4 ms·

Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and facial images" to be biometric data? When I think "biometric", I think hair samples, DNA, blood

Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and facial images" to be biometric data? When I think "biometric", I think hair samples, DNA, blood type, even though I know fingerprints and eye color are technically biometric.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 4y ago
What distinction would you draw between these two groups of data?
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Intrusively versus non-intrusively acquired? It's just a feeling I have and I don't think that I'm alone on this.
  - counttheforks 4y ago
    And you think obtaining a hair sample is somehow intrusive?
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Just cutting some hair won't do it. Given that DNA is in the follicle, you would have to extract a hair, e.g. pull it out. Doing so without consent or demanding it is a violation of medical ethics and/or assault.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        You drop hairs all the time. Same for DNA; cops regularly get people by grabbing their coffee cup out of the trash.
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        Well, let's hope then that all the DNA they take is from random droppings, not coerced and/or under threat. But that's not how government works, is it?
  - saltcured 4y ago
    I think you might be conflating biometrics (literally measurements of your biology) with confidentiality? And it's not just you, the public discussions and system designs around these often seem to confuse this as well. There are two broad topics around biometrics, but they intersect a bit. One topic is around the dependability and practicality of such metrics as authenticators. The other topic is around surveillance and anonymity. The overlap is in the question of whether we have control over whether we are being authenticated or not. When used in a transactional system, we need to couple our authenticated identity with some positive action to give consent, i.e. that we want the transaction to occur and we accept the responsibilities of being one party to the transaction. In a surveillance system, we are being identified and our movements or actions attributed to us whether we want to or not. Both topics have a potential for false positives and false negatives. Can someone "steal" my identity by impersonating me and causing transactions or other activities to be attributed to me without my knowledge? Or can someone through violence or coercion cause me to participate in these transactions or other activities against my will? Does the introduction of the authentication system reduce the risks or make them worse? To what degree can we live our lives without displaying our identity to the public at large and/or while being able to assume some of our movements or activities can be kept confidential? We can choose whether to have our names or ID numbers emblazoned on our clothes. We can choose how often to present other non-biological identifiers like payment cards or mobile phones. It is much less practical to conceal our externally visible biometrics. The databases combining our biometrics and other identifiers continually shift the balance here, as it becomes ever easier to tie different observations together without our consent. To be honest, I am not even sure whether I should care about the biometrics access being discussed in the original post. Generally, international travelers are already exposing their identities and movements not just at border controls but also via commercial bookings and interactions throughout their travel. I think I am more disgusted by the commercial brokers trying to create total information awareness of consumers than I am of governments monitoring border travel. The commercial brokers are trying to create a much finer-grained record of activities for everybody.
xcambar 4y ago
That's a surprising statement to read. All your examples allow for statically significant unique identification (of a person). I think that's where the threat actually lies. I'm equally worried about traces I leave with my Visa/MasterCard than those I leave with my uncovered face or fingerprints. The main difference being that I can easily control the traces I leave with my cards, less so the traces I leave with my ohone, and it takes a significant effort to lkit traces from my face or fingers.
_zoltan_ 4y ago
Yes, you're the only one. These are biometric data types.
jacquesm 4y ago
> Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and facial images" to be biometric data? I would hope so. It appears that you are conflating 'biometric' and 'biological'.
bilekas 4y ago
Its easier for someone to obtain and identify your DNA than it is your fingertips or even your face. Just think of how much you leave around all the time. If that's all on records with facial images, your face is certainly an identifiable metric of your biology.
- rolph 4y ago
  the shift from paper to digital, has ironicly, removed a method of obtaining samples. its amazing what you can find with HPLC and a gas chromatograph.
- Msurrow 4y ago
  Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires a database of samples to match against. Way more FP and FI databases than DNA databases, so not much to use as a gallery for identification..
  - super256 4y ago
    > Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires a database of samples to match against. Those databases already exists (just look at the MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe etc companies). Furthermore, DNA has the advantage, that you can find someone via relatives. The person to be identified doesn't have to be in the database. It's sufficient if his brother or father is in that db. Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints. Generally correct, but it's interesting that identical twins have similar but distinct fingerprints. The exact prints are different, but they tend to have the same broader patterns of print.
    - Msurrow 4y ago
      Fair point about those existing DNA databases, however I still think there is a sigbificant difference between “opt-in” databases, like MyHeritage, and the FP/FI databases in scope here (the OP) where its law mandated registration in case of travel (Schengen) or asylum, visa etc. There are a lot of the latter, and its not exactly opt-in or delete on request
sys_64738 4y ago
Whose DNA do they have though? Mine or my twin's?
johnywalks 4y ago
No worries, all this is coming in a few years as well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 4y ago

