Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

First Iris-scanning ATM 226

Posted by justin++ from the ala-star-trek dept.
TheSwitch writes "BBC News wrote a story about Stella, the first ATM machine that works completely on the eye. The machine from The Royal bank of Canada also talks on your birthday and the odds of a mistake are 1 in the 10 billion billion. Well, here's where I trust my cash... " British or American billion, I'd still say those are pretty good odds...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Iris-scanning ATM More

First Iris-scanning ATM

Comments Filter:
  • I'm also pretty sure that most muggers couldn't manage to remove your eyeballs in suitable condition, let alone in the middle of the street without someone discovering what was happening.
  • So am I gonna have to force you to give me money from your ATM or can I more simply just cut out your eye and use it?

    Ken
  • Iris scanning sounds like a good primary identification method, but I think having PIN numbers to type in aswell would be good. But that's just me.

    Also,the idea of discussing finances with a machine in the middle of the street is amongst the stupidest I've heard so far. Please let them keep keypads and displays on these things.
  • Read the article again, you'll read that the machines are heading to Britain after a successful public trial in Canada. That means that have already been in use for awhile.
  • I'm sure that anybody who performs a small service for somebody else (like the kid down the street who mows your lawn) would much rather not pay taxes on the 5 bucks you give him for doing your front yard.

    Forget taxes, I don't know about where you are, but here in Canada the kid would have to make a fair bit of cash (over $6,000) before he'd have to pay taxes anyway. The real problem would be investing in an iris scanner (I'm sure they don't come cheap) just for the sake of making $5 a week mowing your lawn.
  • First of all, it's good to see that /.-ers think that a talking, iris-scanning ATM is an idea only a pinhead would like. The only machine I'd possibly like to have a conversation with is a sex robot, and only until that becomes tedious.

    Secondly, iris scanning, or any other biometric security, is inherently insecure, as well as completely damaging to citizen privacy. Because biometrics is not tolerant of failure and has a very narrow application window, I wouldn't want to trust it. Further, I am more and more shocked at how poorly the information systems are being managed at banks across the country. They can't even get my checkbook balance right, let alone maintain something as complex as a biometric database.

    What seems to be an even more disturbing trend is how non-technical people automatically assume the system is inherently secure. An example is when I went in six months ago to cash a paycheck at my bank, who had finally installed a fingerprint system for certain types of transactions. I struck up a conversation with the teller (a bad first mistake) by saying that their fingerprint system was extremely easy to crack, and I could think of at least three ways to do it, just while I was standing there waiting for her to complete my transaction. This teller looked at me like I had just slid a paper bag across the counter and announced I had a gun. She gave some kind of 'fingerprints are infallible' argument, and so I responded: "1) What if I wanted to emulate a fingerprint of a target customer of your bank by inviting them over for drinks, and got their print that way? How hard would it be to make a plastic or rubber copy of that print and secrete it to my thumb? 2) What if I falsely claimed to be one of your wealthy clients, and used a small gadget to heat up, cool down, or humidify your thumb scanner outside its environmental tolerances, so you had to go with a signature or some similarly easy method of forgery? No? Ok, 3) what if I obtained a job at the vendor who made your security system, and replaced a wealthy patron's thumb print with my own long enough to withdraw a pile of cash?"

    The supervisor came over. That means the teller had to have pressed the psycho button behind the counter... anyway, after recounting the conversation, the supervisor repeated the same lame argument that the teller had, and obviously was gauging how far away the rent-a-cop was, and judging if he was paying enough attention to be of any help, should I go postal.

    I closed the conversation by saying that I was deeply concerned about the safety of my money, because the bank was run by incompetent, ignorant boobs, and had to leave before I threw up all over the carpet. The problem is that there isn't a single consumer bank anywhere in the USA which doesn't have the same dim bulbs holding my money.

    Thirdly, I don't use ATMs. I plan ahead and have cash when I need it. I don't like law enforcement's growing presumption that if you carry more than, say, $500 in cash, you have simply got to be a drug dealer. I think the populous needs to fight this kind of descrimination tooth and nail.

  • The increasing (incorrect) use of the American billion in Britain is ignorant people influenced
    by American culture (if there is such a thing)?


    Wrong. It's used by people who are perfectly aware of the difference, but need to get real work done.

    Next.
  • By policy, your social security number is yours forever.

    However, you missed the real intent of my post, which is to point out that this information should be legislated into total privacy, just like your medical records or financial transactions, which, like biometrics are also yours forever.

  • Re:yep (Score:1)

    by Surak ( 18578 )
    That depends on whether or not he/she has tried it before.

    Eventually, that information would get around and become common knowledge, just like the knowledge that the new American $20, $50, and $100 bills cannot be easily forged due to their "holographic" inks that change colors as you look at them from different angles. Or the fact that current bills $10 and up have small strips in them designed to allow detection of the bills by a scanning device.

    Or, if you weren't aware of those, I can think of lots of other security measures that have become common knowledge (car alarms come to mind...)




  • In a democratic society, the majority is right.

    This is an interesting statement for a few of reasons.

