jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com (Jason Asbahr) (05/16/91)
Gordon L. Burditt (sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon) writes: >>If you're against implanted *tracking* chips, then the objection is >>surely a 'civil liberties' one and not a technology-based objection. > >There already are external tracking devices in popular use. People >carry them around voluntarily. They provide a perceived benefit to the >people who carry them unrelated to tracking, and many probably don't >realize the tracking capability is there. These people even *PAY MONEY* >for the tracking devices. The actual amount of tracking being done is >unknown. > >P.S. Cellular phones may not be very *GOOD* tracking devices, but they >can be located within a few miles. Cellular phones can be located only when they are transmitting. The concern over implanted tracking chips is that they might not have that option. :) makr@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: >>As per the cursive script, I think this may take a few more years yet, >>but it is by no means impossible. Especially if we train the system >>only to recognise <your> handwriting. > >This could bring about a revolution in computer security. Imagine a >machine that ONLY responds to YOUR handwriting. Instead of "login, >password" we could have "sign here to access your account sir". > :-) If you work for a company that deals with relatively sensitive data, you may be seeing part of a similar computer security "revolution". Maybe it would be better to say that it would be seeing you!! I recently came into contact with a representative of "Comprehensive Security Concepts", a company that markets EyeTRAX computer systems. The brochure claims "EyeTRAX signature as unique as a fingerprint or a voiceprint" and "Cannot be altered or fraudulently used" ... The way the systems works is pretty simple (in concept at least). You look into a device that resembles an electronic eye-wash station and line up (by focusing) a set of glowing circles into a concentric pattern. Then you hit the enter key on a mounted keypad. The salesguy told me that the devices scanned the blood vessel pattern of my retina in an area ranging from 5 to 10 mm, digitizing and saving the results. On my second try, I got an 85% match of my first -- close enough. The salesguy hawked EyeTRAX as not only great for security but also wonderful for drug/fatigue/illness testing. The idea is that each user not only has a unique blood vessel pattern, but also a "unique" focus. So whenever he/she lines up those circles, the data is affected by the power of the user's focus. Drug use, fatigue, and illness apparently alter this factor and result in an unsatisfactory percentage result. CSC is trying to push the system into the commercial sector, highlighting its many uses. CSC also provides "personel and materials for a drug awareness/education program tailored to meet your needs", "professional help to counsel, educate, or rehabilitate employees on an out-patient or in-patient basis", medical screening, narcotics and arson dogs, private investigators, OSHA certified safety engineers "to survey your operation and design any necessary programs", and "insurance consultation with unsurpassed track records". Installing EyeTRAX apparently also reduces insurance premiums, because it catches problems before they happen. :) -Jason Asbahr jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com jasona@nuchat.sccsi.com --
dennis@CS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Dennis Gentry) (05/16/91)
So the way to beat this EyeTRAX thing for drug testing is to be stoned (ill/tired) all the time so your retinal pattern stays the same. Seriously, though, it seems like this effect (changing retinal pattern with physical condition) might be a problem--you would still be the same person, but would it necessarily always recognize you as such? Dennis
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) (05/16/91)
In <1991May15.215007.26679@sugar.hackercorp.com> jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com (Jason Asbahr) writes: >Gordon L. Burditt (sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon) writes: > >>>If you're against implanted *tracking* chips, then the objection is >>>surely a 'civil liberties' one and not a technology-based objection. >> >>There already are external tracking devices in popular use. People >>carry them around voluntarily. They provide a perceived benefit to the >>people who carry them unrelated to tracking, and many probably don't >>realize the tracking capability is there. These people even *PAY MONEY* >>for the tracking devices. The actual amount of tracking being done is >>unknown. >> >>P.S. Cellular phones may not be very *GOOD* tracking devices, but they >>can be located within a few miles. > >Cellular phones can be located only when they are transmitting. The >concern over implanted tracking chips is that they might not have that >option. :) BZZZZZT! Thank you for playing! (Hmmm, seems