BRAINPRINT: THE NEXT FRONTIER OF PASSWORD SECURITY
Nicholas Manfred
November, 2018
In 2015, a group of researchers at Binghamton University conducted a study in which 45 subjects’ centro-parietal lobe brainwaves were electroencephalographically charted in response to a series of 75 acronyms. Each subject’s brain activity in response to these stimuli is characterized by the N400 component, which is the potential resulting from semantic stimulation in this part of the brain.
What these researchers found is that each individual response to a linguistic stimulus is discernibly unique, much like a fingerprint. Perhaps the biggest implication of this finding is the potential utilization of brainwave technology for security purposes, brainprinting. With this technology’s continuously increasing trends toward higher accuracy, greater facility of operation, and longer duration of usage, the pros of brainprinting are evident. Proponents argue that it is more effective than fingerprinting and, unlike fingerprinting, can be reset in the case of a breach.
However, the use of brainprinting also poses several ethical dilemmas—namely a potential infringement on privacy via cognitive biometrics. The use of brainprint has already been used to convict and assess the thoughts of terrorists. On the other hand, the potential usage of brainprinting as a mechanism of surveillance has been implicated, which could ensure safety at the price of privacy of thought. Brainprint appears to be well-intended, but also Orwellian to some degree. Thus, its role in both the legal system and in everyday life are currently subject to debate.
Nicholas Manfred
November, 2018
In 2015, a group of researchers at Binghamton University conducted a study in which 45 subjects’ centro-parietal lobe brainwaves were electroencephalographically charted in response to a series of 75 acronyms. Each subject’s brain activity in response to these stimuli is characterized by the N400 component, which is the potential resulting from semantic stimulation in this part of the brain.
What these researchers found is that each individual response to a linguistic stimulus is discernibly unique, much like a fingerprint. Perhaps the biggest implication of this finding is the potential utilization of brainwave technology for security purposes, brainprinting. With this technology’s continuously increasing trends toward higher accuracy, greater facility of operation, and longer duration of usage, the pros of brainprinting are evident. Proponents argue that it is more effective than fingerprinting and, unlike fingerprinting, can be reset in the case of a breach.
However, the use of brainprinting also poses several ethical dilemmas—namely a potential infringement on privacy via cognitive biometrics. The use of brainprint has already been used to convict and assess the thoughts of terrorists. On the other hand, the potential usage of brainprinting as a mechanism of surveillance has been implicated, which could ensure safety at the price of privacy of thought. Brainprint appears to be well-intended, but also Orwellian to some degree. Thus, its role in both the legal system and in everyday life are currently subject to debate.