    First of all, the majority is only deemed to be right; there's nothing that says that because the majority of people believe something it's intrinsically true.

    Second, Britain is allegedly a democracy. The way it works ensures that the party which forms the government is the one that majority of people didn't vote for. Time to switch to a single transferable vote system, or it would be, if there was a hope in hell of people understanding it.

    Third, empirical data seem to suggest that the majority are often downright wrong.
  • There was a nice article about biometrics posted above, but I'll parot the standard problems:
    • You can't revoke a biometric.
    • You can't keep a biometric secret in any serious way.
    That is, biometrics don't have the two properties that any sort of key really should have.

    Other miscellaneous problems:

    • It's a bad idea to use the same key/password for many things. How many eyes/thumbs do you have?
    • Using one key or method of identification for any transaction is a bad idea. Biometric or not. You should have at least two -- eg, card + PIN. (so, if you _must_ use an iris scan, you should use a PIN too.)
    • For any biometric, there's some non-zero fraction of the demographic that doesn't have one.

  • I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet. One more way to assign a unique "identifier" to everything you do.

    I was thinking the other day...barring the fact that the big five recording companies are behind the SDMI for secure distribution of recorded music, I think it would be GREAT if there was an SPII (Strategic Personal Information Initiative). Just as SDMI is supposed to have "rules" that govern when and where a particular (secured) MP3 can be played or copied, I think that personal information should have the very same protection. What if, for example, upon providing the necessary information to a fulfillment house for a magazine subscription, you could set it and any other identifying information, to "self-destruct" after a specified period of time? Or, what if the information somehow existed so that it could remain indefinitely, but not be transferred to another party?

    All of this aggregation of personal information is going to get us into a real Orwellian situation if it isn't stopped. All this talk about "we have to do it to catch criminals" is a bunch of HORSE manure. I'd like to see a list of all of the "criminals" that were stopped or caught using Echelon, for example. How much has crime in New York city *really* declined as a result of the 2,400+ public surveylance cameras?
  • Hello, the homepage of Dr Daugman, the guy who has invented some of the technology can be found here [cam.ac.uk]. Look for "iris recognition".
  • Better idea! Subdermal data chips with small radios and antennas, which store all the information about you that the shops/ATM/whoever want.

    Yeeah...

    What scares me most is the number of friends that liked that idea. At least one thought it was only a good idea in everyone else, although perhaps that's worse.
  • *tries to get rid of the image of a publishing company being blown apart as information "self destructs"*

    The UK has the data protection act, which at least has some guidelines about how you acquire information, and all comapanies must give you a complete copy of any information they hold on you, possibly for a small admin fee, on request.
  • Even worse are the extreme technophobes, who stand there, reading each tiny screen of text for at least a minute before trying to decide which button to press.


    AAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

    Thankyou, I feel better for that.
  • I'm sure the account managers have special account flags, so people with disabilities can have full access.

    As for the Son-going-to-get-money-for-mom, I would assume there would be a system implemented (Similar to authorized account users on credit cards) that would allow immediate family members to use the system.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • All of this technology is great and all, but to me, it shows a further removal of people from interacting with their environment, a further electronification of the world, and simply something I don't like. I prefer to have my ATM card, because I'd rather not have to have my eyes scanned by some dorky machine that is also going to attempt to talk to me. Of course, if they made these machines without the addition of it's wishing you a happy birthday and such, I'd be ok.


    However, the idea of having my eyes scanned, though I'm sure it's probably a procedure that is unnoticeable, is not something I'd like to have done to me, because that just means that there's one more piece of information identifying me as me that is going to be stored in their computers, which means it's available for all those who can get to it, and it's available for exploitation. Although I realize that if someone knew my PIN and stole my ATM card, it'd be exploited as well, I'd just rather keep up with that piece of plastic. You can't hack into that.


  • As for the Son-going-to-get-money-for-mom, I would assume there would be a system implemented (Similar to authorized account
    users on credit cards) that would allow immediate family members to use the system.

    Do you really want a teenaged kid to have compete access to their parents checking accounts? Sure, the parents would have logs from the bank as to who took out the money but by then it's already gone.
  • It was an honest mistake :)
  • And, how many thieves do you know with access to cutting edge laboratory equipment, reseachers, and could be bothered waiting several months for the results?

    Which is why I say, it would become much more economically justifiable should the clone be able to access other things, like workstations, workplaces, the person's home, et cetera. If it were only the bank account, it would be easier to rob a bank.

  • We have had these for ages in the UK - and they're just as bad as ordinary ATM's.
    Excitement over...

    Frog51 [alsop.net]

  • Iris scanning works by analyzing the pattern in the iris. Color is not an issue.

  • yep (Score:1)

    by lilgorgor ( 7238 )
    now muggers can rip your eyes out instead of taking your ATM card!
  • A lot of things can change the appearance of your irises, like diabetes, RP, keratitus

    No big deal. You'll have to go to the bank and re-scan your eyes - then you can use ATM's again. It is not as if people get such a disease every other week. Many more people loose or accidentally destroy their cards today. Those with no eyes at all can do business the old-fashioned way, by actually talking to the bank clerks. Most of them do that already, the visual interface is no good for them.
  • Says the guy interacting electronically with people over Slashdot...

