Connecting moms in Polk County, Fla.

Student Expelled for Refusing Location Tracking RFID Badge

School makes good on threat of ‘consequences’ for refusing to submit to ‘Mark of the Beast’ ID scheme

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
November 19, 2012

After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times, Andrea Hernandez is being involuntarily withdrawn from John Jay High School in San Antonio effective November 26th, according to a letter sent by the district that has now been made public.

The letter, sent on November 13, informs her father that the Smart ID program, which was phased in with the new school year, is now in “full implementation” and requires all students to comply by wearing the location-tracking badges.

Since Andrea Hernandez has refused to wear the badge, she is being withdrawn from the magnate school and her program at the Science and Engineering Academy, and instead will have to attend William Howard Taft HS, which is not currently involved in the ID scheme, unless she changes her position.

Civil liberties lawyers at the Rutherford Institute told Infowars.com that they are in the process of filing a temporary restraining order petition to prevent the school from kicking Hernandez out until further appeals can be made to resolve the matter. Representatives for John Jay did not return calls for comment by the time of publishing.

Andrea, backed by her family, has claimed the policy violates her religious beliefs and unduly infringes on her privacy. The controversial ID badge includes the photo and name of each student, a barcode tied to the student’s social security number, as well as an RFID chip which pinpoints the exact location of the individual student, including after hours and when the student leaves campus.

The battle over the IDs has been an ongoing saga. The Hernandez family has previously attended several school board meetings, organized protests and filed formal grievances with the district over the matter, and has been backed by numerous civil rights advocates.

Infowars reporters covered a protest that took place in early October, following up with appearances by the Hernandez family on the Alex Jones Show and the Infowars Nightly News programs.

Texas Students Treated Like Cattle with Mandatory RFID Tags

In response to public outcry and pressure from rights groups, the school has offered to remove the battery and chip, but wouldn’t budge on mandating the ID. Their offer would also require the Hernandez family to end their criticism and agree to comply with and even tout the policy, something Andrea’s father Steve Hernandez finds unacceptable.

Steve Hernandez stated, “[A]s part of the accommodation my daughter and I would have to agree to stop criticizing the program and publicly support … it. I told [the Deputy Superintendent] that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district’s policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong.”

Andrea has instead agreed to carry her original ID card, which was issued when she began at the school, and was told would be valid for her entire four years there.

But she has already been effectively punished for her non-compliance. She was not allowed to vote for Homecoming King & Queen because she didn’t have the proper identification, and has also been barred from some school functions. The school originally threatened to suspend, fine, or involuntarily transfer students who wouldn’t wear the ID once the program was fully instituted.

Deputy Superintendent Ray Galindo vowed in October that the consequences would be worse if Andrea did not change her mind: “I urge you to accept this solution so that your child’s instructional program will not be affected. As we discussed, there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card as we begin to move forward with full implementation,” Galindo wrote.

Hernandez’ case first made news back in August, when the school tried to impose the new technology at the start of the school year. John Jay HS, along with other participating schools, stands to receive $2 million dollars in state funding for a program supposedly instituted to reduce tardiness and truancy. However, Hernandez and other students only qualified for the magnate school by having good attendance, grades and test scores in the first place.

Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School

For many Christian families, including the Hernandez’, the mandatory policy is eerily close to the predictions of Revelations 13: 16-18, which warns of the Mark of the Beast:

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or[a] the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666. (New King James Version)

As such, the policy has also been considered a violation of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Many also consider it to be an unreasonable and unwarranted violation of privacy, protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Gov’t Bribing School Children with Candy to Wear RFID Chip

Tags: RFID, expelled, school

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JCCook on November 21, 2012 at 7:34pm

Clarification. Did not mention red-light cameras. Was using stop lights as an example of freedoms we are willing to lose in order to gain safety. As far as the mark of the beast goes, I was referencing the initial posted tag line.

I think we are reading past each other's words to create our own impressions of what we each are saying.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JCCook on November 21, 2012 at 7:47pm

Also, the slippery slope is not something that I just happened to create and be against. It is a well known logical fallacy. This is day one Reasoning 101. Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another.

