Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security Technology Your Rights Online

Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico 265

Posted by timothy
from the you-blink-you-die dept.
kkleiner writes "The million-plus citizens of Leon, Mexico are set to become the first example of a city secured through the power of biometric identification. Iris and face scanning technologies from Global Rainmakers, Inc. will allow people to use their eyes to prove their identify, withdraw money from an ATM, get help at a hospital, and even ride the bus. Whether you're jealous or intimidated by Leon's adoption of widespread eye identification you should pay attention to the project – similar biometric checkpoints are coming to locations near you. Some are already in place."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico

Comments Filter:
  • Beware? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @07:20PM (#33706806)

    I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners -- and most of them have the option to enter a password or swipe a card in lieu of scanning your eyes -- they have to. Not everyone has eyes. Or hands.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by srodden (949473)
      You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
    • Re:Beware? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @07:28PM (#33706846) Homepage

      "I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners ..."

      There is one major difference. The government can sell the idea if Iris scanning much easier than fingerprinting to the masses. If they ask me to give a fingerprint to enter that is old technology, and closely identified with what happens to criminals to most people. As opposed to: You want me to look into this thing to enter? You mean like on Mission Impossible! Wow that's cool! Where do I sign up?

      As you rightly point out, there is no reason to fear most technological innovations in and of themselves. The justified and proper concern enters the equation when we start to ask not how this can be used, but rather how it will likely be abused .

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rubycodez (864176)

        our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zero__Kelvin (151819)

          "Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?"

          In an imaginary world, we shouldn't, but this is reality so it is not ours to give or deny. It would be nice if we had some kind of control over this, but we have absolutely none, which is why I identified this as a reason for concern rather than a call for action.

        • by c0lo (1497653)

          our government has already proven itself to be an abuser, maimer, and murderer. It has already shown it desires the power to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and finances without trial or due process. Why should we give such an evil monstrosity another tool?

          Given the circumstances (a monstrous abuser-maimer-murderer gov), IMHO, the correct question would be: "How can you stop the monstrosity of acquiring/imposing the used of another tool?"
          Believe me, I'm not trolling, but my imagination fails when thinking on how a Mexican citizen (or many, for the instance) can oppose.

    • by camperslo (704715)

      I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

      Envision if you will, in the corner of your room, a small dark cablebox... a cablebox that can look into your eyes and those of your friends, and reach into your wallet for each...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Sponge Bath (413667)

        Envision if you will...

        Reading this post while imagining the voice of Rod Serling is awesome! If only you had added the punch line "...you have now entered the Timer Warner Zone"

    • by icebike (68054)

      Wait, its Mexico for crist sake!

      An AK47 beats an iris scanner any day.

      Mexico is a state in the process of failing. The Mexican Navy is about the only trustworthy branch of the government, and Leon is nowhere near the coast.

      The people running the iris scanners will likely be in the employment of the drug lords, or dead shortly.

      This is akin to locking yourself in your cabin on the Titanic.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Mexico is a state in the process of failing.

        Yes, the US DEA is killing mexico. But the people who work there don't want to lose their jobs. Drugs are bad M'kay? Drugs are bad, or the DEA is Ob, So, Lete. Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! Obsolete! And half the prison are .. Obsolete, and half the prison guards are ? Obsolete. And the drug helicopters? Obsolete. Halcyon and on and on. That's too many obsolete bureaucrats. The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.

        • Re:Beware? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dgatwood (11270) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @09:34PM (#33707508) Journal

          You're grossly oversimplifying things. A lot of factors have contributed:

          • Laws forbidding foreign ownership of property.
          • A government that does little to combat abject poverty.
          • Brain drain to the U.S. and other countries.
          • Bad people who prey upon the poor to be drug mules, growers, etc.
          • Ineffectual police enforcement in Mexico.
          • A U.S. drug policy that encourages black market trade rather than controlled trade.
          • Utter failure on the part of the U.S. government to combat abject poverty.
          • Bad people who prey upon the poor and offer them a better life through dealing drugs.
          • Ineffectual district attorneys who would rather "get tough on drug users" than offer plea bargains in exchange for ratting out their pushers (the original purpose of prohibiting use of these drugs).
          • Ineffectual police enforcement that similarly focuses on busting users instead of dealers.