    So true, so true. (With one problem: I'm not a male). However, the point is still very true, very poignant, and is a key point I forgot to address in my "rant." And if it weren't for the internet and ATM machines, my life would be a peopled society, because, as far as I know, every other aspect of my life involves people, in some way. And it often involves people that I know well and care a lot for.

    And in response to someone else's reply that machines are more efficient than people... well, yes, they seem to be. And I'm not necessarily saying that we should try to keep people in the place of machines where machines can do a better job. However, I doubt that machines can do a decent job of arresting people. Or understanding their problems. Or comforting them (although this is debatable). Or a great deal of other jobs that people do and machines can not. Machines are only as good as the user, because it is the user who determines how it is used, not the maker, though he/she be all the more intelligent or not.
  • knowing the current level of precision employed banking technologies in use in the US, there is no way I would ever trust an ATM to shine a laser into my eye, even if the bank offered me a free eyepatch with their logo on it!
  • Well, that's actually been done in the movies (probably more than once). Check out one of Sean Connery's Bond movies, back in the 60s. I forget which one, but it's the one where an air force pilot is hypnotized (or something) and gets under the spell of sceptre. At the same time, sceptre makes a copy of the president's iris implant and alters the air force pilot's iris to match the presidents (i dont have a clue how).

    They did it in a particularly brutal way--they supposedly stole the President's retina scan and made a fake eyeball that they implanted in the Air Force officer's eye socket. The officer--who had security clearance, which is why SPECTRE chose him--then went to a control room, where he duly placed his face into a rather fearful-looking device for scanning, and he apparently had to do some kind of tuning (I remember him being nervous and having to practice for some reason).

    But that wouldn't be necessary in the "real world". Somewhere, a digital copy of your iris scan data would have to exist, which could then be copied without anyone's knowledge; using some way of patching the interface to the iris scanner, one could bypass the need for an eyeball and just feed the data into the scanner.

    Oh, and the movie was "Thunderball", not "From Russia with Love". :-)

    cya

    Ye Olde Webdesigner [surf.to]

  • Doesn't resemble LCARS in anyway here.
  • It still comes down to data. The big problem with this one, however, is that if your retina pattern is "stolen" you can't change it. Now the entire system is obsolete. Doh!

    If those numbers are British, I guess that makes it 10 Octillion to 1, American ;)... I'm thinking a good hacker with some optical equipment stands a substantially better chance than that!
  • ATM machine is redundant. Like PIN number. Cut it out.

    Not if you pronounce it "ATMachine" and "PINumber" like most people do. :-)

    Pet peeve.

    Really? What breed? :-)

    cya

    Ye Olde Webdesigner [surf.to]

  • this was on /. not too long ago and the big thing wuz muggers ripping out eyeballs. I believe it was said many times that a dead eye ball would not work with these machines so why go back to the same discussion?

    just remember, they aint gonna rip your eyes out, just mug you AFTER you got your money :P
  • /Allegedly/, a dead eyeball won't work -- something to do with blood flow and pressure. Of course, that could be bollocks.
  • Can they even use ATMs now? I don't see how someone without eyes (and therefore necessarily blind) could use an ATM even today. But the question remains about people with one glass eye. I'd expect it only to scan one eye simply because it's cheaper to do so.

  • An Eye For An Eye (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Saturday July 10, 1999 @11:55AM (#1808997)
    Iris-scanning ATM devices have been mentioned frequently in the last five years in documentaries and articles regarding technology, privacy and security. They are usually hailed as a brilliant and momentous step in advancing personal security and safety, but the bottom line is that the benefit is to financial institutions who often get stuck by fraud.

    Accessing everything from my front-door to an ATM machine with my eyeball is appealing. Who wouldn't like to walk around five pounds lighter, sans credit-cards, ATM cards, keys and identification card?

    I see a possible problem with many of the technological advances which utilize specific personal data that only you possess. I'm not a paranoia-bandit, but I would like to explore the extent to which my data will be used and by whom. I'm not sure I am comfortable with having my fingerprints, eye-pattern, or face-print (another innovation which reads the heat-patterns of your face) anymore than I am with turning over rights to my phone number, address, medical history, and DNA.

    If we could trust the institutions we are patrons of, such security evolutions would be incredibly advantageous. Unfortunately, we can't even trust the people we do business with to keep our credit-history or home address confidential, let alone our more personal physical makeup-data or 'information'. Businesses have a lack of ethics and accountability to their customers and will divulge anything for a price. They'll even tell every two-bit salesman where you live for five or six cents.

    Until an institution defines a clearly favorable policy regarding use of physical personal data, we should be wary and refuse business unless allowed to opt-out from the security measures.

    Once information about you is made available to one entity, you cannot revoke it. It is out there and will flow to the rest of the market. I don't believe we should be so nonchalant when turning over information which has no defined restrictions.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • I have a feeling that devices such as this will co-opted by the police and FBI very soon in the name of cathching criminals. I worry what might happen if a bug or data-entry error mistakes an honest person for a criminal. Heck I worry if a real criminal get caught with one of these things.

