Why on earth do some people think that biometrics are a form of authentication?


Steve Riley’s recent post links to a Myth Busters demonstration of three different techniques to beat an “Unbreakable” biometric door lock.

I presume that the best practise advice from the lock’s manufacturer recommended including a form of authentication such as a PIN to compliment the biometric device.

The Mythbusters video itself is pretty compelling – the link’s on Steve’s post.

Even when used as a form of IDENTIFICATION it’s necessary to ensure a controlled environment whereby the individual actually presents a valid identifier. With the exception of passport control it’s unlikely to make sense for a human being to observe each use of the device to ensure people play by the rules. Human beings are fallable too but perhaps I should stop there…

Comments (2)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Andy> Interesting. They’re using the biometric device as a form of identification though without a form of authentication it’s of limited trustworthiness. How many drinkers would make the effort to circumvent the devices?

  2. Andy McKnight says:

    Hi,

    Given that this isn’t the first time you’ve posted regarding people seeing biometrics as authentication instead of identity, what do you make of the Yeovil pub scheme –

    http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39163503,00.htm?