![]() ![]() If compromised or stolen, biometrics are irrevocable for life. Yet, despite the benefits of biometrics, there are several privacy and security challenges and concerns that enterprises must evaluate in their due diligence. From automotive and e-learning to logistics and telehealth, companies across various sectors are increasingly considering biometric interfaces to improve security, safety and experience. Biometrics are difficult to hack, are challenging for bad actors to replicate, are literally always on us and offer far less friction for end users. Update, Thursday: Lookout has issued a statement.Biometrics have clear advantages from a security perspective, particularly when combined with multiple other factors, such as PINs or security questions. ![]() Why they need the heads isn't clear, but we've reached out to some experts that we're confident can come up with a reason. What we are more concerned about - and this is based on a lot of scientific evidence that we can't get into right now - is that criminals will in fact sever the heads of iPhone owners, lugging the ghoulish trophies around in bowling ball bags until they need to use the phone. Such systems will not yet be in place by the time the documentary Minority Report becomes reality. In an effort to counter car thieves and terrorists with a similar lack of qualms, scientists invented systems requiring the finger be attached to a living person - though those are obviously too complex to fit in the base of an iPhone. Security advisers have warned that a suicide bomber would have no compunction about removing a politician's finger to fool scanners. Plans to use fingerprint scanners to control entry to the Commons have been abandoned over fears that terrorists could cut off an MP's finger to get inside. In May 1998, after Science News ran a story about the possibility of using physical identifiers as a way of accessing an ATM ( "Private Eyes"), Skylar Barclay Sudderth of Brownwood, Texas, wrote in, offering apparently one of the first such worries. What we do know is that fears about amputation in order to access biometrically-protected devices are not new. Given that those are all British publications, maybe the rampant fear of knife crime played some role, who knows. "Sure … It’s also possible that he might chop off your arm to steal your purse, chop off your legs to steal your Nikes, or chop off your head in order to grab your necklace." It is also possible that if presented with the threat of losing a finger or turning off fingerprint sign-ins, rational people might choose the latter.īut that didn't stop the Huffington Post UK and The Independent and The Mirror and Metro and The Guardian UK from running with the story. "Is it possible that some deranged nut might chop off your fingers in order to gain access to your iPhone?" Oremus writes. ![]() This is a dumb idea, as Will Oremus notes at Slate, in the least Slatepitch-y article in history. Turning a long-standing fear into a marketing opportunity is as American as apple pie - but Rogers isn't the first to offer the concern. Ĭongratulations to Marc Rogers of the security firm Lookout, who managed to get half a dozen websites to carry his weird quote about thieves cutting off fingers to access new iPhones protected with a fingerprint scanner. This article is from the archive of our partner. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |