunk to enter your password, but the rambling yet coherent message declaring your wish to have sex with your best female friend (who thinks of you as a brother) gets to the correct destination as quickly and easily as a cartographer moonlighting as a cab driver...

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (1)

TobiasSodergren (470677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796875)

I think one of the two tasks falls under the responsibility of the spine, and it takes a lot to take out the reflexes.

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797117)

Mod parent +1, speaks the truth.

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (1)

smead (583466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797322)

so, she puts out?

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (1)

asparagus (29121) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796912)

Have you ever tried typing in a password after a gallon of beer?

That's not a bug, it's a feature!

Re:Won't Sell in Scotland (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797231)

Have you ever tried typing in a password after a gallon of beer?

Ya bunch of shandy drinking lightweight weekend drinkers!! Just last night, in Glasgow, I had to unlock my phone to fire up the mp3 player on the way home from the pub. And use a touch screen do-da. Nae problem!! Practice is all it takes!!

Perhaps the big-girls-blouses down south in that-there Engerland might have issues...? Or anyone who drinks any of that weak stuff that passes for beer in some countries.

Great. (1, Insightful)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796736)

So, someone gets hit by a car, struggles to their feet, limps along a bit and then pulls out their phone to call for help... and it doesn't work.

Nice one.

Great: Linux hit by a bus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796754)

911 (or 411) could be excluded from any kind of lock. Anyway there's a 2% chance of this system not working.

ever notice... (2, Insightful)

xmodem_and_rommon (884879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796851)

Ever notice how when you enter your PIN # when you turn on your phone, you can still dial 911 or 112 or whatever? even without a pin? Even without a SIM card? Or how you can still dial the emergency numbers when your phone's keylock is on? I expect this would work in the same way.

Re:Great. (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796998)

That's why you shouldn't try to move after an accident: you'll activate your phone's security lockout, duh!

Used to detect drunkenness (4, Insightful)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796744)

I R'dTFA, and they said that one of the things that alters the user's gait "code" is when they're drunk. If you paired a Bluetooth phone with a car, and added this, it could be a biometric way of making sure someone doesn't drive drunk. Just a thought.

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796782)

What about when you put it in your bag? There is a different rhythm for something being carried in a bag or a coat pocket. What about when you run? What about when you're in a car? Hell, what about when you're in a lift, or in an escalator? Does jumping over a puddle trigger this?

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796833)

Running/Lift/Escalator: All you'd have to do is walk a few steps down the next hallway/sidewalk/etc... and it would work.
Bag/Coat pocket/car: I don't know, I guess they have to work that one out.

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (1)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796788)

Cool idea. But, if I was running hard during my workout, my gait will change because of pain and stiffness for a day or so. I'd be screwed while I'm healing from an intense workout. Then again, I'm a bit cranky while I'm healing so it might be a good thing if I can't take calls. Especially from customers.

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796835)

"Hey Bob, why don't we take your car?"

"Awwwww, can't. I dropped my phone."

It's possible to take this "convergence" thingy way too far. The failure of one system should not cause the failure of another, unrelated, system.

KFG

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796863)

Hey, it was just a thought. Relax.

Why don't they just make cars where you have to play a 10-second game of Simon before it starts? That would solve the problem!

Re:Used to detect drunkenness (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796909)

Relax.

I'm quite relaxed, but thank you for your concern.

Why don't they just make cars where you have to play a 10-second game of Simon before it starts?

A better solution, but they already have cars with ignition interlocks hooked up to more direct means of detecting the imbibing of alcohol. None of them are perfect, of course, as none of them ever will be.

KFG

Doesn't work in airports (2, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796747)

And if you are lugging a carry-on and a laptop bag on the way to your flight, what stops the phone from deciding you are not you because the added weight changes your gait? TFA said the false alarm (accidental lockout) rate was 4%. I'd bet the rate is much worse if you are carrying something (suitcase, kid, groceries, etc.)

For guns (1)

marat (180984) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796751)

But only for people walking as usual before starting shooting.