Also, if you really meant your first post to be tongue in cheek, this conversation would not have continued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane on November 21, 2012 at 7:50pm

LOL ;-) It was long.

I'll try to keep my reply short.

I really don't think that our discussions are on the same topic. On the surface yes. But there seems to be more read into each others comments, that completely or at least highly miss what the other's concern is.

For example, it appears in your comments directed to me, that I take positions completely different than that which I possess. So if one is concern about their freedoms, then one wants to drive recklessly and wantonly down south florida avenue, to exercise our god given rights. Having witnessed first hand what poor attitudes towards others will led to........three dead and three critically injured directly in front of me. I don't think that is what the framers of our constitution or others that have views similar to myself have in mind.

As far as the TSA, they do have duties to perform. Very important ones at that. But who sets the perimeters of their duties? Where does accountablity come in play when they exercise poor judgement and the lack of good manners while conducting their duties? I know first hand the excesses that a poorly trained and abusive handler can be. My father that had sustained a stroke and had other health conditions was flying to visit my sister out of state. The treatment that they put my father through was demeaning, but also physically dangerous. Made him stand, when he was wheelchair bound, repeately. No kind words, just in your face dictorial power. The other waiting and just checked passengers looked on in horror. That story has been repeated and documented numerous times by the media. Just goggle TSA abuse.

Yes by all means keep the planes safe. But there are boundaries.

Why should a child be required to go to another school, likely of less qualification due to a tracking device? What proof does its use imply toward additional safety? Is the additional safety marginal?

In closing, this in not an all or none proposition on security. But a question of boundarys, and control. Blind allegiance or mature handling of one's own affairs.

Janice C Cook said:

Holy carp. I just realized how long that was. I should be writing my grad application essays. Good Talk.

Janice C Cook said:

Now, I am answered other thoughts you brought up in a separate tab.

It is a shame that many people are uneducated and unaware. Some are victims of their own laziness, and others are victims of a society in which education systems vary in curriculum standards. Some have simply forgotten what has been asked of them to learn. In a senior level college anthropology class I took, filled with the type of students known to be academics and knowledge seekers, only a few could answer every question asked on a pop quiz/civics exam (Notice I didn't say a few of us. I missed one.). Many of us knew most of the answers, but it did illustrate to us our limited knowledge on a subject area we were born to be experts in. I am sure if every citizen of the U.S. took that test, there would be a high failure rate. It is sad really, but the problem could be mitigated by all states following a national set of standards set by the best and brightest in their fields, (Did you know that Florida refuses to follow the national guidelines for education in science even though the Governor says he wants us to excel in this area? We are in the dark ages, here.), a greater emphasis on educational milestones over standardized testing, higher pay for teachers (we get what we pay for)... I am sure you can add to this list.

On the topic of freedom. I do believe we all are willing to trade some of our freedom for some supposed security. For example, if I wanted to get to work quickly, I could drive as fast as I can down 98, passing through red lights and school zones at will. Yet, I don't. I may be theoretically free to do so, but there are consequences that reach much further than legalities. I wont pass through a red light because it may harm me or someone else and because I wouldn't want someone to pass through a red if I were driving through the green at the same time. In this way, it is supposed safety.Yet, not everyone will follow the rules (I had a women run through a red light and hit me recently); therefore, this sense of safety is tenuous. To move the conversation on to more controversial safety measures, I will move to airport scanners. In order to maintain the relative safety of passengers (and buildings) and because the technologies used by terrorists are getting more advanced, we are forced to go through intrusive scanning measures that erode our freedom of privacy while using these services. Though I am opposed to invasions of privacy, I am also opposed to becoming a burning ball of fire. This is where we have to weigh our feelings. If the dangers to life and limb outweigh the need for privacy, we have to give up a bit of privacy. In the same instance, if we have an issue with this overstepping, we are free to take trains boats, and buses or to drive our personal vehicles. As far as tracking devices go, I do believe that they are a severe overreach if they are forced upon someone on their own personal time. However, because this particular instance occurred in a charter school of choice and the girl, I will say this again, was given the option to not be tracked, no one's freedoms were being impinged upon. Just because a technology exists and is in use does not mean that it will become ubiquitous, nor does it mean that the technology is a problem. I will go back to my initial statement when I say that cell phones are more of a problem than school identification cards. Some parents may like the idea that they will always know that there children can be accounted for. For those who don't, there should be, and in this instance there is, an option to go to another school.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JCCook on November 21, 2012 at 8:30pm

