Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Which biometric device would you most like to see?

Oct 17, 2005 8:42AM PDT

Which biometric device would you most like to see in common use?

Retinal scanner (why?)
Fingerprint reader (why?)
Hand reader (why?)
Voice recognition (why?)
Facial recognition (why?)
Other (what is it?)
None--this is way too sci-fi!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Retinal Scan sooooo many plus reasons
Oct 18, 2005 10:14AM PDT

Medical technology has not yet discovered the value of retinal scans. There are so many health issues which will be uncovered when changes in the eye will trip a false negative on a retinal scan. The change as a result of some medical condition will motivate the person to get a proffesional medical exam.

- Collapse -
people are scared of the misuse
Oct 18, 2005 11:53AM PDT

I fully agree with your reasons to use the system of retinal scans, but these are the very same reasons that people don't want to use them. It is a general perception that the information so gathered by changes in retinal scans due to diseases will or may be used against employees by the management.
just my .02cents
Niloufer Tamboly, CISSP

- Collapse -
Retinal scanning the most secure among listed options
Oct 18, 2005 10:16AM PDT

My (educated?) guess is that retinal properties are more difficult to counterfeit than fingerprints, faces, voices, etc.

- Collapse -
true, however...
Oct 18, 2005 10:36PM PDT

retinal scanning requires the user to be still durring the snapshot process with you looking into or staring at the lense of a specialized camera, and yes there are ways of copying someones eyeball with an acrylic remake.

there is another part of the eye though that is sucessfully being looked at for identification verification, the Iris. One's iris has a unique pattern and hue variance that is entirely unique to the user, double that with the fact that each of your eyes iris' have their own variances. so you would be the only one with the pair, regardless of if someone had a patern and hue variance that were very similar. also the process of scanning ones iris isnt as invasive, as say a retinal scan, which needs very bright focused light shone into the eye to be accurate by any means

- Collapse -
Retnal Scan ?
Oct 18, 2005 10:28AM PDT

I'm developing cataracts and till they reach a point where they have gone far enough and I can safe up the funds for the surgery how might a clowdy lens (cataract) impat the ability of the retnal scanning technology to do it's job? Actually at least one of my eyes is ready for surgery but my finances are preventing me from considering surgery at this time.

- Collapse -
Forgot part two
Oct 18, 2005 10:34AM PDT

What happens if someone has suffered a retnal detachment and had it repaired or is unable to have it repaired? Would that change the image from what is on file? As someone with severe mophia from an early age I am in a high risk group for retnal detachments.

- Collapse -
Iris scans also exist...
Oct 18, 2005 10:58AM PDT

The surface of your iris is also unique enough to be used for identification purposes. This might be a better application than retinal scans, because iris damage is far less common.

- Collapse -
TheBeast
Oct 18, 2005 10:55AM PDT

It's the mark of the Beast. You better hope they don't start this........ It will be the end of us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike

- Collapse -
biometrics
Oct 18, 2005 11:02AM PDT

the only problem I have with retina scanning is contact lenses - while I know that its supposed to bounce into the retina,which is the back of the eye, it wouldn't take any genious to fake an opaque contact lens whereas the fingerprint can't be so easinly changed.Unless, of course, you just happaened to have a spare finger in your pocket!

- Collapse -
but...
Oct 18, 2005 11:07AM PDT

In order to fake some's retinal image you would first have to obtain that image somehow. Dunno a real easy way to do that, but I know there are ways to copy a fingerprint quite easily.

- Collapse -
Careful! This is your whole identity here!
Oct 18, 2005 11:07AM PDT

Using yourself as a credit card, wallet, password, entry into all of your private real and virtual lockboxes etc. is all very convenient, but you've centralized your whole identity. So what, you say, only I have my fingerprint/face/retina, whatever? Nobody can steal my uniqueness!

For the moment, maybe not. Right off the bat, I can think of two ways to hack your biometric identity. The first would be to hack into the central biometric data repository and simply replace your data with someone else's. That person would then steal most or all of your wealth, after which the data would be switched again to cover the tracks, probably before anyone knew a thing had happened.

The second way would be to secretly photograph whatever part of you was being used for biometrics, in extremely high resolution, as a blueprint to create a prosthetic device which could then be worn or, in some circumstances, simply waved in front of a scanner to gain access to your life. Worn prosthetics could include a realistic synthetic skin glove, a Mission Impossible type mask, or a contact lens. Science fiction movie magic? Only a step beyond biometrics itself.

Finally, whatever safeguards are promised at the beginning of a biometric revolution, try to realize that sooner or later people in the government are going to be tempted to use all that information which has now been tied to one single, unique piece of data, what database programmers call the primary key, the one that opens up all of your privacy and your personal power.

- Collapse -
None -- The Ultimate Fraud & Terrorism Tool
Oct 18, 2005 11:09AM PDT

I don't believe biometric ID is too sci-fi. I DO believe that once something is digitized, it will eventually be available to anyone who chooses to use it. Unfortunately, those bent on identity theft will become frequent abusers once biometric ID becomes common enough. Fraud/theft will become rampant with little defense. Terrorists will have their choices of "safe" identities, which means none of us will be safe. All this requires is a 'critical mass' of biometric ID uses and users. Biometric ID will be one of modern civilization's worst errors, one from which we may never recover.