What distinction would you draw between these two groups of data?

jimbob45 4y ago
Intrusively versus non-intrusively acquired? It's just a feeling I have and I don't think that I'm alone on this.
- counttheforks 4y ago
  And you think obtaining a hair sample is somehow intrusive?
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Just cutting some hair won't do it. Given that DNA is in the follicle, you would have to extract a hair, e.g. pull it out. Doing so without consent or demanding it is a violation of medical ethics and/or assault.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      You drop hairs all the time. Same for DNA; cops regularly get people by grabbing their coffee cup out of the trash.
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        Well, let's hope then that all the DNA they take is from random droppings, not coerced and/or under threat. But that's not how government works, is it?
- saltcured 4y ago
  I think you might be conflating biometrics (literally measurements of your biology) with confidentiality? And it's not just you, the public discussions and system designs around these often seem to confuse this as well. There are two broad topics around biometrics, but they intersect a bit. One topic is around the dependability and practicality of such metrics as authenticators. The other topic is around surveillance and anonymity. The overlap is in the question of whether we have control over whether we are being authenticated or not. When used in a transactional system, we need to couple our authenticated identity with some positive action to give consent, i.e. that we want the transaction to occur and we accept the responsibilities of being one party to the transaction. In a surveillance system, we are being identified and our movements or actions attributed to us whether we want to or not. Both topics have a potential for false positives and false negatives. Can someone "steal" my identity by impersonating me and causing transactions or other activities to be attributed to me without my knowledge? Or can someone through violence or coercion cause me to participate in these transactions or other activities against my will? Does the introduction of the authentication system reduce the risks or make them worse? To what degree can we live our lives without displaying our identity to the public at large and/or while being able to assume some of our movements or activities can be kept confidential? We can choose whether to have our names or ID numbers emblazoned on our clothes. We can choose how often to present other non-biological identifiers like payment cards or mobile phones. It is much less practical to conceal our externally visible biometrics. The databases combining our biometrics and other identifiers continually shift the balance here, as it becomes ever easier to tie different observations together without our consent. To be honest, I am not even sure whether I should care about the biometrics access being discussed in the original post. Generally, international travelers are already exposing their identities and movements not just at border controls but also via commercial bookings and interactions throughout their travel. I think I am more disgusted by the commercial brokers trying to create total information awareness of consumers than I am of governments monitoring border travel. The commercial brokers are trying to create a much finer-grained record of activities for everybody.

xcambar 4y ago

That's a surprising statement to read. All your examples allow for statically significant unique identification (of a person). I think that's where the threat actually lies. I'm equally worried about traces I leave with my Visa/MasterCard than those I leave with my uncovered face or fingerprints. The main difference being that I can easily control the traces I leave with my cards, less so the traces I leave with my ohone, and it takes a significant effort to lkit traces from my face or fingers.

_zoltan_ 4y ago

Yes, you're the only one. These are biometric data types.

jacquesm 4y ago

> Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and facial images" to be biometric data? I would hope so. It appears that you are conflating 'biometric' and 'biological'.

bilekas 4y ago

Its easier for someone to obtain and identify your DNA than it is your fingertips or even your face. Just think of how much you leave around all the time. If that's all on records with facial images, your face is certainly an identifiable metric of your biology.

rolph 4y ago
the shift from paper to digital, has ironicly, removed a method of obtaining samples. its amazing what you can find with HPLC and a gas chromatograph.
Msurrow 4y ago
Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires a database of samples to match against. Way more FP and FI databases than DNA databases, so not much to use as a gallery for identification..
- super256 4y ago
  > Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires a database of samples to match against. Those databases already exists (just look at the MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe etc companies). Furthermore, DNA has the advantage, that you can find someone via relatives. The person to be identified doesn't have to be in the database. It's sufficient if his brother or father is in that db. Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints. Generally correct, but it's interesting that identical twins have similar but distinct fingerprints. The exact prints are different, but they tend to have the same broader patterns of print.
  - Msurrow 4y ago
    Fair point about those existing DNA databases, however I still think there is a sigbificant difference between “opt-in” databases, like MyHeritage, and the FP/FI databases in scope here (the OP) where its law mandated registration in case of travel (Schengen) or asylum, visa etc. There are a lot of the latter, and its not exactly opt-in or delete on request

sys_64738 4y ago

Whose DNA do they have though? Mine or my twin's?

johnywalks 4y ago

No worries, all this is coming in a few years as well.