4 ms·

Worldcoin isn't an effort to accumulate biometric data — Clear (the private company that competes with TSA PreCheck) does this at most airports in the US. Inste

Worldcoin isn't an effort to accumulate biometric data — Clear (the private company that competes with TSA PreCheck) does this at most airports in the US. Instead, Worldcoin uses sophisticated cryptography[1] specifically to avoid the collection of biometric data. The value appears to be in the ability to resist the Sybil problem[2] with this cryptographic proof of uniqueness[3] as well as the wide distribution of tokens (a play on Metcalfe's Law)[4]. Of course, I expect the usual unrelenting crypto skepticism from HN, and see that proudly on display today. :) [1]: https://worldcoin.org/privacy-by-design https://worldcoin.org/privacy-by-design [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack [3]: https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/1451204467815235587 https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/1451204467815235587 [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

phphphphp 5y ago
Except as the article states based on quotes and leaked presentations, they are collecting the data. The page you linked confirms it. You might be right that their aspiration is to not collect biometric data, but they are collecting it and that’s what this article is about: Worldcoin collecting 500,000 people’s biometric data. “Images of users’ body, face, and eyes, including users’ irises (visible, near infrared and far infrared spectrum)” “Three-dimensional mapping of users’ body and face” https://worldcoin.org/privacy-during-field-testing https://worldcoin.org/privacy-during-field-testing
- lazzlazzlazz 5y ago
  You're making my point — Worldcoin's business isn't to collect biometric data, as alleged by many comments here.
  - phphphphp 5y ago
    Their business is whatever they’re doing, we can’t give organisations a free pass on bad behaviour because they aspire to be well behaved once they’ve extracted enough value from their bad behaviour. Your comment implies that the article is wrong: it isn’t.
    - lazzlazzlazz 5y ago
      The article plays to the idea that "the company is using its cryptocurrency as a way to amass millions of biometrics", which is factually incorrect. The company is using biometrics made private via advanced cryptography, which aren't amassed or stored beyond the testing phase, as a means of distributing the token widely and uniquely to each person once. The explanatory arrow for their business is backwards. It's totally factually incorrect.
      - phphphphp 5y ago
        Sure, you're right, it is factually incorrect to say that they're using a cryptocurrency to amass millions of biometrics, because they're actually using the _promise_ of a cryptocurrency to amass 500,000 biometrics. Very important difference! You're putting so much weight in "...the testing phase..." as if that grants carte blanche to do whatever because the goal is (ostensibly) noble. The biometrics they're collecting and storing and processing belong to real people, whether they're in their "testing phase" or not is immaterial. The goal of this whole Orb-on-tour program is to collect biometrics, their primary activity is biometric collection. They've pushed back their launch multiple times because they've acknowledged that their technology is susceptible to fraud and still needs work... so when does "the testing phase" end? When they've made their technology perfect? What if it takes 1 year, 5 years or even 10 years? What if they spend the next decade collecting millions of people's biometrics, is that okay because it's "the testing phase"? They're going to poverty stricken countries and taking advantage of economically disadvantaged people (and then not even delivering on their meagre promises) and that's okay because it's not their explicit intent, it's just what they haaaave to do in the testing phase? Let's play this out, let's assume (based on their inability to do it so far) that they fail to turn this experimental biometrics device into something that can uniquely identify people using a privacy-secure cryptographic process. Now let's take this quote from the Worldcoin CEO: “We didn’t want to build hardware devices — we didn’t want to build a biometric device, even. It’s just the only solution we found,” Doesn't take much to imagine them saying: “We didn’t want to [store privacy-insecure biometric data] — we didn’t want to build a biometric device, even. It’s just the only solution we found,” he said. Then what? Well they didn't want to store biometrics but they had to so it's okay? They literally cannot even pay the people they sought out in poverty stricken countries the $25 that they promised, a task so trivial it can only be a wilful choice to fail to do it, so why on earth would we be charitable in how we assess the likelihood that they stick to their (as yet unproven) promise? Worldcoin is a biometrics collection business until they do anything else.
cuteboy19 5y ago
I believe that a GAN could simply create a million irises [0]. Making all claims of defeating the Sybil problem difficult to trust. Someone also pointed out that the person being scanned doesn't need to be alive, which reminds me of some conspiracies during 2020 election [0]: https://www.thisirisdoesnotexist.com/ https://www.thisirisdoesnotexist.com/ (i didn't expect this to exist!)
- brap 5y ago
  Not only fake and dead people, but also real and living people who did not consent or fully understand what they’re consenting to. The whole premise just sounds so absurd.

