so this is subtle and persuasive rhetoric .. let's look more closely.. "most people" divides the public into "us vs them" .. "factor arrests" immediately and im

so this is subtle and persuasive rhetoric .. let's look more closely.. "most people" divides the public into "us vs them" .. "factor arrests" immediately and implicitly makes the dividing line into "law abiding citizens" and their implied complement, criminals.. "can happily" inserts an emotional component into the divisive classification.. "use biometric unlock features" seals the statement, firmly cementing "law abiding us people" against "those other people who obviously have something to hide" in short - no. A broader view of human nature, and the relationship of an individual adult versus the state or corporate status quo .. says that no, an individual person with rights and privacy does not have to acquiesce to draconian surveillance state record keeping.. and asserting your rights to not participate does not make you a member of the criminal "them" class. Secondly, snide and smug assertions made in public that do associate privacy and individual rights with criminals, might be made by exactly those who are promoting these kinds of systems, for profit. summary - no.