4 ms·

Biometerics [1]. Googling for Google's biometrics privacy policy.[2] HN likes to talk about the layperson non-techies disregard for technology's impact on our

Biometerics [1]. Googling for Google's biometrics privacy policy.[2] HN likes to talk about the layperson non-techies disregard for technology's impact on our rights, but a grep of this thread turned up no hits on biometrics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics [2]: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=inurl:google.com+privacy+policy+biometrics https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=inurl:google.com+privac...

thrownaway2424 11y ago
This thread doesn't hit on "chemtrails" either.
- eternalban 11y ago
  For obvious reasons. Your voice is a biometric. Innovation is fine, but Google needs to address our digital rights.
spangry 11y ago
There's some conversation about this fairly far down the page. It would appear that the HN crowd are not even slightly concerned about the privacy implications of 'passive' biometric identification. Given HN is a fairly intelligent and tech-adept demographic, I suspect the general population would care even less. Pretty worrying IMHO. Short of surveillance cameras in our homes, I can't think of anything worse for privacy than government coming in to possession of passive biometrics like voice signatures (e.g. a google voice DB dump collected through a FISA warrant). Just in case people genuinely don't comprehend the danger: 1. They allow a third party to identify you against your will. 2. They allow a third party to identify you without your knowledge that you have been identified/authenticated. 3. You can't revoke a voice sig credential like you can with a password credential. Once the government has it, they can do (1) and (2) at will for the rest of your life. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security-poses-huge-privacy-risks/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security...

thrownaway2424 11y ago

This thread doesn't hit on "chemtrails" either.

eternalban 11y ago
For obvious reasons. Your voice is a biometric. Innovation is fine, but Google needs to address our digital rights.

spangry 11y ago

There's some conversation about this fairly far down the page. It would appear that the HN crowd are not even slightly concerned about the privacy implications of 'passive' biometric identification. Given HN is a fairly intelligent and tech-adept demographic, I suspect the general population would care even less. Pretty worrying IMHO. Short of surveillance cameras in our homes, I can't think of anything worse for privacy than government coming in to possession of passive biometrics like voice signatures (e.g. a google voice DB dump collected through a FISA warrant). Just in case people genuinely don't comprehend the danger: 1. They allow a third party to identify you against your will. 2. They allow a third party to identify you without your knowledge that you have been identified/authenticated. 3. You can't revoke a voice sig credential like you can with a password credential. Once the government has it, they can do (1) and (2) at will for the rest of your life. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security-poses-huge-privacy-risks/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security...