Written by
Neiman
on
Imagine an immutable, hidden badge is attached to you. You cannot remove, transfer, or modify it. However, no one can see it without your knowledge and consent.
This is a description of the ultimate biometric identifier.
If this badge acts as an identifier, it can’t be used to track you, as it leaves no traces. It also can’t be used to spy on you since it cannot be seen without your knowledge and consent.
Now, assuming such a magic badge exists and is used as an identifier:
- Would you want the ability to modify or remove your badge?
- Would you want others to have the ability to modify or remove their badge?
Answer these questions, and you’ll know whether you’re in favor of or against biometrics.
Why This Matters
Discussions about biometrics often end up delving into the technical details of how they work (Are they unique? Safe? Robust?) while ignoring the more important, fundamental question: do we even want biometrics to be used to identify us?
This thought experiment distills the discussion to its core.
I won’t tell you how to answer the question, but I’ll share my own view.
I’m terrified of an identity system based on such a badge.
- Personally, because the future is unpredictable, and changing my identity might one day be the only way to avoid disaster.
- Socially, because I can’t see how things like witness protection programs could function in a world where such a badge exists. How would people fleeing oppressive regimes, like defectors from Russia, hide from their pursuers?
I appreciate the good intentions of those working on biometric identity systems, but I hope this isn’t the solution we adopt 20 years from now.
The Good State
The popularity of biometrics stems from the fact that they offer an easy solution for the state to avoid issuing multiple IDs to the same person. It’s clear why they’re being embraced.
However, I believe this approach is short-sighted. A good state should prioritize the safety and well-being of its citizens over the convenience of its administrative tasks.