Here's the topic for today - please share your thoughts in a comment!



I've been reading that we're moving more towards biometric locks that involve fingerprint, facial and other kinds of non-password-based security. I can understand why this is a good idea; most people use really bad passwords, for one thing. I'm figuring that over time ways to overcome these locks will also happen, so by 2118 it's probably going to be about using multiple forms of security at the same time to try to compensate, meaning, voice, face, fingerprint, challenge question, all of them at once. That might be harder to bypass (I hope).

I'm not against it in principle, but the need for it is a bit depressing. On one hand it seem like it's a no-brainer to have as much security as possible, but it's also sad to know that it's needed! I'm old enough to remember never locking our house (and no one else in the neighborhood did either…) We all trusted each other to be honest (and we were). But that was small town neighborhoods. In the information age, you're less likely to know your neighbors (much less trust them) in both small towns and big cities. It seem quaint and naïve how we use to be, but we all were, but it worked for a while…

I already use the thumb print on my phone so I can only see more of that coming. Personally I think security will be a mix of physical and interactive. A key that requires a thumb print and body warmth to activate that is put in a lock that requires a retina scan while asking you your grandmother's maiden name.

Or the exact opposite. Biometrics and overcoming them with electronic toys becomes so excessive that locks revert back to simple keys and number combinations. Copying metal keys requires stuff that no one could have access to anymore. A great way to defeat super advanced electronic technology is to go for primitive physical barriers. Will Mr. Electronics know how to pick a lock or copy a key? Or will he need a tricorder to read the lock and activate the tumbler? Will people have that or will locksmithy be a lost art?

Traditional keys are still better.

Biometrics require two things: They need it be individualised utterly (or as much as possible), and you should only be able to use them while alive.
So no digging out eyes to get a retina print or cutting off fingers to get a fingerprint etc.

So what happens when you die? Is your family locked out of your car or house? That's the trouble with biometrics.
It doesn't matter if people are locked out of your phone. They can stand to lose that data… but even that is getting dodgy now that people's whole lives are there.
Families that would have access to a treasured son's boxes of photos now lose them with his iphone when he dies… (80% were probably dick-pics but still…)

My Android devices require fingerprint unlocks, but they still need a numerical code as backup. So really the biometric is only there for quick convenience, he REAL lock is the code- which can easily be given out and can be cracked given time.

I think it will be a combination of verification methods. I know this sounds like me being a grumpy old school luddite, but I think to some extent the modern consumer biometrics trend is mostly a fad. They need to keep coming up with new toys, bells and whistles to keep consumers excited about buying new products they don't actually need.

The idea that passwords are somehow less safe than they once were is mostly a myth predicated on the idea that computing speed is so much higher now that hackers can crack your password so much faster than in the past. That's mostly not true; the speed at which a cracker can learn your password through brute force methods is entirely determined by how rapidly your account allows you to make attempts without locking you out. More often, when someone steals your password, it's through a more sophisticated method like keylogging or database theft or even phishing schemes. There's no reason why this makes passwords more vulnerable than they ever have been, and doesn't mean we can't develop new methods to defeat these tactics.

Combining multiple ID methods exponentially increases the difficulty of unauthorized access, especially if you can make the types of ID user defined and not known in advance to a potential hacker. It's harder to guess the answer when you don't know what you're being asked, and better AI will dramatically improve security systems' ability to sniff out suspicious activity. Imagine if your security system, rather than being a passive turnstyle, had the knowledge and acumen of a seasoned FBI profiler. It also helps to be able to set lock states, so your device knows whether you are home or traveling, and can adjust its expectations accordingly.

Biometrics are one of the possible directions to go but, as Ozone pointed out, there's a problem when you want to give someone else access to your account with you not being there. The whole idea of security locks is not keeping Anyone But You locked out, but rather it's keeping unauthorized people out. I suppose you could create a list of biometrically authorized persons? Also, if someone could backdoor their way into your biometrically locked device, they could change the settings so it no longer recognizes you. You need a good combination of locking methods, ideally backed up by some physical lock as well.

bravo1102 wrote:
…Or the exact opposite. Biometrics and overcoming them with electronic toys becomes so excessive that locks revert back to simple keys and number combinations. Copying metal keys requires stuff that no one could have access to anymore. A great way to defeat super advanced electronic technology is to go for primitive physical barriers. Will Mr. Electronics know how to pick a lock or copy a key? Or will he need a tricorder to read the lock and activate the tumbler? Will people have that or will locksmithy be a lost art?

My Hubby used to be in the Airforce, and he saw the inside of Airforce One. He said the communication equipment was very primitive. Even looked primitive (he described some of it as looking like the machines those stenographers in courtrooms use…). The reasoning is exactly as you describe - the ancient stuff was much harder to intercept and decrypt!!

They may have had that as an analogue backup maybe?
The stenographer-like thing would probably be a mechanical code device like the enigma machine and the big old radio gear needs a lot of power to override jamming.

I'd guess that the primary gear would use something more modern but wouldn't have to be very big… Maybe enceypted communication is sent via a highly directional microwave beam narrowcast?
Just a guess. It's not the latest high tech stuff either but it works.

Or the exact opposite. Biometrics and overcoming them with electronic toys becomes so excessive that locks revert back to simple keys and number combinations. Copying metal keys requires stuff that no one could have access to anymore. A great way to defeat super advanced electronic technology is to go for primitive physical barriers. Will Mr. Electronics know how to pick a lock or copy a key? Or will he need a tricorder to read the lock and activate the tumbler? Will people have that or will locksmithy be a lost art?

If this becomes a thing, they will develop probes that scan the interior of a lock and then prints the exact key needed to fix that. While physical keys are an option, there is no going back to “primitive” tech overall.

Biometrics require two things: They need it be individualised utterly (or as much as possible), and you should only be able to use them while alive. So no digging out eyes to get a retina print or cutting off fingers to get a fingerprint etc.

That brings in the question of how you make it work only when alive. In that case it would be using more than one biometric scanning method at once to detect for things like heart rate, body warmth, blood flow, and whatever else makes sense. Also, if someone dies, there are always means of getting to the data given enough time and tools.

My Hubby used to be in the Airforce, and he saw the inside of Airforce One. He said the communication equipment was very primitive. Even looked primitive (he described some of it as looking like the machines those stenographers in courtrooms use…). The reasoning is exactly as you describe - the ancient stuff was much harder to intercept and decrypt!!

That's the argument for using wired vs. wireless. You can't wirelessly intercept a signal that isn't being transmitted wirelessly. That being said, there are sometimes ways of reading a computer in unintended ways, such as the vibrations or sounds the hard drive makes. I actually read about a method of doing this recently.

Nanotechnology with molecular tumblers that can only be opened with a living biological pattern. It would sense the actual electrical current in a nervous system. Theoretically it could even be grown rather than manufactured like the organic computers and pirated human brains used in various nightmare futures.

Look at the biological ships from Lexx or Farscape? Biological systems could require only one specific genetic pattern to open. A pattern that has to be original rather than randomized.

Biometrics that is biological.

A key that cannot be printed because the tumblers require a chemical interaction as well as mechanical and electronic. So part of the key could be bacteria that loosens a chemical bond.