    If a devious person had access to the actual database couldn't they construct a set of contacts to mimic the iris of a person?
  • Now we know what happened to Q, from ST:TNG. He used his infinite abilities to come to the planet Earth and advance security in our financial institutions!

    John Daugman is Q!

    Visit the page yourself and view the evidence!


    ---
    seumas.com

  • Great, as soon as the system is cracked, we can all have free money! :)
  • A few people have speculated as to the physical safety and effects of scanning the iris, especially over a period of time.

    According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, it is "safer and less invasive than other ocular identification systems".

    The reason it is so safe is because scanning the iris is a non-invasive procedure and uses low levels of regular visible light (as opposed to IR or UV light) to find the person's face, the eye, and then take a snapshot of the iris.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • "They are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier" (Schneier, Aug 98 Crypto-Gram)

    Since the ATM is built as a safe, saying there is a trusted path from reader to verifier would almost be an understatement in this case.

    Trying to use biometrics for "securing" remote logins would be pathetic, unless you are using tamper resistant readers that sign their biometric reading + with timestamp or challenge to prevent replay attacks. And be sure keep some way to revoke reader credentials in case a reader signing key is compromised.
  • And you think that'll stop them trying?

  • I can see there being a few cases, but I think they'll learn fast enough.
  • It shouldn't affect the reliability of the machine. In fact, even surgery cannot alter the pattern of the iris, without basically blinding you.
    ---
    seumas.com
  • And they are certainly nothing new. Iris scanning was first introduced at a medical convention in the 1930's.
    ---
    seumas.com
  • The people who ask if some mugger is going to rip your eyes out with a Swiss army knife are missing several points:
    1. The "mugger" doesn't need your eyes. He just needs to nab you *after* getting your money...or do it like in Central America, where they kidnap you and drive you off to a series of ATMs until your account is empty or they get bored and just shoot you.
    2. In the future, there will certainly also be technological workarounds to fool such scanners. It would be a difficult problem, but not unsolvable--scan the person's eye (or steal a previous scan) and replicate it.
    3. In the future, you have more to fear from the crackpot behind his modem (be he from the government or a criminal) than you do from the mugger on the street.

    Anyway. Food for thought.

    cya

    Ye Olde Webdesigner [surf.to]

  • I was in a sub shop one day waiting to be seated, and I was horrified to hear a store employee say into the phone (loud enough so everyone could hear): "OK, let me just read this back: Mary Smith, 123 W. 1st St., apartment 302, and the security code is 1234, is that right? Great, we'll have that to you in about 30 minutes!"

    Mary might get more company than she was expecting...
    --

  • Well it's possible to have one glass eye, and thus, if the thing scanned (and relied) on two valid irises, it might not work.

    Also, Wells Fargo has recently implemented (or is going to) an auidible ATM (i.e. it speaks to you); so that blind people can use it.. Seems crazy to me... screw mugging them, just stick a tape recorder nearby.
  • Sure they can. They can poke at it with their nose, or use a prostetic finger of sorts... or a barbie leg *grin* (IF you don't read the National Enquirer, barbie legs have been used as artificial fingers, because they are bendable (the knee joint) and controlable via some motorized mechanism).
  • Today, if someone steal your card, he needs to watch you typing your code or ask it to you. With finger scan, he needs ... your finger :-( and with the iris scan, he needs your eye :-((( . I am always puzzled by people killing others for a few thousand of EUR (or $), therefore I am not keen about finger/iris scan
    I 'd rather prefer a voice scan or anything that both a/ needs you alive; and b) make it clear that you need to be alive to get my money.
    Iris scan? Not for me!
  • It's even worse that that - the BBC report I saw had the customer saying (shouting) the amount into
    the ATM himself!

    I'm perturbed by all this talk of muggers ripping out eyeballs, which I hadn't thought of.

    How about using voice-print ID on a random text flashed up at the time of the cash request - so I would at least have to be alive in front of the ATM. The bank would have previously analysed enough of my recorded voice to re-recognise me saying practically anything in English. When I actually use the ATM it randomly composes a phrase and tells me to recite it back ("The goat hides the green trousers under the observatory"). This would mean that muggers would have no incentive to mutilate me...

    george

  • When iris-scanning ATM's arrive in my neighborhood, they'll be trashed inside of 24 hours.

    More likely, the users will be trashed...


    Machine: Welcome to Personal Iris Banking. To begin, lean forward and look directly into the scanner.

    You lean forward...

    Mugger in the shadows: Yeah, lean forward sucker.

    Machine: Scan not completed. Please lean forward and look directly into the scanner.

    You: Damn machine...

    You lean a bit farther forward to get a proper scan.

    The mugger seizes the opportunity and sneaks up behind you.

    *** THWAP! ***

    You: Ungh!

    Mugger: Shuddup!

    Machine: You currently have $1,234.56 in your account. Would you like to make a withdrawl?

    You: Ungh!

    Mugger punches in a withdrawl, takes the money, and runs off.

    Machine: You have $0.00 remaining in your account. Thank you for using Personal Iris Banking.

