Defeating Biometrics.

[nbk2000]

An aquaintence of mine recently had a cataract removed and, while they were at it, implanted an IOL (Intra-Ocular Lens), which corrected his poor eye-sight to normal.

He made a joke to the doctor about changing his eye color while they were at it, and that got me to thinking. :)

While Google'ing for pictures of IOL's, I saw that there are several different styles, but the one I was interested in sits in front of the iris, covering part of it, but the lens is made of see-through hydrogel, so it isn't readily visible in the eye to anyone looking at you.

http://www.myneweyes.com/images/NewTech18.jpghttp://www.cuevasmd.com/images/Verisyse.InEye.jpg

Well then...what if the lens material was made to appear as an iris, much like colored contacts now? Even better, by embedding dye particles in the lens matrix, an eye-safe laser could be used to write an iris pattern in the lens, just like a CD burner, to either match the hash of an existing iris pattern ;), or to create a new 'sterile' pattern...one NOT in any government database.

Serious engineering would be required, but it could even be possible to create a re-writable iris, wherein the laser can either decolorize existing particles, or create new visible particles that would alter the existing iris pattern, either of which would make it unrecognizable to an iris scanner.

Even if it was a one-time deal, having a burnable IOL implant could save your ass one day, as you could leave it clear until such time as you needed to get the hell out of the country, at which point you burn your IOL to match that of a sterile identity that you already have arranged, or at least doesn't match any existing entry on the government watch list.

For dealing with retinal scans, a hologram of a corpse retina can be embedded in the lens, which should fool them too. Whether this can be done without interfering with your vision too is another matter, but if the retina pattern was attached to access to something worth it...thinking of that one scene from a Bond movie where a traitorous USAF officer has a transplanted eye that allows him access to a couple of nuclear-armed cruise missiles to be delivered to SPECTRE.

As an aside, a re-writable IOL would make one hell of a covert data carrier.

[festergrump]

Cool ideas.

I can see the future getting to the point where if you are NOT yet in the system and are not a newborn (since eyes never change since birth), you'll be in a world of shit.

"He's not in the system, sir. He must be a rebel!"

The printing of someone elses retina or iris image, now THAT'D be most favorable, IMHO. :) An enemy of yours perhaps, but not an enemy of the state.

Hopefully, by the time all that technology is used against us, something like these iris lenses you mention could easily printed out at home using a rapid prototyping machine (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=4978). If even hundreds of thousands of people were willing to put their own iris patterns online in some form of a P2P network it would easily make their whole iriscan database moot because of duplicate and corrupt "identities" walking around all over at the same time.

Of course, they'd still have the old standbys to use in conjunction with (ie: fingerprints, facial structure scans, etc. :( *sigh*) and anything beyond an iris falsification (contact lens type) would require surgery.

The rewritable data lens idea, now thats simply awesome... (keep your PGP keys on your eye-drive instead of your thumb-drive). :D

[Hirudinea]

An aquaintence of mine recently had a cataract removed and, while they were at it, implanted an IOL (Intra-Ocular Lens), which corrected his poor eye-sight to normal.

While Google'ing for pictures of IOL's, I saw that there are several different styles, but the one I was interested in sits in front of the iris, covering part of it, but the lens is made of see-through hydrogel, so it isn't readily visible in the eye to anyone looking at you.

Well then...what if the lens material was made to appear as an iris, much like colored contacts now? or to create a new 'sterile' pattern...one NOT in any government database.


That sounds like a good idea, but the problem I see is that while the Iris is movable, it expands and contracts to allow in different levels of light, an artificial iris would be immovable, so all a government stooge would have to do to spot it would be to shine a bright light in your eye, if your iris contracted and then expanded when the light was removed it would expand, a fake iris would stay still, which would mean it wasn't real or your had serious brain damage, and since you didn't support the government that would mean fake iris.


As an aside, a re-writable IOL would make one hell of a covert data carrier.

Actually I always thought that rewritable RFID implant in the pecker would be an even better covert data carrier, firstly who would search you THAT much in an average search and secondly even if they did spot the implant you could explain it away as a sexual thing (piereced nipples would help in this explanation, see this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_beading

[nbk2000]

It wouldn't necessarily have to appear as a completely different iris.

