Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Science

Northwest Airlines Wants Eye-Scan Check-in 174

Posted by timothy from the because-terrorists-don't-have-eyes dept.
Headius writes: "According to the Associated Press, Northwest Airlines is testing out a check-in system that uses eye scans to identify customers, and provide a faster way to check in. The article is here locally, and probably making its way to other news sites as well." Bruce Schneier posted a while ago this neat summary of some of the limitations of biometrics, worth re-reading. One question I have, how long will you eyes stay on record?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Northwest Airlines Wants Eye-Scan Check-in More

Northwest Airlines Wants Eye-Scan Check-in

Comments Filter:

  • And this would prove what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @08:53AM (#3748846) Homepage Journal
    All it would do is be more invasive into our lives..

    Wont prevent a damned thing, unless your ticket is stolen..

    Ya know, most HIjackers do buy their tickets, and show proper ID at the gate..
  • How would they get your retina on file? Hrmm, prolly let you show your drivers license and then scan your eye, and this would somehow stop a terriorist that had a fake Driver's license?

    Some higher-up saw minority report and said to himself "Oh cool, retina scans look like a good idea...."
    • Possibly very useful, but the eye is a pretty sensitive organ, and does not regenerate when damaged. I don't know about you, but I won't be the first in line to have my retina scanned by any device, and any officious security guard who tries to force me had better be prepared for a fight.

  • I assume... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @08:57AM (#3748855) Homepage Journal
    I assume they scan your eyes first time, and it stays in their database forever. It'd be rather useless if they scanned you, then got rid of the record, since the point is to let trusted passengers go through.

    Seems to me the major problem is that a terrorist need only establish themself as "trusted" - fly on a few flights without problems, be nice and courteous and look non-suspicious. Once you're trusted you've got essentially free range - just walk through with only an eye scan.

    Boom.

    • Re:I assume... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mangu ( 126918 )
      a terrorist need only establish themself as "trusted" - fly on a few flights without problems

      Or, else, crack the retina database. Computers never lie, right?

    • Re:I assume... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by foo_48120 ( 156977 )
      I encourage people to write to their website in protest. This will only make it more expensive to travel and not add any security at all. Mineta won't allo the pilots, mostly former military, to have real guns.

      Personally I would pass out Glocks at the door to anyone willing to take one. Just like folks are asked aboout sitting in the emergency exits.

      An armed air society is a polite one.

      Here are my comments to then:

      I am writing in response to an AP article tha NWA wishes to use biometrics on passengers.

      As an IT professional and a privacy advocate, I am strongly opposed to plans to implement human biometrices for passenger check ins.

      In fact if NWA goes ahead with its plans to use biometrics I will do anything and everything possible to not patronize NWA personally or through any of the companies that I control or participate in.

      This is a patently silly idea. It offeres no security advantage whatsoever. Why doesn't NWA work on securing the 802.11b wireless networks in use to ensure that passenger bags match the passenger manifests? Such networks are known to be susceptible to hacking and can be an entry point into the system to tamper with passenger and baggage records.

      There is no need for additional id requirements over and above the current requirements for a government issued photo id.

      If the biometrics kept on the card, then the cards themselves are subject to tamper. If the biometrics are kept online then we have a whole new world of private company privacy invasion. Moreover it would still be possible to tamper with and evade such a system.

      Even proposed facial recognition systems applied to a large population will yield a substantial amount of false positives.

      Since these terrorists are adept at manipulating systems and people, it is unlikely that the next group will be in anyones database.

      How many grey haired grannies and grandpas are we willing to subject to close body searches in the name of political correctness?

      In the end, biometrices add zero security at great cost to personal privacy and muliple millions in excessive costs passed on to consumers.

      Anyone believing in biometrics would do well to refer to the writings of Douglas Adams who posited that once we had all been poked and prodded enough for DNA samples and the like we would put all that information into a universal identity card which of course makes it incredibly easy to steal someone else's identity.

      Snce you guys want to be Big Brother you can look up my Frequent Flyer number yourself.

      David Sussman
      dsussman@earthlink.net

      # Northwest Wants Eye-Scan Check-Ins Airline Seeks Approval For Test

      1024869783
      VTS
      Email This Story
      Print This Story
      (AP) (EAGAN, Minn.) Jun 20, 2002 1:11 pm US/Central
      Northwest Airlines wants to test a check-in system that uses cards with encrypted eye scans.

      Northwest and other major carriers plan to ask the Transportation Security Administration next month for permission to test the system.

      A company official said Northwest hopes that the system will give its frequent flyers a faster way to get through security.

      If it is approved, Northwest will use its employees to start the pilot program by this fall at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

      If the pilot program succeeds, Northwest would expand it to customers and implement it at other hubs in Detroit and Memphis, then elsewhere.

      Privacy advocates have raised warnings about identity card systems, saying that the government would need to safeguard personal data and maintaining that existing technologies are not foolproof.

      (© 2002 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
      • Since these terrorists are adept at manipulating systems and people, it is unlikely that the next group will be in anyones database.

        They'd probably be in the database, filed under "harmless passenger of good character, don't bother unduely".
    • thats the scary thing about this. most times when we think of biometrics like this - we know we dont like it... but we cant pin down exactly what we think is wrong with it - and what about it makes us all squirmy.

      It's the *metrics* part of the bio-metrics. The measurment of behavior that we do not like.

      In order to establish yourself as trusted - you must do exactly as you stated. Travel on several flights "without problems" which means that every passenger that gets on the plane is having their behaviour monitored.

