A tech NGO got sucked into a Covid-19 conspiracy theory
thenewhumanitarian.org
thenewhumanitarian.org
What is meant by "[biometric] digital fingerprint"? Do they just mean a literal fingerprint, but digitized? When I think of "digital fingerprints" I think of things like canvas fingerprinting or maybe perceptual hashing, not anything to do with biometrics.
If they just mean taking prints of fingers and digitizing them, maybe just say "fingerprint" and drop the "digital" from the description. That's easier to understand. If people understand something, they'll fear it less.
As for 'digital fingerprint' being a good term for that, I disagree. I think that's a term that's very likely to confuse the layperson. If you search that term on wikipedia you'll find a disambiguation page that lists six options, none of which have anything to do with fingers: Message digest, Device fingerprint, Digital video fingerprinting, Acoustic fingerprint, Canvas fingerprinting, Content ID (algorithm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fingerprint
If you search the same on google in a private window, the first two or three pages of results are all about the same computer-related topics as that wikipedia page (the first result is that wikipedia page, and the second is a blog post from Mozilla about browser fingerprinting.) After a few pages I started to find pages about digitized prints of fingers, so I don't doubt that people in the fingerprinting industry use this terminology. Nevertheless I can easily see laypeople being mislead.
ID2020 have a nice page that discusses what they do: https://id2020.org/manifesto
They also have a faq that talks about what a good digital ID is: https://id2020.org/faq
But both of these are full of jargon, and they're overly-complex.
It's not just a info about a real finger's print. It's biometric data like retinal measurements or Apple Face ID type stuff.
Btw, "digital" means "finger"! Digits are the numbers you can get when you count on your fingers.
IIRC, a former InfoWars employee goes into that a bit in this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/magazine/alex-jones-infow...:
> I Worked for Alex Jones. I Regret It.
> I dropped out of film school to edit video for the conspiracy theorist because I believed in his worldview. Then I saw what it did to people.
> ...
> Shortly after Jones began selling the supplements, someone posted a video on YouTube holding a Geiger counter displaying high radiation readings on a beach in Half Moon Bay, Calif. The video went viral, stoking fears that radiation from Fukushima was drifting across the Pacific Ocean. Jones saw an opportunity and sent me, along with a reporter, a writer and another cameraman, to California. We had multiple Geiger counters shipped overnight, unaware of how to read or work them, and drove up the West Coast, frequently stopping to check radiation levels. Other than a small spike in Half Moon Bay — which the California Department of Public Health said was from naturally occurring radioactive materials, not Fukushima — we found nothing.
> Jones was furious. We started getting calls from the radio-show producers in the office, warning us to stop posting videos to YouTube stating we weren’t finding elevated levels of radiation. We couldn’t just stop, though; Jones demanded constant real-time content. On some of these calls, I could hear Jones screaming in the background. One of the producers told me they had never seen him so angry.
Him and a bunch of others on radio and TV use these extreme views to get filthy rich. It is truly digusting.
If you listen to Jones speak for hours (which may or may not be recommended, depending on what you're looking for), I think that sort of thing is hard to fake. The sad thing is probably millions of people organically believe the sorts of things he believes, including people who don't watch him. They read the same sources, they're part of the same circles, they have a rigid preconceived world view that's very different from everyone else's.
Can't tell what is more tragic that finding solutions is considered a conspiracy, or that COVID-19 causes more conspiracy by isolating people.
Even that article that is 100% endorsing the initiative can’t formulate in a non-creepy way what it is supposed to do.
Giving people ID makes providing a lot of those human rights much easier.
For example, access to democracy is important, and ID is part of that.
It's useful for people to be able to present ID to receive entitlements, but it's only there because the state has imposed a requirement.
Yet the UK is a functioning democracy. So ID certainly is not a requirement for democracy.
When they talk about ID they don't mean a document you carry around with you.
They mean the processes that allow someone in England to register to vote, and then walk into a polling booth and give their name and address and get a ballot paper in return.
Using your example: you can't vote twice. You walking into your local station, and use your vote. If you return later in the day your identity is known to have already voted. If you walk to a different polling station your identity is not known there (even if you take your passport), so you can't vote there.
You don't need to give them any national insurance numbers or other ID to do this. It literally amounts to "I'm Joe Bloggs and I live at 20 Smith Street". That seems like the bare minimum required to have a voting system to me.
Also known as, an ID.
I feel a little bad for Gates who probably means well, but then I see crap like this and don't blame the tinfoil helmet crew for mistrusting these creepazoids. Their every action seems designed to engender mistrust. Can't they afford a real PR firm? Maybe they should hire Wolfram's; they're doing something right.
?
For the humor deprived, I'll spell it out.
1) I'm pretty sure Alex Jones would be mad if I called him that. That's one of the many things that makes it funny.
2) Alex Jones is a completely harmless kook, and it's shameful how he is demonized by powerful elements in our society with the acquiescence of people who should know better.
3) For example: this is a literal smear done by a UN propaganda agency done against ... Alex Jones, who, by the facts listed in their own accounts, had nothing to do with the problems of their creepy NGO. I'm pretty sure the UN is more powerful than Alex Jones. It's not a good look a literal UN propaganda agency flinging poo at some weirdo in Texas who ultimately hawks water filters for a living.
4) That NGO probably "means well" but is super creepy!
5) Bill Gates is also well meaning (I was once a subcontractor for his foundation), but is acting like a grade-A creep. He has arguably done some fairly evil things both in the past and in the present day. It is terribly ironic that the man who brought us Microsoft Windows is lecturing us about viruses. The reaction against him may be unfair and is probably ill informed, but he should really think about the figure he cuts in the world. Maybe touting a spooky vaccine global-ID regime isn't a good use of his time. Just a suggestion!
Oligarchs like Gates are powerful and involved in some incredibly shady stuff. They should expect no deference from ordinary people, and should work hard for the approval of the masses. The insane insular arrogance of people like this, and their hangers on, well, perhaps they should consider why people trust kooks like Alex Jones more than themselves.