    You: Ungh!

    Machine: Oh, and happy birthday Mr. Smith.

  • You do not seem to appreciate the benefits of
    peopleless society. The machines are much cheaper
    in a long run. For every clerk or policemen we can
    nowadays install 10 such machines a year!

    Moreover, machines are much more reliable than
    people, since machines do not have conscience.
    It is now sufficient to find one human that is
    bad enough to block all accounts for certain
    individuals and thousands of automatic clerks
    will obey such command. Sue that individual -
    only if you will get money for the lawyer, but
    how to get them, if all your accounts are blocked?

    The old fashioned idea of human clerks and
    policemen is not sufficient for efficient
    dictatorship. They are watching you, but you
    are also watching them. At the end you can
    negotiate, what's the right thing to do.
    Try to negotiate with our computers. It
    won't work. Throw a desperate look at their
    high quality lenses. They won' mind. Ask them
    to call their manager. They can for hours repeat,
    that they do not understand.

    Once this system is fully in place, our
    comunist/fascist/maoist system will not only
    survive - it will be actually economically very
    profitable - of course mostly for us - but - maybe
    also for some people of exemplary obedience.

    BTW,
    Your name and address, family information and
    retina scan is already dutifully recorded and will be
    used in usual manner. I would recommend you to
    change your negative opinion about our technology.
    (If you want your money (now our money) back)

    Your always carefully watching

    Big Brother
  • This is pretty old. Houston, Texas got them about three months ago. I remember seeing them while I was still living there, and the newspaper even had a whole write up about them. I think when I left there were six of these in the city.
  • I don't see how someone without eyes (and therefore necessarily blind) could use an ATM even today.

    People who are blind can use braile to read the keys on ATM's... but my argument isn't about blind people it is about people with no eyes at all...
  • I would like this explained... I'm the sort of person who's allergic to just about everything and I sneeze all the time. I would like to know what _not_ to do, since otherwise I'm likely to stumble upon the secret of sneezing wrong by accident.
  • There are some very concerning things going on with the trends in some of these new laws for new technologys that govts are bringing in. Australian censorsip laws could be quite nasty if someone decided to take them to the fullest extent - not really likely at the moment.
    I reckon that everyone should go read up at www.worldmedia.com [worldmedia.com] to get some diferent views and commentary on some real world events. - Alternative Media, better Truth. (as strange as that sounds)
  • http://cnri.edu/courses/F AQ/Iridology_can_show_and_not_.htm [cnri.edu]

    got it from some other thread. Useful info on iridology etc....
    it cant show whether subject is male or female or whether they are pregnant.....
  • I remember hearing about this statistic a while ago. I believe it comes from a survey printed (and possibly performed by) the Washington Post. 92% of journalists voted Democrat in the last election, and the majority of journalists are registered Democrats.

    Just because the Washington Post said so doesn't make it true, of course, but I think that it helps drive home the point that it's important to get BOTH sides of the story.
  • YOU'RE DONE NOW GET OUT OF THE WAY!

    But you do want to get your money in a safe place, in front of the ATM. You know there's a camera recording, and potential muggers know so too.
  • i wish people would stop pointing that out and acting like they've discovered some hilarious folly on the part of banks. the cost of having two different types of ATMs would far outweigh the tiny savings in materials.
  • If I remember correctly, the database stores enough to verify the person, but not enough to create a lens that will match the profile. I think.
  • That's why the parents are asked to select authorized account users.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Here's what bothers me about this system: the current card & PIN system has my bank's routing information encoded on it, so if I use an ATM at a bank other than my own, it gets the routing info from the card, and sends the transaction info to my bank. With this iris system, every bank has to have everyone's retina on file in order to provide the same service. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable letting *MY* bank scan my retina, much less send that data out into some kind of master database that any financial institution could access...

    Also, I like this line at the end of the article:

    The machines would also be able to provide [night club patrons] with airtime cards for pre-paid mobile phones and stamps.

    When was the last time you went out to a night club for drinks and dancing, and needed stamps? "Oh, crap, I forgot to send Grandma's birthday card. I'll use STELLA to get some stamps!" :-)

  • "In the future, there will certainly also be technological workarounds to fool such scanners. It would be a difficult problem, but not unsolvable--scan the person's eye (or steal a previous scan) and replicate it. "

    Well, that's actually been done in the movies (probably more than once). Check out one of Sean Connery's Bond movies, back in the 60s. I forget which one, but it's the one where an air force pilot is hypnotized (or something) and gets under the spell of sceptre. At the same time, sceptre makes a copy of the president's iris implant and alters the air force pilot's iris to match the presidents (i dont have a clue how).

    Eventually, of course, it all gets figured out and stopped and everything by Bond, but everyone here who thinks they're the first to think about copying someone's iris is waaay! behind. It might be From Russia With Love, but I'm not positive at all..
  • At that particular bank branch, there were two ATMs located inside the building with the one drive thru. The ones inside didn't have braille on the keypad, only the drive-thru one. So much for redundency.
  • Well, that sounds like a statistic made up on the spot, so I'll counter it. 84% of publishers and editors are republicans. Now lessee, who has the final say on content? Journalists? noooooo.