Just adding enough 'noisy pixels' to the otherwise clear lens would be sufficient to change the hash value of the iris to the biometric scanner, making it a non-match for your natural iris.

I'm sure there's a sweet-spot were there is enough noise to fool the scanner, but not enough to be readily visible to any flashlight-wielding piggy.

[Jacks Complete]

Beating a retina scan isn't hard at all.

A brief look around the 'net shows that there are several ways to do it, including a full face photo of a person loaded onto a laptop and held up to the reader, printing a picture of a person, printing a picture and simply cutting out the eye part you want and holding it in the right place on your own face, and, to beat the "fancy" ones which check you are alive, you cut out the entire iris, then remove the centre black part, then hold it up so you can see through it, so the detector can see your real eye for look for the heartbeat.

Future options will be as easy, I'm sure, like putting the picture on your mobile phone, and a slight animation so it is "alive" to the detector. Printed contacts work just fine for camo, too.

The one you have to work out how to beat is the retina scanner, because that's the one they use for the really fancy hi-tech doors. A hologram impressed/etched/burned into the fake lens you describe might well be the answer!

[nbk2000]

The main issue I'm concerned with is border control, where you're not going to be able to hold up a cut-out picture, not with all the DHS agents watching you.

You want to be able to get the fuck out of the country the moment things go to shit, like a WMD event, as that'll be moment 'Operation Prison Planet' takes effect.

[Hirudinea]

It wouldn't necessarily have to appear as a completely different iris.

Just adding enough 'noisy pixels' to the otherwise clear lens would be sufficient to change the hash value of the iris to the biometric scanner, making it a non-match for your natural iris.

If you just want to add noise to the iris you could probably modifiy your natural iris with a laser similar to the ones they use in Lasik, some tiny scars on the iris should add enough to fool a scanner without comprimising the iris itself.

[nbk2000]

The only problem with scarring the iris directly is the irreversible nature of such a procedure.

The IOL can be removed at a future time, just in case they implement some improved detection scheme that can detect previous patterns hiding amongst the new noise.

[megalomania]

Some fractal pattern software could likely be written to mimic the growth patterns of the blood vessels. Render the patterns into coordinates for the laser, and fire up your 3D laser burner.

With multilayer data disk systems now starting to be commercialized, off the shelf technology could make this a very feasible project.

If anyone has seen the DIY 3D printer at instructables.com using sugar as the substrate, a device that replicates a $15k setup with a few hundred dollars of components, then doing a little 3D artwork on a contact with colored dye sounds easy.

There is a new type of tattoo ink that uses microencapsulated spheres of ink coated in a polymer that breaks down upon exposure to laser light. You could incorporate such a system into a contact lens.

I think the point of modifying an artificial iris is that you can have several eye-dentities (a bad pun) at your disposal. If retinal scanners become a common tool of the fedgov, there will be checkpoints everywhere to track your every move. If you are up to anything naughty, like reading books, inhaling fresh air, or shopping for food other than USDA mandated soylent green, then your surgically modified iris would quickly become compromised.

[Hirudinea]

The only problem with scarring the iris directly is the irreversible nature of such a procedure.

The IOL can be removed at a future time, just in case they implement some improved detection scheme that can detect previous patterns hiding amongst the new noise.

True, but using a laser to scar the iris is much quicker, less invasive and could be done at least a couple times. A laser procedure takes minutes, and with no healing time (well for all practical purposes), IOLs require a surgical procedure and the requisite time to heal. But both ideas have their merits.

There is a new type of tattoo ink that uses microencapsulated spheres of ink coated in a polymer that breaks down upon exposure to laser light. You could incorporate such a system into a contact lens.

If the could come up with a phase change tattoo ink then the iris (natural or artificial) could be changed as much as you like.

[nbk2000]

It's not only the Iris that needs changing, but voice as well.

Voice Recognition Technology Used to Arrest Colombian Drug Lord in Brazil

Friday , August 10, 2007

AP

SAO PAULO, Brazil —
The reputed leader of Colombia's biggest drug cartel, his features radically altered by plastic surgery, was identified by Brazilian and American anti-drug agents using advanced voice recognition technology, the suspect's lawyer said Friday.

Brazilian police had difficulty making a positive identification of Juan Carlos Ramirez Abadia while they investigated a money laundering scheme he orchestrated in hiding in Brazil, but got a break after taping him on the telephone and passing that information to agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, said the lawyer, Sergio Alambert.

The recording was compared in the United States to other tapes of Abadia's voice, leading to a match that allowed Brazilian police to identify him so he could be arrested, Alambert told The Associated Press.

Richard Mei, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, declined comment on the voice recognition techniques but said the DEA helped in the Brazilian investigation into Ramirez Abadia.

After the positive ID was made, Abadia was arrested Tuesday in a luxurious home on the outskirts of Sao Paulo with a gym, sauna, plasma TVs, a swimming pool and nearly $1 million in stashed cash. Authorities found another $1 million buried in the garden of another home near Sao Paulo on Thursday, the lawyer said.

...

Brazil's Supreme Court will decide whether Ramirez Abadia will be extradited, though Brazilian law bans sending foreign suspects back home if they face the death penalty or a sentence of more than 30 years. (:D NBK)

Police said Ramirez Abadia -- nicknamed "Chupeta," or lollipop -- arrived from Colombia to oversee his gang's Brazilian investments and underwent plastic surgery at least twice to alter his appearance.

The effort by authorities to identify Ramirez Abadia was complicated by the plastic surgeries, and because he used numerous aliases, Alambert said.
...


Vocal cords can also be surgically altered, and I've read of people's voices changing dramatically after laser removal of polyps on their vocal cords.

[Bugger]

I have heard of male-to-female transsexuals undergoing surgery on their larynxes, to shorten their vocal cords and reduce the size of their "Adam's apples". There is a surgeon in Portland, Oregon, who does this. This surgery, together with drug therapy consisting of estrogens (female sex hormones, i.e. estradiol and its derivatives) and anti-inflammatory drugs (corticosteroids, salicylates, paracetamol), results in the frequency of the voice becoming much higher.

There is something about this surgery, with before-and-after voice samples of transsexuals who also had this surgery on the larynx, on http://www.tsvoice.dns2go.com . However, it is very delicate surgery, expensive (about $US15,000, but a drug kingpin could easily afford this), and takes several months to fully recover from.

Castration alone, well after puberty, would produce only a very slow heightening of the frequency of the voice. This is discussed on http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin .

++++++++++

The tranny voice link doesn't work. NBK

[Hirudinea]

The reputed leader of Colombia's biggest drug cartel, his features radically altered by plastic surgery, was identified by Brazilian and American anti-drug agents using advanced voice recognition technology, the suspect's lawyer said Friday.

But my question is, does voice recognition rely on just the pitch of the voice, or is it more complex than that? If you just change the pitch of the voice with surgery then you could modify the pitch with a computer (my DVD Recorder changes the pitch of all sound when I fast forward), and then you could identify the voice. I think that you'ed need to change the whole way you speak, if I were talking over the phone I'ed use a voice synthesizer.

[Jacks Complete]

If he'd used a Cryptophone, he'd have been fine.

However, I can only assume it was a secondary ID, since I doubt the Brazilians recorded wholesale and sent them to the US.

Wonder if he still maintains he's someone else?

[nbk2000]

A cryptophone only works if the person on the other end of the line has one too.

Try ordering a pizza with one. ;)

With ECHELON and it's ilk listening to every conversation, you only have to slip up ONE TIME to be fucked.

[LibertyOrDeath]

But my question is, does voice recognition rely on just the pitch of the voice, or is it more complex than that?It's more complex than that, since voice isn't characterized by (average) pitch alone.

Here's one way to look at it: if you play a certain note on a piano, it will sound very different from the exact same note played on an electric guitar. So waveform comes into play as well as frequency, even for just one note. And speech is created by a very complicated mix of frequencies and waveforms that changes in time as a single word is pronounced.