          There's plenty of blame to spread around on both sides of the fence. I do agree, though, that the best way to end drug violence is to create a legal marketplace for the least harmful and most common of those drugs. Prohibition never works if you're talking about products that people want to consume. You'd think the government would have learned this eighty years ago. The only way they got the U.S. back under control was by repealing prohibition. Sadly, the "morally superior" never learn. They just keep standing there in their ivory towers issuing edicts, repeating the same mistakes, and wondering why the side of the tower is burning.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

            Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological ef
            • Re:Beware? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by NiceGeek (126629) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @10:47PM (#33707832)

              If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by mysidia (191772)

                Tobacco is grandfathered in. People have a tradition of smoking it, have legal access to it already, it is protected by lobbyists, and banning it would do some serious harm to legitimate businesses and have a lasting severe negative impact on the economy. Plus the detrimental effects of being deprived (if you are addicted) are even more severe than exposure to Tobacco. Detrimental effects are not as serious as illegal drugs, if tobacco is not smoked in excess, and it is profitable for the government t

            • Re:Beware? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Schemat1c (464768) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @11:00PM (#33707892) Homepage

              The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

              Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'.

              Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage.

              LSD was discovered while searching for a drug to induce labor in pregnant women.
              LSD does seem to cause psychosis, in people who have never done it. *Tips hat to Mr. Leary*

              Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

              Even if that was true, so what? Should there be a law to prevent me from smoking, drinking, eating junk food, watching too much TV... The government or you have no business to make decisions regarding what I choose to put into my body or mind.

              You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

              You go ahead and enjoy your Nanny state, scared little child. Meanwhile the smarter and less lazy of us will continue grow up and learn to take responsibility for ourselves, as grown-ups should.

              • Re:Beware? (Score:4, Informative)

                by phantomcircuit (938963) on Monday September 27, 2010 @12:20AM (#33708284) Homepage

                LSD does seem to cause psychosis, in people who have never done it. *Tips hat to Mr. Leary*

                He might have been way off on the rest of it,but LSD can in fact cause psychosis. My neighbor (who mistakenly walked onto the freeway...) had LSD induced psychosis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychosis [wikipedia.org]

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by DeadPixels (1391907)
                Why not legalize (most) drugs, but make penalties for crimes performed while under the influence of drugs automatically double, or at least much harsher? If you're going to do drugs, fine, but if you are going to be irresponsible about it, you will face much harsher consequences. Let those who can be responsible enjoy themselves, and let those who can't face the consequences. Don't want to take that risk? Don't do drugs. But if you gamble and lose, well, it's your fault. No point in punishing those who can
                • How exactly will you distinguish between crimes committed under the influence vs. those not? Mandatory blood samples from every arrested person?

                  Far too totalitarian and far to expensive to implement. That is why banning is used (even if non-ideal). Simpler and cheaper.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by ultranova (717540)

                    How exactly will you distinguish between crimes committed under the influence vs. those not? Mandatory blood samples from every arrested person?

                    How about not caring either way? A crime is a crime, regardless of what substance(s) you may or may not have in your body.

                    Far too totalitarian and far to expensive to implement. That is why banning is used (even if non-ideal). Simpler and cheaper.

                    And more totalitarian.

            • by dgatwood (11270)

              I'm not arguing for legalizing all drugs. I'm arguing solely for marijuana because it seems to be lower on the "wrecks your body for life" scale than many legal substances. If young people are going to do it anyway, we should at least have a drug policy that sets consistent standards for what is and isn't illegal based on reasonable metrics of risk. As long as drugs that are relatively benign (I'm not saying marijuana is safe---smoking anything is inherently bad for your health---just that it's nowhere n

            • by Ksisanth (915235)

              If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.

              You seem to have a problem trusting people to make good decisions for themselves, but no problem trusting them to make decisions for others. This seems ... od

              • Ok, lt's imagine there are no gun laws, after all, "people are better at deciding for themselves". What do you end up with, the USA and its horrific statistics. Now, in most civilized countries (eg. not USA) firearms are permitted but strictly registered and controlled. Result? far fewer firearms deaths. The general populace can't usually be trusted with them except in exceptional cases (eg. Israel where everyone is trained in proper handling and an external threat keeps people focused on killing terrorists
            • by mpe (36238)
              The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)

              Which drugs are legal and which are illegal has little to do with "harm". Also even for a dangerous drug, such as alcohol, the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the drug itself. Especially when you factor in that black market drugs tend to be highly contaminated.
            • my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.

              If we are going to prohibit certain activities because of the extreme reactions it can cause in some people, we should outlaw religion [wikipedia.org]

      • by Nadaka (224565)

        The Mexican drug cartels have killed ~28k in the 4 years.

        The Taliban and US military has killed ~67k in the last 9 years in Afghanistan.

        That means the Mexican cartels have a daily kill rate almost equal to the combed kill rate of the US military and Taliban at war in Afghanistan.

        • by icebike (68054)

          The difference is both sides are armed in Afghanistan.

          There are a lot of other differences as well but it would seem you are not likely to be predisposed to pay them any heed in your rush to establish moral equivalence.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I am afraid of Iris scanning technology, because it MAY give someone an incentive to rip my eyeballs out.

      I like my eyeballs.
    • It happens all the time. Diabetic retinopathy [wikipedia.org] is treated with a laser to seal off blood vessels that are growing on the forward surface of the retina. Get your first iris scan before treatment, get your eyeballs zapped, and you are no longer you.

      Then again, how are you going to do a scan when there's spots of blood floating around at random? Like looking through a fence at close range, the person won't notice as much as the scanner will - which is why patients tend to ignore it as much as possible - the

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by billcopc (196330)

      Knowing who someone is, does not reduce crime. It merely increases conviction rates.

      I don't care if someone has my name, picture, iris scan, birth mark, and sperm sample. If I decide one day to kill a bunch of bankers, ID'ing me won't bring those parasites back from the dead.

      I'd even say this will increase crime, because every failure of the system will push toward a new transgression, sometimes violent. Iris scanner won't let me on the bus, so now I get to be late for work ? Every ounce of grief my emp

    • "I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself."

      I have no eyes, you insensitive clod!

    • by TheCarp (96830)

      I have a reason... because people will rely on it. When someone compromises the right keys, or database, or equipment and replaces your Iris signature with his own, he will walk right into the bank, withdraw your money, sell your house, and be long gone while you pick up the pieces.

      Of course, has anyone collected large city sized samples of biometric data before? I doubt it...I am thinking that this has a high likelyhood of being a major disaster.

      -Steve

    • by joelsanda (619660)

      I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself. It's no different than a fingerprint scanner or a handful of other biometric scanners -- and most of them have the option to enter a password or swipe a card in lieu of scanning your eyes -- they have to. Not everyone has eyes. Or hands.

      If that were the case why didn't the folks who are implementing the iris scanner just stick with fingerprints or the possible card?

      I think there's a difference here, though I'm not sure what the im

  • So I guess (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dunbal (464142) * on Sunday September 26, 2010 @07:25PM (#33706834)

    husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash. Well done banks, for making technology slightly less useful while still allowing a crook to put a gun to your head and force you to make that withdrawal.

    • Re:So I guess (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tukang (1209392) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @08:01PM (#33707054)

      husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash. Well done banks, for making technology slightly less useful while still allowing a crook to put a gun to your head and force you to make that withdrawal.

      Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk, so the inability to share passwords is a plus. If you want someone to have permanent access to your account then add another card (or Iris) to your account. If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password.

      • Re:So I guess (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iammani (1392285) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @08:33PM (#33707212)

        What about the inability to change passwords (compromised passwords for example)? Isnt that a big security risk too?

