Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Science

Your Skin Is Your Password 32

Posted by timothy from the better-than-a-bar-code dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "Technology Review is running a story outlining a process which uses light to uniquely identify a person through their skin. The light reflects through a person's skin and is uniquely reflected back to a receiver. The researchers believe that this has some major applications including improving hand gun saftey locks and preventing cellular phone theft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Your Skin Is Your Password More

Your Skin Is Your Password

Comments Filter:
  • And dammit it's right on the tip of my index finger. Biometric systems need to be able to account for variation over time. What happens if a person gets a tan? Or develops some new freckles, or a mole?

    These devices really have to be perfect. False negatives are one thing, but even one false positive completely destroys the usefulness of the device.

    • I agree

      what about the handgun thing
      what if you are being attacked and your gun wont recognize you because you are sweating profusely??

      What about dirty hands?

      I believe that biometric systems will not be completely accurate until they use DNA from blood
      (like in Gattaca) (but, then also like in Gattaca, they can be fooled)

      but then there is privacy issues and things like that.
      • We've got to combine these things

        -something you are - biometric data
        -something you have - a physical key of some kind
        -something you know - a password or PIN

        • All this biometric stuff just reminds me of the episode of Red Dwarf where Kryten and Lister are deleted from existence and use a severed hand to access a door.

          This means someone could skin me alive to access my Hotmail account...
        • The biometric will suffice for the "physical key of some kind". Remember, though, according to Scheier, biometrics are easily bypassed. The something you know part, can be replaced by one of those smart cards with a constantly changing password. Those cards are generally more secure than biometrics and passwords.
          • Good point.
            The only thing that is pro-biometics is the general hype that this company tries to exploit. If you have a closer look, biometrics have a lot of disadvantages from a security point of view:
            • Biometric data cannot be hidden from attacers
            • If you know unauthorized access has been gained, you cannot change the "password"
            Thus biometrics are convenient, but insecure.
      • Uncle Mike's [unclemikes.com] makes a holster for police which requires finger print verification before releasing the handgun from the holster. Strangely, I can't find that product on their Law Enforcement Holster page. [unclemikes.com] [shrug] The product brochure/catalog I read (and this random site [lawranceordnance.com], description halfway down the page) both claim that it takes about a second for the system to work. That's one second just to start clearing the holster, then you have to bring it to bear.

        One training center claims [frontsight.com] that they can train you to draw and fire two good shots in 1.5 seconds, and a man who used to run the sheriff's armory told me that he would train deputies to draw and fire from a standard police holster in 1.65 seconds.

        Now add one full second to those times. Then think about how far you can run in 2-3 seconds. That aggresive man with a knife is now much closer to our police officer than he would have been otherwise. In the case of firearms we must remember that speed is going to be an issue. If it's not fast, I don't want it. Make it fast, and I'll look at it.

  • Uh oh.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Xunker ( 6905 )
    <Insert knee-jerk reaction here>
  • Well, it won't really prevent cellular phone theft, although it will probably make them not so appealing as a target.
  • How is this terribly different from a fingerprint?

    • Re:Different How? (Score:2, Informative)

      by unDiWahn ( 599102 )
      Well, let's go read the article:

      "Unlike biometrics like fingerprinting and face recognition (see "Face Recognition", TR Nov 2001), light printing doesn't rely on image-processing. Instead, the device measures wavelengths of reflected light, which requires considerably less computing power."

      So, its a fairly different method, meaning different solutions to it application.

      "Norton says, "but the point is that fingerprint technology cannot determine 'liveness.' You can't foil the Lumidigm system with fake or dead tissue.""

      So, maybe it's more reliable?

      Either way tho, I agree with the guy down there who disbelieves it -- if you're measuring the wavelength of reflected light, couldn't that change drastically (enough to make it useless) over time?
      • In a world where the biologists are working in creting organs this is not a long term reliable method. Just splice into the data stream of some entryway using this system (you can probably set up your own) and then calculate how to make an object provide the same reflectivity characteristics. Once you create the fake, voila the method is defeated.

  • haha (Score:2, Funny)

    by kasper37 ( 90457 )
    unfortunately 90% of the hackers' logins could be bypassed using a single sheet of plain white paper.

  • Skin (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Make sure not to get a tan this weekend, your [insert appliance here] might think you're a thief.
  • finally america will be safe from cellular phone theft.
  • This means that eventually they'll be able to place a large infrared light out in a public place and be able to identify everyone who walks through using minimal computer power.

    Attempts at face recognition so far have been encouragingly laughable. If this is everything it's cracked up to be, it may eventually be able to fill the niche that face recognition was supposed to.

    Of course, it sounds like right now the light has to be very close to the skin for it to work. Perhaps there are inherent limitations in the system that will prevent it from working over large areas.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our skin go through changes almost daily. We shed skin cells, we grow new ones...etc

    I can't imagine that this technique could be very reliable...what if you get a bad sunburn or a "good" suntan.

    I guess you could measure that itsy bitsy piece of skin that never sees sunlight...but this isn't common to everyone, and even that must go through changes.

    I suppose these are some of the questions that must be answered in all fields of biometrics before we have a comprehensive identity solution.
  • Can this really be a good biometric? First, I would wonder what the differences were say, between twins or triplets? Do their skins reflect the same (e.g., could one twin use the other twins gun)? Likewise for genetic offspring - to what degree are, say, 12 children of the same parents going to have vastly different signatures? Perhaps they do.

    It also strikes me odd that they say it would be very difficult to foil. If the device is merely monitoring the response to a flash of light, one would think it would be fairly easy to create a *fuzz buster* (as it were) that sends out a false signal. Or even a *gummy bear* that just absorbs correctly.

    Also, if a *living* person is required (e.g., it senses blood flow or something like that) than on would wonder how hard it would be to add a filter over your own skin that would change your index to that of someone else. Or how about injecting your skin with a material that changes your index.... or merely soaking your skin in water until it prunes (does that affect things?).

    I can't imagine that this is at all foolproof. And I can cetainly bet that if crimes are committed using a gun that utilizes this technology, sooner or later someone will be framed by faking the technology out.

  • I like the idea of a non-invasive identifier. (Sandmen's weapons in 'Logan's Run' where keyed to the user alone)
  • ...how it would handle people with psoriasis (or similar skin conditions)....

    Maybe they just have to 'change' their password more often ;-)

  • ... on preventing phone theft? I wouldn't pay an extra $50 for a phone with a system making it a bit less attractive to steal, when I can have a phone without such a system for $5. On gun control it might be a good idea, although the bad guys would bypass the system somehow, and any weapon owner with half his brain intact has a lockable cabinet for his gun(s).

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close