- Collapse -
Voice recog.
Oct 18, 2005 11:19AM PDT

The only reason I chose this is because of germs and disease spreading. Fingerprint and hand recog. could easily spread germs (ok, maybe a bit anal). The eye scanner freaks me out a bit because of possible long term effects and one person with pink eye could really mess things up.

I think all of them have negatives. Voice may not work if you have a cold, eye with an eye infection, and fingerprint with an injury (speaking from experience...)

I had fingerprints taken for a concealed handgun license, and later had a major cut across my finger that took several stitches. The prints no longer matched.

- Collapse -
Fingerprint Scanning is Fine.
Oct 18, 2005 11:51AM PDT

Nothing is perfect. Certainly not any current system in use today. Fingerprints do not change over time. The points of identification remain the same from the time of birth until the time of death. Even major injuries to a finger does not change the print. There are exceptions to every rule including this one. Complete mutilation of the surface of a finger or any friction skin could render that part of the skin unreadable but the mutilation would have to be so complete that the digit itself would be useless. Even if that were to happen to one finger, the other nine and the palm of the hand and the friction skin surfaces of the feet would still be the same as the day that the person was born. If a person were to receive a cut across the print surface of a finger that left a permanent scar, that scar would become an identifiable mark. The points of comparison would not likely be changed by the scar and even if one point was affected, there would be many other points still available to use for identification.

The problem would be with the sophistication of the physical equipment used to scan the prints of the person making a transaction. (Or the lack of sophistication) If the scan is reliable, the chance of a false positive is very unlikely. Much less likely than some clerk at a cash register looking at a drivers license to verify the identity of the person standing in front of them. How many times has a clerk looked at your license and never even looked at you to compare your face with the picture on the document.

Another problem would be in the security of the database with all the prints on file. Most of the people reading this will be much more sophisticated in computers and computer safety than I, so I won't even get into that part. You know where I'm coming from on that.

The next possible problem that I see is whether or not the print scan will be the only means to access an account or whatever else the system is supposed to protect. If the scan is the only thing between me and my account, I am definitely opposed. If it is used merely as the first layer of identification, I think it is great. In any system, it should only be the first layer of protection. A PIN or some other means that can be changed if it is compromised is absolutely necessary.

I am a retired police officer with 30 years experience and about 17 years as a evidence technician, so I know a little about fingerprints and fingerprint identification. A lot more about that than computers and such. That's why I do a lot of reading here and very little talking. I think Cnet is great because it allows someone like me to learn while I'm having fun.

Bill M

- Collapse -
All are subject to dramatic change,...
Oct 18, 2005 11:54AM PDT

... In todays activities within human lifestyles the eventual change in biometric trace factors is bound to happen. An accident or solid punch to the eye or face, a wet-saw or rock face disfiguring prints, distortion or loss of voice due to illness, any number of circumstances can alter any one choosen form of bio.-ID. I once had a print scanner take a half an hour to scan any part of my hand that would identify me, only to result in failure and the eventual old fashing ink just to record I had been there claiming to be the person on my drivers license. This was due to my prints being removed be the use of a diamond blade of a wet-saw. What a pain it would be if I couldn't buy groceries till my prints grew back. Just a thought. JT

- Collapse -
I want to give you the finger
Oct 18, 2005 12:02PM PDT

I think fingerprinting is the way to go. I can give the finger to authentication.

- Collapse -
biometrics
Oct 18, 2005 12:09PM PDT

I'd like to see at least two, preferably three, used in conjunction including voice.

- Collapse -
Fingerprint reader
Oct 18, 2005 12:39PM PDT

I use one now for basic logons,it is a MS product and works very well. You should register at least two fingers. I did and it was worth it. I cut one finger and whilst the cut was still healing the biometric reader rejected the print. There was no residual scar and within a couple of weeks it was accepted again. I would have a concern to trust an eye to a public or semi-public biometric reader and doubt if there would be a high takeup rate on anything to do with eyesight. Fingerprint readers would have to be controlled in their access or vandals will easilly render them useless with spraypaint. LH Australia

- Collapse -
re: biometric device
Oct 18, 2005 12:43PM PDT

How does a retinal scanner cope with the results of aging, our bodies inevitably change, small blood vessels in the eye give rise to what are known as floaters. For 73 years I have known who I am and I don't really see why I shpuld need to prove my existence because of thieves and vagabonds. Hopefully normal care, concealing pin numbers and destroying essential parts of documents such as name and address before throwing them in the trash will stop identity theft. The problem with introducing these technical devices at 'point of sale' is 1. cost (that will eventually be passed back to the consumer) 2. they breakdown as all devices do, usually at a critical time (then what happens for example in a busy supermarket queue).
'They' said that 'Chip and Pin' would be the answer to card fraud but I find some of these wonderful devices broken in local shops and reliance being placed on signatures.

