Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech

Iris Recognition To Take Off 229

Posted by timothy from the not-the-cute-iris-I-know dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like iris recognition is about to explode. Turns out, a major patent held by iris recognition leader Iridian is expiring, and that's leading a stampede of start-ups and VCs into this space."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iris Recognition To Take Off More

Iris Recognition To Take Off

Comments Filter:

  • You've gotta admit... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:27PM (#13023241) Homepage
    It's not often that you read about a company's patent expiring being likely to benefit it financially. Quite interesting.

    • Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It just proves that patents stifle creativity.
      • You neglect to recognize the fact that the technology would never have been developed without the patent. But that just spoils your rant doesn't it.

        • Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @09:43PM (#13024072) Journal
          You neglect to recognize the fact that the technology would never have been developed without the patent.

          That's a load of bull. If somebody needs an iris scanner, they will make one...with or without the damn patent. That's something that the IP drones won't ever admit....That something just might arise from necessity...not always exclusivity. It has been proven once again that IP law promotes speculation.
        • Check the history of the iris recognition!

          1936 ophthalmologist Frank Burch suggests iris-based identification

          We would have done it without patent or not.

          Anyway, just to correct some misleading posts:

          Pros for iris recognition:
          • FAR (false acceptance rate) is 10^-78 (earth population 10^10 at max)
          • For most of the work this guy [cam.ac.uk], John Daugman is responsible. He identified 400(!!!) different and measurable(!!!) parameters on the iris and gave the statistical error model for them.
          • The iris' patterns form i
          • Uh. This is not retina scanning. There's no contact with the iris scanner at all. How can infection spread?

            Depending on how expensive the equipment used you can be from 6 inches away from the scanner to 2 or 3 feet.

            This is possible becayuse all the scanner needs to do is take pictures of the iris which is visible outside of your eye.

            I have tested such equipment. It does work, but for important stuff you still need people around to make sure it's being used the way its supposed to be used. E.g. not some g

  • Patents and innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:29PM (#13023250)
    A patent exipry causing a boom in company startups and innovation - say it ain't so. Are there any legislators out there paying attention to stories like this?

    • Re:Patents and innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:42PM (#13023304)
      If patents lasted as long as copyright, we wouldn't be discussing this.
      • Why is it that a patent - on a physical invention that does wonderful things - is let to expire w/o companies collapsing

        while legislators feel copyrights - on say Mickey Mouse - should last forever otherwise nobody would create anymore? Personally I got bored of Mickey Mouse after seeing it for the 5000th time.
      • Sure we would. You would see numerous booming industries, such as heavier than air flying machines!
        Linky [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Patents and innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @07:06PM (#13023407) Homepage
      You don't know anything about the patent in question. How much did Iridian sink into developing it? How much have they made back from it? How much would they have made back if this flood of copycats came immediately after they announced their discovery?
      • You don't know anything about the patent in question. How much did Iridian sink into developing it? How much have they made back from it? How much would they have made back if this flood of copycats came immediately after they announced their discovery?

        IMO, companies should be reimbursed only for their costs by a properly instituted restitution system. Yes, we (the government) should all chip in to pay the cost out of our tax money. The important thing is that nobody should be refrained from using an idea
        • You are not clear on cause and effect here. If Xerox didn't expect to get the patents they did, the tech would never have been developed, implemented, and/or marketed. And yes, marketed. Often, that's the most expensive and difficult part.

          "Tear shedders" like you are simply nuts wanting a free ride on other's hard work. You probably are a heavy user of P2P networks to illegally copy copyrighted work and live in some pirate haven in Asia. Someday you'll actually have to learn how to create value -- lik
          • You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."

            Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)

            Regarding the Slashd
            • Thanks for briefly stating your opinion. Some questions/comments:

              1) Why is it ironic that the patent was issued on 9/11?

              2) Yes, Microsoft and Bill are convicted monopolists. Rather than dispute that (which I could) I will just say that he paid the fine.

              3) I support the US patent office and I give Bush a bad name? Huh?

              4) Automation of a manual process seems like a reasonable patent to me and the US patent office... Their patent also include preferred embodiments and boundaries. You included a prett

              • Re:Patents and innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

                by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamc@NOsPam.gmail.com> on Sunday July 10, 2005 @12:13AM (#13024717) Journal
                You're welcome and your civitility is appreciate. My answers/added comments are:

                1) Because it is unfair. And because it deals with "handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport."

