Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Identix (IDNX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Keith Fauci who wrote (12840)	3/23/1999 12:20:00 AM
From: David	Respond to of 26039

A scanner with an onboard CPU (the TSP by IDX, the Sony Puppy by I/O Software, BII's Veriprint product) conducts the heavy lifting of fingerprint algorithm extraction that creates a non-image template. It should also have the optional capability (IDX's F3 does) of also checking post-enrollment presented prints against the template in memory for the particular individual and determining whether or not there is a match. All this without relying on a connected PC or server. These peripherals can be PC-independent. What emerges from this approach is a simple "yes/no" signal to the network, confirming whether or not there is a match. With an onboard CPU, it is also possible to hold some significant number of templates in onboard memory, so that -- for access and control purposes, for instance -- in the case of the Sony Puppy, as much as 1100 fingerprints can be individually evaluated. Since not even a template needs to be stored outside the peripheral, this system can be inherently more secure.* It is also, of course, much more expensive. Prices range from the $300-$400 dollar range and up, compared to the probable $50 as supplied price for the PC-dependent IDT device. (PC-dependent devices use the PC for the heavy lifting, which means PCs or servers are also used for storage purposes.) Further, the CPU-onboard devices tend to use pattern recognition, a proprietary algorithm less familiar than a minutiae algorithm, which is what the PC-dependent devices tend to use. It isn't clear, though, that these proprietary pattern recognition algorithms are more efficient or accurate than the minutiae devices. The IDT/Compaq device is apparently pretty strong in this area. *I should disclose I have been having a long-term off-thread debate with someone very knowledgeable in this area who disagrees that there is a security advantage to onboard CPU scanners.