The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (4, Insightful)

Roofus (15591) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796755)

Time for 100 different posters to point out 200 different situations where they think this technology will fail.

And it all must be true, because the engineers who spent years designing this must be complete idiots, and would never think of these things on their own.

Ready, set, go!

Re:The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796838)

Just because an engineer spent years designing this, doesn't make them any less of an idiot. Sometimes, people get carried away with what seems like a great idea, forgetting to look at the practical side of things.

In any case, I think this would be a great experiment in motion sensors, but that the practical implementation sucks.

Re:The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (2, Interesting)

Unfallen (114859) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796846)

"...the engineers who spent years designing this must be complete idiots, and would never think of these things on their own."

Ah, if only sarcasm were a form of proof. Unfortunately, history reveals that a bunch of people in lab conditions (or, indeed, even during controlled tests) may not actually think up everything. The ability be blinded by new science, to the detriment of old problems, is nothing new. Take Persil Power [wikipedia.org] for instance - years of R&D, along with voluminous testing in particular countries didn't particularly stop it from being a complete shambles (in both technical and marekting terms) in the real world. ("Heavens, people want to wash old clothes? That's not in the spec!")

The race to solve a single problem, or to implement a new "discovery", often leads to a whole bunch of things that nobody would (or, perhaps could) ever think of. Of course, they'll probably be things that nobody on /. actually ever predicted too...

Re:The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (1)

JawnV6 (785762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796884)

Well.. seriously... for a gun?

If a police officer gets shot, I'm pretty sure he's going to be walking a little different. And not want to put in a password or anything before trying to shoot back.

Re:The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (1)

surprise_audit (575743) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797089)

Well, obviously it would be different for police officers. *Their* guns would read the surgically implanted RFID tag in their hands, so that only a police officer could fire them. The Mk2 version would administer a heavy electric shock to an unauthorised user, certainly deadening that hand for a period of time, if not actually stunning the perp senseless.

Hey, maybe I could patent that!!

Re:The Slashdot Obvious (tm) (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796911)

Actually, the fact that they spent years working on such an over-the-top yet utterly useless and superficial 'innovation' does make me question their intelligence somewhat.

you won't see this (0, Redundant)

pumpumpum (757946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796758)

The device is not useful. I don't understand why make such a fuss about it, because it doesn't work if you change shoes, get drunk or do anything that makes you walk diffrently than before. Seems that there is no cure for this, without breaking the usability of device.

Good point... might save some embarrassment (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796873)

I know people who "drunk dial" their friends and loved ones. This could be marketed as a way to avoid making a call you regret when you're totally wasted.

Re:you won't see this (1)

idokus (902277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796883)

In that case it sould be obvious that you do have the password, so no problems there, it's your password.

it' just handy, if you don't want to enter your password everytime you want to make a call. It's more safe than now, where everyone I know is running his cell phone at the most secure level of only ask for a password when turning on their mobile.

So... (4, Funny)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796760)

I guess this means that you now have to prove that you can "walk the walk" before you can "talk the talk" now?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796778)

Why oh why do they put the Informative choice so close to the on that says Funny? ;-)

Oh well, congrats to being modded informative, I guess.

Moderators Anonymous

Better biometric than fingerprints? (3, Interesting)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796766)

This seems like a better choice of biometric than most, because unlike a finger, it can't be cut off or "cloned" using gelatin or another way of transferring the fingerprint. Now, it might be possible to invent a "bug" that records someone's gait and feeds it to a set of servo motors that convince the phone you're them, but that's beyond what most people's resources and significantly harder than picking up a latent fingerprint.

Re:Better biometric than fingerprints? (2, Insightful)

mattcurrie (192138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796781)

Couldn't this "bug" simply be a video camera? That would be even worse than fingerprints as you would only need to spot someone walking in a public place to capture this biometric information.

Re:Better biometric than fingerprints? (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796872)

Theoretically, but I don't imagine a video camera would provide enough information to derive all of the axes of motion that the phone would experience as you walk. For example, if you filmed it from the side, you would see vertical motion and forward/back motion, but not side-to-side (hips) motion. It seems iffy.

