headoverheels 333 #1 August 18, 2010 Hmm, I find this disturbing. http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-most-secure-city-in-the-world-welcomes-big-brother?partner=yahoobuzz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #2 August 18, 2010 I liked this line: "Fraud, which is a $50 billion problem, will be completely eradicated." Seems like any system guaranteed to "completely eradicate" a form of crime is destined to be a failure. Some criminals are pretty smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #3 August 18, 2010 Lots of opportunity to move from fraud to blackmail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RALFFERS 0 #4 August 18, 2010 Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself - "from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 August 18, 2010 Quote "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says. Wow, talk about bullshit hyperbole. I'm sure that makes for great talk with the investors, but I'm fairly certain that's not going to happen.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RALFFERS 0 #6 August 18, 2010 Quote Quote "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says. Wow, talk about bullshit hyperbole. I'm sure that makes for great talk with the investors, but I'm fairly certain that's not going to happen. I'm with you, but unfortunately, technology is advancing faster & faster - so who knows... Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself - "from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 August 18, 2010 Quote Quote "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says. Wow, talk about bullshit hyperbole. I'm sure that makes for great talk with the investors, but I'm fairly certain that's not going to happen. I still remember back in the 60s & 70s when they predicted that most people would have to pay to receive regular TV in their own homes. Like people are really going to be willing to be tethered to more cables attached to their homes just to get TV, when it's free over the air. What a laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 August 18, 2010 QuoteI still remember back in the 60s & 70s when they predicted that most people would have to pay to receive regular TV in their own homes. But your reply points out the problem with the hype. People still CAN get free over-the-air TV.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #9 August 19, 2010 Quote Quote I still remember back in the 60s & 70s when they predicted that most people would have to pay to receive regular TV in their own homes. But your reply points out the problem with the hype. People still CAN get free over-the-air TV. Sure can! Now, about that iris scan . . . Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 August 19, 2010 Quote Hmm, I find this disturbing. http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-most-secure-city-in-the-world-welcomes-big-brother?partner=yahoobuzz I'd like to know how they guarantee not putting someone's eyes out with this thing. Perhaps more a concern with a single person scanner as portrayed with movies for door security, but a device that can scan anything going by must have some range in power. We have laser pointers (ex: the light saber model Lucas thought about suing) that can blind - can these iris scanners coupled with a faulty power supply do as bad? I suppose sun glasses will be as fashionable as ever in this brave new world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #11 August 20, 2010 Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. "[stern face] Law enforcement use will have strict oversight because we all appreciate how important it is to maintain privacy... [happy face] but at least we can all agree that companies monitoring everything you buy or look at and paying a guy to follow you around with a bullhorn yelling advertisements in your ear, texting you every 20 seconds, and wadding up sale flyers and shoving them down your throat is win-win for everyone!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #12 August 20, 2010 Quote Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. "[stern face] Law enforcement use will have strict oversight because we all appreciate how important it is to maintain privacy... [happy face] but at least we can all agree that companies monitoring everything you buy or look at and paying a guy to follow you around with a bullhorn yelling advertisements in your ear, texting you every 20 seconds, and wadding up sale flyers and shoving them down your throat is win-win for everyone!" Quote When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals. I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 August 20, 2010 Quote Quote Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. "[stern face] Law enforcement use will have strict oversight because we all appreciate how important it is to maintain privacy... [happy face] but at least we can all agree that companies monitoring everything you buy or look at and paying a guy to follow you around with a bullhorn yelling advertisements in your ear, texting you every 20 seconds, and wadding up sale flyers and shoving them down your throat is win-win for everyone!" Quote When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals. I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. So let us just let the gov take more of our money and grow the gov so they can do it sooner than later"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #14 August 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. "[stern face] Law enforcement use will have strict oversight because we all appreciate how important it is to maintain privacy... [happy face] but at least we can all agree that companies monitoring everything you buy or look at and paying a guy to follow you around with a bullhorn yelling advertisements in your ear, texting you every 20 seconds, and wadding up sale flyers and shoving them down your throat is win-win for everyone!" Quote When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals. I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. So let us just let the gov take more of our money and grow the gov so they can do it sooner than later Non sequitur.