Google Glass is due to receive an update in 2015, and if a Google patent submitted last month is any indication, it could include a new feature to let wearers use their fingerprints, or scans of their eyes, instead of passwords on websites.

In November’s patent application, Google explored ways to replace website passwords with biometric data from a wearable device. In the filing, Google references “head-mounted displays” (HMD) that could scan a wearer’s fingerprints, eyeballs, veins, or even her voice pattern, then use that data to access a website on a computer or mobile device.

While the application doesn’t mention Google Glass or Android Wear by name, it repeatedly mentions “wearables” and the diagrams look a lot like a certain $1,500 head-mounted Google computer.

As the application says: “The biometric data may be used to authenticate a user in lieu of a password, e.g., so that a user’s HMD can log the user on to a webpage on their laptop. As such, the biometric data can serve as a replacement for passwords entirely.”

It makes sense that Google would be exploring ways to secure web activity on its devices. Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint scanning, introduced in iOS 7 on the iPhone 5S, significantly reduced the amount of time it takes to authenticate an app download or unlock an iOS device.

Still unknown is whether this is a feature that Google plans to incorporate more generally into Android, or if it will even be included in the next version of Google Glass. But if Google wants to catch up with Apple’s fingerprint security, this could be a step in the right direction.

Google had not responded to Quartz’s request for comment on its patent filing at the time of publishing. We will update this post if we hear back.

Popular on Quartz

There’s science behind your inexplicably close relationship with your cat

The view from above: Can you name these countries using only satellite photos?

White people on Twitter are confessing to crimes that get black people arrested

It’s no secret that getting a college education in the United States is massively expensive, and costs continue to rise year after year. If you’ve paid much attention to the growing cost of college, you’ve likely seen some version of this chart, which shows just how dramatically tuition costs have outpaced inflation (with inflation represented here by the US Consumer Price Index):

Almost every school has raised tuition over time. But some have increased it far more than others. Using data from The College Board compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education, we’ve pinpointed the public and private schools where the cost of tuition has shot up the most over the last 15 years.

Warning: these price spikes may shock and alarm you. They also might help explain why US student debt, currently at about $1 trillion, keeps growing.

In all of these charts, colleges are ranked by the largest increases in 2014 US dollars, after adjusting for inflation. (In some categories, schools reported data going back to 1998, in others the data dates back to 1999. For each category, we started with the oldest data available.)

Where locals get gouged

Here are the four-year public universities where in-state tuition has risen the most since 1998. This list includes top state schools like the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, where the real price of tuition has more than doubled from $6,212 to $15,020 (in 2014 dollars) in less than two decades.

Where it hurts to cross state lines

These are the four-year public schools where out-of-state tuition increased the most. This list includes seven schools in the University of California system that cost an average of $17,442 more (in 2014 dollars) than they did in 1999.

Where private schools are getting even more expensive

These are the four-year, non-profit private schools where tuition increased the most since 1998.

It’s worth noting that at Cooper Union, the leader on this list, offered every student at the school a full-tuition scholarship until 2013. They now give every student a half-scholarship or more—so although the listed cost of tuition has increased greatly, no student actually pays more than 50% of the official cost.

Officials in higher education are always quick to point out that these are effectively sticker prices. Not all students pay full freight. In fact, research from the College Board, via the Brookings Institution (pdf), suggests that while average private tuition rose roughly 25% to $41,000 over the last 10 years, the average net tuition—what students actually pay—has stayed steady at roughly $23,000. That’s because many schools, particularly highly selective ones, have more generous need-based financial aid policies that accompany higher tuitions.

So how do you find out what the real price of attending a particular college or university for someone of your family’s income level?

It’s no easy task. Colleges are now required by the US government to post a net-price calculator on their web sites. That sounds good, but another recent Brookings Institution report (pdf) found that these calculators are pretty useless because they’re hard to find and near impossible to complete without delving into family tax documents. The US Department of Education’s College Scorecard has some net price information, as does the Education Department’s College Navigator site. Unfortunately, the Brookings report suggests that the numbers just aren’t right. (“The reported prices that these institutions charge to low-income students based on data from the College Navigator cannot be accurate,” the report said.)

In short, more needs to be done to promote real price transparency. Given that the entire US higher education infrastructure floats on an ocean of direct government loans to students, the government arguably has a fiduciary duty, if not a moral obligation, to make that happen.

An Uber IPO might not happen for quite some time but Wall Street firms already are positioning themselves for a piece of the action.

Consider the following:

Goldman Sachs, itself an early investor in Uber through its venture arm, is reportedly raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the app- enabled car service from wealthy clients… for free!

Remember, Goldman offered a similar service for Facebook about five months before the giant social network went public.

Morgan Stanley’s research department (entirely separate from the investment banking arm that would be involved in underwriting an initial public offering, of course) earlier this year issued a lengthy and highly upbeat report on the global livery/automotive fleet industry, essentially saying that the 1 billion cars on the roads globally, worth $20 trillion, are extremely underused.

It said Uber eventually could have an enormous fleet of self-driving vehicles, available at rates so cheap that the idea of car ownership would, for many people, become obsolete.

It’s important to note that there are Chinese walls that officially separate analysts and bankers inside places like Morgan Stanley. But when a banker is pitching for a role in an IPO, it surely can’t hurt to have analysts inside the same organization who are highly positive about a prospective client’s business. (Eventually those analysts effectively will become arbiters of the company’s stock price once it is trading publicly).

Lastly, Citi yesterday announced that Uber was now a “recommended transportation option” for its 250,000 employees globally. OK, as evidence of a firm ingratiating itself with a prospective client, this one’s a bit flimsy. But if you are seeking to do business with a company, it can’t hurt to be a customer.

It is not clear when, or even if, Uber will go public. It certainly is not starved of capital. The company raised $1.2 billion in fresh funds in June and reportedly is in the process of raising an additional $1 billion, over and above the private placement that Goldman Sachs is handling. Leaked financial documents suggest Uber is growing rapidly. But given the nature of its business (ie. an intermediary) it’s reasonable to assume it is not burning through all of this cash. Even if it was, say due to aggressive expansion, it’s unlikely it would have trouble finding investors in the private markets.

So the only reason for an IPO would be to allow early investors to cash out with a windfall. Or, as Matt Levine wrote this week in Bloomberg View:

The point of an Uber IPO will not be to raise money for Uber. The point of an Uber IPO will be to retroactively justify the private fundraising that Uber is doing now.

And it would leave plenty of underwriting fees and prestige up for grabs on Wall Street.