                2) A monopolist (not evil in itself) convicted of unfair trade practises

                3) No, you support the USPTO granting unfair patents, and gave Bush a bad name by dragging his name into the conversation.

                4)
                4.1) Granting a patent on current and future embodiments of automating an existing manual process is ridiculous.

                4.2) Their first patent does not restrict itself and has absurdly limitless boundaries - it says their "invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims" - claims like claim 10 below, which are so broad as to cover all current and future embodiments:

                This is CLAIM 10:
                "10. The method of claim 1 in which comparing the obtained image with stored image information comprises deriving a set of descriptors of at least the iris portion of the obtained image and comparing the derived descriptors with stored reference descriptors derived from a previous image for identifying the person."
                This is CLAIM 1:
                "1. A method of identification of a person, comprising:
                storing image information of at least a portion of the iris and pupil of the person's eye;
                illuminating an eye, of an unidentified person having an iris and a pupil;
                obtaining at least one image of at least the same portion of the iris and pupil of the eye of the unidentified person; and
                comparing at least the iris portion of the obtained image with the stored image information to identify the unidentified person."

                4.3) I don't know which ellipsis you speak of
        • It is an artificial infringement on liberty and just plain stupid.

          No, it's a way to ensure that the first person to get a chance to profit from an invention is the inventor.

          Figure out a way to get "chance" into that automatic-restitution scheme of yours, and you'll have a workable replacement. But if a crappy invention and a great invention both get rewarded the same, well, then you've just re-invented communism.

          • Figure out a way to get "chance" into that automatic-restitution scheme of yours, and you'll have a workable replacement. But if a crappy invention and a great invention both get rewarded the same, well, then you've just re-invented communism.

            The restitution scheme should be adjusted to reflect the value of the invention to society. Value should be based on economic benefits, work done in developing the invention, use, etc... So, if you invent a shit simulator, you get nothing; but if you invent true AI,
            • The value should be computed (and retroactively applied, if necessary) by a formula that is refined as we gain more experience with the system so as to encourage creativity without stifling freedom.

              Interesting. It might work better if it was a larger economic model--i.e., applied to normal wages and not simply creative expression.

              But, really, the best thing if you want to aborgate the "make and hide" scheme of IP law is mandatory licensing -- a patent must be licensed by anyone who wishes it for a perce
            • Any inventor/writer/musician should be free to file a claim with the restitution bureau.

              So in your opinion the power that now rests with consumers and shareholders should instead rest with bureaucrats, assigned by the State to decide the fate of inventors based on "value to society"?

              In Communist East Germany, if you wanted a car, the only choice was the ridiculously inefficient and simple Trabant, because decisionmakers felt that the people did not need better cars. Initiating things like our home comput
    • Historicly, this was always the case. Someone would patent something, then be stuck sitting on it until it expired because noone was willing to go near it, knowing that the licensing fees would eat all profits. Then soon after it expired, there was an explosion of interest in the product.

      Nothing ever really changes.

      Now days, with agressive cross-licensing, the delay is mostly removed, but now all the profits goto lawyers instead of the inventors - which have no control over the things they invented thanks

    • Sounds like a perfect example of how our idea of "securing for limited times ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is utterly failing to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," which is the only justification for patent and copyright given in the Constitution.

  • Iris Recognition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jeet81 ( 613099 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:31PM (#13023260)
    I believe iris recognition takes some time to verfiy the identity of the person as the person has to stand close to a certain point and then the scanner would scan the eye. So this will take more time than pulling your card out and swipping it and walking through the doors. Therefore this tech will only be used in high security area and most of them I guess are already using it.

    • Re:Iris Recognition (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bishop ( 4500 )
      Iris scanning is very fast, and can be done from a distance of several meters. It is typically setup such that people can walk up to an iris scanner controled door and be identified without missing a step. Iris scanners are used in some airports to identify and admit crew to the departure area. Aircrew love the scanners.

  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:32PM (#13023262) Homepage
    I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes...

    Of course, I'll need some of this new technology to make sure they really are my own eyes.

  • Wait A Minute... (Score:5, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:32PM (#13023264)
    I thought SGI was going bankrupt [slashdot.org]. Don't tell me they're come out of bankruptcy with a new version of IRIS. Some companies just never learn how to die properly.