to be a "bzzzt" kind of day today....) Half-correct, actually; yes, they must transmit in order to be located. No, the *user* doesn't have to initiate the transmission; I understand (conversations with a cell-switch engineer) there are several varieties of user-transparent "interrogate" transactions. If it's on, it responds. As for location, "which cell" is good for a pretty small circle (real small in some dense areas), "which lobe" cuts that into thirds. Now that you're starting to think about it, remember that that's not the only cell that can hear you, just the *best*; there's some reasonably sophisticated signal- strength measurement going on too. Whoops, just got a *lot* closer.... Now drive the test-truck around with the signal-meters hooked to a moving- map, and you've got a map of the propagation anomalies. Surprise, "you're on the west side of the road... stopped... 200 yards south of the sign... sitting down." > > >makr@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: > >>>As per the cursive script, I think this may take a few more years yet, >>>but it is by no means impossible. Especially if we train the system >>>only to recognise <your> handwriting. >> >>This could bring about a revolution in computer security. Imagine a >>machine that ONLY responds to YOUR handwriting. Instead of "login, >>password" we could have "sign here to access your account sir". >> :-) > >If you work for a company that deals with relatively sensitive data, you >may be seeing part of a similar computer security "revolution". Maybe >it would be better to say that it would be seeing you!! > >I recently came into contact with a representative of "Comprehensive >Security Concepts", a company that markets EyeTRAX computer systems. > >The brochure claims "EyeTRAX signature as unique as a fingerprint or a >voiceprint" and "Cannot be altered or fraudulently used" ... > >The way the systems works is pretty simple (in concept at least). You >look into a device that resembles an electronic eye-wash station and line >up (by focusing) a set of glowing circles into a concentric pattern. Then >you hit the enter key on a mounted keypad. The salesguy told me that the >devices scanned the blood vessel pattern of my retina in an area ranging >from 5 to 10 mm, digitizing and saving the results. On my second try, >I got an 85% match of my first -- close enough. > >The salesguy hawked EyeTRAX as not only great for security but also >wonderful for drug/fatigue/illness testing. The idea is that each user >not only has a unique blood vessel pattern, but also a "unique" focus. >So whenever he/she lines up those circles, the data is affected by the >power of the user's focus. Drug use, fatigue, and illness apparently >alter this factor and result in an unsatisfactory percentage result. > >CSC is trying to push the system into the commercial sector, highlighting >its many uses. CSC also provides "personel and materials for a drug >awareness/education program tailored to meet your needs", "professional >help to counsel, educate, or rehabilitate employees on an out-patient >or in-patient basis", medical screening, narcotics and arson dogs, >private investigators, OSHA certified safety engineers "to survey your >operation and design any necessary programs", and "insurance consultation >with unsurpassed track records". > >Installing EyeTRAX apparently also reduces insurance premiums, because it >catches problems before they happen. :) > > > -Jason Asbahr > jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com > jasona@nuchat.sccsi.com >--
gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) (05/18/91)
>>P.S. Cellular phones may not be very *GOOD* tracking devices, but they >>can be located within a few miles. > >Cellular phones can be located only when they are transmitting. The Cellular phones can be made to transmit any time they are turned on by transmitting a "poll" for the specific registered phone number / serial number of the cellular phone, and getting that phone to respond. This locates the phone to what cell it is in. This operation may be done as part of setting up an incoming call, but it can be done silently without continuing to the point of ringing the phone. This would work even if the phone is in a "standby" mode in which it can still receive calls. (When I say the cellular phone transmits, I do NOT mean that sounds near the phone are transmitted over the air. What's being transmitted is protocol information and negotiation between the phone and the cell site. It would not be difficult to design an "open mike" mode into a cellular phone. If it was used too much, the user would notice the batteries don't last long.) Directional antennas at the cell site, and measures of signal strength (the cell site can set the transmitting power of the phone) can locate the phone more closely. This equipment may already be in use at the cell site for better handling of handoffs and reducing spillover into adjacent cells. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon