3 ms·

How is the hash of an iris scan "sensitive biometric information," any more than a CCTV camera at your coffee shop, or the government minting your ID? It is a h

How is the hash of an iris scan "sensitive biometric information," any more than a CCTV camera at your coffee shop, or the government minting your ID? It is a hash, for god's sake. It is more privacy preserving than the latter two, or any currently known proof-of-personhood currently in existence - while still accomplishing the goal of proof-of-personhood.

JohnFen 3y ago
The hash is sensitive because it's a (reasonably) unique identifier that has been assigned to you. > any more than a CCTV camera at your coffee shop, or the government minting your ID? It's not, fundamentally, but that's not an argument in favor of things like this. The less of this sort of thing, the better. But a big difference is that my local coffee shop is, you know, local and not likely to be sharing the images with anyone as a routine matter, and they certainly aren't correlating the images they capture with my identity. The difference with government ID is twofold: it's the government, which means it's not optional. Second, it's the government rather than private entities. I can have some sort of influence over my government. I have zero influence over private entities. So while I don't like it in either case, I prefer the government-issued ID over something done by companies. > while still accomplishing the goal of proof-of-personhood. I'm not sure why this is a goal that is so important that it's worth any reduction in privacy.
- nathanaldensr 3y ago
  In today's world of technocratic authoritarianism and regulatory capture, the differences between government and corporations is effectively zero.
- xvector 3y ago
  The hash is less sensitive than literally any other proof of personhood currently in existence. Go ahead, try to name a proof of personhood that's more private than a hash. You seem to be framing this as a reduction in privacy but it is quite the opposite.

JohnFen 3y ago

The hash is sensitive because it's a (reasonably) unique identifier that has been assigned to you. > any more than a CCTV camera at your coffee shop, or the government minting your ID? It's not, fundamentally, but that's not an argument in favor of things like this. The less of this sort of thing, the better. But a big difference is that my local coffee shop is, you know, local and not likely to be sharing the images with anyone as a routine matter, and they certainly aren't correlating the images they capture with my identity. The difference with government ID is twofold: it's the government, which means it's not optional. Second, it's the government rather than private entities. I can have some sort of influence over my government. I have zero influence over private entities. So while I don't like it in either case, I prefer the government-issued ID over something done by companies. > while still accomplishing the goal of proof-of-personhood. I'm not sure why this is a goal that is so important that it's worth any reduction in privacy.

nathanaldensr 3y ago
In today's world of technocratic authoritarianism and regulatory capture, the differences between government and corporations is effectively zero.
xvector 3y ago
The hash is less sensitive than literally any other proof of personhood currently in existence. Go ahead, try to name a proof of personhood that's more private than a hash. You seem to be framing this as a reduction in privacy but it is quite the opposite.