  • One question (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:32PM (#13023266)
    Just who is this "Iris" person anyway, and why is she so hard to recognize?

  • For those concerned about privacy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:35PM (#13023274) Homepage
    This points to the obvious "next big thing":

    Tinfoil Contact Lenses(TM)
    • Iris Scans, like any technology, can be used for both good and evil. I know because I am starting a business using iris scans in a way that will actually increase privacy of users. Perhaps someday you will even see our technology on Slashdot, birthplace of the tinfoil hat.

      Remember, when video cameras were first invented only banks and the like could afford them, leading to them being widely distrusted by privacy advocates. But then they got cheap and now they are used for good as well as amoral purposes. A

      • "Iris Scans, like any technology, can be used for both good and evil. I know because I am starting a business using iris scans in a way that will actually increase privacy of users."

        Good, then maybe you can answer a question for me: Will I lose access to work, my bank account and all my private papers when some kid who doesn't listen to his mother's advice puts my eye out with a snowball?

        I know I'm being a little glib, but it's a serious question....

      • Alex (if that's your real name) how much are you going to charge if a company like, say, Gator/Claria/MS, makes an offer you can't refuse for direct access to the iris scan data of each of your vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers? Even if you refuse to sell this, note that they could still get it through the lawsuit, bankruptcy, buyout trick, or even possibly eminent domain in some dark, not-so-distant future, since data can be considered property.

        Eventually, a person's iris scan data will be as ubiquitous and purchase

    • Reminds me of a joke... (Score:5, Funny)

      by MacDork ( 560499 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @08:16PM (#13023704) Journal
      This points to the obvious "next big thing":

      The "next big thing" eh? That reminds me of a joke =)

      An anatomy professor is quizzing his students one session when he calls on Suzy with question, "Suzy, what part of the body has the ability to expand to six times its normal size and under what conditions?" Suzy indignantly replies, "Professor! How dare you ask me such a thing, and in front of the entire class no less! I assure you my parents will be hearing about this incident, and you will no doubt have to answer to someone for it!" The professors tells her she may sit down and then asks Emily the same question. Emily replies "The iris. In the dark." The professor continues, "That is correct Emily, you may be seated. Suzy, your answer tells me three things. 1) You have not studied your lessons, 2) You have a dirty mind, and 3) You will be very disappointed one day."

      ;-)

    • Sorry. Eyeball recognition is right out. Besides, there are lots of problems with using it in practice that aren't that easy - databases still are never 100% correct, and once the Feds have put somebody with a similar name to yours on the Don't Fly List without a trial, and the airlines have put your eyeball print on the computer with your name and refused to put you on a flight because your name is similar to the guy on the list, your terrorist status is just going to propagate to anything that uses your
      • Why would your no fly status propagate to anything else? That is like saying that if your no fly status is associated with your name, then anyone you tell your name to will automatically find out that you are on the no fly list. You criticize the government for convicting without trial, but then you turn around and convict the companies running the service without a trial. Granted I'm not a huge fan of iris scans being used in this way, but I think that you hold a double standard which is inherently unfair.

  • Don't forget... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkByers ( 770551 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:38PM (#13023287) Homepage Journal
    1. You can change your password but you can't change your iris.

    2. If you are threatened with violence, you can tell the attacker your password, but would you want to give them your eye?

    • Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PWatson ( 898578 )
      Well, the same concerns could be raised for any sort of biometric security. Hopefully, technologies will become widespread that make stealing somebody's eyes , fingers, DNA, etc useless. For example, some fingerprint readers can tell if the finger is alive or not.

      Of course, in some situations, the very issue you mentioned is a boon to the system. For example, let's say that the CDC's Smallpox virus is protected by either a iris scanner or a password. If a scientist is faced with giving up a password or an

      • For example, let's say that the CDC's Smallpox virus is protected by either a iris scanner or a password. If a scientist is faced with giving up a password or an eye, he'll probably be more likely to give up the password. Thus, if everything else is equal, the eye-based security is better.

        You are totally missing the point. If it was a highly secured substance like smallpox, then the thief would more likely just kill you and remove your eye. So now you have a loose smallpox virus *AND* a one-eyed technici

      • Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
        problem: a $5000 DSLR with zoom lens could capture an iris from across the street.

        i would prefer that it cost more than $5000 to steal smallpox virus
        • Aaaargh, people keep using the word "steal"!!

