On 2 February 2010 18:33, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Debayan Banerjee <[email protected]> > wrote:
>> Well they can wipe their hands before giving a fingerprint, right? > > Get real. The only 'reliable' original fingerprints (from the PoV of primary > authentication) are those taken in fairly ideal circumstances. Anything else > is a filter, not an absolute identifier. I am not an expert on fingerprinting technology, hence the ",right?" in the end of my statement. Well now I know from your answer, that getting fingerprints is a rather difficult problem. > > > I, for one, am not entirely happy with a document that presupposes > development taking place before research. That is a sure-fire prescription > for pouring money down the drain. However, since I have not yet read the 57 > pages either, I am willing to suspend my disbelief if the answer to my query > above is positive. That does not mean that I think that UID is a good idea, > or even the best of the bad ideas before us. Well, whether the UID itself is a good idea or not is a topic for debate too, but I digress. I wouldnt want to get into a ILUG-BOM style debate here. And yes I do hope they have done their research. Nandan Nilekani will soom come out with what he plans in some interviews in the future, lets wait for that. The volunteer based approach might also be a way to hire cheap (free) labor. I think volunteers should atleast be aware enough to know not to sign up unless the licenses of the project are cleared up first. We would not want our code contributions to be locked up at the end of the day. -- Regards, Debayan Banerjee _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
