> "They also demonstrated a machine-learning model that helps detect tampering by identifying similar glue pattern fingerprints with more than 99 percent accuracy."
This system would probably have to be far better than 99% to be helpful. If customers test (say) a hundred thousand tags per day, we might suppose that 99% accuracy means a thousand false alarms per day. If users get suspicious and return their genuine devices upon seeing a false alarm, that's a huge cost, even without any fakes at all. Reporting "99% accuracy" allows a worrisome amount of luck into a system marketed as "tamper-proof."
Let's compare to biometric verification. Apple's TouchID claims about 1 false accept among 50,000 fake fingers (FAR=0.00002) with false rejection rates (FRR) hovering around 2%-10% or so. Even though this averages to worse than 99% "overall accuracy," it makes sense for a fingerprint matcher because the genuine user gets to retry their finger a few seconds later, so high FRR isn't a problem in practice. On the other hand, it may be better for these tags to trade off a higher FAR for a lower FRR.
I'm also worried by the article's claim that terahertz waves "travel much faster than radio waves." The speed of light doesn't depend on its frequency.
This system would probably have to be far better than 99% to be helpful. If customers test (say) a hundred thousand tags per day, we might suppose that 99% accuracy means a thousand false alarms per day. If users get suspicious and return their genuine devices upon seeing a false alarm, that's a huge cost, even without any fakes at all. Reporting "99% accuracy" allows a worrisome amount of luck into a system marketed as "tamper-proof."
Let's compare to biometric verification. Apple's TouchID claims about 1 false accept among 50,000 fake fingers (FAR=0.00002) with false rejection rates (FRR) hovering around 2%-10% or so. Even though this averages to worse than 99% "overall accuracy," it makes sense for a fingerprint matcher because the genuine user gets to retry their finger a few seconds later, so high FRR isn't a problem in practice. On the other hand, it may be better for these tags to trade off a higher FAR for a lower FRR.
I'm also worried by the article's claim that terahertz waves "travel much faster than radio waves." The speed of light doesn't depend on its frequency.