    Just because a lot of journalists are liberal doesn't mean the media is liberal. If the media were liberal, there would be no coverage of private sexual affairs in government--that's not a liberal thing to do, it's a right-wing conservative thing to do.
  • Obviously you've never really thought about how you'd use an ATM if you were blind. Hint: you'd probably have a taxi or friend take you to a drive-up teller with you sitting in the seat behind the driver. You don't have to be blind to figure that out, just think for a moment...
  • I don't think we use the old 'British' definition of billion (1 million million) over here any more, although I could be wrong. If so, I've been misreading everything for years :)
  • it doesn't say 10 billion to 1 ... it says 10 billion, billion to one ... which i beleive is:
    10,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1
  • I heard a piece about this on Radio 4 the other day, they played a recording of someone using one. The damned things also talks to you, it is tediously slow. As if cash point machines weren't slow enough already, I'm always drumming my fingers waiting for the machine to catch up.
  • uh, I type faster than I think... the price I pay for successfully completing touch-typing school!

    :g/retina/s//iris/g
  • Of course, that could be bollocks.
    Only if you paint irises on them. And stand on your tip-toes.
  • AFAIK a genetic duplicate wouldn't be sufficient to dupliate the retina.

    And, how many thieves do you know with access to cutting edge laboratory equipment, reseachers, and could be bothered waiting several months for the results?

    Heck, I think it would cost more to clone most people than they have in their accounts!
  • What happens if you have some sort of eye infection? A few weeks ago I sneezed wrong and both of my eyeballs filled up with blood, which took about a week to go away. Would this mess up such a machine?

  • From Men at Arms (I think)

    "Hit a man too hard and you can't rob him again; hit him just hard enough, and you can rob him again tomorrow."

    --
  • Well you could always use your other eye. Though once the other one is reproduced in some way to, then you have a problem. ;]
  • What gets to me more is when the person in front of you takes too long.. "What are you doing, playing Tetris on that thing?" People shouldn't pay bills on the ATM, at least at my bank which gives everyone free telephone and Internet banking.

    And I don't think I want my ATM talking to me. "You have requested to withdraw.. one.. thousand.. dollars. Please press OK.." You might as well wear a sign that says MUG ME. Or more likely in my case, the embarassment of "Your account balance is.. three.. dollars and .. forty.. two.. cents."

  • Could be, I just had my eyes examined last week and had an interesting discussion on measuring hydrostatic pressure in the eye optically.

    BTW, the bollocks comment above is the funniest thing I have ever read on /. ;-)
  • well, this might be similar to those hard drives with an MTBF of 400000h.

    I wondered too often how short that period can be.
  • Anyone see it mentioned anywhere how these machines might treat contacts? Due to the diff't reflections, would a machine used to seeing you WITH them in reject you if you didnt, or vice versa?

    Also, what of those who wear colored contact lenses? If this becomes standard on all ATMs in the country it all but rules them out!

    tchort

  • I've never been in a pub with a Billiard table, Snooker, pool, yes - Billiards no...

    Played skittles in a Pub once though, that was a bit antiquated, kept on exprecting a buxom wench carrying flagons of ale to crash towards me.

    Bit of a pity she didn't, if she said something, I could use that old Blackadder line, "okay you can stop that talk, I'm not a tourist."

    mark.

    -- "Ho hum, It's all a load of bollocks, Eddie", Ricky in "Bottom".
  • It really annoys me when odds are quoted like this, since they are essentially meaningless.

    The odds they quote (1 in 10^19) effectively mean it is *absolutely* foolproof. This is obviously bullshit in practice, as there is always finite chance of error. Someone has to code the thing up, and there is obviously a *small* chance of a bug somewhere along the line.

    Ergo: the original statistic was incorrect and totally meaningless.

    You can come up with large numbers to show DNA based tests are foolproof, but you can still get a Mark Furman.

    PIN numbers are secure enough for me, and they are only 1 in 10^4. The security is needed elsewhere. If someone is standing behind me at the ATM with a gun, he'll still get my money.


    As an aside, my physics professor said the size of the universe was about 10^30 (if I remember correctly). What units are you talking about? we would ask. But obviously it doesnt matter, when numbers are as large as this.
  • I saw the BBC News item too, and the demonstrator basically stood there and had a dialogue with this thing, calling out how much money he wanted, etc.. It looked completely dopey, and I couldn't imagine it working in Piccadilly or Times Square.

    How does it work in a noisy environment? (One of the planned deployments is in nightclubs!) Does it work in the rain? Can people behind you call out answers just to piss you off? Will the system accept bird calls, music and road works as valid, unpredictable input? (Answer: of course.) Will it understand you when you're drunk, and you need the money for a taxi home?

    More seriously, how does it cope when you have multiple bank cards with different institutions? How does it cope when you are using an ATM
    of a bank you're not a customer of, perhaps in a foreign country?

