IBM recently released its annual tradition of five predictions for five years in to the future — among them, the belief that passwords will become redundant.
IMB is developing technology that views facial definitions, eye scans, voice files and even DNA as personal safeguards to a far more extreme extent than now.
The company wants to replace words and numbers with security based on your biological makeup, and create unique DNA based profiles that will serve as your ‘password’ for a variety of tasks. These could include going to an ATM, logging in to your computer, and perhaps going as far as signing in to individual online services like Facebook or Twitter.
By using personal data that is far more difficult to forge than simply guessing or learning a password, IBM believes this type of security will be far more appealing than the memory-based approach currently employed.
That is, if people want it. Personally, I’m not keen on the idea of more DNA profiles, even for security measures. It smacks of the U.K government’s failure to introduce biometric I.D cards. A question we probably don’t ask ourselves enough is: how much personal information are we comfortable for organisations to hold on us?
We are yet to see whether this kind of technology, which is likely to be far more expensive to produce, will make its way in to the general public market — or whether it will remain firmly in the grip of security companies and elitist technology.
IMB is developing technology that views facial definitions, eye scans, voice files and even DNA as personal safeguards to a far more extreme extent than now.
The company wants to replace words and numbers with security based on your biological makeup, and create unique DNA based profiles that will serve as your ‘password’ for a variety of tasks. These could include going to an ATM, logging in to your computer, and perhaps going as far as signing in to individual online services like Facebook or Twitter.
By using personal data that is far more difficult to forge than simply guessing or learning a password, IBM believes this type of security will be far more appealing than the memory-based approach currently employed.
That is, if people want it. Personally, I’m not keen on the idea of more DNA profiles, even for security measures. It smacks of the U.K government’s failure to introduce biometric I.D cards. A question we probably don’t ask ourselves enough is: how much personal information are we comfortable for organisations to hold on us?
We are yet to see whether this kind of technology, which is likely to be far more expensive to produce, will make its way in to the general public market — or whether it will remain firmly in the grip of security companies and elitist technology.