      This is what gets us into really scary times in the dark future - when you have a record of your "behavioural transactions" eg:

      "As you can see, we have had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson. It seems as though you are living two livessss. In one you are a respected computer programer - in the other you are a hedonist who enjoys going to the male strip clubs and porn shops."

      You ghet the idea. So - how do we say no to this? Not buy northwest tickets , thats for sure... but what if all airlines adopt this tech - that means that we will be *forced* to participate in the "metrics of our biology"...

      The lamers will say "well if you dont like it then dont fly" - that is BS....

      /rant
    • I assume they scan your eyes first time, and it stays in their database forever. It'd be rather useless if they scanned you, then got rid of the record, since the point is to let trusted passengers go through.

      The point is to stop people who are known to NOT be trusted. Retinal scans are as accurate as finger print scans for the same reasons. The problem is that contacts can do to this what edible fake fingertips did for figerprint scans.

      While the upside is dubious the downside is certian. Retinal scans enable accurate automated tracking of individuals anywhere cameras are.

  • movie magic (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @08:58AM (#3748856) Journal
    It almost sounds like they went to see Minority Report, (which opened this week) and were so sold on the system seen there that they decided on going with the system over beers at the Friday Night get-together.

    See? it's the wave of the future! It's even in the movies

  • The questions that I always had. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thesolo ( 131008 ) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:01AM (#3748864) Homepage
    The questions I always had about retinal scans is what happens in the situation of someone who has a glass eye?

    Do the scans ignore it, or do they try to recognize it as a real eye? If so, does it pass or fail the system?? I imagine it would fail, since there is no retina to scan.

    And what happens when they change their glass eye to a new one, that might be slightly different looking; would they no longer be recognized as the same person?

    If anyone knows, please respond, I'm curious!
    • Depending on the scanner, scanning a manufactured eye might produce nothing or might produce something based on the eye material and manufacturing method -- although the different optical properties might also make the scanner see reflections (of itself or of its scan beam).

      Of course, that's when we think about a generic "glass" eye. People will try to make an "eye" which appears normal to a scanner, and will make whatever retinal pattern is desired. Non-criminals might want one of these eyes to replace a normal "glass" eye so they can pass a scan and can travel just as any other scannable passenger can.

      But is attempting to make a scannable eye an attempt to bypass a protective device, and therefore now illegal? For that matter, maybe this whole discussion is illegal.

  • Seeing is Believing (Score:5, Funny)

    by donnacha ( 161610 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:02AM (#3748868) Homepage


    Obviously, eye-scans will help to identify one-eyed, ex-Taleban Head of State and Bin Laden buddy Mullah Mohammed Omar [bbc.co.uk], and prevent him boarding Northwest Airlines flights.

  • Will it work? The experts argue that it won't. But that doesn't matter, the lawmakers and public think it is a perfect solution.

    My question is what about people with a legitamate reason to hide (ie witness protection).

    • Re:Will it work? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sc00ter ( 99550 )
      People in witness protection have totally new identities. New SSN#'s, names, addresses. If they were to get scanned then they would be entered into the database as their new identity. Besides, the witness protection program kind frowns on people in the program traveling to much.

    • Re:Will it work? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mark_lybarger ( 199098 )
      it might work to make some people feel safer in their own country, but really this whole airline security thing is getting out of control. there's a couple of really easy solutions that will not interfer with my rights to privacy:

      1. put armed soldiers on every flight. you want to secure the air traffic, soldiers will get the job done.

      2. here's a wacky one... let passengers carry guns on the planes. guns, knives, whatever. who's going to try to overtake the controls of a plane when there is a good possibility that others on the plane have guns and will use them against you. you can take firearms on a grayhound bus, or an amtrack train, why not the airlines?

      3. remove access from the cockpit to the cabin. why does the pilot need to get into the back of hte plane, and conversly, why do passengers (or coffee deliverers) need direct access to the controls?

      this whole national id system, retina scans, etc, etc in the wake of 9/11 is really really getting out of control. i think what we need to do is to take one step back in order to get 4 steps ahead.

      • Re:Will it work? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nuggz ( 69912 )
        Weapons on a plane are dangerous, you have thousands of lbs of fuel all over the place, control wires and computers all over and a pressure sealed cabin. An errant bullet could be catastropic. Soldiers aren't a magical toy that makes everything bad go away.
        Any fight in a confined area becomes very lethal very fast. Currently if there is a distirbance without weapons, other passengers may subdue the offender, bumps bruises, no deaths.
        With weapons, you will get serious injuries or deaths from the same incident.
        On a longer flights (10+ hours) you want the pilots not to eat, drink or go to the bathroom? This just isn't practical.
        • On a longer flights (10+ hours) you want the pilots not to eat, drink or go to the bathroom? This just isn't practical.

          Why not have enough drinks and food in cabine allready?
        • People who carry weapons on planes (sky marshals and whatnot) have subsonic ammunition designed not to penetrate the aircraft skin. It's really a non issue - the worst thing that would happen would be for some passengers to get hit in the crossfire, but the sky marshals are trained in marksmanship and situations like that.

      • 1. put armed soldiers on every flight. you want to secure the air traffic, soldiers will get the job done.


        of all your ideas, this is the least stupid... but despite all the movies you may have seen, bullets fired from guns in planes do generally breach the plane's hull. Now, you might kill the terrorist, but it kinda defeats the purpose if a bullet ruptures the fuel tanks.


