Cyborg implants as security tokens

[retina]

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-cyborgs...yesterday.html

Originally Posted by http://phys.org/news/2015-09-cyborgs-keys-yesterday.html

Oesterlund said he had also weighed up the risk of someone trying to steal his chip through extreme violent means, but concluded that criminals were unlikely to go that far.

"Chopping off a hand is a really amateur way to steal something," he said.

There are a lot of amateur thieves out there. You don't get to choose the level of professionalism a thief will exhibit.

And it does happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396831.stm

Biometrics/implants for identity: Perhaps ... but with caveats.

Biometrics/implants for access controls: Never. There is no repudiation without some not-insignificant amount of rework.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-cyborgs...yesterday.html

There are a lot of amateur thieves out there. You don't get to choose the level of professionalism a thief will exhibit.

And it does happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396831.stm

Biometrics/implants for identity: Perhaps ... but with caveats.

Biometrics/implants for access controls: Never. There is no repudiation without some not-insignificant amount of rework.

It's very easy to lose a hand accidentally too. Come to that, not everyone has hands.

I recommend inserting a biometric identity chip into the buttocks. Put it about a centimetre or so inside and most abrasion injuries won't damage it. It will also be difficult to remove by an amateur surgeon. There's another advantage too: the detection circuitry could be placed in the seat of a chair, making it very easy for loaded and/or handless persons to put the chip within range of the detector.

If proposal is widely implemented, everyone would be a smart-arse.

Paul

[chappy]

Originally Posted by xilman

It's very easy to lose a hand accidentally too. Come to that, not everyone has hands.

I recommend inserting a biometric identity chip into the buttocks. Put it about a centimetre or so inside and most abrasion injuries won't damage it. It will also be difficult to remove by an amateur surgeon. There's another advantage too: the detection circuitry could be placed in the seat of a chair, making it very easy for loaded and/or handless persons to put the chip within range of the detector.

If proposal is widely implemented, everyone would be a smart-arse.

Paul

Punch line!

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by xilman

If proposal is widely implemented, everyone would be a smart-arse.

Whaaa, haa! good one!

[only_human]

These proposals do not leverage and monetize the implants efficiently.

For one thing a congestion tax could be automatically charged at busy times and in busy zones.

Also voting can be as simple as choosing which booth to crap in.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by only_human

These proposals do not leverage and monetize the implants efficiently.

For one thing a congestion tax could be automatically charged at busy times and in busy zones.

Also voting can be as simple as choosing which booth to crap in.

Whaaa, haa! good one!

heh! That is hyper-appropriate, as the effects are equivalent.

[retina]

Some of the iConform devices have fingerprint readers in them used as an access lock. My fellow evil female co-conspirator said she wouldn't have to worry about someone else unlocking her iSlave device because there is no way they would have her fingerprint. I didn't bother to correct her. I decided a demonstration would be more effective. I waited until she was asleep and used her finger to unlock the iTimewaste device. I posted a short message, changed a few visual settings, nothing too drastic. When she woke (and naturally the first thing she had to do was check her iAddicted device) and saw the changes she was quite upset. Questions, accusations, panic, shouting, etc. followed ...

So anyhow, a few hours later after the minions had cleared up all the broken things she threw at me (they weren't broken before she threw them, only afterwards), she came to understand that in fact a simple passcode would have been much effective at protecting access.

One more convert to the ranks of those that refuse to supply fingerprints for unlocking things.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

One more convert to the ranks of those that refuse to supply fingerprints for unlocking things.

A problem with a passcode is that they can be quite troublesome to enter when one is doing other things, if they are long enough to be worthwhile. A fingerprint is much easier to use while also holding a pistol on one's enemy (or doing various other things.) One of my 'associates' is quite the troublemaker around devices that don't belong to them. They have tried to send messages from my communicator. When I obtained a new device, I initially set a 7 digit passcode. That became obviously a pain. I changed it over to a fingerprint. I sleep in a locked room apart from other humans (something some judge wanted) so the sleep surfing is not an issue.

[retina]

Fingerprints are not secret. You leave them everywhere you go, on everything you touch. How do you revoke a copied fingerprint? And you wouldn't even know if someone has already made a copy.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by retina

Fingerprints are not secret. You leave them everywhere you go, on everything you touch.

Indeed. This is why two-factor (or even multi-factor) authentication should be used.

It amuses me that one of Android's authentication methods is facial recognition. And yet is has been demonstrated that simply pointing the phone's camera at a picture of the owner will often unlock the phone....

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by retina

Questions, accusations, panic, shouting, etc. followed ...

So anyhow, a few hours later after the minions had cleared up all the broken things she threw at me (they weren't broken before she threw them, only afterwards), she came to understand that in fact a simple passcode would have been much effective at protecting access.

Just to say, that's classic.