Iris Scanning Set To Secure City In Mexico 265
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."
Beware? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Beware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Destroy the equipment, for starters? it's not like those devices are cheap, and shit happens. Something bad can happen to the private entities contracted to operate and maintain them.
Destroy them... hmmm... might be hard (have you tried to destroy an ATM? Neither did I, but the rugged aspect of it doesn't seem inviting).
Render them unusable? Maybe easier, but the question still remains: how?
More important: if/when sabotaging them, what the saboteur may loose? (i.e. sabotaging an ATM - loose at least the possibility to withdraw money. If not your liberty when being accused of vandalism. And boy, I don't want to be in jail for petty crimes under a monstrous regime: better as a political
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Destroy the equipment, for starters?
Great idea: perform an act of vandalism in a location which is guaranteed to have cameras. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a short time, the only time the Govt. was directly answerable to People and feared people was in Ancient Greece
For a given definition of 'people,' not including women, slaves, or the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
You're grossly oversimplifying things. A lot of factors have contributed:
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)
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)
If tobacco and liquor are allowed and have the same detrimental effects, then I don't see the logic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Wow I could drive a truck through the logic holes in your post.
Re:Beware? (Score:5, 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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
And more totalitarian.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The evidence from countries such as Portugal is that relaxing prohibition actually tends to reduce usage. It isn't exactly "rebellious" to take a legal drug
IIRC the most common actual "gateway drug" is tobacco. Any "progressio
Re:Beware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if marijuana truly is acting as a gateway drug, that's all the more reason to legalize it. I didn't bring up that point because the debate over the concept of "gateway drugs" is highly contentious at best.
All of your acquaintances who moved from marijuana to something else did so because they already knew a dealer who dealt other stuff, or at least knew people who did. If they were buying pot from legal dealers instead of on the black market, that relationship---that connection---would not exist, and thus those people would be much less likely to move on to harder drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Religion can lead to psychosis (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it doesn't work. Random drug tests might stop people from having jobs, but it won't stop people from using drugs. There are far too many counterexamples to believe that enforcement against users will work.
Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting plea bargains just for end users. Work your way up the chain. Eventually, you'll have enough small-time dealers willing to rat on the next person up the chain to get a conviction, rinse, repeat until you've gotten everybody, at least on the U.S. side of
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 like my eyeballs.
We can change the retinal pattern (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself."
I have no eyes, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Beware? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop
Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
...but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
kinda defeats the purpose if he tells you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beware? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop
Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
--
Well, I enjoy smoking my legally purchased tobacco out of a fine crafted glass pipe myself.
However a bunch of other people seem to assume such a purchase means I am a druggie hopped up on goofballs.
I am hiding from stupid people and their stupidity, because stupid people can still cause a great deal of damage to my life.
Unfortunately that answer is not always a good one to provide in court. One can never tell ahead of time if the cop or the judge happens to be one of those stupid people, until it is too late. So best to try and avoid finding out at all costs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you go for the smaller ones. The bodies are easier to hide.
So I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
*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.
Re:So I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that your eye is being scanned by lots of different parties, with equipment that you don't have control over. You can't be sure they're only "md5 hashing" the resulting data, for all you know they might store it so they can "duplicate" your eye... Just like what happens with bank cards.
Biometrics don't have to be secret!! (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This might improve security. If it prevents a cor
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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.
Re:So I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Shoot account owner in head, empty account. Done.
FIFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been to mexico?
Fat chance of them finding anything.
Besides, Iris != face.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Future headline: "Eyedentity theft increasing in Mexico." Nobody saw this coming. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Drug dealers soon to be "borrowing" eyes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Something you have (your eye) and something you know (your PIN) = two factor security. Its a simple alternative to a card.
For low value transactions you can skip the second factor (the PIN) just like you can with modern ATM/credit cards.
More secure, simpler, and less to carry around in your pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"inherenty fallable" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think any system that doesn't rely on two-factor authentication (and on biometrics alone) is apt to fail.
Mexico? One reason only (Score:2)
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.
Taking Advantage of Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
don't you mean (Score:2)
"eyedentification"
Good. (Score:4, Funny)
It'll be a dismal failure and give biometrics a black eye.
"Secured"? I think not (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The company's name... (Score:2)
NEWS FLASH: Outbreak of pink eye paralyses Mexico (Score:5, Interesting)
Yikes! I'm getting sunglasses!!! (Score:2)
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?
Laser my eye! (Score:3, Funny)
eyes infection. (Score:4, Insightful)
gringo, this is how it spreads.
Scan This (Score:2)
I just turn around, pull down my pants, and tell them they can scan my iris.
-
Moronic use of money (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Don't worry, what can go wrong? (Score:2)
Duplicated article (Score:2)
This _may_ be fake. (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
easy for people with EYES (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or whether your eyeball is actually in your head or not?
After all, this is mexicio.
Re: (Score:2)
No more Stallone movies for you, okay?
Re: (Score:2)