        2. here's a wacky one... let passengers carry guns on the planes. guns, knives, whatever. who's going to try to overtake the controls of a plane when there is a good possibility that others on the plane have guns and will use them against you. you can take firearms on a grayhound bus, or an amtrack train, why not the airlines?

        You got one bit right - wacky. 'Fess up... you're trolling, right?

        I mean, c'mon, how often have you heard about the passenger whose had just that little bit too much to drink, and decided to get into a big fight with the poor bastard sitting beside him?

        Now, add firearms, knives, etc to the fray.

        "In other news today, a Boeing 747 has crashed in the Pacific Ocean after a drunken passenger went crazy with a firearm. The FCC released the last recording from the captain of the plane: "SOS! That damn REM guitarist [bbc.co.uk] has got a gun this time!"

        3. remove access from the cockpit to the cabin. why does the pilot need to get into the back of hte plane, and conversly, why do passengers (or coffee deliverers) need direct access to the controls?


        well, after one long haul flight, bags not being the poor bastard having to fly in that cesspit!

        I don't think any terrorist will try using planes as a weapon again for a long time. The greater risk now is loonies going for copycats (that kid in Florida, for eg)

        -- james
        • 1. put armed soldiers on every flight. you want to secure the air traffic, soldiers will get the job done.

          Interesting, but the military is not as well suited for this as it might seem at first glance. Soldiers are not security guards, nor are they policemen -- their training and mentality is completely different.

          Also, why make it easy for the terrorists to identify the people who will resist them for control of the aircraft? (see below)

          of all your ideas, this is the least stupid... but despite all the movies you may have seen, bullets fired from guns in planes do generally breach the plane's hull. Now, you might kill the terrorist, but it kinda defeats the purpose if a bullet ruptures the fuel tanks.

          A bullet piercing a fuel tank wouldn't bring down the plane. The tanks are filled with jet fuel, not gasoline. Jet fuel is more like kerosene -- burns well if vaporized, but does not explode as easily as it appears to in movies. Bullet hole in fuel tank == slow fuel leak.

          Also, bullet hole in aircraft hull == slow air leak, not sudden decompression.

          2. here's a wacky one... let passengers carry guns on the planes. guns, knives, whatever. who's going to try to overtake the controls of a plane when there is a good possibility that others on the plane have guns and will use them against you. you can take firearms on a grayhound bus, or an amtrack train, why not the airlines?

          You got one bit right - wacky. 'Fess up... you're trolling, right?

          I mean, c'mon, how often have you heard about the passenger whose had just that little bit too much to drink, and decided to get into a big fight with the poor bastard sitting beside him?

          Now, add firearms, knives, etc to the fray.

          Sounds like the dire predictions of "blood in the streets" in various states before the passage of concealed carry laws. Needless to say, the predicted shootouts and insane violence did not come to pass in any of those places.

          Based on observed history over the last several decades, people who have permits to carry concealed weapons are just about the safest people to travel with.

          If we were to allow concealed-carry permit holders to travel with their weapons, the terrorists will have no way of knowing who's armed on a given flight.

          Not really so wacky.

          • A bullet piercing a fuel tank wouldn't bring down the plane. The tanks are filled with jet fuel, not gasoline. Jet fuel is more like kerosene -- burns well if vaporized, but does not explode as easily as it appears to in movies. Bullet hole in fuel tank == slow fuel leak.


            Also, bullet hole in aircraft hull == slow air leak, not sudden decompression.


            bullet hole through window? bullet hole through old half-dead panel on a 10 year old plane filled with stress fractures?

            And maybe the fuel isn't as explosive as in the movies, but all you need is the right mixture [ntsb.gov] and a spark would be catastrophic.

            Sounds like the dire predictions of "blood in the streets" in various states before the passage of concealed carry laws. Needless to say, the predicted shootouts and insane violence did not come to pass in any of those places.


            Based on observed history over the last several decades, people who have permits to carry concealed weapons are just about the safest people to travel with.

            If we were to allow concealed-carry permit holders to travel with their weapons, the terrorists will have no way of knowing who's armed on a given flight.

            Not really so wacky.


            Yes, wacky. People stuck in confined space - absolutely no way of getting out. Add alcohol, strangers (who people may or may not get along with), etc.

            Air rage returns about 500 000 hits [google.com] on google. Imagine adding firearms to that. The consequences would be disastrous.

            I'm sorry, the bigger the weapons the greater the risk. It's much, much more sensible preventing anybody from carrying weapons than letting everyone on a confined space with that many people. Imagine if every shoot out that turned bad in a city street in the US instantly resulted in 400 people dying? That's what you're proposing. In case you hadn't realised after S11, every one of those B747s etc is a big bomb with wings.

            It's madness. Sheer madness.

            -- james

          • Re:Will it work? (Score:2, Insightful)

            by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 )
            If we were to allow concealed-carry permit holders to travel with their weapons, the terrorists will have no way of knowing who's armed on a given flight.

            How many people routinely carry their weapons? 2% of the population? On a hundred person flight, you will then assume 2 people.
            The terrorist group just has to load up one particular flight with 4 or 5 armed hijackers. It them becomes a 5-2 fight. Looks like good odds for the bad guys. Add to that the advantages of time selection and choice of location. Then have 2 of the group hold back, until the civilian CCW's identify themselves, and pop...no more threat from the passengers.

            Allow firearms among the passengers, and the terrorists will bring them as well. And they WILL have the advantage.
          • You really don't get it. The terrorists are out to create terror, they just want to HURT you. I do not see how allowing certain passengers to bring in guns helps. Even if all the terrorists are disabled/killed during a firefight, the fact that there was a firefight means the terrorists won.

