This is really hard to do with biometrics. A password is a string of characters which is always exactly the same every time you type it, but biometrics are messy, and there will always be noise in the measurements. You need a special kind of hash function which is tolerant of that noise and still lets you correctly compare a new measurement to the stored hash.
Even if you have that, I’m not sure that hashing really gains you anything here. If I were only allowed one password and it was tattooed on my face, then it wouldn’t matter how good of a hash algorithm was used - anyone with the hash and a security camera pointed at my face could easily tell that I’m a match for the hash, because the password is right there on my face.
I think the only secure and privacy-preserving biometric system is a two factor system which relies on biometrics to unlock a key stored in a physical token I carry. Apple Pay is a real world example of that kind of system: my biometric data is only stored in my phone, and is only used to decrypt keys which are also stored on my phone, which then authenticate me for credit card payments.
Commentators here making comparisons like this is only a degree more extreme than what happens in the US either have not idea what China is like or have no idea what the US is like. China already requires identity verification for getting a phone number or using the internet. This is one step further in a rapid march toward totalitarianism. Submitting a low-res photo for your driver’s license, it should be plainly obvious, is not similar as some have suggested. The US allows anonymous phone numbers, anonymous internet access, doesn’t have a vast network of millions of surveillance cameras tracking their citizens every movement. China is only just now getting around to using facial scanning for things, because their tech is only just now good enough. Pretending that your democracy doesn’t exist is an insult to the billions of people who aren’t so lucky to enjoy it’s benefits.
They also call themselves a “democracy” but with Chinese characteristics.
And the country name is a “Republic” but with a president always re-elected for life…
Maybe some stuff has been lost in translation when they blocked Google.
This is just another stage in biometric population control, which is a universal, and global phenomenon. “Democracy here, dictatorship there” is a dichotomy that is not only wrong, but dangerous, as being exploitable by xenophobes and warmongers of all kinds. Granted, China may be “cutting edge” here, but it is merely a laboratory for oppressive trends that exist globally, and will find other outlets, regardless of what happens in China.
Case in point, in Germany, you cannot get a passport without giving your digitized fingerprints, like a crime suspect. I tried to make them unreadable, but they have an automatic check for that, and they are checked again by a human operator. I told him I didn’t want to give my fingerprints, and that I just wanted a passport and not be processed like a crime suspect. He said if I refused, regulations would not allow him to issue me a passport.
I.e., the German state, which is generally regarded as “democratic” in the above dichotomy, extorts biometric data from its citizens, by penalty of not being able to travel. When this was put into law/regulations, guess what legal requirements were cited? The entry formalities into the United States of America, the most democratic country in the world, whose guns and bombs and cops and databases bring total freedom and liberty - totally unlike evil, dictatorial China whose guns and cops and databases bring oppression and dictatorship.
They need to issue passports that exclude America, then!
Seriously, a state doing the bidding of another state in how it issues its passports? WTF?
They should issue a standard passport and tell citizens it won’t get them into USA. Which is not true, because I have a UK passport that will get me into USA and I did not have to give fingerprints to UK passport office to get it. I may have to give fingerprints to USA if I arrive there, which is why I will not go there.
It’s mostly a convenient pretext of course. German cops want that data for themselves, but “the Americans want it” still works fairly well in our public discourse.
Issued before 2000, then. After that, you must have a photocard. Don’t move house or you’ll need to renew and get a photocard. Don’t get to the age of 70 either, or you’ll also have to renew and get a photocard. Or are you in NI?
Driving licence counterpart abolished: changes you need to know
The paper counterpart to the photocard driving licence was abolished on 8 June 2015, so how you view your licence information has changed.
The changes affect driving licences in England, Scotland and Wales. There are different rules in Northern Ireland, where the paper counterpart is still needed.
The paper counterpart to a driving licence has had no legal status since 8 June 2015. You should destroy yours if you have one, but keep your photocard driving licence.
If you have a paper driving licence
Paper driving licences issued before 31 March 2000 are still valid. Do not destroy your licence.
When you update your name or address, or renew your licence, you’ll only get a photocard licence.
Nah, not really. The algorithm knows nothing of what a person looks like anyway. Instead, it’s a “map” of plots that can be combined or compared to describe ratios, distances, shapes, and the like. It really only needs a few to several plots to distinguish you from the masses, but in reality it gets hundreds if not thousands. Quality of the photo would have to be really bad to ward off the mapping of your mug.
It’s already required for a lot of basic things in the US. Opening a bank account or a lot of phone contracts without a photo ID is functionally impossible. We just have a step in between that obscures the collection.
Issued in 1990, yeah. I haven’t lived in the UK/EU for a decade or so, but will update when I eventually move back. That said, I’ve probably only driven around 1000 miles in the past 30 years, so it’s rather academic at this point.
Doges of Venice were elected for life by the city-state’s aristocracy. The doge was neither a duke in the modern sense, nor the equivalent of a hereditary duke. The title “doge” was the title of the senior-most elected official of Venice and Genoa; both cities were republics and elected doges
and if you’re like me, you immediately click on the republic of genoa link, and discover…
The Doge of Genoa (Ligurian: Dûxe , pronounced [ˈdyːʒe]; Latin: Januensium dux et populi defensor , “Commander of the Genoese and Defender of the People”) was the ruler of the Republic of Genoa, a communal republic, from 1339 until the state’s extinction in 1797. Originally elected for life, after 1528 the Doges were elected for terms of two years.[[1]](Doge of Genoa - Wikipedia) In actuality, the Republic (or Dogate) was an oligarchy ruled by a small group of merchant families, from whom the doges were selected.
Do philosopher kings rule for life? Or are they limited for a term of years?
Thanks for this not so accurate definition of Republic.
Xi was “elected” and change the maximum time he could be running again to put unlimited.
So the CCP “elected” him for 10 years max and he change the law for running all his life.
Not exactly the same then being elected for life at the first place.
Depending on just how biased the data set(s) used for training the “AI” that will process the face scans is/are, there is a good chance that said “AI” will end up “thinking” they all look the same.
It’s political philosophy, not organic chemistry. There are few, if any, objective standards to be had. It merely needs to feel true enough to motivate people to take action.