- Collapse -
biometric id
Oct 18, 2005 12:57PM PDT

It really doesn't matter what method is picked for identifying persons there will always be persons out there who fake it somehow or steal someone else's id. 3MACS

- Collapse -
Here's a gruesome reason I don't like the fingerprint idea
Oct 18, 2005 1:44PM PDT

Then, cutting off a finger of a person who has access to major funds/info and applying a heater to simulate the average temperature of a finger that is connected to a living being, you have a motive for cutting off fingers.

Joe

- Collapse -
IRIS scans, and commets re: stealing fingers etc.
Oct 19, 2005 2:22AM PDT

better than retinal scans are iris scans - they require a less invasive picture. In fact, it can be done without your knowledge and through sunglasses.

Re: the comment about lasers and eye-scans? No worries - LASERs are NOT used, only simple sources like LEDs.

Re: the comment about this being scary because it may encourage thieves to steal your finger or eyeball - also bogus (sorry, you watch to many crap movies). Any secure method will also check to make sure that the body part is still attached to the owner. For an iris or retinal scan, that could involve a little flash of light and looking for the pupil to contract. For a thumb print, it could be looking for the pulse (think of the finger-touch kind that is built into treadmills at the gym). A simple LED and sensor can look for both pulse and blood oxygen levels. None just look for "body temperature". That method 1) is not secure and 2) would lock out lots of valid users in cold climates (fingers can get very cold while still attached!).

Re: mark of the beast - well, that is not even worth comment except to dispell the myth that any barcode starts with "666"

- Collapse -
Too many crap movies?
Oct 25, 2005 2:48PM PDT

Nope. Never saw or heard of this gruesoem way of cutting off a finger and using it to bypass security. Totally original thought. Happy What happened is I didn't think of s pulse reader.

And I agree with the "Omigod, it's 666!" wierdoes. First, "666" is not the original number in the hebrew text. Second, believing in biblical horror predictions is silly. Third, being told that when someone calls your belief silly is doing what he devil wants, you are closer to a cult.

Joe

- Collapse -
Fingerprints
Oct 18, 2005 1:50PM PDT

This basic method of fingerprints has been around for many years and has proven to be the best identification up to the DNA process of todays world.

Touching a simple print pad itentify's the person. Retinal scanner has been used, but what if one blinks, sensor at the wrong angle, etc.

- Collapse -
Biometrics
Oct 18, 2005 2:44PM PDT

I have been marginally successful in passing the retina scan machines at the Pentagon Athletic Club and the Registered Traveler pilot programs. I have been 100 percent successful in every attempt using finger print scan on my NEC laptop and at the Registered Traveler kiosk; and using a early version of a hand scanner. Suggest that there is less variablity using the finger print scanner compared to the voice recognition, and retina and face scanners. Start simply and move forward toward combining the different technologies to verify the identity of a "person." TMK

- Collapse -
we have les and less control with each new attempt to
Oct 18, 2005 2:44PM PDT

computerize everything we do. My bank routinely robs me with mysterious charges that no human is responsible for. Policy is decided by a computer.I want someone who knows me human to human being giving authority to take money from my account not a machine. When decisions are made impersonally no one is held accountable. We are losing the idea of accountability. People can be cheated and no one feels bad about it because no one is responsible. This is another step in depersonalization and lack of accountability.

- Collapse -
Biometrics
Oct 18, 2005 2:54PM PDT

This is way too 1984 for me. GPS units in everything - phones, cars, etc. Finally, I've seen way too many action movies where the bad guys cut off a hand, finger, gouge out an eye, just to get the pattern. None of the above thank you!

- Collapse -
USE EVERYTHING, OR Atleast the voice so you can stay alive
Oct 18, 2005 3:08PM PDT

I say we use everything, to make it secure, but the voice is probably best. Anyone can cut off your finger for scanning and the same can go for the rest of your body parts. I know it's extreme, but say if it was for something really important, then at that point you don't want to make it fingerprint, which is just the easiest to get into. Voice recognitions is hardest to break because no one can replicate your voice while you are not their, of course they could record it... but lets just hope they don't know your password, or that you don't say it.

- Collapse -
Voice
Oct 18, 2005 4:41PM PDT

I vote for voice recog. Who knows what the long term effects are with retinal scanning. Fingerprints? Germs. And what if someone has dirty hands like grease or heavy dirt? Will they still work? Who's going to clean either of the two above? How many clean restrooms do you see in stores? Why would these devices be any different?

- Collapse -
There is safety in redundancy.
Oct 18, 2005 6:23PM PDT

If biometrics is going public, no single test will be secure. Just as banking websites require a password, and numerous security questions, if biometrics are to be used then multiple tests should be used. Eyes and appendages can be stolen by muggers if they are desparate enough and dna samples too. So if I am banking or shopping and my biometric readings will be identifying me then it should be invisible to me and and the type of measurement should be chosen electronically at random. So if my fingerprint, hand, voice or retina has been "sampled" the thief won't know which samples to use.

Tim