I do think it is an overstepping of boundaries, but only if forced. I see what you mean about having to go to a less prestigious school because of one's beliefs, but I also think that this is a ramification of freedom. Should we restrict the rights of an institution to create an atmosphere that they believe is best suited for the safety of their students, many whom have chosen to use the system, for the sake of a few that have been given the choice to opt out? Isn't this a big part of choice? A student has the right to choose, but I don't believe that means they get to have their way one hundred percent. In my eyes, the school offered a reasonable alternative, but the student chose to rebel. She had the freedom to choose, but choices can come with consequences. Now, if this were my child, I would make her wear the ID badge without the tracking device and refuse to make such a big deal out of it. If the school were to try to force her to wear one with a tracking device, I would put her somewhere else.

You are right that some freedoms are not worth giving up, even for the sake of higher education. If and when they start trying to track every student, I will be right with you. Until then, we can yell at the TSA. They really are horrible. I understand the need for safety, but your story seems to be one of many. This is one instance in which incompetent training has lead to far too many ethical breaches. There are some serious issues of power going on there. We like to get where we need to be fast, and there is no public transport faster than a plane. We are stuck. Also, I lost my favorite pair of tweezers last year, but they let me keep a sharpened pencil. I think I can do more real damage with a pencil.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane on November 21, 2012 at 10:41pm

You are correct, you did not mention red light cameras. If you will go back and look how I used the subject of red light cameras, I said that it is a current issue. In no way, did I allude that my comment on red light camera issues was in reference to your speeding recklessly down the road and running red lights comment. My statement stands alone as an example of how one can have issues with how red light cameras are sometime used, but that this position is not all inclusive. I believe I also made a statement that I was not against the concept of using them. I believe that I mentioned that I support their use if use properly, and with the right motivation. But not soley as a revenue cash cow. Which gets to the reason why i drew this example out of my thought pattern, as an opposite cross reference to your hyperbole statement indicating that those that criticize the abuses of controlling agents as being totally laissez-faire. It is not an all or none proposition. But measured in how enacted, after serious and open public input. Janice C Cook said:

Clarification. Did not mention red-light cameras. Was using stop lights as an example of freedoms we are willing to lose in order to gain safety. As far as the mark of the beast goes, I was referencing the initial posted tag line.

I think we are reading past each other's words to create our own impressions of what we each are saying.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane on November 21, 2012 at 11:01pm

Janice, you admitted in an earlier comment that you believe in the slippery slope. Your qualification which I accept, is that one actions does not always follow the action of another. Note the "not every slipperly slope argument is false" is your statement. I will repeat again, I agree, not every event results in direct permanet event changes. No disagreement here. I do believe that was clear on my reply to you previously. So why are you arguing about the slipperly slope? It is possible as you readily admitted. I did not present at "any" time that the slipperly slope was always in play.

Day One Reasoning 101, since you brought this up. Does the slipperly slope exist? Are you prepared to state that Reasoning 101 takes the stance that it never applies. Note the emphasize on "never."

Janice C Cook said:

Also, the slippery slope is not something that I just happened to create and be against. It is a well known logical fallacy. This is day one Reasoning 101. Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another.

Also, if you really meant your first post to be tongue in cheek, this conversation would not have continued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane on November 21, 2012 at 11:14pm

Reply by Shane yesterday Delete

I believe all employers of over five employees, require RFID's to be worn during during their employment. All visitors to government offices will also be pinned with RFID's.

While this is just the start. It's a step in the right direction to protect us all.