            The terrorists just want to HURT you, and many are GLAD to die in the process.

            Furthermore a determined terrorist can always get a gun permit - bribe/coerce/trick the right people or steal/hack the right devices and you should be able to do it. Unless you are a small police state, there are limits to centralisation of authority. With a state as large as the USA, one has to delegate and distribute authority unless you want to suffer bottlenecks everywhere (in which case the terrorists win too).

            Making things more secure helps, but security has its costs, so if the terrorists can recruit and train enough suicidal people you will lose.

            You must also somehow reduce the number of people willing to kill themselves to hurt you.

            Cheerio,
            Link.
        • Now, you might kill the terrorist, but it kinda defeats the purpose if a bullet ruptures the fuel tanks.

          WW II fighters had self-sealing fuel tanks. I don't know exactly how it worked, but do modern airliners not have similar protection? I'm just curious.
  • No thank you, no beams in my eyes thankyouverymuch.

    Since I'd end up using a different airline if I had to do this, I'd donate my 74K frequent flyer files to the Make a Wish Foundation and choose a less invasive airline. I hear American aIrlines is requiring sphincter prints...

  • A progression? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:17AM (#3748901)
    I mean, if airlines wan't increased security of any sort.. people tend to agree, or at least not too strongly disagree, after all, we need our airplanes to be safe, right? Oh wait, yeah, except for the terrible incidents on Sept. 11th, THEY ARE. And it's not likely something of that nature could happen again.
    Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts...
    They just used fear.

    My problem is this: Flying is a needed method of travel. You can't very well avoid it if you have to travel. So, let's see.. I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?

    It doesn't add up. If things like this keep happening, eventually it will be on trains, city busses, and tollbooths on our highways.

    WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.
    • So that's why that fucker tried to, uh, "not" blow up his shoes?

      Realize that if you have nothing to hide, there is no problem. The government isn't going to sell your eyescans to say, doubleclick or something.

      You people can be so paranoid.
    • If pay for the tickets with a credit card or check they know who you are.
      You check in when you get to the airport, they ask for your license, they now know who you are.
      You board the plane using a ticket with your name on it, they now know who you are.

      There are plenty of ways already that they know who you are on that plane. Same goes for trains. You know why they do this? One for safety, to check to make sure somebody that shouldn't be on the plane isn't. The other is in case the plane crashes or blows up they have a record of who was on the plane so they can make sure you're safe/dead, and make sure your next of kin gets money to compensate for your death. Also, to make sure you get any frequent flyer points coming to you.

      • If pay for the tickets with a credit card or check they know who you are.

        Unless someone buys it for you.

        You check in when you get to the airport, they ask for your license, they now know who you are.

        Unless it's a fake license.

        You board the plane using a ticket with your name on it, they now know who you are.

        Unless it's not your name on the ticket but it matches up with your fake license.

        Come on. All your other points about why it's good that they know who you are as a passenger are valid, but your arguements to how they will know for sure who you are are kind of lame. :)
        • Unless someone buys it for you.

          I'll give you your other points about fake IDs, but someone else CANT buy tickets for you. The ticket needs to be purchased by you or an immediate family member. The card, also, needs to be presented at check-in time.

          My folks, on their yearly vacation this year, went to check in, but mom had purchased the tickets 9 months before on her CC. The bank had since been bought, and new cards were issued. Her and my dad got taken aside to a secure room, and all their stuff searched.

    • Re:A progression? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:31AM (#3748936) Homepage Journal
      WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.

      So we should let anyone on the CIA watchlist into the country, as long as they aren't carrying weapons? I think I'd rather know that we at least know who's flying around in planes.

      I mean, if airlines wan't increased security of any sort.. people tend to agree, or at least not too strongly disagree, after all, we need our airplanes to be safe, right? Oh wait, yeah, except for the terrible incidents on Sept. 11th, THEY ARE. And it's not likely something of that nature could happen again. Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts... They just used fear.

      Exactly. Five people aren't going to be able to hijack a plane with boxcutters anymore - the passengers will mob them. Before Sept 11, the flight crew was trained to do what they said and get the plane on the ground. That's why Sept 11 happened - we really didn't expect a suicide bombing with airplanes. Now we know better, and it won't happen again.

      We'd be much better off making OTHER stuff more secure - like our ports. How long until a container ship comes in carrying a nuclear weapon? How long until someone lets off smallpox in the US? :-/
      • Who said anything about permitting people to enter the country?
        I'm talking about the right to fly on an airplane, not the right to enter the US.

        Whether or not Joe can enter the country is for Customs & Immigration to sort out.

        On that note.. teh US is one of the only countries in the world that performs customs & immigration checks on people who are only getting connecting flights. Of course, all you americans probably think that's normal.

        • There's a "right" to fly on airplanes? Nope... Anyways, I don't want fugitive murderers sitting next to me on planes, regardless of whether they have a weapon or not. You give up a tiny bit of privacy (big deal - so an airline knows your name) for a whole lot more security.

          As for customs and immigration - so?
        • Whether or not Joe can enter the country is for Customs & Immigration to sort out.

          True, but airlines are fined if they do bring someone into the US that isn't eligible for entry. That's why airlines are so interested in your visas and whatnot if you are flying to the US.

          teh US is one of the only countries in the world that performs customs & immigration checks on people who are only getting connecting flights.

