Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Kenneth G. Mages wrote:
> > Substantiate that biometrics do/can not provide security. Remember t=
hat
> > biometrics means more than fingerprints.
> =
> Unsupervised, all the biometric systems I'm aware of are just not
> all that hard to work around and defeat.
Curious: Does this include signature recognition systems such as
CyberSign? Duplicating the movements in a signature appears to be tricky
to me...
If you include it, I'd be interested in how you would work around it.
> Thus you need human
> supervision at the point of use. Given that, you might as well just
> drop the biometric thing in favour of a card and PIN, and a person
> who visually identifies everyone using these to gain access to
> whatever is being protected.
In some sense that might be a valid observation, but by also using some
kind of biometric *ALSO* (say a digital signature) you would
significantly lessen the burden on that person (that is: you may be able
to trust him/her more and/or pay less...)
/ Jonas
-- =
Jonas Petersson, X Media Solutions | mailto:Jonas.Petersson@xms.se
Box 3294, Holmbrogr=E4nd 1, S-600 03 Norrk=F6ping | http://www.xms.se/
Tel: +46 (0)11 244805 | Fax: +46 (0)11 244809
Received on Sat Dec 7 22:32:34 2002