You are reporting the following comment to the PledgeBank team:
Thanks for the links. I've seen the Register articles before.
Yes these techniques are not accurate, including retinal - just one reason I'm dubious about the ID card scheme.
The second link only refers to a "low intensity light source" for retinal scans, which could just be a light like your opthalmist uses, and even if it's a laser, it'd only need to be a low powered one.
Your third link has the comment that a retinal scan uses lasers, but the link says no such thing, nor does the original BBC story - it just comments on what sort of laser would be fine, not that one is actually used.
I provided three links that say: that Iris scanning just uses a video camera; the second that Retinal scanning does *not* use a laser; and the third used infra red LEDs, plus a load of health data. I found these rather easily, and I couldn't find any infomation on damage caused by retinal or iris scans.
Further research shows that the Heathrow trial that has just started use Iris scanning using just a video camera.
The original point made by Joe and yourself was that Iris scanning shone lasers in your eye and ill-trained technicians could do damage.
All the links posted have convinced me that that is not the case, even if your hypothetical switch to retinal scans are used instead.
There are plenty of well resarched good reasons to oppose ID cards and the NIR.Ric, 15 years ago.