Freedom?

That's for weirdos.

Give me security without rights. That's what we searching for.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Janice, you can't be serious. This comment of mine serious?

It was sarcstic mocking of how many see no problem with control over others, when it doesn't affect them. Yet! It was written tongue in cheek, however poorly done. Should have taken a minute or two to read and make a few changes. As it was, it was a hit and run, get back to business comment. But the point that I was making stands. NIMBY, comes to mind when describing my thought when written.

Janice C Cook said:

Also, the slippery slope is not something that I just happened to create and be against. It is a well known logical fallacy. This is day one Reasoning 101. Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another.

Also, if you really meant your first post to be tongue in cheek, this conversation would not have continued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JCCook on November 22, 2012 at 12:13am

I wasn't arguing anymore, I don't think. I think the responses are out of order now and I had to interrupt my flow of thought a number of times because I am cooking. But I will answer your question about whether or not I believe the slippery slope exists.

"Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another." This was my qualification.

This type of argument is used to show that one idea is unacceptable because it will lead to negative consequences. In some instances, one event does lead to another. Yet, using it in an debate (speaking in general, not just about this one because you have already clarified that you were speaking tongue in cheek) is not solid reasoning, especially without an explanation of what will cause the second event to occur.

Part of the problem with using this strategy is that life is unpredictable. There are certain phenomena that we know will occur given a certain set of circumstances. If we heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it will boil (at sea level, anyways). Yet, most social cause and effect relationships are difficult to predict due to the complex nature of life reactions. We can say, for another example, that if we legalize weed, we will soon be legalizing heroine; however, there is no reason to believe that the legalization of one will ultimately lead to the legalization of the other. This is the same with the current controversy over gay marriage, when people use the argument (and they do) that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of inter-species marriage...

So, the slippery slopes exists in a figurative way. I think we all use it to some extent without realizing it. Sometimes, the argument does work. It is at its best when used with specific definition of how events will occur if a known process exists. It is at its worst when used as a way to fear monger terrible possibilities with no explanatory basis.

Shane said:

Janice, you admitted in an earlier comment that you believe in the slippery slope. Your qualification which I accept, is that one actions does not always follow the action of another. Note the "not every slipperly slope argument is false" is your statement. I will repeat again, I agree, not every event results in direct permanet event changes. No disagreement here. I do believe that was clear on my reply to you previously. So why are you arguing about the slipperly slope? It is possible as you readily admitted. I did not present at "any" time that the slipperly slope was always in play.

Day One Reasoning 101, since you brought this up. Does the slipperly slope exist? Are you prepared to state that Reasoning 101 takes the stance that it never applies. Note the emphasize on "never."

Janice C Cook said:

Also, the slippery slope is not something that I just happened to create and be against. It is a well known logical fallacy. This is day one Reasoning 101. Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another.

Also, if you really meant your first post to be tongue in cheek, this conversation would not have continued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JCCook on November 22, 2012 at 2:03am

It just occurred to me that people may not have a complete grasp of what RFID is or how it works. It isn't like gps. When the word "tracking" is used, this doesn't mean it is movement tracking. Information is stored on a chip, and this information is scanned. We already keep track of attendance. It might prove more efficient than spending ten minutes of every class taking roll. This could possibly translate to extra learning time for students. The original post says that the badge can track students after hours and when students leave campus and that it can pinpoint a students exact location. I think there is serious misinformation being spread around about the capabilities of this technology.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane on November 22, 2012 at 8:53am

Happy Thanksgiving Janice,

Taking a break from helping the wife get our home ready for family to arrive. Early dinner today, many have to work, including two of my children.

But wanted to clarify something that I should have pointed out earlier. Your original, and most recent comments on "the slipperly slope" were incorrectly attributed to me. 18watt was actually the one that brought that subject up. However in your reply on the slipperly slope, you included a reference to one of my points. So you were actually replying to both 18watt and myself in the same sentence, without making a distictinon. I merely chimed in on that subject to gather clarification of your position on the role of slipperly slope in regards to your opinion. However, in your present comment (see below, paragraph 3, 3rd sentence) you make reference to my tongue in cheek comment and again the slipperly slope issue in the argument with again no distiction. I have pasted the paragraph below to make it easier to follow.