He wasn't proposing a video camera. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796905)

If you read it, the idea was a bug (ie. an actual device placed on the person or in the belongings of the person being monitored) which would record their gait -- in much the same way as the proposed phone would do it now.

Granted, there are practical considerations, as it would really need to be more on the person than in the belongings of the individual being monitored -- and unless they're cheap to produce and have wireless output, the individual trying to retrieve this information would generally want to get it back afterwards.

Would never work in America (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796769)

Noone in the US walks anywhere.

Re:Would never work in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796796)

how dare you say that!
Im going to get in my car and come over there :p

Wouldn't voiceprint be a lot easier? (3, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796776)

I mean really. It's a phone. Have it recognize my voice. Why have it recognize my walk? But this does give me an idea - why not a pair of shoes that cause blisters if they don't recognize my voice? You have to keep talking to them or they tighten up on you. Maxwell Smart (rest his soul) was on to something I think.

Re:Wouldn't voiceprint be a lot easier? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797071)

But this does give me an idea - why not a pair of shoes that cause blisters if they don't recognize my voice?

No reason to research them - finnish stores are already full of such shoes. Now, if someone would research shoes that don't cause me blisters if they recognize my voice...

Sex and the cellphone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796797)

You can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.

Broken Foot (0, Redundant)

Kaduco (651385) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796799)

My martial arts teacher just broke his foot. His gait altered significantly. What's the backup to the gait detection? A password? Another biometric? Lockout if you fail? Or do you have to call up the cell phone company and give them more personal information?

Re:Broken Foot (1)

nsasch (827844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796827)

RTFSummary...
It goes to a password.

Re:Broken Foot (1)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796832)

RTFS -

and if the 'gait' doesn't match a pre-established biometric the phone would require a password to operate

its main benefit over a password it that 90% of time you don't need to enter it, but you have all the extra sercurity

minor quibble (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796885)

you put the pauli comment in quotes, as if that is exactly how he said it.
but, I don't think that is correct - can you post a ref to substantiate your claim that this is the exact phrase used ? I have spent time on the web, and never really come up with a def source

The Genesis Phone? (1)

MukiMuki (692124) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796800)

Oh IIIII can't dance, IIIIII can't talk, only thing about me is the way my cell phone recognizes my gait...

present: creators know us by our intentions (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796806)

not to mention yOUR behaviours towards man'kind'?

or each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

It sounded eviler when our government did it (1)

icecow (764255) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796814)

They 'must' have got it from our own DARPA's defunct Information Awareness Office. The Total Information Awareness mission. Part of it was called HumanID, which could recognize people from far distances by their gait.

ooo.. I sound so fancy

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awa reness [wikipedia.org]

Re:It sounded eviler when our government did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796858)

... They 'must' have got it from our own DARPA's defunct Information Awareness Office...

Not necessarily. After careful consideration, lasting nearly 5 seconds, I've come to the conclusion that the most likely source for this idea was Monty Pytons ministry of silly walks.

Calling the cops... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796815)

So if you're a young black person walking through a white neighborhood, will the cell phone automatically call the cops?

Pimp Roll (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797118)

So if you're a young black person walking through a white neighborhood, will the cell phone automatically call the cops?

Tom Wolfe informs us, in Bonfire of the Vanities, that the swaggering gait affected by young black inner-city males is known as the Pimp Roll [google.com] .

-kgj

Stayin' Alive (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796819)

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man: no time to talk.

I guess now I will have time to talk afterall!

Ah ah ah ah stayin' alive!

Mod Parent +Funny (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797090)

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm a woman's man: no time to talk.

Made me laugh!

-kgj

hooker with cell phones (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796821)

Hookers with cell phones -- can you imagine the gait motion?

Woot!

