ID - Thumbprints or DNA

bigfreddiel

On another post of mine I was intrerested in Credit Checking and another poster mentioned providing thumbprints - well would a DNA print be better - all you would need to do would be to lick a piece of paper - better still just outline a part of your letter and write in the box DNA HERE and lick it.

Any comments?

Cheers

fj

GeorgeUK

Would that also be used for drug testing?

I think that the dna thing is still a bit futuristic. Just too expensive to do this on a grand scale. Also wouldn't want my DNA to be broken down into an "ID" number. It's bad enough when the government loses your bank details, but if they lose your DNA details and a hacker gets hold of them? Who's ID will you end up with? You could end up a 50 year old male Hungarian and no matter what you say to the contrary - the DNA doesn't lie...

Alfie_E

One serious problem with biometrics is that they’re irrevocable. You won’t get issued with a new thumb. When it comes to high-value assets, it scares the willies out of those in authority. But, at least your thumb normally stays attached to you. You shed copious amounts of DNA, all the time. Any DNA sample from you could be used to impersonate you.

The really big problem with DNA is that it doesn’t just identify you; it defines much of you. It could tell you that your father is not who you thought or that you’re almost certain to die of a horrible and painful condition fairly early in life.

Biometrics are also just plain hard. Why do you think we still use numbers? As George’s post points out, both false positives and false negatives can be disastrous. Also, not everyone always has whatever it is you’re trying to measure. Not everyone has fingerprints. I don’t just mean the obvious – people who’ve lost their fingers. There are people born lacking fingerprints. Those that work with highly abrasive materials for a living can also lack them.