Here's a patent that describes one algorithm for use in voice recognition. If you've studied linear algebra and haven't gotten rusty with it, then the math shouldn't be too hard to follow, at least in a general way:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=ozsCAAAAEBAJ&dq=4903306

If I were talking over the phone I'd use a voice synthesizer.Yeah, something like that would probably be the best way to defeat this technology. If no such synthesizer is available, then blasting a radio or TV in the background could also cause difficulties with a voice recognition system. Even whispering loudly rather than using one's normal voice might defeat it, though I wouldn't want to take a chance on that.

------------------------

Related to another aspect of biometrics, I know some here have heard of gait-recognition technology. For those not familiar with it, it's another method by which "our" governments are using our tax dollars to fund research into better methods of enslaving us:

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/GAIT.htm

A possible countermeasure to this might be a long, somewhat loose trenchcoat that covers your body from the neck to the ankles. (Let's bring them back in style. :cool:) Some have also suggested putting things in your shoes to alter your gait. That could also work, but if you have to run or fight it could present difficulties.

[Hirudinea]

But my question is, does voice recognition rely on just the pitch of the voice, or is it more complex than that?

It's more complex than that, since voice isn't characterized by (average) pitch alone.

Here's one way to look at it: if you play a certain note on a piano, it will sound very different from the exact same note played on an electric guitar. So waveform comes into play as well as frequency, even for just one note. And speech is created by a very complicated mix of frequencies and waveforms that changes in time as a single word is pronounced.

But you think that surgically changing the voice (raising or lowering its pitch) would not be an effective way to defeat voice recognition.

Here's a patent that describes one algorithm for use in voice recognition. If you've studied linear algebra and haven't gotten rusty with it, then the math shouldn't be too hard to follow, at least in a general way:

Linear algebra WTF!?!? Just give me the jist of it and, since you know what linear algebra is, I'll believe you. :)

If I were talking over the phone I'd use a voice synthesizer.
Yeah, something like that would probably be the best way to defeat this technology. If no such synthesizer is available, then blasting a radio or TV in the background could also cause difficulties with a voice recognition system.

So the random noise would overwhelm the algorithm you think?

Even whispering loudly rather than using one's normal voice might defeat it, though I wouldn't want to take a chance on that.

Neither would I.

Related to another aspect of biometrics, I know some here have heard of gait-recognition technology.

I've heard of this, it recognizes the way an individual walks and identifies them from their walk.

A possible countermeasure to this might be a long, somewhat loose trenchcoat that covers your body from the neck to the ankles. (Let's bring them back in style. )

Now we know why everybody in the future in SciFi wears those stupid one piece body suits, so they can't fool the gait-recognition technology. I agree everybody should buy a long coat to protect them and ray-bans to block long range iris recognition, and as a bonus to defeating the biometric spies you get to look like your in the Matrix!

Some have also suggested putting things in your shoes to alter your gait. That could also work, but if you have to run or fight it could present difficulties.

Putting a stone in your shoe is an old spy trick to change your gate, if your worried about having to run mabye you could use somthing annoying but soft, like a seedless prune, you would be reminded to "limp" but could still run if you had to.

[nbk2000]

Any glasses used for blocking the iris scan would have to be opaque in the IR range, since this is how the scanners are able to work through sunglasses, which typically do not block IR to any significant degree.

Mirrored glasses do block IR, so that'd be one thing you could use.

Another would be pinhole lens.

[LibertyOrDeath]

But you think that surgically changing the voice (raising or lowering its pitch) would not be an effective way to defeat voice recognition.Well, I'm not sure because I don't know exactly how the surgery would alter the voice.

If surgery would simply take each pitch produced by a person's vocal cords naturally and boost it by the same amount (sort of like putting a capo on a guitar), then it would be easy to automatically correct for that in computer software designed for voice analysis. But I suspect that surgery would have more complicated effects on the voice (e.g., changing timbre as well as average pitch, and/or not changing all pitches by the same interval) that probably would throw off the analysis. Surgery seems like an an awfully extreme step, but if it were needed, I think it could work.

Of course, if they can get your surgically-altered voice into their database and link it to you, then it was all for nothing.

