>> They're now finding that some facial recognition security systems can be hacked by color infrared printed photographs. <<
Hardly a surprise.
>> Yeah, the worst thing is a biometric that is tied directly to you, is irrevocable, and the mechanism gets compromised. <<
Exactly.
>> Fingerprints have two additional problems: they're not 100% unique, and some people don't have 'em! <<
A problem made worse by lazy computing, because they don't compare the whole print. They just look for a handful of points. I wouldn't be satisfied unless the number of points meant the chance of duplication by two different people was 1 in 16 billion: that is, double the number of humans on Earth. That seems reasonably precise.
>> Retina scans? Your retinas change over time.<<
Well, at least that one expires eventually.
People are stupid, and then other folks get stuck with the consequences of their bad decisions. It may not be possible to avoid all biometrics, but one can at least avoid them in places where one's consent is required.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2023-12-05 09:40 am (UTC)Hardly a surprise.
>> Yeah, the worst thing is a biometric that is tied directly to you, is irrevocable, and the mechanism gets compromised. <<
Exactly.
>> Fingerprints have two additional problems: they're not 100% unique, and some people don't have 'em! <<
A problem made worse by lazy computing, because they don't compare the whole print. They just look for a handful of points. I wouldn't be satisfied unless the number of points meant the chance of duplication by two different people was 1 in 16 billion: that is, double the number of humans on Earth. That seems reasonably precise.
>> Retina scans? Your retinas change over time.<<
Well, at least that one expires eventually.
People are stupid, and then other folks get stuck with the consequences of their bad decisions. It may not be possible to avoid all biometrics, but one can at least avoid them in places where one's consent is required.