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

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...