3 ms·

Intrusively versus non-intrusively acquired? It's just a feeling I have and I don't think that I'm alone on this.

by jimbob45 4y ago

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.

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.