data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/53450/53450453367fbf0e1b00596c825184692c0957bf" alt="Security Security"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6f85/a6f851c8783074640b3793f84df3eb59585db49c" alt="Technology Technology"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Iris Scanning For New Jersey Grade School 149
coolphysco1010 writes "When a parent arrives to pick up their child at one of three grade schools in the Freehold Borough School District, they'll need to look into a camera that will take a digital image of their iris. That photo will establish positive identification to gain entrance into the school..The Teacher-Parent Authorization Security System (T-PASS), a software application developed by Eyemetric Identity Systems, was installed on the front office computers at each of the three schools."
Practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the State-Congress after someone said exactly what I said, someone else yelled "won't anyone think of the children?" and the bill was signed. Seems that phrase overrides any kind of common sense.
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
No, they didn't have the common sense to begin with. They use the phrase to make it look -- to other parents -- like they DO have something worthwhile to say.
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
Seems that, to think of the children, we forgot to think of the adults.
Re:Practicality & Priorities (Score:2, Informative)
Seems that, to think of the children's present, we forgot to think of the children's future.
Re:Practicality & Priorities (Score:2)
Re:Practicality & Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
Er... (Score:2)
The whole point of the program is to prevent strangers form picking up your kids. If you let your little kids walk home alone through the inner city then it has nothing to do with you (oh and PS you're a horrible parent).
Not that I necessairily agree with the program but your arguments make no sense.
Re:Er... (Score:2)
Re:Er... (Score:2)
Re:Er... (Score:2)
I'd think that it's more likely that the non-custodial parent would try to pick the child up. But even that's pretty remote.
Still, the cheap and effective way to do it is to have each child (or carpool) assigned a number. So, if someone doesn't have your number, you don't get the kid.
Re:Practicality (Score:1)
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
Why can't the kids' homeroom teacher just supervise the pickup point? Surely they'd recognize the parents after the first two days of pickup?
So they have to take a half hour extra, so what. If they complain then pay them some overtime. It would still cost way less than this iris scanner.
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
It's worse than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, what if the technology breaks? Or let's talk about the huge lines that will form in order to get all the parents into the parking lot - even if the technology runs perfectly smoothly (which we all know it ALWAYS does... technology NEVER fails). Since all of the kids get out of school at the same time, the majority of the parents will all arrive at the same time and cause a huge bottle neck.
How will they keep the child abductors from going in on foot and walking out with the child to their car parked outside of the lot? Not all abductees are quickly snatched and shoved into a car. Some are convinced that the criminal is really a friend of the family and go along quite willingly. So unless they are surrounding the school with barbed wire fences and have a guard at the entrance and exit, you won't stop the criminal from entering. If you do, then you are turning our schools into prisons which can't be good for the children. But I guess that's not what they meant when they said think of the children...
The entire thing is a logistical nightmare and if you ask me, doesn't add all that much security. I should rephrase that, it doesn't add enough security to warrant the inconvenience. And all of this is without even touching the big brother conspiracy theory argument.
Re:It's worse than that (Score:1)
Re:It's worse than that (Score:2)
Any company with stuff to protect should be doing the same...
Re:It's worse than that (Score:2)
And there you have the solution! Barbed wire will give children and parents a sense of security and the rest of the world something to laugh about.
But seriously, if you've watched GATTACA you'll know that DNA turnstiles are the way to go for speed and security, NOT time consuming IRIS checkers. A bump from the back and you could lose an eye! Won't anyone
Technology isn't the answer (Score:2)
I don't see any harm in having security cameras in the parking lot and around the school. If something happens, they can review them. Just
Re:Practicality (Score:1)
You are right, it won't stop child abductors, but it will stop them there. You may think it violates your privacy, but which provides more information and which is more easily faked: An iris scan or your driver's license?
Re:Practicality (Score:1)
What a noble sentiment. "Screw your kids, mine are safe!"
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
So if we don't have a perfect solution we should do nothing?
And you know what? I want all kids to be safe, but I'm responsible for mine.
Re:Practicality (Score:1)
Re:Practicality (Score:3, Insightful)
jfs
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
"he could just drive another mile to any other grade school and commit his felonies there."
Uh, dude? Hello? that IS the point. If this system is a deterrent, then it has stopped an abduction at THIS school and has served it's purpose. So what you are saying, really, is that this system will probably benefit the children and that the other schools should implement this as well.
Re:Practicality (Score:2)
You have to look at these things in terms of agenda. School officials are (probably) fully aware that they won't be able to stop child abductions, but if they can make sure they child abductions only happen at *other* schools instead of theirs, then they're fine with that - if the sh*t hits the fan, it won't be hitting their fan, at least, and none of *them* will lose their jobs or anything.