    A real example: I have multiple accounts with a Scottish bank but I live in England, so I'm always using ATMs of other banks. In addition , I travel abroad, and rely on my Visa or Amex cards to draw cash. If plastic cards are done away with, how does my single, non-transferable iris pattern work without every bank in the world having details of every account I could draw money on, so that they can offer me the choice of account to use? At least bank/credit card account numbers are structured to allow institutions to contact the issuer for approval; iris patterns have no such predictable structure. The card I choose to insert into the ATM picks my account to be debited, so I still want to be able to have that choice, but I can't see (sic) how this could be done without massive, world-wide propagation of customer information to every participating institution.

    Now, if they were to keep ATMs the way they are now, but just allow iris scanning as an option in place of a PIN, I think it might be more workable.
  • ...some blind people who have chauffeurs :)
  • Interesting. Like you, I am also somewhat concerned about my privacy.

    However, I would like to point out that a biometric (iris scanning is an example of a biometric, which is anything that measures a part of your body unique to you), while being more secure than an ATM card, for instance, is really not any more privacy-invasive than any other piece of data that is unique to you, such as your e-mail address, or social security number, or the ICQ number that you so freely post in your sigblock.

    We give out unique pieces of data everyday, and not necessarily by choice. It is important to realize that in doing so, we are implicity trusting those who we give this information to.

    I think rather than walking around paranoid, we should consider making private data priveleged infomration that is protected by law.

    In other words, I think we need legislation *requiring* certain data to be consider confidential by financial institutions, etc. Something akin to, say, medical records or account balances which are already not allowed to be disclosed by law.

    Write your legislators: make them realize when it comes to privacy, we mean business! You *can* make a difference.

  • How archaic! I live in Canada, and the last time I saw someone pay by cheque at a supermarket was probably 10 years ago.

    Well, most supermarkets, drugstores, and other chains here (at least the ones in Florida) take debit cards on the Honor and/or Plus networks. Also, most people are getting check cards that replace their debit cards -- they have a Visa or MasterCard logo, and work wherever they are taken, but deduct directly from the checking account they are tied to. I hate checkwriters too; they are usually technophobes or people who can't be bothered to use their debit card.

    And even though Wal-Mart, Eckerd (a drugstore), and many other chains can print everything but the signature on the check, most people still write them out the long way.

    Even fast food places take Interac now.

    I don't think most fast food places here take Visa or MC, and they certainly don't take debit; sooner or later they definitely take check cards.

    But literally the only time I ever use cash now is at bars and restaurants.

    I usually use my check card at restaurants, as the good ones usually take Visa. I think cash is somewhat archaic as well.

    Off-topic ethnocentrism: I noticed that you used both the correct (check) and incorrect (cheque) spelling of a certain negotiable instrument...creeping Americanism getting to you?

    Mike
    --

  • Re:yep (Score:1)

    by Surak ( 18578 )
    Actually, most of the articles I've read on this subject say that most iris scanners defeat this by taking *multiple* pictures of the iris at random intervals, because a real eye is constantly moving, but eyes torn out of your sockets, or a picture of your eyes would not be moving. Furthermore, some of these iris scanners actually take the multiple pictures at different angles, making any sort of video playback, etc. useless.
  • Perhaps it is is the stuff of science fiction, but I believe that there exists a huge weakness with biometrics (actually, there are several, and they all come together to be one really big one.)

    In a thread above, I posted [slashdot.org] an example of the problem of making identifications more secure, and how that causes a stronger economic interest to try to get around those more secure systems.

    So, the idea here is that if there is a strong enough economic interest, someone will try to find a way of getting around these silly biometric readers.

    And so here's my idea: Cloning.

    When I first thought of this idea, I imagined some sort of criminal walking around with a baby holding it in front of the bank machine scanner. Actually, it doesn't need to be that inconvenient. Does anyone remember the article about scientists cloning a human ear onto the back of a mouse? If they can do that, it is perfectly conceivable that someone can clone an exact copy of my eye onto the back of a mouse. All someone would need is to carry that strange looking mouse around.

    My thesis, once again, is that if the economic gain is large enough, then it will be worth putting the time and effort into getting around the identification system, and if the technology is available and advanced enough, cloning would be able to do it. And while getting access to my bank account may not be worth the trouble, getting access to my bank account, my computer, my house and my workplace may justify the expense involved.

    The best part of this is what someone needs to do it--DNA. Heck, we shed plenty of DNA waking up in the morning and walking to the bathroom. It won't take much at all to make the clone. We are a long way away from security guards in front of hair salons, but maybe we should be a little alarmed about securing too many important things on something that may become very easy to copy.
  • You can already use your credit card to buy groceries, tools, computers, music, etc etc. I am not in favor of completely eliminating cash because I don't want the credit company to know every purchase I have made, and I'm sure that anybody who performs a small service for somebody else (like the kid down the street who mows your lawn) would much rather not pay taxes on the 5 bucks you give him for doing your front yard.
  • subdermal antennas? Blah! What we need is a device that scans your brain for what you're thinking, and properly plans your daily activities. Great for management of traffic on highways, the internet, as well as general ppl-having. Next, the device could use unused brain cycles to process data. Then we could be like the borg.
  • You know, there is a better side to all of this. Remember the last time you went to a restaurant, and got really crappy service? Or you were doing something that involved other people whom you couldn't understand because they were speaking in a horribly disfigured way?
    All your problems are solved -- no people, just some radio buttons and checkboxes (With fudge/Plain) and you're fine! Then when there's a widespread package delivery system, and a keyboard that can scan your fingers for what they would be typing if they were to move like you think they would if you made them, you could sit in a big chair and be fed extra-thick squishies through a straw.