          It's infringing on "intellectual property", not stealing! You are not really depriving them of their property - all you need to do is take a sample and grow more. The loss in volume would be neglegable.
      • For example, some fingerprint readers can tell if the finger is alive or not.

        Yes, but what they need to do, however, is determine that the finger is both alive and still attached to its original owner.

        Hand transplants have already been done.
    • but on the other hand, this will be a great opportunity for eye-ball phishing...

    • Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:56PM (#13023376)
      Exactly. Why go to all this trouble of reading irises and fingerprints? You could accomplish the same thing by tatooing users' passwords to their foreheads. Biometrics are just like normal passwords, but easier to steal and harder to change.
      • You could accomplish the same thing by tatooing users' passwords to their foreheads. They've been trying to do this for years, but there are only so many variations of "666."

    • Re:Don't forget... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blindbat ( 189141 )
      But someone who wanted your password and would be willing to gouge out an eye or cut off a finger would also be willing to do that or torture for your password. Would you want your finger or eye lost for a biometric scan or lose some other body part(s) as torture in giving up the password?
    • for example, an untreated diabetics' eyes show some filaments that will disappear when he starts geting treatment.

      And diabetes is only one disease which affects the patterns which can be detected in the iris. Many other diseases affect both the radial disposition and the radial pattern. The medical books are filled with disease effects on the eyes.

      While iris scanning for recognition is useless, it IS extremely useful as a diagnostic tool in medecine.

      For personal identification, you would want to scan th

      • for example, an untreated diabetics' eyes show some filaments that will disappear when he starts geting treatment. And diabetes is only one disease which affects the patterns which can be detected in the iris. Many other diseases affect both the radial disposition and the radial pattern. The medical books are filled with disease effects on the eyes.

        The percentage of people who have diseases that acutally affect the patterns used for iris scanning are quite small. I'm in the business and I have yet to

    • For banking, ecommerce, and airports you are absolutely correct, but there are a lot of situations where an iris scan is the easiest way to protect something that isn't worth the effort to steal.

      Remember: if the cost to steal something is greater than the cost of that which is being stolen, it is safe, and vice versa.

      Just because you can use a technology in dangerous way doesn't mean the technology itself can't also be used for good. Cf scissors and nail clippers in airports.
    • That was no problem for Simon Phoenix...

    • Complete Fallacy (Score:3, Informative)

      by samael ( 12612 )
      Biometric recognition systems have generally been designed to only work if the part is still attached.

      Retina scans depend on blood vessels in the eye - which change radically if said eye is detached (or the owner is dead).

      Fingerprint scans are usually designed to check for electrical conductivity, which is different for an attached finger and a detached one.

    • Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by forkazoo ( 138186 ) <wrosecrans AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 09, 2005 @10:17PM (#13024198) Homepage
      What I want is a fingerprint scanner, where you have to scan all your fingers, but the order you put your fingers on the pads would be a sort of 'pin code,' which you could change. Make all fingerprint scanners be sold with a protective hood, so nobody can see what order you use. If some criminal ever chops off your hand, just use the other one to phone in (or use voice dial), to change the pin before then can buy a TV.

      You have the security of revocability, but the convenience of never accidentally losing your "card" (except in extreme cases of accident.)
    • I work at a facility where iris scanners are in use as security to the data center. We've had all the usual discussions about gouging out someone's eyeball and using it as a "key" to enter the secure facility. Contrary to myth, this will not work.

      Once the eye has been separated from its owner, the blood and other fluids inside immediately begin to alter their state due to lack of oxygen, damaging the appearance of the iris enough to make it unrecognizable to the scanner within just a few minutes.

      If you'
    • if i lost my eye, i know it's a difficult surgery and only a handful of eyes would be compatible with my body, but by changing my eye, wouldn't that give me a new iris?

  • exploding iris (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09, 2005 @06:46PM (#13023325)
    Looks like iris recognition is about to explode
    Please don't mention iris - or anything to do with eyes - in the same sentence as "explode". Some of us are squeamish.
    • Please don't mention iris - or anything to do with eyes - in the same sentence as "explode". Some of us are squeamish.

      Squeamish? But the writeup was extremely careful and considerate! They didn't even mention the feeler that checks if the eyeball is dead or alive by measuring blood pressure in the space between eyeball and cranium.