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 August 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. "[stern face] Law enforcement use will have strict oversight because we all appreciate how important it is to maintain privacy... [happy face] but at least we can all agree that companies monitoring everything you buy or look at and paying a guy to follow you around with a bullhorn yelling advertisements in your ear, texting you every 20 seconds, and wadding up sale flyers and shoving them down your throat is win-win for everyone!" Quote When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals. I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. So let us just let the gov take more of our money and grow the gov so they can do it sooner than later Non sequitur. Lesson 3 for today"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 August 20, 2010 Quote I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. Yet they'd also be overwhelmed by the data. It's a bit like how they can currently track anyone with a modern cell phone, but except in specific cases it's pointless to even attempt to track anyone 24/7/356.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #17 August 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Call me crazy, but I actually find the marketing/advertising aspects of this technology more disgusting than the law enforcement aspect. Maybe it's just the attitude each are talked about with. I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. Yet they'd also be overwhelmed by the data. It's a bit like how they can currently track anyone with a modern cell phone, but except in specific cases it's pointless to even attempt to track anyone 24/7/356. To clarify my last post, I'm not trying to trivialize the pathological worst case that could come of government abuse, I'm just saying that government abuse is something we as a society are more tuned in to, and more focused on preventing. Rampant abuse by marketing/advertising seems much more likely even if it is slightly better than absolutely horrible. People watch Minority Report and the scene where people are identified automatically by the scanners and quickly arrested makes them think, "wow, that's effective yet terrifying!" but the same people see the seen where ads and billboards follow people around everywhere they look and think, "wow, that's neat!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #18 August 20, 2010 Quote Quote I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. Yet they'd also be overwhelmed by the data. It's a bit like how they can currently track anyone with a modern cell phone, but except in specific cases it's pointless to even attempt to track anyone 24/7/356. How can Google keep track of all that information and present it anywhere in the world in just a few seconds. I think you underestimate the ability of data miners.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 August 20, 2010 QuoteQuote Yet they'd also be overwhelmed by the data. It's a bit like how they can currently track anyone with a modern cell phone, but except in specific cases it's pointless to even attempt to track anyone 24/7/356. How can Google keep track of all that information and present it anywhere in the world in just a few seconds. I think you underestimate the ability of data miners. Maintaining records of who went by various checkpoints is a trivial data effort. Lots of data sure, but trivial to search. I have an app group requesting a few hundred terabytes of space so they can store all the docs from a web crawl (basically a google clone) with the intent of analyzing the content for signals on equity price inefficiencies. Walmart is the king of data mining, with huge amounts collected on all transactions made at their stores and online. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Binkus 0 #20 August 21, 2010 I do not believe that there is any risk to eye injury. I have had my Iris scanned a few times and have scanned othere irises several times. Although I am not famuliar with all the scanners out there the ones I have used required they eye to be within a 1-3 inches to even work and caused absolutly no discomfort. In fact it would be more disturbing to look directly at your standard beedroom light for a couple seconds than the scanners I have used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #21 August 21, 2010 Quote Quote I suspect Big Brother will quickly find it impossible to resist tracking the movements of ALL individuals. Nice. Yet they'd also be overwhelmed by the data. It's a bit like how they can currently track anyone with a modern cell phone, but except in specific cases it's pointless to even attempt to track anyone 24/7/356. ----------------------------------------------- I think some bank robbers were caught because the police searched records and found what same numbers were used from towers where the robberies location. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 August 23, 2010 QuoteI do not believe that there is any risk to eye injury. I have had my Iris scanned a few times and have scanned othere irises several times. Although I am not famuliar with all the scanners out there the ones I have used required they eye to be within a 1-3 inches to even work and caused absolutly no discomfort. In fact it would be more disturbing to look directly at your standard beedroom light for a couple seconds than the scanners I have used. In normal operation, sure no risk. What about abnormal operation? The article refers to a scanner that can work at up to 30 ft, rather than inches, so it would need a wider range of power. Again, can you guarantee against surges? Without such assurance, what's the justification for a system that seems to be largely about creepy targeted ads? "Mr Johnson, we're having a sale this week on Preparation H." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Binkus 0 #23 August 23, 2010 Initially I did not look at the advertisment and was only aware of the personal scanners. Larger long distance scanners I still believe would be safe but in truth I dont truly know. From my limited understanding the Iris scan is still basically just a picture with the scaner using both visible and near-infrared light to better contrast the iris. On that note I do not see this technolgy being widely used anytime soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites