|
|
|
|
|
|
by ris
4648 days ago
|
|
|
There's no good way yet to uniquely identify a person based on a (dodgy) picture of them or sample of their voice. Whereas fingerprints are used for this daily* and a quickly searchable database of these (or just their "hashes") would be incredibly useful to _somebody_. *I'm not raising the issue of whether they _should_ be or not here, just that they are. |
|
|
Surely this is sarcastic. We can easily identify with great certainty from a relevant set... as Facebook does, for instance. You have a relevant set if you are many governments (the local government, and in many cases Israel via AMDOCS and its intelligence allies - primarily the US, but in some cases possibly their intelligence allies) or a motivated attacker (eg. with an insider, or hiring an insider via a private investigation firm), because you have the device call/messaging/physical location records from which to cross-match. Even if it's a land-line. You also have easy access to additional voice data (voicemail recording, 'this call may be recorded' records at large companies such as banks or wings of government, etc.). Public data sets on non-secret government telephone interception frequency even in 'free-ish' countries like Australia suggest extremely broad cultures around acceptable collection. (For .au I read a raw statistics report I can't seem to relocate recently, but http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/be-careful-... is a good overview.)