Furthermore, e
Does it test for dead people? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:4, Funny)
So you're asking if they've killed anyone to test their security system?
Speaking of eye deterioration: I don't know much about iris scanning, but would a child's grandparent's cataracts interfere with scanning if they had to pick their grandkids up from school? I guess a better question is "should they be driving with those cataracts," but that's not the point.
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
And the grandparent could be walking to the school, though of course, in Freehold, as in much of NJ, that's probably unlikely.
Yes, holding a severed head up to a camera *would* be sort of out of place, but you have to ask yourself what sort of problems this system is trying to prevent. Given the demographics of the area, I'd guess the most li
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Assuming that it wasn't due to some "donation" from the company that makes the devices, they are simply playing to the emotions of mothers. It could be that they want to make it look like they are doing something to protect the children -- it's probably cheaper than doing something about teaching them properly.
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Just because it's a government owned facility doesn't mean anybody can walk around as they please. Just try it at your local National Guard armory.
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
I should preface my comments by mentioning that I used to work for a company who provided systems integration services to NJ schools and other public agencies, and I still provide those services as a subcontractor to my former employer.
I *personally* designed either some of or effectively *all of* the networking systems in Atlantic City, Vernon, Bridgeton, Delran, West Windsor-Plainsboro, Plainfield, Brick Township (and the Brick Township Police Department), the Mer
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:1, Troll)
God is it just me or has the average IQ on this site actually dropped 50 points in the last two years?
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Suppose it worked? The entrances to schools aren't always busy. There isn't always someone at the front desk to check in visitors. These days, the emphasis is on cost-cutting in schools. Systems like this will cause security to become even more lax, as the operators will tend to rely on the system's judgement.
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:4, Informative)
Security Magazine Article [securitymagazine.com]: 04/10/2004
"Many secure facilities employ iris scanners, which analyze the features that exist in the colored tissue surrounding the pupil including rings, furrows and freckles. To help prevent "fake eyes" from being used, these systems shine a light into the user's eye to monitor pupil dilation. However, they have been routinely defeated in the laboratory by several astute experimenters. To accomplish this, a high-quality digital image of an authorized person first was obtained by the experimenter, then enlarged to show the eye detail and subsequently printed out on high-quality photographic paper. Then, a small hole was cut in the photograph where the pupil was printed to expose the pupil in the experimenter's own eye. The experimenter would then place the photo up against his eye so that his pupil could be seen behind the hole. This very basic and inexpensive technique was effective in routinely fooling the iris scan readers of several manufacturers."
Re:Does it test for dead people? (Score:2)
$ well spent :) (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, if you're the company selling the units. ;) (Score:1)
If you think about it rationally, the company selling these is quite clever for pushing the units into schools. They are capitalizing on their experience in the areas of:
Re:$ well spent :) (Score:2)
There's no statistics quoted in TFA, and I'm not personally aware of ANY cases of abduction from within a school, so why all this idiotic spending? Most child abductions are perpetrated by family members (and there are stats on that).
Just another example of a solution lacking a problem.
Iris database (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Iris database (Score:3, Funny)
No. But we do have, shall we say, ways of persuading people. After all, we would hate to have anything happen to anyone... like an "accident", if youse know what I'm sayin'...
Re:Iris database (Score:2)
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:1)
Go ahead and blather all the rationalizations you want, but efficacy is the main concern, and privacy is a stupid red herring.
Re:I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:1)
Well let's see (Score:1)
First of all this is the parents, not the kids, so your answer doesn't make sense.
Second, taking a measure of something already present is a bit different from actively tattooing them.
What a dumb attempt at an analogy, and the worst part is YOU DIDN'T EVEN ANSWER MY QUESTION.
Re:I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT just "asking for identification," ID is a little plastic card with your picture on it. They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home. The parents have more right to ask for the ID of people at the school than the school does that of the parent.
Take your same statement and apply it to "the police" asking for the ID of "random person walking down the street." Is it a privacy infringement then? Of cour
Re:I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:2)
And if the parents just refuse the retinal scan and walk in and get the child anyway, are they going to arrest the parents and then the school will kidnap the child? Somehow I doubt that would go over very well with the courts... I think a system like this would only be a valid solution for the parents who approve of it as a voluntary
Re:Ok, but WHY (Score:2)
However, I agree that "intrusive" was probably the wrong word to use, as it does not stick a needle in
Re:Ok, but WHY (Score:2)
Just because you don't like analogies does not make them invalid.
