4 ms·
The genie is out of the bottle; wait ten years and DNA will be mandatory to include in passports, drivers licenses, etc. Same thing with facial recognition. I
by mises 7y ago
The genie is out of the bottle; wait ten years and DNA will be mandatory to include in passports, drivers licenses, etc.
Same thing with facial recognition. I still hate fingerprinting.
None of these biometrics are perfect, and my core objection to all is that they make every one a suspect. Suddenly, it's possible that any person in the nation could be "matched" and, simply by the say-so of the all-powerful computer, determined guilty.
My math professor used to make fun of students for relying too much on calculators. He would tell a story of a student who received an answer of several million miles from his calculator on a problem concerning distance between two cities in America. Because it came from his calculator, he took it as gospel, even though it was obviously wrong. There is no reason to expect better of our law enforcement or of our governments. See the cases of incorrect DNA testing getting people locked away for years.
I hope there is some way to eradicate biometric technology. I do not see a huge benefit, as it can be forged. And if the information is ever leaked, it cannot be changed. Fingerprint got uploaded to the internet? Nothing to be done.
Is any American politician actually advocating to stop this, possibly outside of the Libertarian Party (which I generally like, but will sadly never be elected, especially if they keep putting up Gary Johnson)? This might just be enough to convince me to support a candidate of one of the main parties.
- dcbadacd 7y agoThere's no way to eradicate biometric tech, there's no way law enforcement will stop using biometrics, the only thing we can ask for it more transperency how the biometric data is used, processed and stored. No hidden fingerprinting, no unknown-quality proprietary software and hardware, extra-strict quality and integrity controls. The genie is out of the bottle and we can only hope not to wish for the genie not to maliciously comply with our wishes.
- mises 7y agoI don't buy any "transparency". Any time I hear that word, I jump to the idea that it is being used to mask something by releasing most things. I don't really care how it's used, processed, stored, etc.; I care that it is. The feds want a biometric database of every American that can be used to track, monitor, and regulate movement. We were supposed to live in a nation where law enforcement didn't watch us unless we were a suspect in a crime. This stuff makes everyone a suspect. The idea of "transparency" only works if we have some way to verify it (which we don't) and if we can punish politicians or bureaucrats for abuses. We can barely fire bureaucrats as-is, how will we do it in the future? And politicians never get punished for mishandling a few cases.
- logfromblammo 7y agoThe problem with third-parties in the US is that they all have platforms that include issues other than reform of voting methods in the US, such that the political duopoly is broken. And no candidate from the duopoly will take it up as an issue, because it doesn't get them more votes, and may actually lose some out of police employee unions. So you're not going to tackle this with voting. Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues.
- mises 7y ago> Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues. Too broke. Also, not a lot of advocacy organizations focus solely on privacy issues; most feel the need to mix in others.