Linear algebra WTF!?!? Just give me the jist of it and, since you know what linear algebra is, I'll believe you. :)LOL, okay, forget about the linear algebra. Let me try to explain it without resorting to that, although the essence of the whole process is very mathematical.

Basically, what they do according to that patent is digitally record the sound your voice is making many times per second while you speak a word. This is called "sampling." Each of these mini-recordings, or "samples," is stored in a mathematically encoded form that describes certain frequencies (pitches) that your voice was using at the time of that particular sample. What you get in the end is a two-dimensional array of numbers (i.e., a matrix) that represents the entire word (see Fig. 2).

To make a long story short, after performing a bunch of mathematical mumbo-jumbo on that matrix, you end up with a kind of bell curve (a distribution) that has certain properties (height, width, etc. -- see Fig. 3). This is then stored in a database or "library."

Later on, if they want to recognize your voice, they can record it, put it through the above process, and then see if the distribution all those mathematical steps produce ends up matching any in their database.

I think that's the gist of what they're doing. Does that make any sense?

So the random noise would overwhelm the algorithm you think?I think it might, although you'd probably want the background noise to be as loud or louder than your own voice so they couldn't simply filter out any noise with a volume lower than a certain threshold. That would make conversation a bit difficult, but not impossible. It would be like talking to someone in a noisy bar with shitty music blasting. :)

[Hirudinea]

Any glasses used for blocking the iris scan would have to be opaque in the IR range, since this is how the scanners are able to work through sunglasses, which typically do not block IR to any significant degree.

Mirrored glasses do block IR, so that'd be one thing you could use.

Another would be pinhole lens.

I suppose you could also use the material they use to make IR filters for digital cameras, if you knew what it was, to make sunglasses.

I guess they'll be banning sunglasses soon.

Surgery seems like an an awfully extreme step, but if it were needed, I think it could work.

Of course, if they can get your surgically-altered voice into their database and link it to you, then it was all for nothing.


Which would make surgery somthing you wouldn't do until you'ed gone underground.

LOL, okay, forget about the linear algebra. Let me try to explain it without resorting to that

Good, non-mathamitical explanition, thanks.

It seems to me that the voice recogignition would also be able to judge things such as inflection and pronuncation, I think that surgery would be a 50-50 option in that case.

Quote:
So the random noise would overwhelm the algorithm you think?

I think it might, although you'd probably want the background noise to be as loud or louder than your own voice so they couldn't simply filter out any noise with a volume lower than a certain threshold. That would make conversation a bit difficult, but not impossible. It would be like talking to someone in a noisy bar with shitty music blasting.

Yes, humans are still superior to computers in most areas of pattern recognition and noise filtering so noise that you can just hear through would probably make a good filter, especially if there are voices in the background noise.

[Maldore]

This is drifting back a little bit in the discussion, but I thought of a possibility for fooling an iris recognition device and possibly creating a re-writable iris. A pseudo-latex material could be surgically implanted in the eye of an individual to cover the iris itself. This fake iris would theoretically be able to stretch and shrink with the actual iris itself, though I imagine one's eye would take some time to adjust to the pull of the material on the iris, it can be conjectured that the body will eventually adapt. On the idea of using if for carrying data or encryptions, a chemical could be bound into the material comprising the fake iris that may be reactive to certain wavelengths of light (UV, IR, radio waves?) allowing for data to be written like a CD, thought unless you had a chemical that could continuously react with the stimulant, the fake iris would need to be periodically replaced or used like a writable CD that allows multiple writings until the space is used up. I believe that if you had the reactive chemical and the latex like material, all you would need to do is restrict the movement of the eyelids, and shine a bright light in the subject's eye so the iris stretches to full capacity while the stimulating radiation alters the surface of the fake iris. Scanning would be just as simple, shine a bright light into the eye, and while using a program that can read the data transcribed on the iris, simply scan in a similar way to an existent iris recognition device.