          That depends on which airline you use and which airport you are connecting at. If the airport has a secure transit lounge, then you don't have to talk to any inspectors. Unbelievers may read the DoJ report on "Transit without Visa." [usdoj.gov] It's true that secure transit lounges could be more widespread in the US, but let's try to keep the misinformation to a minimum.


          Herbie J.
          FUD Fighter

      • what if you had a system that tracked the Identity of people without tracking their location/destination *unless* a flag was raised.

        Basically retinal biometric eye-scanning would be done - a persons ID would be verified and that would be all - but the system would be designed to only ID the person but NOT to correlate the flight/airline/airport/seat/dest etc unless it hit a name that was flagged in the DB.

        The only other problem with a system like this is:

        in my case - I am being sued by my ex-housekeeper who claims that I owe them money from two years ago. but they never attempted to tell me that i owed them money until two years later. I will not pay them - as I *know* they are jsut trying to extort it out of me through small claims court.
        So i dont pay them - now i havea warrant for the fact that I will not pay this. If I go to the airport to fly home for christmas - will it flag me as someone with a warrant and have me stopped and arrested in the airport for something like this - or traffic tickets?

      • Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts...
        They just used fear.

        Actually, they did get training in martial arts. Their job wasn't quite as easy as it sounds. They had to lure the pilot out of the cock pit, and then "take care of him," all while keeping the passengers in check.
    • Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts...They just used fear.

      You're right, but they also counted on being able to control the aircraft -- and because we were all taught to be submissive in a hijacking situation, it worked.

      I don't think that will work again.

      [deletia]

      WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane.

      I agree 100%. I don't see any justification for intruding on people's privacy in this situation -- it will not help solve the problem. Surveilling all us non-criminals just because we can is like looking for your car keys under the streetlight because it's easier to search there than back between the lights where you dropped them.

      Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.

      Ummm...bombs aside, I think it's more important to ensure that, no matter what you're carrying, you'll face enough resistance (preferably armed resistance) to prevent you from controlling the situation.

      • Wow, this is the best analogy I've heard yet:

        Surveilling all us non-criminals just because we can is like looking for your car keys under the streetlight because it's easier to search there than back between the lights where you dropped them.

        Perfect, exactly right. And a good soundbyte. Did you come up with that one? Its really good, I'm going to remember it and use it.

        -Zipwow

    • I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?

      It's a good argument, but it has nothing to do with this retinal scan system. That is just an optional replacement to checking IDs.

      WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.

      Each has its own usefulness. On Sept. 11th, the terrorists weren't carrying weapons or bombs, as defined at the time. Many of them were, however, on FBI watch lists. I doubt any of them were trusted frequent flyers. When you fly you put innocent people who aren't even on the flight at risk. As such there needs to be some government regulation. Random checks are much less effective than targetted checks.

    • 'Increased security' is a red herring. The airlines have been pushing towards better passenger identification for years, for one reason: they HATE people reselling tickets! They want everyone that flies to have to buy tickets directly from them so they can jack up the prices. Otherwise they'll have speculators buying large numbers of tickets at the cheapest rates and reselling them later below the airline's current price.

      This terrorist garbage is just the excuse they needed to push through their dream system. Who cares if the biometrics are only 99% accurate? It may do nothing to stop terrorists, but it'll sure kill those pesky resale markets for good!

  • How is this going to speed up security? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:20AM (#3748909)
    it says a faster way for it's frequent flyers to get through security.

    Last time I flew on an airline...
    I a) Walked to the security gate (X-ray machine, metal detector, etcetera). I put my carryon bags in the machine, walked through the detector, which beeped. A girl waved a wand around to verify that it was my belt buckle that set off the detector, I grabbed my bags, and went on my way.

    How, exactly, is having me do an eye scan going to speed up my going through security? They can't be permitting anyone into the secure area without going through this process.. can they? If they are, that makes security WORSE, not better. But there's now ay they are doing that..

    So how is this going to make it 'more secure'.. given that you shouldn't have to identify yourslef to fly anyway?
    • I put my carryon bags in the machine, walked through the detector, which beeped. A girl waved a wand around to verify that it was my belt buckle that set off the detector, I grabbed my bags, and went on my way.
      Are you sure she didn't use a stud finder???
  • The weight on the chair must be within a ten pound range of the last time someone logged in with that ID. Thus, the majority of local cracks during office hours are reduced to people in your weight class. Sure you could put a book on your lap, but the point is removing inconspicuity.
  • doing an iris scan isn't faster than showing your passport. you still need to check in your bagage. you still must x-ray everything you take on-board.

    if northwest wants to provide faster checkin, open more checkin counters !

    loz

  • No problem (Score:3, Funny)

    by Greenrider ( 451799 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:48AM (#3748975)
    Terrorists will just hire someone to swap out their eyes for them. They just have to keep the bandages on for 12 hours afterwards, or they'll go blind.

    Automated system: "Welcome onboard and have a safe flight, Mr. Yakimoto!"
  • One question I have, how long will you eyes stay on record?

    Hopefully for as long as they are still your eyes. Or, would you rather go to the DEM (Department of Eye Measurements) once yearly with 50 pieces of paperwork to get your eyes scanned and your record validated?
  • Watch Demolition Man.

    Unless you like the idea of having your eye on a pencil, this is a *bad idea*.

    • Actually, you should read up on some of the details of the technology. The people who make these scanners have seen Demolition Man too.

      The iris scanner (not retina, last I heard retina scanning required something to come in *contact* with your eye) I read about several years ago checked for the telltale signs of a heartbeat in your eye. Apparently the blood vessels and the whole eye expands and contracts slightly with each beat. It also checked that the eye was 3-dimensional (and not a video or picture). It sounded pretty good, at least above the level of most street muggers.

      Zipwow
      • I've tested the Iriscan technology.

        In the versions I tested the recognition is quick. Since the time between heart beats is significant compared to that time, I doubt they check for iris movement.

        In my opinion what would make it hard for people to rip your eye out and use it would be the eye would deterioriate rapidly also the pupil will likely dilate fully, making it hard for the iris to even be seen.

        Cheerio,
        Link.
    • You know we're all in trouble when people are using Stalone movies as points of argument in a political debate. Didn't you see rambo? Rambo is on the Taliban's side in that movie. So that proves they're the good guys.
  • With fingerprints, at least you get 9 more tries after the database gets hacked. With retina scanning, you only get one reset.

  • Really, I don't understand why people keep tearing down the strawman of stopping terrorists. Has Northwest ever even claimed that this has anything to do with terrorism? Or is it just that the stupid dept. line mentioned it?

    For a bunch of technophiles we sure are afraid of new technologies... Timothy's link to the limitations didn't even mention eye-scans. In fact, it specifically said that "[biometrics] are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier." Guess what, that's what we have here.

    • For a bunch of technophiles we sure are afraid of new technologies...

      These technologies are dangerous to us whether they work or they fail.

      We are afraid of being attacked by uniformed thugs at airports and soon, bus stations and shopping malls because the biometric system came up with yet another false positive. Like to be mistaken for bin Laden and have your shopping trip be interrupted by a SWAT team?

      We are concerned about our privacy being invaded (ever been stalked?) for personal or political reasons. America is now a land where the government can take anyone, declare that person a "terrorist", and detain that person indefinitely without a trial or even an attorney. [washingtonpost.com] Should we want that government to know where we are at all times?

      We are concerned because we know that this stuff is NOT ready for prime time but is being sold to PHB types who can easily be scammed and to journalists who don't have the tech skills or knowledge to be know when they're being snowed as a "solution" to protect us from terrorists and criminals. The biometrics companies aren't doing this out of interest in public safety, they are doing this in hopes of an IPO and a quick cash-out..

      Which category do you fall into? PHB? Tech-illiterate journalist? Or are you a shill for a biometrics company?

      Easy ways to defeat biometrics [heise.de]

      Face/iris scanner failures [wired.com].

      • We are afraid of being attacked by uniformed thugs at airports and soon, bus stations and shopping malls because the biometric system came up with yet another false positive.

        That's called paranoia.

        We are concerned about our privacy being invaded (ever been stalked?) for personal or political reasons.

        What does this have to do with this? It's voluntary, first of all. But more importantly, if the government wants to stalk you, how does this help? If there's an entire organization out there to secretly track you, why would they obtain your retinal scans in an open manner with your permission. It doesn't make any sense.

        America is now a land where the government can take anyone, declare that person a "terrorist", and detain that person indefinitely without a trial or even an attorney.

        Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

        Should we want that government to know where we are at all times?

        This has absolutely nothing to do with the government knowing where we are at all times. You already have to prove your identity when you fly on a plane.

        We are concerned because we know that this stuff is NOT ready for prime time but is being sold to PHB types who can easily be scammed and to journalists who don't have the tech skills or knowledge to be know when they're being snowed as a "solution" to protect us from terrorists and criminals.

        This is a trial run. It's not ready for prime time precisely because it hasn't been tested in a real world scenario. Further, what does this have to do with protecting us from terrorists? Are you saying retinal scans are easier to defeat than licenses?

        Which category do you fall into? PHB? Tech-illiterate journalist? Or are you a shill for a biometrics company?

        You figured me out. I fall into all three categories. Now let me guess your category. Little green men talk to you, don't they?

        • No, you fall into another category. The technical term for it is tard. Other words for what you are... moron, imbecile, and other things you are doubtless accustomed to hearing yelled at you on a daily basis.

          While I would ordinarily tell you to pull your head out of your ass, I don't think you would profit from actually being aware of your surroundings and you probably have more entertainment value as you are.

          Where is the word "retinal" used in the article?

          Where did you get the idea that biometric technology is reliable, accurate, or secure?

          Where did you get the idea that being falsely identified as a criminal or as a terrorist was safe for the innocent victim?

          If you're content to have what passes for your thinking done for you by the mass media, that is necessarily your problem. However, I really don't think you have any business in an adult public policy discussion, whether or not it involves technology.

          Perhaps if you ever learn abstract concepts like getting your facts straight before exposing your idiocy in public, you might be able to contribute.

          • Where is the word "retinal" used in the article?

            My bad.

            Where did you get the idea that biometric technology is reliable, accurate, or secure?

            That's why they want to test it... To prove that it is reliable, accurate, and secure.

            Where did you get the idea that being falsely identified as a criminal or as a terrorist was safe for the innocent victim?

            That's not what this system is designed to do. It's designed to verify the identity of frequent flyers. The worst that can happen to a law-abiding citizen who uses this is that the system is unable to positively identify them and they have to show their identity in some other way.

            If you're content to have what passes for your thinking done for you by the mass media, that is necessarily your problem.

            Oh yeah, I'd much rather have you and Timothy do my thinking for me. I think for myself.

            So fuck off.

            • That's why they want to test it... To prove that it is reliable, accurate, and secure.

              The opposite has already been proven, and the hard evidence is available to anyone who can work a search engine. Admittedly, this is something that it's unfair to expect a PHB or you to do.

              This stuff just isn't ready for its intended use yet. I think the problems are solvable and we'll begin to see workable solutions in a few years. It would be seriously cool to stick my eye up to a scanner and to have my access to a secured network or physical area enabled.

              Oh yeah, I'd much rather have you and Timothy do my thinking for me. I think for myself.

              Perhaps you are better off having the mass media do your thinking for you at that. You really seem woefully ill-equipped to think for yourself.

              So fuck off.

              Temper, temper. This is as much time as I really want to put in on your education... ok, on my using you as a chew toy at this point. Have fun, I'm sure you'll demonstrate your ignorance again in a sufficiently public way to provide me and hopefully, the rest of the slashdot crowd with more entertainment at your expense.

              So I'm going to take the advice in my sig file...

              • The opposite has already been proven, and the hard evidence is available to anyone who can work a search engine.

                That's simply not true. In a well controlled environment, when used along with a some form of identification swipe-card, this technology is much faster and more accurate than the alternative of checking a photo ID card.

  • I'm all for making the airlines safe, but I'll be damned if I have to have them shoot a laser at my eye to ride a plane. Do they really have enough long long term studies on this stuff to implement it? I don't want my vision to fail when I'm 60 or 80. Plus, what if the hardware fails.

    Yeah yeah, the article says it's an opt in system. But then the next terrorist wave hits and the knee jerks and it becomes law.
  • Sure, you pony up all this information.
    Now, if I'm interested in making myself famous, I'll just arrange for the system to have an outage when I want to get aboard for my terrorist stunt.
    Or will the inevitable hang-ups trigger an airport shutdown?
    All of the technology in the world just makes the bad guy work harder, at loss of convenience to the casual user.
    It buys no certain safety.
    But then, if you really want to spend some money on technology,
    you'll make the cost/benefit analysis say whatever it needs to...
  • After your biometric records become compromised (there will be ways, everyone can be sure of it!) how can you change your eyes?

    When a password is compromised, you can change it at will... You can even deactivate the user login and create a fresh and diferent one...

    With biometrics... you are doomed to keep or have your records linked... because you can't change biometrics!

    Cheers...
    • *ALL* biometrics authentication flaws boil down to one issue:

      They are re-usable passwords that can NEVER be changed.

      I could argue that in many implementations they are actually plaintext passwords, but that's not the point.

      Think about all the work we've done on authentication systems over the last 30 years.

      If PHBs didn't think biometrics were "cool", these ideas would have gone away a long time ago. They are flawed in so many ways.
  • According to heise.de [slashdot.org] this article [google.com] says it is not safe ! Mister Hijacker, welcome aboard....
  • ....Like in this one movie, they needed a guys fingerprints for the fingerprint scanner, so they just cut off his fingers.

    In my opinion this is an improvment, because if you're a spy you'll now be able to keep your hands intact.

    Seriously though,
    Anybody know if Lasik or Radial Keratonomy (sp?) surgery would cause any difficulties with these things?
  • That retinal scanning devices may cause blindness after prolonged use? Doesn't it occur to anyone that shooting lasers into a person's eyes is dangerous?

    I, for one, will refuse to use these devices. If I can't fly without using them, then I won't fly. It's that simple - my eyesight is worth too much to risk - something as simple as a software glitch could cause the laser to blind people at random, like what happened with the Therac 25 in the 1980's. Sorry folks, but lasers and eyes just don't go together, and anyone with common sense should see that.

    I wouldn't object so much if it was based on a passive scan - such as with a camera. But the laser thing scares me.

  • Retinal Scans... news??? (Score:2, Informative)

    by mo^ ( 150717 )
    bah!

    northwests partner airline in Europe KLM [klm.com] have had this for months
  • Okay, it's rather creepy to go see Minority Report and then within 24 hours see a posting about this sort of stuff. So how long before they call you up to tell you when you're flight is scheduled before you even know you want to go somewhere?

  • Does anyone know at what stage of the checkin process this retinal scanning will actually be used? The story didn't mention that at all, and I couldn't find the press release on Northwest's site. I find it hard to believe they would allow you into the secure area without going through the machines, which would mean that this doesn't affect security at all.

    I remember some time ago talk of using retinal scans for making it easier for people to get through customs, but that was to enter the country after they've already traveled.

    As for Northwest's checkin and security, they're one of the only airlines (if not the only) to allow you to print your own boarding pass at home off the web. (https://webx25.nwa.com/cki-bin/cki.pro?loadactiva tetrans [nwa.com])

    I love this feature and use it all the time--if I have no luggage to check, I can get all the way to the gate without talking to anyone from the airline. At first, I was amazed they continued doing this after the attacks, but then I realized I still have to show ID when I'm about to board anyway--it's no less secure than if I had checked-in the traditional way and shown my ID when getting my boarding pass.

    (The best part of this process I don't want many people to realize, but I'll share it with the rest of slashdot... since you are actually checking in, you can grab seats that are held until checkin time; if you do this as early as possible--30 hours in advance--you almost always get first choice of seats that are at the very front of coach.)

  • Contacts? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asvNO@SPAMivoss.com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @11:48AM (#3749283) Homepage Journal
    Do contact lenses interfere with this technology in any way?
  • You just need to stand near the camera. It does not work with artificial eyes, or contact lenses, because the designers of the method also test pupil dilation - Blade Runner like :-) John Daugman (now in Cambridge England then at Harvard) developed the efficient coding method. According to the legend, the James Bond film Never Say Never uses Iris Scans. Retinal Scans are way more intrusive. Neuroprosthesis News [neuroprosthesis.org]

  • So, if a hacker grabs the data points for the eyes, and starts making some custom contact lenses for a replay attack.. what do we do?

