Chicago gas pumps read fingerprints

[133724]

Ten Shell gas stations in the Windy City are testing biometric systems that let consumers walk up to the pump, scan their fingertips on a device and fill up their vehicles. The systems, also installed at Shell convenience stores, are directly linked to customers' checking or credit-card accounts for payment.

"When we talk to customers, they're always looking for ways to make buying gasoline quicker and easier, and always looking for ways to make their transactions faster and more secure," said Chris Susse, Shell's manager of global refueling innovations. "They don't want to carry more cards, kits and keychains, and they want it to be free."

Customers will be able to initially scan their fingerprints at a kiosk inside the gas station and can link payment information either at the store or online.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Shell_station_customers_pay_by_touc_11012007.html


Hell who needs the "Mark of the Beast" when you have this?????

[krispos42]

1. It's to alleviate that wierd feeling in your behind

You know, where the oil companies have been fucking you in the ass.


Cub Foods grocery stores have been doing this for a couple of years now. Press your finger, enter a PIN, and ta-da! all paid.

[City Lights]

6. Jewel has also been giving their customers this option for a couple of years.

I have never taken them up on it.

[Blackhatjack]

2. OH YEAH, this is a great idea! Wonder where those fingerprints could go???

People are willing to give up their personal information just for convenience?

And everyone is wondering why identity theft is on the rise.

Not to mention, the tendency for fingerprints to find themselves in government/law enforcement databases.

[TheMadMonk]

3. Biometric fingerprints have no forensic value.

They just don't contain sufficient detail.

[hlthe2b]

4. this may be, but how about some documentation....

How do you know?

Bad idea, regardless,IMO

[TheMadMonk]

15. New Scientist, Scrintfic American, Discover, Popular Mechanics.

Bad idea or no, it's too convenient for this sort of thing not to happen, more and more often and eventually become ubiquitous.

Rather than tossing a tanty over the inevitable, far better to fight the fight that is still winnable, and work towards legislation which puts an uncrossable line between biometric and forensic data.

Yes that line will be crossed regardless by some. But those same individuals/organisations will cross any line drawn in the sand regardless. The only thing that will save you is you not being worth the effort/potential embarrassment, not legislated "Chinese walls". Not in the type of society you/we envisage "misusing" data of this nature.

[sandnsea]

5. Please explain

If they're enough to differentiate you for financial purcases, why aren't they enough to implicate you in a crime. I don't get it.

[Blackhatjack]

7. Actually that is not true ...

The inherent danger in the system is that you have to preload a baseline match before you can use the system. It is the baseline match that is subject to compromise. Same with retinal scans.

[TheMadMonk]

8. Since the baseline comparison is usually taken with the same...

...device, the baseline is just as worthless forensically.

what is stored, is not a digital representation of a fingerprint, but a digital "fingerprint" of that image. There isn't any way to reconstruct the original fingerprint from it. So you're safe from having your "print(s)" stolen.

And the number of points of reference used is less than is used to make a forensic match.

With enough effort it might be possible to match an unknown fingerprint against various private data bases and come up with a handful or perhaps dozens of possible matches. But the reference print would have to be a very clean one, (often not the case at a crime scene) and of course converted to each of the various propriety formats for comparison. And after all that they've got a few "persons of interest" and not even as good a starting point as, if those "persons of interest" had been seen in the vicinity at the time of the crime.

No one is ever going to be convicted of a crime on the sole basis of a found print being matched against a biometric database, if/when that becomes practicable. it's going to take hard evidence to do that.

I don't have any problems with LEO's following a "finger pointed in the right direction". To consistently argue otherwise, one would also have to also argue that "former" criminals who have done their time/paid their price, shouldn't be singled out for later scrutiny on the basis of fingerprints or DNA taken during the investigation of the earlier crime of which that person was convicted.

Fingerprints or even DNA at a crime scene rarely convict on their own merit alone. Not unless on a murder weapon, under a victim's fingernails, or otherwise found somewhere which intimately links that evidence to the actual crime itself, and not just the location(s) where it is committed.

[piedmont]

11. If they don't contain enough detail to tell one person from another, then what good are they?

Why would anyone sign up for this if the system couldn't really tell the difference between two people?

[TheMadMonk]

17. They can tell one person from another.

Essentially fingerprint "readers" compare two samples taken the same specific way, and processed with the same algorithms and see how closely they match.

What they can't do is accurately match an incomplete smudged fingerprint against a record which contains only a bare minimum of information.

In fact that bare minimum would be better represented as an "allowable maximum" consistent with not denying legitimate access. Thus opening up the potential for a false positive match. Which is why a lot of these types of systems require a pin (or other device) as well for co-verification. A biometric print is often used, not so much for directly identifying a given person, but to ensure that sensitive credentials can not be submitted by anyone except the person(s) authorised to use those credentials.

[Swamp Rat]

9. I bet there's going to be a lot of fingers chopped off over the next few years.

:eyes:

[Rage for Order]

10. Not chopped off fingers; this is better:

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1101fingerprints01-on.html

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A plastic surgeon who replaced the fingerprints of an alleged drug dealer with skin from the bottom of his feet pleaded guilty Thursday to a federal charge of harboring and concealing a fugitive.

The charges stemmed from surgery Covarrubias performed on co-defendant Marc George, 42, of Jamaica. The doctor replaced George's fingerprints with skin from his feet to help him avoid apprehension, authorities said.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Much easier to take a machete and chop off a hand.

My friend saw a man hack off another's in Brasil over a watch. The robber took the hand with him too.

[Rage for Order]

13. Reminds me of John Goodman in "The Big Lebowski"

"I can get you a toe, Dude!"

[Swamp Rat]

14. LOL!

This dude abides.

[TheMadMonk]

18. You might see a few in the begining, but not very many.

This is one thing the designers address and almost obsess about. The reader has to see "living tissue" or it "refuses" the attempt. (It should also scream blue murder).

For most "potential victims" the return is just not worth the effort. And where it is, the finger probably has more value as "proof" in a ransom attempt.

And unless the crook is willing to kill their "victim" they are not going to get much use out of that finger before ATMs and EFTPOS terminals start screaming "BUTCHER! BUTCHER! BUTCHER" and calling a whole lot of unwanted and embarrassing attention to the bloke with 11+ fingers.

Unless you have access to the White House or some other equally sensitive location, your fingerprints (and fingers) are safe.

[WillowTree]

16. Nothin' says you have to use them.

Jewel stores have had the fingerprint readers for awhile now but you don't have to swipe your finger to pay for your groceries there. Checks, debit cards, credit cards.........heck, even cash.....still work just fine.