Retinal scanners on the other hand react to light reflected off the blood vessels in the retina itself, so what about using a chemical that temporarily engorges the blood vessels (making the more minute seem larger) or a chemical that temporarily thins the flow of blood or constricts the blood vessels (making them appear smaller or even non existent in some areas [does nicotine in one’s system alter retinal scans?]). This probably could not be done without temporarily disturbing the subject's ability to see. (Possibility of human enhancement?) Done enough times, it could theoretically damage, disturb, or alter one's visual perception and eyesight permanently.

All of this could be done with technology we have at our fingertips right now!

[Jacks Complete]

That's just weird. If you want to fuck about with your eyes like that, be my guest, but I'm not going blind for it!

Far easier would be to use a laser to change the pigmentation of your existing iris, or even retina (but you'd almost certainly end up with blind spots and regions if you tampered with the blood supply to your eye)

[Hirudinea]

While a "CD Iris" might be possible I still think a rewritable RFID data storage chip in the dick would be a easier way to smuggling data.

[nbk2000]

Data storage is a distant secondary use behind the primary one of defeating iris recognition.

[Maldore]

The main idea behind my post was placing a fake iris over your regular iris to fool a detector, the data storage was just meant as an added bonus idea lol. :)

[nbk2000]

A totally fake iris would work to block any iris scan, but a fixed iris also limits your ability to see.

To always work, the fake iris would have to be in a permanently constricted mode, making you night-blind.

[nbk2000]

I found a graphic demonstrating that they already have laser-burnable IOL's. :)

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Way back in the 1970's my brother had some contact lens that were mirrored! He got them from a effects guy in Hollywood who was using them to produce various "scary movies" at the time. They made your eyes look like steel ball bearings!!! They had to be the most intense looking add-on one could wear for a night out drinking.

We would go to clubs and he would wear sun glasses over the damn contacts. When he had a guy or gal all set up he would take off the sun glasses as he spoke to them and watch their facial expression change...

I think you can still buy them (mirrored contact lens) as the special effect of glowing eyes, or whatever is a common deal in film making even today.

[Toggle]

To always work, the fake iris would have to be in a permanently constricted mode, making you night-blind.

A fake eye would be safer to use. If this sounds too 'James Bond' (it was in one of the movies), remember that fingerprint readers can be fooled by a fake thumb made out of gummi bears. Really! Just search for "gummi bears" and "biometric". There are even a few how-to articles. :D

[nbk2000]

And how are you going to use a fake eye at the airport boarding gate? Or at the DMV? Or while walking down the street, or buying groceries, or going on the subway, etc.

If you are in the position to hold up a fake eye, great. But in the majority of situations, you won't be able to because someone will be watching you put your eye to the camera.

[sbovisjb1]

I know that basic biometric identifiers such as fingerprints can be changed. (using acid, cutting them off, etc) Thats why cognitive scanners are used. Its much harder and expensive (you need a experienced doctor to even attempt this procedure).

[Jacks Complete]

Enlighten us as to how you can change your fingerprints then.

As far as I know, the prints grow right back, same as they were before, if burned off without underlying tissue damage. With underlying tissue damage, you'd not be able to feel anything through your fingers, and would also be really easy to ID!

And as for cutting them off...

And explain this "cognitive scanner" thing too.

[sbovisjb1]

:O Cognitive.... Sorry I was reading something on psychology at the time and didn't think when I wrote those words and hurriedly posted. I meant to say optic. And to the finger prints, you can change them with chemicals or slicing them off. It is tissue and tissue can be changed.(MUCH more difficult to do this in the eyes[i have never heard/seen this done])

[James]

SOT: I think the smallest voice synthesizer can fit in your hand. I have this crazy visioon of a VS you can wear like a choker to free both of your hands. I suppose one could adhere a microsd card between their shoulder to ferry data, it wouldn't work if JBTs ore someone make you take off your shirt.
BOOT: I thinnk it might be possiblle to have a surgically implanted iris overlay w/ a fake print. then you wouldn't have to worry about being rushed or forgettin a contact lens or something. Or, I suppose one might try building 'virtual light' ish glasses (opaque with a display facing inward updated by a camera facing outward), but that would stick out as a blanket denial to any remote iris readers. or maybe that glass they had on mythbusters a while back (theif myths or something)