  • Mass media is excessively liberal.

    Uh, right. That's the old "media conspiracy against poor victimized conservatives" argument. Source for your statistic, please? If anything, the media works for corporate interest, though that may be more by the publishers and editors than by the reporters themselves.

    Another way of saying what you said is that "conservatives don't know what's going on in the world." Maybe journalists start out as a random distribution, but turn more liberal as they investigate what's going on in the world, when they see the bigger picture, and they realize just who's been lying to them all along. At least one journalist friend of mine started out fairly right-wing, but is that way no more.

    And don't forget, not all liberals are Democrats. And anyway, political positions are much more complex than the one-dimensional liberal-vs.-conservative model we in America are fed each day.

  • Many moons ago I used to do high security for Honeywell. We were using, I believe Schlage, prototype hand scanners for SCIF room door access. One the contractors had to remove/fire an employee because he in fire and had litterally no finger prints left. Because his hand were constantly healing we couldn't get a consistent print from him.
    This was in '91 and thos things horribily unreliable. The scanners had a downloadable database via 1.44MB drive installed in it. I never could get hands on one long enough to think about hack'n it though... And of course we had some Navy security officer standing over me the whole time.

  • If the money is actually on the card, what happens if you lose it?

    Uh, well, if you had a wad of cash, what happens if you lose it? The same thing I imagine... you're out that much cash...so don't put *ALL* your cash on the card...put just enough to get what you need... you don't go walking around with *ALL* your money in your wallet, do you? [If so, where do you live? :) ]

    Ender

  • I heard a study that says these retinal scanners damage the DNA in your eyes, causing mutations when the cells reproduce, much like skin cancer from the sun. The problem is do to the rate at which eye cells reproduce, it will go unnoticed until its too late. I sure hope they've thouroughly tested this thing.
  • I love it! If these things ever get wide-spread, I'm going to call out $1 million whenever I see someone use them.

  • what about people w/o eyes (Score:3)

    by geocajun ( 11733 ) on Saturday July 10, 1999 @10:21AM (#1809125)

    I have seen many people that had a glass eye... So this makes me wonder does this machine read one eye or both eyes? If it reads both eyes then the glass eye would need to be upgraded to contain a microchip or IR device of sorts?

    What about people with no eyes... they can use the old system still right? Does this end the days of kids (with permission) taking their parents ATM cards to get cash?

    I think I am for this system because I think we can only benefit from not having to carry our wallets with us everywhere... although maybe this technology would be better suited for the police to identify people rather than ATM machines...
    This is a scary innovation because of the things people will do to get your money, not because of the technology.

    by the way... does over use of this type of ATM machine cause any cancer? *laugh*
  • Definition of irony: Braille lettering on a drive-thru ATM machine.
  • And that is the big crutch of this system for future use.

    Today, we use bank card + PINs. If you added to that system an iris scan, the process would be very secure, and then we can talk comfortably about 1 in 10 billion chances.

    The thing is, if you were to say to a bank customer, we can make this more secure, if we also scan your iris too...then they won't want to do it. There is no strong interest for them in doing it, and they have to go through a third inconvenient process.

    In order to get their irises scanned, you have to give them something, and that, in this instance, is the convenience of not having the card nor the PIN.

    With that in mind, my thesis is that we won't have anymore security for very long with this type of system.

    Since all you need is the iris to get money of the bank, there will exist an economic interest in figuring out a way of fooling the system. If you needed the card, the PIN and the iris, that economic interest would be squelched by the complexity.

    Adding to that the fact that your iris may be the key to a lot of other future uses, like entering your workplace, or turning on your computer, then the economic interest of tricking these systems rises even higher (assuming you can use the same process for any scanner.)

    I am reminded by a less complex example of this idea that occured just a few years ago.

    California, in 1996, introduced a new PVC plastic driver's license, with digitized photo, special anti-counterfiting materials, blah blah blah.

    The California BMV told everyone that this would be a more secure system that would reduce fraud, and expectations were raised. The assumption people were making was "s/he's got the new license, they must be legit."

    Shortly after the license introduction, a huge amount of fraudulent licenses came up...perfect copies. It sure annoyed a lot of people, who spent millions getting this system into place, and then having perfect copies coming out.

    The copies were genuine, from the BMV. BMV employees were paid as much as $5000 for each license. Since the economic interest of getting a genuine license had risen so much, there existed the a market for spending $5000 for one of those licenses, because you could do so much more with them since they had the reputation for security. If they couldn't do anything for you, except allow you to drive, the no one would be spending $5000 a piece.

  • Biometrics are not secrets. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography, had some interesting things to say about biometrics.

    http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9808.html#b iometrics [counterpane.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats

Close