Not picking a fight. Those of weak minds might think otherwise. But I don't see you as weak.

So my point is to clarify. Just read the first post, 18watt. You'll find the slipperly slope reference. Then read my first post, you'll see no mention of slipperly slope, just a hyperpol, tongue n cheek comment. Which was sucessfully used to get attention to the main article content and possible ramifications.

Janice, enjoy your family and friends today.

Gobble, gobble.

Janice C Cook said:

I wasn't arguing anymore, I don't think. I think the responses are out of order now and I had to interrupt my flow of thought a number of times because I am cooking. But I will answer your question about whether or not I believe the slippery slope exists.

"Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another." This was my qualification.

This type of argument is used to show that one idea is unacceptable because it will lead to negative consequences. In some instances, one event does lead to another. Yet, using it in an debate (speaking in general, not just about this one because you have already clarified that you were speaking tongue in cheek) is not solid reasoning, especially without an explanation of what will cause the second event to occur.

Part of the problem with using this strategy is that life is unpredictable. There are certain phenomena that we know will occur given a certain set of circumstances. If we heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it will boil (at sea level, anyways). Yet, most social cause and effect relationships are difficult to predict due to the complex nature of life reactions. We can say, for another example, that if we legalize weed, we will soon be legalizing heroine; however, there is no reason to believe that the legalization of one will ultimately lead to the legalization of the other. This is the same with the current controversy over gay marriage, when people use the argument (and they do) that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of inter-species marriage...

So, the slippery slopes exists in a figurative way. I think we all use it to some extent without realizing it. Sometimes, the argument does work. It is at its best when used with specific definition of how events will occur if a known process exists. It is at its worst when used as a way to fear monger terrible possibilities with no explanatory basis.

Shane said:

Janice, you admitted in an earlier comment that you believe in the slippery slope. Your qualification which I accept, is that one actions does not always follow the action of another. Note the "not every slipperly slope argument is false" is your statement. I will repeat again, I agree, not every event results in direct permanet event changes. No disagreement here. I do believe that was clear on my reply to you previously. So why are you arguing about the slipperly slope? It is possible as you readily admitted. I did not present at "any" time that the slipperly slope was always in play.

Day One Reasoning 101, since you brought this up. Does the slipperly slope exist? Are you prepared to state that Reasoning 101 takes the stance that it never applies. Note the emphasize on "never."

Janice C Cook said:

Also, the slippery slope is not something that I just happened to create and be against. It is a well known logical fallacy. This is day one Reasoning 101. Now, not every slippery slope argument is false, but many are flawed because one event does not always lead to another.

Also, if you really meant your first post to be tongue in cheek, this conversation would not have continued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 26, 2012 at 11:41am

Palm scanners get thumbs up in schools, hospitals

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/25/palm-scanners-...

Palm-scanning technology uses unique vein patterns as a handy ID system.

1:32PM EST November 25. 2012 - At schools in Pinellas County, Fla., students aren't paying for lunch with cash or a card, but with a wave of their hand over a palm scanner.

"It's so quick that a child could be standing in line, call mom and say, 'I forgot my lunch money today.' She's by her computer, runs her card, and by the time the child is at the front of the line, it's already recorded," says Art Dunham, director of food services for Pinellas County Schools.

Students take about four seconds to swipe and pay for lunch, Dunham says, and they're doing it with 99% accuracy.

"We just love it. No one wants to go back," Dunham says.

Palm-scanning technology is popping up nationwide as a bona fide biometric tracker of identities, and it appears poised to make the jump from schools and hospitals to other sectors of the economy including ATM usage and retail. It also has applications as a secure identifier for cloud computing.

Here's how it works: Using the same near-infrared technology that comes in a TV remote control or Nintendo Wii video game, the device takes a super high-resolution infrared photograph of the vein pattern just below a person's skin. That image, between 1.5 and 2.5 square inches, is recorded and digitized.

