5 ms·

IMO it needs to be something that can't change, like your basic DNA, or something to that effect. We definitely do need a better way to positively identify peop

IMO it needs to be something that can't change, like your basic DNA, or something to that effect. We definitely do need a better way to positively identify people.

ycombinatrix 3y ago
why? that's horrifying for privacy
- kulahan 3y ago
  Privacy is a new-age luxury that causes more problems than it's worth. I know this is unpopular, and I'm not justifying the abuse of information, but it changes nothing about the fact that we are by-and-large a social species, and being able to positively identify someone would likely have more benefits than drawbacks, because our society is organized around the idea that we know who we're working with.
- KMag 3y ago
  and also a problem for my identical twins. I just realized we thought we were being a bit cute by giving them names that meant the same thing, but in different languages. Now, I realize that if they translate their names into written Chinese, they better be phonetic translation... if they end up with identical names, same birthday, identical DNA, that could cause problems.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And how is this any different than currently using your photo ID and someone looking to see if the ID matches your face? You would still have the identical twin problem
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  Humans don’t need a better way to ID people, computers do
  - kulahan 3y ago
    We find a dead person with no ID. Only a computer cares who they are?
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Well, in any scenario where you need to verify someone's identity, privacy and anonymity not only aren't goals, but they aren't acceptable. Now you could argue that in many situations you don't need to verify someone's identity and shouldn't have the right to do so; but if you do (like during border control) then your identity isn't supposed to be private.
dredmorbius 3y ago
The issue isn't identity but attestation or assertion of identity. The problem with DNA, as with fingerprints, voiceprints, retina scans, and the rest, is that a small sample or simulacrum of the original object or characteristic can often create a false positive. You leave your fingerprints, and DNA, on everything you touch, literally. Your voice is now being recorded in high fidelity at great frequency, and your eyeballs are visible to whatever it is you are looking at. The original use-case for computer passwords, as inveted by Fernando Corbato, was in a specific facility, with a physical location and at least reasonably-limited access, largely as a measure to prevent either accidental or typically prankish mis-use of other people's computer resources. The "universe" was a few score people. We're now relaying on passwords (and numerous other proxies for identity attestation) in a universe of roughly ten billion people, with remote 24/7/365 access and highly-automated attacking systems, over a channel which provides very narrow capabilities for high-credibility, non-spoofable assertions. For humans interacting in person, there are many simultaneous indicia of who an individual is, particularly amongst people well-known to one another: visual appearance, voice, height, gait and carriage, mannerisms, and personal/intimate knowledge. Even for in-person identity assertion, these factors break down at scale, as our primate brains can recall the features of a few score individuals, but not many hundreds or thousands, let alone billions. (An interesting exercise is to consider the span of a year, or your life, and how much time you could dedicate to n number of people in that time. Even over a lifetime, you can only get to know perhaps 50,000 people for an hour or more 1:1, roughly a medium-sized town's population. Not even a large city, let alone a state/province or nation, let alone the global population.) I'm coming to feel that the idea that we can transact significant interactions at this scale (population, distance, time) may well prove to be greatly flawed. Airgapping and limited access have their benefits.
a_gnostic 3y ago
Your DNA can change, and has changed -at a spot in sensible people's arm- in recent years.
- KMag 3y ago
  If you're referring to mRNA vaccines, one of us needs to brush up on basic cellular biology. If you're referring to Adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines, I believe episomal replication makes their DNA short-lived in the host. Also, as it's never reverse-transcribed into the human genome, there's a semantic argument that the Adenovirus DNA is never a part of the person's DNA, even when it is short-term resident in the nucleus. Though, I suppose there might be some rare form of translocation that might still result in Adenovirus DNA being incorporated into the Human genome. I don't know enough about viral genetics to know the corner-case caveats associated with the claims that Adenovirus vector vaccines don't modify human DNA.

IMO it needs to be something that can't change, like your basic DNA, or something to that effect. We definitely do need a better way to positively identify people.

ycombinatrix 3y ago

why? that's horrifying for privacy

kulahan 3y ago
Privacy is a new-age luxury that causes more problems than it's worth. I know this is unpopular, and I'm not justifying the abuse of information, but it changes nothing about the fact that we are by-and-large a social species, and being able to positively identify someone would likely have more benefits than drawbacks, because our society is organized around the idea that we know who we're working with.
KMag 3y ago
and also a problem for my identical twins. I just realized we thought we were being a bit cute by giving them names that meant the same thing, but in different languages. Now, I realize that if they translate their names into written Chinese, they better be phonetic translation... if they end up with identical names, same birthday, identical DNA, that could cause problems.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And how is this any different than currently using your photo ID and someone looking to see if the ID matches your face? You would still have the identical twin problem
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Humans don’t need a better way to ID people, computers do
- kulahan 3y ago
  We find a dead person with no ID. Only a computer cares who they are?
PeterisP 3y ago
Well, in any scenario where you need to verify someone's identity, privacy and anonymity not only aren't goals, but they aren't acceptable. Now you could argue that in many situations you don't need to verify someone's identity and shouldn't have the right to do so; but if you do (like during border control) then your identity isn't supposed to be private.

dredmorbius 3y ago

The issue isn't identity but attestation or assertion of identity. The problem with DNA, as with fingerprints, voiceprints, retina scans, and the rest, is that a small sample or simulacrum of the original object or characteristic can often create a false positive. You leave your fingerprints, and DNA, on everything you touch, literally. Your voice is now being recorded in high fidelity at great frequency, and your eyeballs are visible to whatever it is you are looking at. The original use-case for computer passwords, as inveted by Fernando Corbato, was in a specific facility, with a physical location and at least reasonably-limited access, largely as a measure to prevent either accidental or typically prankish mis-use of other people's computer resources. The "universe" was a few score people. We're now relaying on passwords (and numerous other proxies for identity attestation) in a universe of roughly ten billion people, with remote 24/7/365 access and highly-automated attacking systems, over a channel which provides very narrow capabilities for high-credibility, non-spoofable assertions. For humans interacting in person, there are many simultaneous indicia of who an individual is, particularly amongst people well-known to one another: visual appearance, voice, height, gait and carriage, mannerisms, and personal/intimate knowledge. Even for in-person identity assertion, these factors break down at scale, as our primate brains can recall the features of a few score individuals, but not many hundreds or thousands, let alone billions. (An interesting exercise is to consider the span of a year, or your life, and how much time you could dedicate to n number of people in that time. Even over a lifetime, you can only get to know perhaps 50,000 people for an hour or more 1:1, roughly a medium-sized town's population. Not even a large city, let alone a state/province or nation, let alone the global population.) I'm coming to feel that the idea that we can transact significant interactions at this scale (population, distance, time) may well prove to be greatly flawed. Airgapping and limited access have their benefits.

a_gnostic 3y ago

Your DNA can change, and has changed -at a spot in sensible people's arm- in recent years.

KMag 3y ago
If you're referring to mRNA vaccines, one of us needs to brush up on basic cellular biology. If you're referring to Adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines, I believe episomal replication makes their DNA short-lived in the host. Also, as it's never reverse-transcribed into the human genome, there's a semantic argument that the Adenovirus DNA is never a part of the person's DNA, even when it is short-term resident in the nucleus. Though, I suppose there might be some rare form of translocation that might still result in Adenovirus DNA being incorporated into the Human genome. I don't know enough about viral genetics to know the corner-case caveats associated with the claims that Adenovirus vector vaccines don't modify human DNA.