3D Biometric Facial Recognition Comes To UK 157
Roland Piquepaille writes "In the UK, where the recent Queen's speech about national identity cards generated lots of -- mostly negative -- coverage, another potentially invasive technology is being tested with very few criticism. For example, several police departments are now testing a 3D biometric facial recognition software from Aurora, a company based near Northampton. The use of facial recognition 'is rapidly becoming the third forensic science alongside fingerprints and DNA,' according to a police officer who talked to BBC News for 'How your face could open doors.'" (More below.)
"The company claims its software is so sophisticated it can make the distinction between identical twins. And if the civil liberties groups continue to be neutral, this technology could also be deployed in airports or by private companies. Even banks are thinking to put cameras in their ATM machines to identify you. The good thing is that you will not have to remember your PIN. On the other hand, as with every new technology, is it safe for your privacy and is it possible to hack the system? Read more before making your decision."
Virtual ID card (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously that's a privacy concern - but how can you regulate face recognition? It's fundamentally no different from having a live cop recognize your mug.
Bad day (Score:5, Insightful)
foolproof (Score:5, Insightful)
Aurora say that they have a zero failure rate, but this is not proof on the "uniqueness" of their identification.
New technology like this very quickly becomes "magic" to the general public and the end users, and there is indeed a difference in the computer recognising your face vs a live cop... the computer is more likely to be assumed to be infallible
Feeble Queen's speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The current Labout government run by T. Blair is generally seen to be scaremonegering over things like terrorism and crime to justify a new raft of draconian measures. Each one of these measures has been a cynical attempt to limit liberty within the UK. There has already been a government funded surevey judgning the "peoples" attitude towards ID cards which, according to the government, showed an overwhelming support for the scheme. Until, of course, it was discovered that the survey was far from impartial and the sample group was so small as to be non-representative.
Technology aside I fear for my children's liberty, they are already unable to do the stuff I used to do as a child - like blow things up with home made gunpowder, whittle wood with a knife (yes knives are soon to be banned in this moronic country) and when they get older they won't be able to smoke a cigarette (yep, smoking is banned too).
No, don't be lured by the technology, this is a bad thing. I hope my American cousin's don't let the president push them into accepting a loss of liberty in the name of some ficticious threat. It looks like this country is starting to fall foul of the lie that is "The war on terror"
Re:Feeble Queen's speech (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Blair is pretty much like the other founders of the "Coalition of the Willing" (George Bush and John Howard). It seems strange that the leaders of the historically "most free" nations are all trampling over liberty now, while the Germans and Eastern European nations complain.
Re:Tinfoil hats aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you going to do with all the accumulated time that you save? You can't exactly tack it on to the end of your life and enjoy a few more weeks!
And no, I'm not having a go at you, just everything that claims to save us time. Most people seem to waste their spare time watching shitty soaps or sitcoms or reality TV (or reading slashdot :D)
Facial similarity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Virtual ID card (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:foolproof (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is if this is enough not to deploy biometrics. First of all, do you use it for authentication (passport) or identification (crowd scanning, door opening). The latter is a lot more difficult. Then there is the question if you accept the odd failure, and plan for it. For instance if you fail to authenticate at airport, there could be a separate line manned by humans. Unfortunately, the 1% will not be spread equally, some people might be unlucky a high percentage of the time.
Another problem that I've not mentioned is that there is a balance between false positives and false negatives. That is the difference between other persons being identified as you, and you not being identified. Most of the time there is a (delicate) balance between the two.
That's the problem with biometrics. You cannot just say if a certain failure rate is acceptable - it all depends on the parameters of the system you are using it in.
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, if you people are technophobes on this level, you should log off right now and sell your computer. You can probably use the money to buy enough wood to build a shack in the mountains somewhere.
Oh, wait, you'd never survive that way; you're probably a hoplophobe, too.
Yes, correct person, then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seemed to work impressively until three people showed up at the door, one spied into the iris reader, door opened and the other two just tailgated through.