The PalmSecure device is made by document-scanning manufacturer Fujitsu. So far, no other company has a palm scanner on the market — though at least one other company is working on the technology.

Like many technological breakthroughs, the development began accidentally. A decade ago, a Fujitsu engineer in Tokyo mistakenly ran his hand over a page scanner and it yielded an output that piqued his curiosity. Testing eventually showed that the veins in the palm of your hand are as unique as a fingerprint and can be photographed under infrared light.

Fujitsu has seen double-digit quarterly sales growth in each of the last two years, says Bud Yanak, director of product management and partner development for Fujitsu Frontech North America.

Palm scanners are installed in more than 50 school systems and more than 160 hospital systems in 15 states and the District of Columbia, Yanak says.

Pinellas County Schools were the first in the nation to bring palm scanning to their lunch lines about 18 months ago. They are being used by 50,000 students at 17 high schools and 20 middle schools. Soon, the program will expand to 60,000 more students at 80 elementary schools, Dunham says. The 2% of students who opt out can still use cash.

He says hygiene isn't a concern because students don't need to touch the device, but only hold their hand directly above it, to register a scan.

At hospitals, the scans are making patient registration more efficient, and prevent sharing of information by patients that could lead to insurance fraud, says Carl Bertrams, senior vice president of sales and marketing for palm scan software maker HT Systems in Tampa.

Cranberry Station cafeteria manager Peggy Vincent runs the computer that links the scan to a student's account.(Photo: Jack Gruber, USA TODAY)

A palm scan's precision record-keeping also avoids possible confusion if patients have the same name. For instance, a hospital system in the Houston area with a database of 3.5 million patients has 2,488 women in it named Maria Garcia – and 231 of them have the same date of birth, Bertrams says.

HT Systems president David Wiener won't reveal revenue but says that since 2007, they've got more than 160 hospitals for clients and have scanned more than 5 million patients.

At Wisconsin's UW Health system, palm scans have been used for about two years, says Dawn Gramse, a senior systems analyst. Soon, they'll start using self-service palm-swiping kiosks for patients to check themselves in.

"You'd hear about other biometric scanners that are out there, and you'd see the Mission Impossible movies with the eye scanners, and you'd never think you can integrate that kind of technology into a hospital," she says, "but you can."

Not everyone loves the idea of scans.

Students in Carroll County, Md., schools are using lunch line palm scanners, but 7-year-old Ian Webb isn't one of them. His father, Michael Webb, decided to have Ian, a second-grader, opt out of the program at Piney Ridge Elementary in Eldersburg.

"My son is not using the technology," he says. "I'll be honest, I think it's horrible. It's an intrusion into our children's rights."

Webb says he's concerned that use of the scanners by elementary school students normalizes the use of biometrics and anesthetizes young children to recognizing privacy violations later in life.

"I understand taking an iris scan of a pilot at an airport, so you know it's the right pilot flying the plane" he says. "This is that level of equipment they're installing in a line that serves steamed corn. I don't think it rises to the level of steamed corn."

Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, says the key to this particular kind of biometrics — that is, the kind a user consents to, unlike some facial recognition software — is ensuring that all data be treated sensitively.

"If it's a technology that works really well, it won't be long before you're offering your palm in a lot of different locations, and you will be concerned about who's got access to that information and what they want to do with it," Calabrese says.

The technology is expanding. Fujitsu in September launched a new line of palm-scanning ATMs in Japan, according to a company news release. Customers of Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank now can access cash machines without a bank card or personal identification number.

And while Fujitsu says it's the only company with such a product on the market right now, computer company Intel Corp. is working with palm-scanning technology.

Palm scanning can be used as a substitute for clunky, hard-to-remember passwords, says Sridhar Iyengar, director of security research at Intel Labs.

"There is a way around it, and biometrics is one option," Iyengar. "Replacing what you know — passwords — with what you are ... it's an ease of use issue. It's harder to spoof, and you're not likely to forget your fingerprints anytime soon."