I was intrigued to read this:
You are the victim of identity theft and the fraudster calls your bank to transfer money into their own account. But instead of asking them for your personal details, the bank assistant simply presses a button that causes the phone to produce a brief series of clicks in the fraudster's ear. A message immediately alerts the bank that the person is not who they are claiming to be, and the call is ended.
Such a safeguard could one day be commonplace, if a new biometric technique designed to identify the person on the other end of a phone line proves successful. The concept relies on the fact that the ear not only senses sound but also makes noises of its own, albeit at a level only detectable by supersensitive microphones.
If those noises prove unique to each individual, it could boost the security of call-centre and telephone-banking transactions and reduce the need for people to remember numerous identification codes. Stolen cellphones could also be rendered useless by programming them to disable themselves if they detect that the user of the phone is not the legitimate owner.
Nonsense! ) Current quality of phone connections wrt transmitting sound does not allow this the slightest. Moreover, is not necessary to improve the quality (and use more bandwidth) anyway, as long as it allows us to hear what the other person is saying. Marginal cost far outweighs possible benefits.
Fingerprint scanners on a majority of phone tubes would be more practical.
Will criminals make casts of other people ears? You can use hi-def photography to get a 3D model of somebody’s ear, then reproduce it using some tissue-like material and use it as the identifier in the phone call.
In equilibrium, perhaps, people will cover their ears in public. Using ears as identifiers would unwittingly resuscitate hair styles from the 60s and 70s. It will bring the ear into the realm of private body parts.
Convicts will take up wrestling to file down their ears.
I love the fact that people on this list are disputing that technology will be adapted to create a new interface with physiology.
Blog readers will argue with gravity if it could be turned into a blog post.
Thank you Silas. You win Bruce Schneier’s coveted “Rubber Hose” award for explaining exactly why some scientists are not cut out to be security researchers!
As for the comment made about about doubt…no one is doubting that it can or will be done (save over current cell phone channels). There is primarily doubt over its efficacy as a biometric identifier.
Alternatively, the mouth seems to make identifiable noises as well (notice that you can pick out your spouse’s voice in a crowded room). It might be a little more cheaper, easier, and more appealing to use that rather than something weird like ear noises.
@silas, that makes sense.
Would this be affected by the regular use of hats? What about large metal ear ornaments?
Otherwise, the plan is foolproof.
Let’s not forget ear wax and hair build-up and removal…
Another reason it might not work: once criminals get your password, you can change your password. Once criminals “get” your ear, you can no longer use this form of authentication.
Can’t imagine this working on cell phones in the near term, but it isn’t out of the picture.
Comments on this entry are closed.