Yes, something can be mentally intrusive. If you don't understand that you aren't as smart as you give yourself credit for.
You explain to me how any invasion of privacy is wrong for any reason besides "it just is," assuming it doesn't put you at immdiate personal physical risk and I will explain to you how this does as well. You are asking for an answ
Re:I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:2)
So, here is the scenario: the child is your child, and you are their legal guardian. That means, among many other things, that when you walk in, you can take that child from the school.
You have been furnished with positive ID from the State, which proves your identity. The
Re:I'm going to get nuked for this (Score:2)
Well, I would like to see some evidence that this program would actually be efficacious, before implementing a costly technological solution. Do child abductions happen after school, on school property? I'm sure they do. Why aren't we just checking for already-made, already-in-use, government-required identification? "Because people can forge that." How often does that happen,
Re:Iris database (Score:2)
2 words (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I have more than 2 words to say. One obvious question: is it a good idea to do everything possible to avoid the kidnapping/abuse of one child? Probably. But with that in mind let's think about the real reason such seemingly extreme precautions are being taken. I believe it's over-sized schools.
In small neighborhoods everyone knows everyone else. In small schools every teacher recognizes every student and every parent. It's only as schools get large that adults picking up children become anonymous. Now I'm not sure making many more smaller schools is a solution. But I'd much prefer to send a child to a school where they can pay enough attention to recognize me. Then they have a natural suspicion of anyone in the area they don't recognize.
Re:2 words (Score:1)
No, because "blowing up the whole frigging earth" does indeed fall under the "everything possible" category and it will certainly prevent any future abductions from ever occuring.
Re:2 words (Score:2)
It also ignores the fact that teachers and administrators get sick, have subs, take leave, are terminated, and so on. Thus a potential replacement in all likelyhood would not know the parents by sight.
Wh
One step away... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One step away... (Score:1)
Holding out won't work. There are enough sheep that you're just delaying the day you'll get one.
Instead, find some friends and pay for the development of a rewritable chip and then sell it at cost. I'd buy one just for the prank potential; criminals would buy one for identity theft and other antisocial reasons. Once there are enough of these on the street
Re:One step away... (Score:2)
-- snip --
I figure I'll hold out as long as I can.
I'll hold out on this one forever.
Cool idea, but is it ready for primetime? (Score:1)
The system, according to the article, is four adults for each kid. Is that a great idea? Parents and one set of grandparents. What happens when the four are out and someone else needs to pick up the kid, like an aunt or uncle?
In other ways, its a great idea; You're not going anywhere without your eyes. But the current technical limitations are bad. Also, the cost is also an issue.
Of course, protection is nee
Re:Cool idea, but is it ready for primetime? (Score:2)
Hooray for bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
What if parents divorce and only one has custody? The school's system wouldn't know this unless it was told so by a human. Do you think it would be updated fast enough to prevent the other parent from picking up the child and abducting him/her?
Re:Hooray for bullshit! (Score:2, Funny)
Things are going to get nasty when that happens, the waiting line to pick up your kids will last for hours and the police will get called in when everyone starts to lose their temper. A lawsuit will probably ensue. So, let's see who's getting paid here:
1. the company that made the device
2. the school staff that must get paid overtime to manage the parental traffic jam
3. the police who have to come in and bust heads when the parents get unruly
4. the lawyer
Re:Hooray for bullshit! (Score:1)
You're missing the point. The system is for two things only:
1) Officials now get to say they're doing something about something that worries people.
2) Officials later will get to dodge blame by saying they spent lots of money and got the very best.
Slashdot readers hav
Kudos - The System Works Well (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Kudos - The System Works Well... but who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that many would disagree with you in the fact that scanning irises and then recognizing that image later is "cool" and may even "work as designed". However, you're ignoring the real questions here: should we be doing this at all? What are the wider social implications to going down this brave new world?
You blithely state that this system is a great step towards safer schools. Do you really think so? Do you even have kids? I do, I have two. It doesn't make me an authority to represent al
Some part of you must be wondering. . . (Score:2)
Swallowed that line with the hook, did you?
Why would somebody not want to be scanned and kept track of? Why would we not want our kids to grow up with the reality of paranoid, police-state control methods firmly ingrained in their brains?
You said yourself that you would love to not have to carry ID. Is that purely from a convenience stand-point, or is there another emotion bubbling down there
professional astroturf or amateur astroturf? (Score:2)
1. Dupe public, 2. ?, 3. Profit. (Score:2)
How exactly will this system help? By providing technology that few understand, people will be tempted to lean on it and begin to ignore their instincts. If a seldom-seen uncle appears out of the blue to pick up a child a few hours early, even if they pass the scanner, it would still warrant a call
Re:1. Dupe public, 2. ?, 3. Profit. (Score:2)
Good idea. Maybe you can use the "think of the children!" argument to get the source code! "How can we be sure some evil baby raping hacker hasn't reverse engineered it?"