-kgj

I don't get it... (0, Redundant)

mwilli (725214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796824)

What is the usefullness of this? I don't want to have to get up and walk around everytime I want to use my cell phone or laptop. Do you have to be walking to use the phone or just to authenticate to it?

what if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796825)

what if you hurt your leg and have a limp? What if you are trying to use it in a train/car/boat/plane? this technology is uhh stupid.

'gait' (4, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796830)

...and if the 'gait' doesn't match...

There's really no need to put the word gait in quotes. The definition of the word fits exactly with how they're using it. Maybe we should start randomly putting other perfectly cromulent words in quotes. Let me continue with the rest of that sentence:
...and if the 'gait' doesn't match a pre-established 'biometric' the 'phone' would require a 'password' to 'operate.'

</pedant>

News Flash (1)

connah0047 (850585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796854)

News Flash! Gait Monitoring cell phones now also notify you if you are gay!

I'm sorry, officer Dave... (1)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796877)

I'm sorry officer Dave, but it looks like you quickly picked up your movement right before you picked up your gun, and I'm not sure it's you any more. Please enter your 8 digit code into combination-lock device to unlock your gun so it will fire...

Dave? Dave? Are you there, Dave?

And one day... (1)

michaelzhao (801080) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796878)

You accidentally break your leg... so much for the cell-phone. These technologies rely too much on individual habits that may change. Samsung recently released a cell-phone protected by fingerprint technology. That type is protection is much stronger than protection based on walking habit. The holy grail, would of course have a cell-phone protected by eye biometrics.

Gait codes are simply too dependent on individual habits too be of any use. Plus, given enough time and a good enough heart, anybody can figure out your gait.

Re:And one day... (1)

ziggyboy (232080) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796908)

I would like a cellphone to be dependent on my penis activities. More specifically I'd want it to shut down if unusual erection patterns and length is detected.

Re:And one day... (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796990)

Of course that would be the holy grail for a *phone*. Because I hold up my phone to my eye all the time. The fact that the folds in the outer idea are unique for each person and could be used as an identifier should not get in the way of a *holy grail*...

Not such a great idea. (1)

bl00d6789 (714958) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796879)

The prototype cell phone correctly identified when it was being carried by someone other than its owner 98% of the time.
98% of the time? That would be like having a password that people could guess 2% of the time. I'd rather have a password that people could guess 0% of the time. It's a neat idea, but especially if you're going to have sensitive information on the device, or the device can be used to make phone calls that you pay for, I would want something a little harder to duplicate than my gait. Just me though.

critics missing the point (5, Insightful)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 8 years ago | (#13796939)

I think all the critics of this are right, yet they are missing the point, which is not even that the std pin is the backup

Technology succeeds largely if it panders to one of the dominant human traits - lazyness.
If the gait thing means i can save 5 secs, or maybe more on a cold day with gloves that have to be taken off, it will have a good chance in the market.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13796942)

It just works while i walk?, what if i'm just standing there??, what if i'm in the car?
What if i borrow the cellphone?

Tough Call (1)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797069)

Hmmn, could be tough news trying to sell a second-hand gun belonging to a Russian roulette player, then: "Only works when pointed at your own head."

Q:"How can you tell whether your cellphone was owned by a redneck?" A:"It only works when you're humping your sister"

As for wallets, well I guess folks tend to steal them for what's inside them. How many successful muggers grab your wallet, empty the contents on the floor and flee with the wallet, leaving you with all your cash and cards still intact.

Re:Tough Call (1)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797096)

...wallets... !?!? What's it going to do, refuse to open up? Self Destruct? It's a wallet!

I'm Sorry.... (1)

Anomylous Howard (666178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797137)

I dodn't call because I subbed my toe.

obviously (1)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797209)

the only ringtone availible on this phone will be "walk this way"

Yet another situation where it won't work... (1)

NaruVonWilkins (844204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797232)

Say you're running away. Really, what other time do you desperately need to be able to use your cell phone? Presumably these phones would be able to dial 911 without any kind of login.

Sitting or lying down? (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797251)

Didn't RTFA but do you have to be in motion while trying to use the
phone?

Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...