Apple Touch ID a Case for Wider Fingerprint Use

(image credit)

Justin Firth makes a compelling case for a wider use of fingerprint for ID purposes, in his article Are You Ready To Give Up Your Fingerprint Forever?:

One of the big pre-release talking points on Apple’s iPhone5[s] is Touch ID – a personal fingerprint scanner to unlock the phone and authorise sales on iTunes. Touch ID is the first major use of fingerprint identification to the mass market, and if Apple’s other innovations are to go by, it will be a catalyst for introducing fingerprint identification across a whole range of new products, services and applications.

1.It is superior to any other form of instant secure identification.
2.It solves a pressing and expensive problem for many large companies. 

Let’s face it, the current forms of identification have clear weaknesses. Signatures are only done in person and are usually validated by humans, rather than computers. They are also slightly different every time – so as long as a forgery is reasonably close it stands a good chance of success. Passwords or PINS require set-up, memory and need to be entered unseen. They are also often easy to crack as numerous studies have shown how people naturally orientate towards easy to remember words or combinations – 1234, password123, birthdates etc. 

Fingerprints solve these problems. Always remembered, quick to validate, and with a complexity which is difficult to forge. In fact, we are so confident about fingerprints that we regularly incarcerate people in prison based solely on their evidence. 

According to a BBC report, identification fraud cost the UK economy an estimated £1.9 billion in 2010. A lot of this cost was borne by banks and financial institutions. A further £800 million was spent by businesses trying to combat identity fraud. These types of costs provide some big motivation for major companies to implement and promote a better form of identification – especially if it becomes accepted in something as non-threatening and everyday as your smart phone.

Firth and I exchanged messages on Google+:

Sounds cool. But the concern is, How security is the system that stores our fingerprints? 

I guess as secure as the system which store all our other personal data. At least with fingerprints you can't just use a set of numbers or a password. You would need to recreate an actual physical fingerprint to use it.

Makes sense. I'm intrigued by fingerprint technology. Using passwords is so outdated; every time is a minor hassle. 

And every time you phone the bank you have to go through 5 minutes of verification. Whereas, if you had a secure fingerprint scanner from the bank at home it would just take a second. 

(image credit)

I shared and tweeted his article, and asked:  (a) How much of a headache is it for you to keeping entering passwords?  (b) What do you think about submitting your fingerprint, instead?

cf. "Minority Report"

Longer term, a quick and non-intrusive way to identify an individual could open up a whole new world of personalised marketing. 

Think of how effectively internet advertising uses your browsing history, social media profiles and previous purchases to target you with relevant and timely advertising.

It is human nature to keep pushing the limits of its capabilities and to innovate as far as imagination can reach.  Alas, it is also human nature to find ways to harm or manipulate people and take advantage of them.  So we have to take technology progress with a grain of salt.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!

Ron Villejo, PhD