        • Re:So I guess (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rockoon (1252108) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @10:10PM (#33707690)
          It isnt just compromised passwords.

          Consider the following...

          I get a bank account at WeAreSecure Bank and Trust and they require Iris Scanning. Great, right?

          Then I get a job at WeAreParanoid Industries and they require Iris Scanning. Great... oh wait...

          Now some WeAreParanoid employees have all the information needed to mess with my WeAreSecure accounts, and some WeAreSecure employees have all the information they need to gain unauthorized access to WeAreParanoid.

          Now, add Iris Scanning to both State and Federal government stuff.. and before you know it, Iris Spoofing becomes and unstoppable crime.
          • *MORBO VOICE* That is not how centralized authentication works! *MORBO*

            Are you familiar with how Kerberos works? Similar principal, but instead of a password your iris is substituted as your password/passphrase.

        • What do you mean, "compromised"?

          Passwords have to be secret because that's the only way to attach a password to a particular person. Irises don't have to be secret because they're literally attached to a person.

          What you need to do to ensure the security of a biometric authentication system isn't to keep the biometric secret, it's to protect the integrity of the checkpoint against people holding up pictures or fingerprint molds made of Gummi worms. If you design a system that will fail if a readily observabl

      • What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.

        • by socsoc (1116769)
          Even better, if it's a one time use by a trusted person, just change the pin later. Or get a new set of eyeballs.
        • by mpe (36238)
          What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.

          This might improve security. If it prevents a cor
      • "Sharing passwords is a bad idea because it's a big security risk"

        Alert. No reasons provided!!!

        A password is nothing but an authorization token. An authorization token on untrusted hands is a security risk only proportional to the nature of the secured item (ICBM launch codes vs. my luggagge combination). An authorization token on trusted hands is mere "bussiness as usual".

        "If you don't want them to have permanent access, then you shouldn't be giving them your password. If you don't want them to have perm

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by icebraining (1313345)

      ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Done.
      I don't know if it does have that option, but it perfectly possible.

      But yeah, I don't really see the point.

    • by jamesh (87723)

      husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash

      Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank. If you want someone else to access your account give them their own card (or tell the bank that their eyeballs are also valid for your account).

    • by houghi (78078)

      Why lend out your card if they can have one of their own?

      And "other people?" There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends. If friends need money, I go with them to the bank machine or I just transfer it, depending how fast and how much they need.

      And I have refused credit cards presented to me, because the person clearly was NOT the person on the card. I do not care if you are married to that person or if it is your son. It is NOT your card. For all I know, y

      • by DarthBart (640519)

        I know several couples who have only one debit card between them. Mostly they explain it by saying "That way John/Mary doesn't spend money I don't know about".

        But then it usually turns out that John has the debit card and Mary is out writing checks and not telling John until John's debit card gets declined because they're $200 in the hole.

      • by socsoc (1116769)
        Where does your merchant agreement allow you to infer whether someone is that person? You probably incorrectly ask for ID too.
      • There is nobody who I would give my password to. Nobody! Let alone "other people" like friends

        Is your password Bosco? [wikipedia.org]

  • No way (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @07:30PM (#33706862)

    Of all the countries where I wouldn't want having my eye in my head as the only barrier to someone else's quick cash...

    • by jayveekay (735967)

      Future headline: "Eyedentity theft increasing in Mexico." Nobody saw this coming. :)

  • and heads. "Hey no one said they had to be attached to the body to work!"
    • by hedwards (940851)
      I don't think that this would work with a dead or otherwise non-functioning eyeball. If you've ever looked closely at your eye in the mirror, you'd notice that it's not static. It's constantly adjusting slightly to barely perceptible changes in light. You're not going to be able to easily replicate that with a dead eye.

      I'm sure that somebody has been doing something to curtail the use of dead body parts to break into the system. I know that they've been working on the dead finger problem for quite a whil
  • Remember what happened to Warden William Smithers in that movie?

    That's how this is going to end up...

    Thank you. And BE well.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      That was an awesome movie, but that part was particularly silly. In this day and age, any system which uses biometrics has somewhere in it a contingency plan specifically to discourage that sort of thing. Whether it be pulse detection or checking to make sure that there's a face attached to the eye.
  • "inherenty fallable" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thestuckmud (955767) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @07:56PM (#33707024)
    The phrase "inherently fallible" is part of the headline of this [eurekalert.org] recent Eureka Alert regarding Biometrics. Original work by the National Research Council.
    • I think any system that doesn't rely on two-factor authentication (and on biometrics alone) is apt to fail.

  • There's only one reason to do this in Mexico first, it can be gotten away with. The people will do whatever you tell them. They're used to doing as the men with guns say, because if they don't, the men with guns have a way of getting nasty, since there's no repercussions.

  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @08:06PM (#33707072)
    This is yet another example of a multinational corporation taking advantage of corrupt governments in Mexico and Latin America to push undesirable and invasive technologies and business practices upon ignorant and disadvantaged populations. Of course, even the ignorant can become informed and once the people of Leon see the sorts of uses to which corrupt government officials will put this new technology the backlash will begin: el pueblo unido jamás será vencido.
  • "eye identification"

    "eyedentification"
  • Good. (Score:4, Funny)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @08:30PM (#33707196) Homepage

    It'll be a dismal failure and give biometrics a black eye.

  • by eagl (86459) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @08:43PM (#33707250) Journal

    Secured? Hardly. Monitored might be a good description, but "secured" can't be done with a camera no matter how smart the software is. Security is a human thing and accurate, reliable monitoring is just one piece of an overall security process.

    • I know of a security firm with a gov contract using cameras covering an entire international airport in the US, with software being used to evaluate potential "risks" in realtime. It's not perfect, but based on research showing how quickly the human brain loses it's attentiveness staring at security cameras, my money is on the algorithm.

  • Does anyone else find the company name "Global Rainmakers" rather (ironically) fitting? It is as if even the heaven itself is crying. Big brother will definitely come, it is only a matter of time now.
  • by assemblerex (1275164) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @09:04PM (#33707352)
    People report being unable to bank and enter their homes.
    • Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in.

      Does anyone else think now might be a good time to get a good, reflective pair sunglasses to try an avoid getting flagged?

  • by spaceman375 (780812) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @09:45PM (#33707570)
    You want to aim a camera at me and use facial recognition or even trace the capillaries in my skin? Fine - I'm all for it. Want to shoot a laser in my eye? Not a chance! I'm adding a set of mirrored contact lenses to my tinfoil hat collection.
  • eyes infection. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bronney (638318) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @09:50PM (#33707594) Homepage

    gringo, this is how it spreads.

  • I just turn around, pull down my pants, and tell them they can scan my iris.

    -

  • by Sosetta (702368) on Sunday September 26, 2010 @10:19PM (#33707726)

    In a country where drug lords rule, you want to spend how much money on this technology? How about using that cash to support basic infrastructure like roads and potable water?

  • If someone manages to make a copy of your iris to create contact lenses that let them pose as you, we'll just issue you a new iris.
  • I saw this article about a month ago. Have a friend who's physically in the area, and they said they checked around, and couldn't find anyone who'd heard word one of this.

    Now, it may not be fake. But...

    • by Animats (122034)

      I can't find anything about this company that doesn't come from a press release.

      The COO is James M. Demitrius [streetinsider.com]. Looking him up, he's an accountant. Here's his bio. [adelphi.edu] He was at Drexel Burnham Lambert during the Michael Milken [wikipedia.org] era, before the indictments and bankruptcy. During the dot-com era, he was involved in the 1999 IPO of Ixnet, which was acquired by Global Crossing, which went bankrupt in 2002. Then he was COO of Frontier Communications for a year. Then Aluma Systems, a Canadian concrete company, wh

  • So serious question: what about people without eyes? Or people with only one eye? Or old people with cataracts? What happens if you get punched or get pink eye?

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...