Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and facial images" to be biometric data? When I think "biometric", I think hair samples, DNA, blood type, even though I know fingerprints and eye color are technically biometric.
I would hope so. It appears that you are conflating 'biometric' and 'biological'.
Just think of how much you leave around all the time. If that's all on records with facial images, your face is certainly an identifiable metric of your biology.
its amazing what you can find with HPLC and a gas chromatograph.
Those databases already exists (just look at the MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe etc companies). Furthermore, DNA has the advantage, that you can find someone via relatives. The person to be identified doesn't have to be in the database. It's sufficient if his brother or father is in that db. Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints.
Generally correct, but it's interesting that identical twins have similar but distinct fingerprints. The exact prints are different, but they tend to have the same broader patterns of print.
I think that's where the threat actually lies. I'm equally worried about traces I leave with my Visa/MasterCard than those I leave with my uncovered face or fingerprints.
The main difference being that I can easily control the traces I leave with my cards, less so the traces I leave with my ohone, and it takes a significant effort to lkit traces from my face or fingers.
But that's not how government works, is it?
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.