[zmmmmm]

Biometric security has always been a disaster which is why real projects using it almost never end up being realized. The article portrays it as if the reason India is the first to do this is because they are somehow uniquely able to take advantage of technology. The reality is that the reason they are the first is that everybody realized how flawed it is.

In terms of liberty - a biometric id is, by definition, an "involuntary" identity. It's something you're unable to change or refuse to yield, even if you choose to. A person with a non-biometric identity can freely destroy all forms of that identity and then they cannot be identified any more by it. They have the freedom to produce it when they wish to be identified, and to choose not to when they wish to remain anonymous. A biometric identity is a non "opt out" identity. It can never be changed or altered, and can be forcibly read by anybody with physical control over you. Hence there is a great loss of liberty in a biometric identity, and when you really think it through, almost no advantages that can't be obtained from a non-biometric identity.