One Article Review
| Source |  AlienVault Lab Blog |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 8307491 |
| Date de publication | 2023-02-06 11:00:00 (vue: 2023-02-06 11:07:06) |
| Titre | The ethics of biometric data use in security |
| Texte | The content of this post is solely the responsibility of the author. AT&T does not adopt or endorse any of the views, positions, or information provided by the author in this article. In a world where you can scan the veins in your hand to unlock a smartphone, how do you maintain control over personal data? Biometric authentication, the use of distinctive human features like iris patterns, fingerprints and even gait in lieu of a password, is gaining ground in the tech world. Proponents tout its inherent, hard-to-replicate qualities as a security benefit, while detractors see the same features as an invasion of privacy. Both sides may be right. The problems with biometrics Unlike a password, you can’t forget your face at home. But also, unlike a password, you can’t reset your face — meaning you’re out of luck if someone steals a photo of it. In 2016, a biometrics researcher helped investigators hack into a murder victim’s phone with only a photo of the man’s fingerprint. While security systems are getting more advanced all the time, current technology also allows cybercriminals to run wild with a single piece of biometric data, accessing everything from laptop logins to bank accounts. By its very nature, biometric authentication requires third parties to store biometric data. What happens if the information is exposed? In addition to potential hacking, breaching people’s personal data might reveal something they’d rather keep private. Vein patterns could reveal that a person has a vascular disorder, raising their insurance premiums. Fingerprints could expose a chromosomal disease. True, people give this same information to their doctors, and a medical data breach could have the same repercussions. But handing off biometric data to a commercial company — which isn’t bound by HIPAA or sworn to do no harm — is a much grayer area. Another issue that occasionally plagues biometric authentication is injuries and natural bodily changes. A single paper cut can derail a fingerprint scanner, and an aging eye throws iris scanners for a loop. People will have to update their photos every few years to remind the system what they look like. Some facial recognition programs can even predict how long a person will live. Insurance companies have expressed interest in getting hold of this data, since the way a person ages says a lot about their health. If stolen biometric data fed into an algorithm predicts a person won’t make it past 50, will their employer pass them up for a promotion? In the event of an accident, your family won’t easily be able to access your accounts if you use biometric authentication, since it’s not as simple as writing down a list of passwords. Maybe that’s a good thing — but maybe not. Another ethical dilemma with biometric data use is identifying people without their consent. Most people are used to being on camera at the grocery store, but if that same camera snaps a photo without permission and stores it for later retrieval, they probably won’t be too happy. Some people point out that you have no right to privacy in a public space, and that’s true — to an extent. But where do you draw the line between publicity and paparazzi? Is it OK to snap a stranger’s photo while you’re talking to them, or is that considered rude and intrusive? The benefits of biometric data Of course, no one would be handing off a photo of their face if the |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | 2016 able about access accessing accident accounts accuracy accused acquit addition adopt advanced ages aging algorithm all allows along already also analysis another any are area arrested article asking at&t authentication author available bank been being benefit benefits better between bigger biometric biometrics bodily body both bound breach breaching brute but button bypass camera cameras can can’t cat chance changes chromosomal combinations comfortable commercial commit companies company consent consequences consequently considered content control convenient could course create crime crimes criminals current cut cybercriminals data database debate decide derail description detainments detractors didn’t dilemma disease disorder distinctive doctors does doppelgangers down draw easily easy employer encounter endorse equipped essentially ethical ethics even event every everything expose exposed expressed extent extremely eye face facial facing factor facts family features fed find fingerprint fingerprints finite flip footage force forget from further gaining gains gait get getting give good grave grayer grocery ground guessing hack hacker hackers hacking hand handing happens happy hard harm has have having health helped hipaa hold home hopefully how human identifying improve improves incidence information inherent injuries insurance interest intrusive invasion investigators iris isn’t issue it’s its jail just keep know languish laptop later leaked legal lessen letter lieu like limitless line list live log logins long look lookalike looks loop lot luck maintain make man’s may maybe meaning meantime measure medical might misidentified more most much mugged murder natural nature nobody not nothing number occasionally off one only otherwise out outliers over own paparazzi paper parties pass password passwords past patterns people people’s perfect permission person personal phone photo photos picture piece plagues point police positions possible post potential predict predicts premiums prevent privacy private probably problems program programs promotion proponents provided public publicity publicly putting qualities questionable quick raising rather recognition reel reliable remind repercussions replicate requires researcher reset responsibility retrieval reveal right rude run same says scan scanner scanners security see shaken side sides simple since single smart smartphone snag snap snaps solely some someone something space steal steals stolen store stores stranger’s streets strong subtle sworn system systems talking tech technology than thanks that’s them themselves they’d they’re thing third though throws thumb thumbprint time too tout true two ultimately unlike unlock update use used using variations vascular vastly vein veins very victim’s victims views way what where whether which who wild will without witness won’t world would writing wrong wrongful wrongfully years you’re your |
| Tags | Data Breach Hack Prediction Medical |
| Stories | |
| Notes | ★★ |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.