4 ms·
With only 127 people being tested and a false positive rate of 0.7% I'd be hard pressed to see this as a viable system in its current form. It's certainly less
by robkop 8y ago
With only 127 people being tested and a false positive rate of 0.7% I'd be hard pressed to see this as a viable system in its current form.
It's certainly less invasive but you have to ask how effective it can possibly be when it's known about. It's a lot harder to fake your fingerprints and retina than to walk at a different speed.
If you were a highly funded individual you could also quite easily acquire one of these systems and practice to fool it.
I don't see how this could be used as a effective security system but maybe someone could enlighten me.
- teekert 8y agoIf you combine this with many other types of sensor data you can get a pretty high dimensional array of stuff that can pretty easily form person-unique clusters. Like combining screen res, Touch Support, User agent, Time Zone, Hash of canvas fingerprint, etc [0] gets you to a pretty unique signature even though any single bit of info is essentially worthless to this end. [0] https://panopticlick.eff.org/ https://panopticlick.eff.org/
- maxerickson 8y agoIn many security settings you would have to do more than train to not be recognizable as yourself, you'd have to train to be recognized as someone else. Even a busy airport mostly already has information about who should be where.
- ashelmire 8y agoCurrent failure rate: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story%3fid=51022188 https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/tsa-fails...
- Brotkrumen 8y agoYou could probably trick that system by dragging something heavy, deviating from your regular gait. Now where to get something heavy to carry around at an airport, I have no idea.
- JimmyAustin 8y agoA roller carry on bag with jammed wheels would qualify.