      -- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe.
  • the Internal Revenue Service had developed some new way of finding me?

  • Iris vs Retina (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vossman77 ( 300689 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @07:01PM (#13023395) Homepage
    Are we talking Iris [wikipedia.org] or Retina [wikipedia.org] here?

    Because I've never heard of using the Iris and don't know anything about its uniqueness. Where the retina is easily scanned and heavily researched.

    Anybody know more? or is this a typo?

    • Re:Iris vs Retina (Score:5, Informative)

      by kaiser423 ( 828989 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @07:13PM (#13023439)
      The iris is much more unique (I believe it has the highest amount of uniqueness in any biometric system), and I believe they've come up with some very compact and efficient schemes for its use. I remember when I looked back at various biometric technology about 3 years ago, iris scanning was the clear winner barring this patent nonsense.

    • Re:Iris vs Retina (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm sure they meant to type retina - the keys are right next to each other.
    • If you RTFA, or have my doc check your eyes (ooh, I'm way overdue), you'll know it's irises. Flom noticed that the iris is unchanged over years of exams.

      Note, that also puts the kibosh on the pseudoscience of iridology.
  • Good to see the Idirians are contributing peacefully to the Galaxy once again... [iainbanks.net]

  • Patents at work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @07:10PM (#13023429)
    Regardless of what you may think of iris recognition, this is proof of how the patent system doesn't work. The technology for this has probably been around for 20 years, but it hasn't been able to be used because some shithead corporation owned a patent. This enabled them to browbeat competitors out of existence, and only now that the patent is nearing expiration can anything "innovative" happen.
  • Out of curiousity, does anyone know if iris recognition is defeated by contact lenses? I'm guessing that normal corrective lenses might be OK, but I have difficulty imagining iris recognition working through lenses that modify the color of eyes and other such. Will airport security be demanding that people remove their contact lenses prior to the security screening next?

  • Already there are a number of comments sarcastically noting how patents stifle innovation. The problem here was not the patent system but Iridian's short sightedness in developing and marketing the product. If government was one of their main buyers, and if governments were reluctant to rely on one supplier, then Iridian should have licensed their patent to a number of other companies.

    IBM licensed their PC design to a large number of companies, did they not? Because of patents they recouped the money th

    • IBM licensed their PC design to a large number of companies, did they not? Because of patents they recouped the money they invested in PC development and allowed for competitors -- promoting innovation.

      That's news to me. Please give me a citation. As I recall, the PC design was available royalty-free, while IBM's attempt at controlling the architecture (the MicroChannel Architecture): 1) flopped in the marketplace, 2) did not have substantially better performance, 3) cost a hell of a lot of money, and 4)

  • "Don't believe the Hype!"

  • Sounds a lot like the RSA patent. The patent expired and suddenly ten minutes later, there was encryption everywhere. The useful arts and sciences are suddenly progress.
  • "Looks like iris recognition is about to explode."

    ..but isn't exploding iris recognition hardware a bad idea?

  • cool, but unreliable (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tri44id ( 576891 )
    It's worth remembering that while any reputable website requires usernames to be unique and passwords to be half a dozen or more characters long, with a chance of guessing of less than 1 in several billion, biometrics are far less reliable.

    One of the more broadly applicable studies, performed for the UK Passport Office (reports downloadable from http://www.passport.gov.uk/publications.asp [passport.gov.uk]) with just over 10,000 participants, found that 1 in 10 British Citizens were unable to even successfully enroll thei

  • I thought that "Iris" recognition reached its peak with the release of City of Angels.

  • Argument against patents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Saturday July 09, 2005 @11:25PM (#13024514) Homepage Journal
    The whole article basically sums up why patents don't work as intended. And I'm not talking about software patents, all patents. This field could have been huge 10 years ago, generating billions of dollars and furthering innovation. The supposed purpose of patents is to foster innovation and invention, alas, patents just stymie innovation for 20 years until they expire.

    If as I've said before patents lasted 3 years, maybe 5 at the very most, they would probably be a good thing, in 3 years Iridian would have been able to establish itself as a market leader, and every newcomer to the field would most likely license their stuff anyway (under copyright, or some other license generated by the company). Instead it takes 20 years to get an iris scanner on my laptop, or built into a security system at my house? Those things should have been done in 92.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close