    If your credit card's stolen, you get a new one. What about your eyes?

    I guess they'll have to fall back to some other identification for all the people with stolen eyes. Thus making the system useless.

  • I've always had problems with biometrics. I am a diabetic, and have been for almost 20 years. One of the main complications of diabetes is retinopathy, ie. the clouding and overgrowth of the retina. So how do I explain to the security guards "Yes, that /was/ my retina two years ago, but I didn't take good enough care of myself." Or do I just get to get my metrics re-evaluated every couple of years?

  • New-fangled devices (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hendridm ( 302246 )
    I don't like the idea of new technologies wanting to beam things or point any kind of a laser at my eyes. What are the long term effects? Is my generation going to be known as "back when they used the old kind of laser that used to damage people's eyes". (like lead paint, asbestos, and silicon implants)

    I'm buying from a different airline...
  • "One question I have, how long will you eyes stay on record?"

    More importantly, ask how many suckers will be blinded when the airline slacks off on maintaining the scan units?
  • I don't know how frequently eye transplants occur, but it's a potential problem. Best bet would be combine this with fingerprinting or something similar. I don't think there's much to fuss about here - in ten or fifteen years they'll be talking about dna scanning anyway...
    • I don't know how frequently eye transplants occur,

      Never.

      Or rather, the retina (the bit the biometrics looks at) is never transplanted.
      What is replaced in an eye-transplant is the cornea, Part of the front of the eye that helps focussing.

  • Missing the point. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DiveX ( 322721 )
    Many people are suggesting that terrorists won't be caught simply because they may already be trusted (have used the airlines multiple times in the past w/o problems) or may have valid IDs. Obviously that isn't the point. The issue is the correlation of data between the scanners and databases of known suspects. If the agencies do not find a way to communicate and share information instead of hoarding it, then this system would be useless. Rarely are these kind of people completely unknown to authorities. How many of the 9/11 hijackers already under some watch list? If this system were to be universally set in place, then the system could conceivably bring up red flags when it identifies several people from the same organization or watch list boarding at the same time. Databases and archives may be able to help track collaborators, if not after the fact. Once you find the person involved, look for patters such as others with whom the suspect traveled.
    However it all seems to be a moot point when all the security in the world may make air travel more safe, it will to little if anything to stop terrorism. How hard would it be to find a woody area outside some airport, set up a few guys with normal, high powered hunting rifles or assault weapons and take out a landing aircraft. No one would hear it nor figure it out until days or weeks after it is too late. There is so much security at some events like the Super Bowl, but what about things such as the playoffs where just as many people are around and watch the event live. Maybe even a small plane flying into an airport would work as well. Ever sit on the tarmac for an hour with a dozen other planes waiting for take-off? I'm off on a tangent, and this will likely be moded accordingly, but the point is little can be done to really stop the competent, determined person or group. I'm all for this kind of system as it will provide additional tools to law enforcement. They can already track people using electronic ticket trails, it just takes more time. This just allows for more timely information at the critical times in which it is needed.
  • I few hours ago I wrote that this is probably IRIS SCAN technology. All you need is to stand near the video camera - plus a data base in the background (this is why they are thinking about frequent flyers). No artificial eyes, no special contact lenses would do. Even identical twins have very different irises. But there was a scene on Nash Bridges where the bad guys got around this technology - they held a gun to the back of the security guard, whose iris codes were already in the data base of the bank! - an unlikely method these days on an airport to fool the video camera/computer search system. Eye transplants may work some day, if they can properly reconnect the eyes to at least stay alive ... for a living iris it does not need to be functional, but the pupil needs to be able to "pulsate". Retinal scan is more _intrusive_ - probably this is why it's more interesting for the Spielberg like futuristic films.
  • Well thats what it is. What I didn't notice is any posters suggesting the obvious. Start writing letters. Start sending e-mails. Tell them you will never use their airline again if they start using it.
    You see the problem is, if one airline starts using it, and doesn't get boycotted out of the skies, others will follow suit. And after that, boom. We won't have a choice anymore, if we want to fly.
    The airlines are not government agencies. They do not have the right to require this type of information or scan of us. If the government started using this type of technology, there would most likely be MANY regulations put into place, limmiting how and where it could be used. More importantly they would probably not be allowed to share the information with anyone other than other government agencies.
    Now I'm paranoid of Big Brother getting to much nformation, and too much power. But like most slashdotters I'm more affraid of the folks with the real power getting to much power and info. The corporations that tend to run our governments.

  • ...for Americans right now seems to be a Sense of Security, no matter how ingenuine.

    This technology can (and will!) be circumvented by a group of motivated individuals. Someone will steal an eye or use a corneal implant or [fill in the blank], hijack the plane and terrorize America once again. Maybe the Air Marshal on the flight is a sleeper agent. An entire Board of Directors came to consensus on the eye scanner issue and their entire company has joined in the effort to make this a reality. Are they stupid? No.

    Do they really care about security? Only to the extent which it impacts their bottom line. Remember how much the airlines and the FAA cared about security on September 10th?

    Perhaps this technology will help soccer moms get over their fear of perishing alongside their precious spawn on an airliner hijacked by Jesus-hating Arabs--maybe long enough to make the industry profitable again--but it won't be too long before we learn anew the difference between Security and a false sense of security.

Slashdot Top Deals

If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.

Close