Re:1. Dupe public, 2. ?, 3. Profit. (Score:1)
2. Steal database of iris images
3. Make contact lenses imitating others iris image
4. Profit from accessing their bank accounts 2yrs later
Schools = Prisons (Score:5, Interesting)
And on another note, why is it not enough to just ask for ID and have parents sign something? Its one thing to watch the doors to keep drug dealers out, its another to ask parents to submit to retinal scans.
Re:Schools = Prisons (Score:2)
Haven't spoken to too many teenagers recently, eh? Schools are prisons these days, and the "wardens" are oftentimes the worst people there. I'm lucky that I graduated just before my old High School went down that road.
Re:Schools = Prisons (Score:2)
I'm not really sure of this. I've been given the impression that during quite a lot of the time of modern public schools, parents were treated offhandedly and told to butt out and let the professionals do their jobs. Any welcoming schools evidenced was to serve their own needs.
People are a lot more demanding today, but I've seen recent situations of schools treating parents offhandedly.
Sad Commentary (Score:3, Insightful)
What terrible thing could have happened that would make a school district shell out $369,000 and hire two technicians for an eye scanner? It is not like schools don't have funding problems, with music and arts programs being cut left and right, and teacher aaleries not competitive.
Isn't the retnal scanner overkill? Apparently not. The superintendant says, "We had a swipe-card system that operated the doors, but the technology was obsolete." What would make them think a swipe card system is obsolete? Most hotels and many businesses in the US use swipe cards for access.
What a freaking waste.
Re:Sad Commentary (Score:2)
The CEO of the scanner company joined the school's board of directors. Follow the money.
Wrong on so many levels (Score:4, Insightful)
I just can't believe how wrong this is! For one, stranger abductions are actually rather rare. A much more common case is known and trusted adults. These are people who would likely be in the database and so will have no problem.
Now the second problem. Are they saying that the classes have gotten large and impersonal enough that the teachers have never met their students' parents before or that there are so many parents to meet that they won't remember them all? How can a school meet it's responsability to care for grade school aged children if it's so under-staffed that they don't even know who the parents are? Perhaps all that cash should be spent on reducing class size?
Thirdly, don't their staff care enough about the kids to not deliver them into the hands of strangers? Surely if the child doesn't know the person, they'll hesitate to just go home with them. I would think that the shchool should have contact info for the parents and trusted others and would be willing to make a phone call in case of doubt?
I suppose they'll just continue replacing adequate caring staff and a nurturing environment with m achines and databases with final arbitration power. Then they'll wonder why the kids grow up to be anti-social. These are human children, not standardized parts on an assembly line. A personal touch is called for.
Re:Wrong on so many levels (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one reason that my wife and I homeschool our five children. Even in our small town (Pop. approx. 5,000) they have video monitoring of halways and an occaisional bomb threat. I think it is important that children feel secure and safe growing up. My children didn't when they were in public school. They do at home. (Not only that, they are le
Re:Wrong on so many levels (Score:2)
Never met most, but did meet some or at least one?
Of course, if the parents have to go in to be enrolled in the iris scanners, they could as easily (and $160,000 cheaper) meet the teachers instead. Better parent teacher communication is a fairly nice side effect.
Foolproof system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Foolproof system (Score:1)
That place must be real fun in a fire
Re:Foolproof system (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Foolproof system (Score:2)
Culture of Fear (Score:3, Informative)
Out-of-the-home abductions occur 45-65 times annually.
So, assuming this program is completely successful, and every child abduction in New Jersey occurs in that one school every year. You've saved just over one child.
Heck, for 120 grand you could probably just buy off all the sex offenders and save them all.
Why it won't work, in two words: (Score:2)
School Levy (Score:1)
Always with the magnets (Score:5, Funny)
Teacher: Magnets. Always with the magnets.
Stupid use of technology to manipulate voters (Score:2, Interesting)
$369000 for a single illusion (Score:2, Insightful)
A grade school makes it real by spending that amount of money
for the illusion of security.
Next news item (Score:2, Funny)
One-eyed Parents Found Wandering Aimlessly Outside New Jersey School
Kidnapper arrested with bag full of eyeballs
MOD PARENT UP... (Score:2)
The Emotional Appeal and The Thin Argument. . . (Score:2)
Can you say Pink Eye? (Score:2)