phphphphp 5y ago

Except as the article states based on quotes and leaked presentations, they are collecting the data. The page you linked confirms it. You might be right that their aspiration is to not collect biometric data, but they are collecting it and that’s what this article is about: Worldcoin collecting 500,000 people’s biometric data. “Images of users’ body, face, and eyes, including users’ irises (visible, near infrared and far infrared spectrum)” “Three-dimensional mapping of users’ body and face” https://worldcoin.org/privacy-during-field-testing https://worldcoin.org/privacy-during-field-testing

lazzlazzlazz 5y ago
You're making my point — Worldcoin's business isn't to collect biometric data, as alleged by many comments here.
- phphphphp 5y ago
  Their business is whatever they’re doing, we can’t give organisations a free pass on bad behaviour because they aspire to be well behaved once they’ve extracted enough value from their bad behaviour. Your comment implies that the article is wrong: it isn’t.
  - lazzlazzlazz 5y ago
    The article plays to the idea that "the company is using its cryptocurrency as a way to amass millions of biometrics", which is factually incorrect. The company is using biometrics made private via advanced cryptography, which aren't amassed or stored beyond the testing phase, as a means of distributing the token widely and uniquely to each person once. The explanatory arrow for their business is backwards. It's totally factually incorrect.
    - phphphphp 5y ago
      Sure, you're right, it is factually incorrect to say that they're using a cryptocurrency to amass millions of biometrics, because they're actually using the _promise_ of a cryptocurrency to amass 500,000 biometrics. Very important difference! You're putting so much weight in "...the testing phase..." as if that grants carte blanche to do whatever because the goal is (ostensibly) noble. The biometrics they're collecting and storing and processing belong to real people, whether they're in their "testing phase" or not is immaterial. The goal of this whole Orb-on-tour program is to collect biometrics, their primary activity is biometric collection. They've pushed back their launch multiple times because they've acknowledged that their technology is susceptible to fraud and still needs work... so when does "the testing phase" end? When they've made their technology perfect? What if it takes 1 year, 5 years or even 10 years? What if they spend the next decade collecting millions of people's biometrics, is that okay because it's "the testing phase"? They're going to poverty stricken countries and taking advantage of economically disadvantaged people (and then not even delivering on their meagre promises) and that's okay because it's not their explicit intent, it's just what they haaaave to do in the testing phase? Let's play this out, let's assume (based on their inability to do it so far) that they fail to turn this experimental biometrics device into something that can uniquely identify people using a privacy-secure cryptographic process. Now let's take this quote from the Worldcoin CEO: “We didn’t want to build hardware devices — we didn’t want to build a biometric device, even. It’s just the only solution we found,” Doesn't take much to imagine them saying: “We didn’t want to [store privacy-insecure biometric data] — we didn’t want to build a biometric device, even. It’s just the only solution we found,” he said. Then what? Well they didn't want to store biometrics but they had to so it's okay? They literally cannot even pay the people they sought out in poverty stricken countries the $25 that they promised, a task so trivial it can only be a wilful choice to fail to do it, so why on earth would we be charitable in how we assess the likelihood that they stick to their (as yet unproven) promise? Worldcoin is a biometrics collection business until they do anything else.

cuteboy19 5y ago

I believe that a GAN could simply create a million irises [0]. Making all claims of defeating the Sybil problem difficult to trust. Someone also pointed out that the person being scanned doesn't need to be alive, which reminds me of some conspiracies during 2020 election [0]: https://www.thisirisdoesnotexist.com/ https://www.thisirisdoesnotexist.com/ (i didn't expect this to exist!)

brap 5y ago
Not only fake and dead people, but also real and living people who did not consent or fully understand what they’re consenting to. The whole premise just sounds so absurd.