Banking under Enduring Power of Attorney

[Adrian Midgley]

Nicholas Bohm wrote:

> These are very impressive rates - 7 and 4 errors in 10^7 trials
> respectively, if I counted right.  This is vastly better than is claimed
> for iris recognition, as far as I recall.  It's surprising that there
> hasn't been more noise about it, and indeed independent research.
> 
> Cost could be a factor (a point which Brian M has raised), perhaps.


Iris recognition is a non-contact approach.

Palms or fingertips and their readers could carry snot and viruses, and
transmit for instance Influenza or MRSA through an organisation.


I wonder if anyone has done microbiology on the hardware, or
epidemiology on the organisation?

And if it gets cleaned.


Many years ago I did someo n keyboards in a general practice which I
found reassuring.

-- 
A